South Dakota 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Attachment 11 

From the Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for 

the Rocky Mountain Region including the Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Regions of: Lewistown, 

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

Management Plans for: Billings, Buffalo, Cody, HiLine, Miles City, Pompeys Pillar National 

Monument, South Dakota, and Worland 

Prepared by 

US Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

South Dakota Field Office 

September 2015 
MISSION STATEMENT 

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

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

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

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

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

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

future generations under our mandate of multiple-use and sustained 

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

from public lands. 

BLM/MT/PL-15/013+1610 
State Director Recommendation for Approval 

I hereby recommend for approval the South Dakota Resource Management Plan. 

f 1s; ~tJ15 Dat 
[left intentionally blank] 
September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page 

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

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

1.2 Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................................ 1-5

1.3 Planning Criteria ............................................................................................................................ 1-6

2. APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR GREATER SAGE-GROUSE 

HABITAT ....................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Description of GRSG Habitat Management Areas ............................................................... 2-1

2.2 South Dakota GRSG Conservation Summary ....................................................................... 2-3

2.3 Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions for GRSG Habitat .................................. 2-6

2.3.1 Management Decisions for Greater Sage-Grouse General Habitat 

Management Areas ........................................................................................................ 2-8

2.3.2 Management Decisions for Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat 

Management Areas ...................................................................................................... 2-11

2.3.3 Adaptive Management Strategy for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management .................................................................................................................. 2-18

3. APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN ............................................................... 3-1

3.1 Approved Resource Management Plan Decisions ................................................................ 3-1

3.2 Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions ..................................................................... 3-2

3.2.1 Air Resources ................................................................................................................. 3-2

3.2.2 Climate ............................................................................................................................. 3-3

3.2.3 Soil Resources ................................................................................................................ 3-3

3.2.4 Water Resources ........................................................................................................... 3-5

3.2.5 Vegetation Communities ............................................................................................. 3-7

3.2.6 Noxious Weeds and Other Invasive Non-Native Species .................................. 3-9

3.2.7 Invasive Terrestrial Animals and Insect Species ................................................... 3-11

3.2.8 Invasive Aquatic Species ............................................................................................. 3-12

3.2.9 Wildlife ........................................................................................................................... 3-12

3.2.10 Special Status Species .................................................................................................. 3-17

3.2.11 Fish and Aquatics ......................................................................................................... 3-23

3.2.12 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................... 3-24

3.2.13 Paleontological Resources ......................................................................................... 3-28

3.2.14 Visual Resources Management (VRM) .................................................................... 3-30

3.2.15 Fire Management and Ecology .................................................................................. 3-31

3.2.16 Forest and Woodland Products ............................................................................... 3-34

3.2.17 Livestock Grazing ........................................................................................................ 3-35

3.2.18 Recreation ..................................................................................................................... 3-39

3.2.19 Travel and Transportation ......................................................................................... 3-43

3.2.20 Lands and Realty .......................................................................................................... 3-46

3.2.21 Recommended Withdrawals ..................................................................................... 3-48

3.2.22 Land Tenure .................................................................................................................. 3-49

3.2.23 Minerals .......................................................................................................................... 3-51

3.2.24 Renewable Energy Resources ................................................................................... 3-61

3.2.25 Special Designations .................................................................................................... 3-62

3.2.26 Fossil Cycad ACEC (Special Designation) ............................................................. 3-68
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter Page 

ii South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015 

3.2.27 Social and Economic .................................................................................................... 3-69

3.2.28 Public Safety .................................................................................................................. 3-69

3.2.29 Public Safety: Hazardous Materials .......................................................................... 3-70

3.2.30 Public Safety: Debris Flows ........................................................................................ 3-71

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

4.1 Consultation and Coordination ................................................................................................ 4-1

4.2 Public Involvement ........................................................................................................................ 4-2

5. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Implementing the Plan ................................................................................................................. 5-1

5.2 Maintaining the Plan...................................................................................................................... 5-2

5.3 Changing the Plan ......................................................................................................................... 5-2

5.4 Plan Evaluation, Adaptive Management, and Monitoring ..................................................... 5-2

6. GLOSSARY ..................................................................................................................... 6-1

7. REFERENCES.................................................................................................................. 7-1

TABLES Page 

1-1 BLM-Administered Land and Federal Mineral Estate Ownership in the Planning Area ............. 1-3

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

2-2 Acres of GRSG Habitat by County in the Decision Area BLM Surface and Mineral Estate ...... 2-1

2-3 Threats to GRSG in the South Dakota Planning Area as Identified by the Conservation 

Objectives Team .......................................................................................................................................... 2-3

2-4 Key Components of the South Dakota ARMP Addressing the COT Report Threats ............... 2-4

2-5 Summary of Allocation Decisions by GRSG Habitat Management Areas ...................................... 2-8

2-6 Seasonal Habitat Desired Conditions for Greater Sage-Grouse ................................................... 2-19

2-7 Specific Management Responses ............................................................................................................ 2-22

3-1 VRM Classifications ................................................................................................................................... 3-30

3-2 Summary of ROW Restrictions ............................................................................................................. 3-46

3-3 Summary of Fluid Mineral Restrictions ................................................................................................. 3-54

3-4 Summary of Renewable ROW Restrictions ........................................................................................ 3-61

3-5 Fort Meade ACEC VRM Classification ................................................................................................. 3-63

FIGURES Page 

1-1 South Dakota Planning Area (extent covers Butte and Harding Counties) .................................. 1-4

2-1 South Dakota GRSG Habitat Management Areas ............................................................................... 2-2

3-1 Abandoned Black Hills Army Depot ..................................................................................................... 3-56

3-2 Exemption Area ......................................................................................................................................... 3-57

3-3 Fort Meade ACEC ..................................................................................................................................... 3-58

3-4 Fossil Cycad ACEC ................................................................................................................................... 3-59
September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP iii

MAPS

Appendix A-1:

1-1 South Dakota Planning Area (extent covers Butte and Harding Counties) 

1-2 Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Management Areas Across All Jurisdictions 

1-3 Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Management Areas for BLM Administered Lands 

2-1 South Dakota GRSG Habitat Management Areas 

2-2 North Dakota and South Dakota GRSG Biologically Significant Units and PHMAs 

2-3 South Dakota Livestock Grazing 

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

2-5 South Dakota Locatable minerals 

2-6 South Dakota Salable minerals (Mineral Materials) 

2-7 South Dakota Non-Energy Leasable Minerals 

2-8 South Dakota Renewable Energy (Wind and Solar) 

2-9a South Dakota Major Rights-of-Way 

2-9b South Dakota Minor Rights-of-Way 

2-10 South Dakota Land Tenure 

2-11 South Dakota Trails and Travel Management (OHV) 

Appendix A-2:

A South Dakota Planning Area and Surface Ownership 

B South Dakota Federal Mineral Estate (Western and East Central) 

C Center of Nation Travel Management Area 

D South Dakota Fire Planning 

E Land Retention Zones within the South Dakota Planning Area 

F Available Rights-of-Way on BLM-Administered Lands 

G Wind Energy Allocations 

H Oil and Gas Leasing Restrictions 

I Visual Resource Management Classes 

J Potential Fossil Yield Categories and Geological Formations 
iv South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

APPENDICES

A Approved RMP Amendment Maps

A-1 Approved RMP GRSG Habitat Management Maps

A-2 Approved RMP Maps

B Applying GRSG Lek Buffer-Distances When Approving Decisions

C GRSG Required Design Features

D GRSG Monitoring Framework 

E GRSG Disturbance Caps 

F GRSG Regional Mitigation Strategy

G Fluid Mineral Stipulations

H Biological Opinion 

I Greater Sage-Grouse Effects Analysis Process

J Summary of Mitigation Measures, Best Management Practices (BMPs), Standards, Guidelines, and 

Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)

K South Dakota Field Office Soil, Water and Reclamation Mitigation Guidelines

L South Dakota Field Office Reclamation Guidelines and Abandoned Mine Actions

M South Dakota Field Office Grazing Allotment Allocations

N Land Ownership Adjustment Criteria

O Soil Monitoring

P Cultural Resource Stipulation for Grazing Leases

Q South Dakota Field Office Air Resource Management Plan: Adaptive Management Strategy for 

Oil and Gas Resources

R Rights-of-Way and Renewable Energy Avoidance or Exclusion Areas

S Summary of Restrictions Table
September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP v 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Full Phrase

ACEC area of critical environmental concern 

AML abandoned mine land 

AMP allotment management plan 

AO Authorized Officer 

APHIS/PPQ Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service/Plant Protection and Quarantine 

APD application for permit to drill 

ARMP approved resource management plan 

AUM animal unit month 

BAER burned area emergency rehabilitation 

BHAD Black Hills Army Depot 

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BMP best management practice 

BSU biologically significant unit 

CEQ White House Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cm centimeter 

COA condition of approval 

COT USFWS Conservation Objectives Team Report (sage-grouse) 

CRMP cultural resource management plan 

CSU controlled surface use 

CWPP community wildfire protection plan 

CX categorical exclusion 

DBH diameter at breast height 

DDCT density and disturbance calculation tool 

DLE desert land entry 

EA environmental assessment 

EE/CA Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis 

EIS environmental impact statement 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESD ecological site description 

ESIS Ecological Site Information System 

FEIS/Final EIS final environmental impact statement 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

FRCC fire regime condition class 

GHG greenhouse gas 

GHMA greater sage-grouse general habitat management area(s) 

GRSG Greater Sage-grouse 

HAF habitat assessment framework 

I Allotment improve category grazing allotment 

IM instruction memorandum 

IPM integrated pest management 

kV kilovolt 
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued) Full Phrase

vi South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

M Allotment maintain category grazing allotment

MD management decision

MRB survey Missouri River Basin Survey (livestock stocking rates)

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHL National Historic Landmark

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NOA notice of availability

NOI notice of intent

NOx nitrogen oxides

NPS National Park Service

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NSHT National Scenic and Historic Trails

NSO no surface occupancy

O&G oil and gas

OHV off-highway vehicle

PA programmatic agreement

PFC proper functioning condition

PFYC potential fossil yield classification

PHMA greater sage-grouse priority habitat management area(s)

PSQ probable sale quantity

R&PP recreation and public purposes

RAC Resource Advisory Council (Dakotas)

RCA reserve common allotment

RDF required design feature

RMP resource management plan

ROD record of decision

ROW right-of-way

RSC recreational setting characteristics

RUP recreation use permits

SDGFP South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks

SDFO South Dakota Field Office (BLM)

SFA sagebrush focal area(s)

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SMA Surface Management Agency

SOP standard operating procedures

SRMA special recreation management area

SRP special recreation permit

SRUP special recreation use permits

T&E threatened and endangered (ESA)

TCP traditional cultural property

TL timing limitation

TMA travel management area

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Office
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued) Full Phrase

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP vii

USC United States Code

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDI United States Department of the Interior

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

VRM visual resource management

WAFWA Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

WEM waivers, exceptions, and modifications

WO Washington Office, Bureau of Land Management

WUI wildland urban interface
Table of Contents

viii South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

This page intentionally left blank.
September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 1-1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The United States Department of the Interior (USDI), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) prepared this 

Approved Resource Management Plan (ARMP). It is intended to provide direction for managing the 

National System of Public Lands (herein BLM-administered lands) under the jurisdiction of the South 

Dakota Field Office (SDFO). The regulations for making and modifying land use plan decisions, which 

comprise a resource management plan (RMP), are found in 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 

1600. 

Land use plan decisions consist of desired outcomes (goals and objectives) and allowable uses and 

management actions. The affected lands are currently being managed under the South Dakota RMP 

(BLM 1986). This ARMP replaces the land use plan decisions from the 1986 South Dakota RMP.

Land use planning is used to manage resources and to designate uses on public lands, in coordination 

with tribal, state, and local governments, land users, and the interested public. This ARMP incorporates 

new information and regulatory guidance, and provides management direction where it may be lacking 

or requires clarification. Current management direction that is effective and requires no change is

carried forward into this ARMP. 

This ARMP has been revised according to guidance in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

(FLPMA) of 1976 (43 United States Code [USC], Section 1701 et seq.) and the BLM’s Land Use Planning 

Handbook, H-1601-1. An environmental impact statement (EIS) was completed and incorporated in the 

Draft RMP (BLM 2013) and Proposed RMP (BLM 2015), as required by the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing 

NEPA (40 CFR, Parts 1500-1508), and requirements of the BLM’s NEPA Handbook, H-1790-1 (BLM 

2008).

1.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNING AREA

The BLM’s SDFO headquarters is in Belle Fourche in Butte County, near the state’s western border.

The planning area for the SDFO and this ARMP covers the entire state of South Dakota, which includes 

over 49 million acres of public, private, and state lands, and Native American reservations (refer to 

Appendix A2: Map A). Within the planning area, the BLM administers about 274,000 acres of public 
1. Introduction

1-2 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

land surface and approximately 1.7 million acres of federal mineral estate in 37 counties. Table 1-1

identifies BLM-administered acres and total acres in the planning area by county. Collectively, lands that 

the BLM administers (surface and mineral estate) are considered the decision area.

Over half of the BLM-administered surface estate in the planning area is in Butte County. (Refer to 

Figure 1-1 to see BLM-administered surface and split-estate in Butte and Harding Counties.) Over 98 

percent of surface and subsurface estate managed by BLM in the planning area is in western South 

Dakota, with most in Custer, Fall River, Harding, Butte, Lawrence, Meade, Pennington, Perkins, and 

Stanley Counties. (Refer to Appendix A2, Maps A and B.) 

This RMP will provide guidance for leasing decisions for federal oil and gas resources managed by the 

BLM and only those federal surface management agencies (SMA) with which the BLM has an agreement 

for oil and gas leasing. There are no sage grouse focal areas (SFA) identified in South Dakota. 

Leasing decisions for federal oil and gas resources not managed by the BLM will be made by an SMA, in 

cooperation with the BLM. The BLM will not issue federal oil and gas leases without consulting with the 

SMA. Examples of agencies that fall under this category in South Dakota are the US Army Corps of 

Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation.

This document provides stipulations for split-estate situations involving federal oil and gas beneath 

private, Recreation & Public Purpose patented, or state-owned surface. The BLM will apply the leasing 

stipulations recommended by the agency whose land is being leased. The BLM may add other 

stipulations it deems necessary.

This RMP does not apply to lands managed by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest 

Service (Forest Service), USDI, National Park Service (NPS), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) trust lands, tribal lands, or private or state-owned mineral resources.

The Forest Service makes decisions on its own lands, although the BLM leases minerals under Forest 

Service-administered surface. The BLM is a cooperator or joint lead on plans with the Forest Service

and makes decisions on leasing federal minerals underlying private surface within the Forest Service

administrative boundary. The BLM has done this and prepared records of decision (RODs) for the 

Buffalo Gap (USFS 2000) and Custer National Forest, Sioux Ranger District Plan (USFS 2004), but not 

the Black Hills National Forest Plan.

While the BLM has been a cooperator on various Forest Service plans, for purposes of efficiency, the 

BLM can address federal minerals in its own plans within the administrative boundary of the Forest 

Service. The BLM has found a need to do so in this case for the town site of Igloo and the Abandoned 

Black Hills Army Depot (BHAD; refer to Section 3, Figure 3-1). Accordingly, this ARMP provides

management direction for the federal minerals that underlie private surface estate at this site even 

though it is within the administrative boundaries of the Buffalo Gap National Grassland. The BHAD and 

Igloo are eligible for listing as National Register Historic Sites. The BHAD also has had issues with 

hazardous materials being inadequately handled and disposed of on-site, resulting in some Superfund 

actions. The Forest Service has not addressed these concerns in its plans. 
1. Introduction

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 1-3

Table 1-1

BLM-Administered Land and Federal Mineral Estate Ownership in the Planning Area

County

BLM-Administered

Public Lands

BLM-Administered

Federal Mineral Estate (Split-Estate)

Acres Percent of County Acres Percent of County

Bennett 0 0 2,878 <1

Bon Homme* 56 <1 58 <1

Brule* 532 <1 947 <1

Butte 144,641 10 536,606 37

Campbell* 0 0 2,255 <1

Charles Mix* 122 <1 258 <1

Clark* 0 0 167 <1

Clay* 11 <1 11 <1

Corson 0 0 40,756 <1

Custer 3,693 <1 68,140 7

Dewey 0 0 8,264 <1

Edmunds* 0 0 625 <1

Fall River 7,205 <1 60,532 5.4

Faulk* 0 0 480 <1

Gregory 172 <1 1,866 <1

Haakon 2,178 <1 46,111 4

Hand* 0 0 362 <1

Harding 30,261 1.7 377,328 22

Hughes* 2 <1 500 <1

Hyde* 0 <1 1,285 <1

Jackson 240 <1 4,396 <1

Jones 3 <1 1,107 <1

Lawrence 5,078 1 7,038 1.4

Lyman 225 <1 399 <1

Marshall* 20 <1 20 0

McPherson* 0 0 360 <1

Meade 38,997 1.7 276,774 12

Mellette 0 0 1,612 <1

Pennington 16,088 <1 82,177 5

Perkins 7,973 <1 76,346 1

Potter* 0 0 159 <1

Stanley 15,922 1.7 111,833 12

Sully* 80 <1 1,331 <1

Tripp 160 <1 316 <1

Walworth* 0 0 1,819 <1

Yankton* 359 <1 359 <1

Ziebach 202 <1 202 <1

Totals 274,239 - 1,715,677 -

Source: US Bureau of Census and BLM 2009

The acreages may not be identical to other sources because these acreages are based on geographical information system (GIS) 

data. Additional counties may have small amounts of BLM-administered lands, but the acres may not be listed because of 

incomplete records. Decisions in this ARMP apply to all BLM-administered lands and mineral estate in South Dakota. 

*South Dakota counties east of the Missouri River. 
1. Introduction 1-4 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015
1. Introduction

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 1-5

The boundary for the BHAD and the town site of Igloo is demarcated by the Forest Service

administrative boundary map for this ARMP. However, there are some issues and discrepancies with 

legal descriptions and boundary lines, which may necessitate referencing and using master title plats, as 

modified by the most current cadastral survey.1

The NPS and USFWS-administered lands are not subject to leasing under the Mineral Leasing Act of 

1920. However, if oil or gas is being drained from lands otherwise unavailable for leasing, there is 

implied authority to lease that oil and gas resource. The BIA leases the lands that it administers, and 

tribes also do their own leasing; these actions do not fall under this ARMP.

Most of the BLM-administered public lands (surface estate) are in western South Dakota (Appendix 

A2, Map A). Butte County contains 144,641 acres of BLM-administered land, or 53 percent of the total 

BLM-administered land, and 536,606 acres (37 percent) of the federal mineral estate in the planning 

area. Other counties with substantial amounts of BLM-administered land are also in western South 

Dakota: Custer, Fall River, Harding, Lawrence, Meade, Pennington, Perkins, and Stanley Counties. Tracts 

of BLM-administered land in these counties generally range in size, but most are between 40 and 320 

acres intermingled with state and private lands.

Nine counties east of the Missouri River contain small tracts of BLM-administered land: Bon Homme, 

Brule, Campbell, Charles Mix, Clay, Hughes, Marshall, Sully, and Yankton Counties. Most of the BLMadministered land in eastern South Dakota are along the Missouri River and were flooded when 

reservoirs were built on the river in the 1940s and 1950s. Eastern South Dakota counties with federal 

minerals (split-estate) are also identified in Table 1-1. In some cases, ownership of small tracts are 

unknown or undetermined. Decisions in this ARMP will apply to these lands if in the future they are 

determined to be BLM-administered surface or split-estate. 

Lands managed by the SDFO are public domain (lands that have never left federal ownership), acquired 

lands or mineral interests (lands that left federal ownership and were later exchanged for or purchased), 

and federal mineral estate (subsurface) lands beneath private or state lands or lands administered by 

other federal agencies. Federal minerals included in the decision area are shown in Figure 1-3. The 

BLM does not administer land obtained through the Bankhead-Jones Act of 1935 in South Dakota; those 

parcels are administered by the Forest Service.

The BLM will continue to coordinate with other federal and state agencies, especially for those 

resources and issues that cross boundaries.

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose of this ARMP is to provide a single, comprehensive land use plan to guide management of 

public lands and minerals administered by the SDFO. It provides goals, objectives, land use allocations, 

and management direction to maintain, improve, or restore resource conditions and to provide longterm benefits to the public, including the economic needs of local communities. This was done in 

coordination with federal, tribal, state, and local governments, land users, and the interested public.

 

1 A cadastral survey shows the ownership, size, and valuation of a property for taxation.
1. Introduction

1-6 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

This ARMP revision incorporates appropriate management actions and practices to conserve Greater 

Sage-Grouse (GRSG; Centrocercus urophasianus) and its habitats on BLM-administered land.

The need for the revision is the result of considerable changes within the planning area since completion 

of the South Dakota RMP in 1986, as follows:

 Changed ecological, socioeconomic, institutional, and regulatory conditions

 New laws, regulations, and policies that invalidate or supersede previous decisions

 Changing user demands and activities, including increased demand for recreation on public 

lands, renewable energy, and oil and gas exploration and development

 Increased conflicts between land use and wildlife and its habitat

 Heightened public awareness of and interest in BLM management actions and permitted 

uses

This ARMP was also 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. The ARMP incorporates

appropriate management actions and practices to conserve, enhance, and restore GRSG habitat on BLMadministered land.

The BLM has prepared this ARMP for plans containing GRSG habitat. This is needed to respond to the 

USFWS’s March 2010 “warranted, but precluded” Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing decision. The 

inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms was identified as a significant threat in the finding. The USFWS 

identified the principal regulatory mechanisms for the BLM and the Forest Service as conservation 

measures embedded in land use plans. Changes in management of GRSG habitats are necessary to avoid 

the continued decline of populations across the species’ range. This ARMP focuses on areas affected by 

threats to GRSG habitat identified by the USFWS in the March 2010 listing decision and in the USFWS 

Conservation Objectives Team (COT) report (USFWS 2013). 

The major threats to GRSG and its habitat on BLM-administered lands in the planning area are shown in 

Tables 2-3 and 2-4 in Section 2. One of the purposes of this ARMP is to identify and incorporate 

appropriate conservation measures in existing land use plans to conserve, enhance, and restore GRSG 

habitat by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing threats. The BLM will consider such measures in the 

context of its multiple use and sustained yield mandates under FLPMA. 

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

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

populations. These conditions drive the need for an inclusive comprehensive plan that provides updated, 

clear direction to the BLM, other agencies and entities, and the public.

1.3 PLANNING CRITERIA

BLM regulations (43 CFR, Part 1610.4-2) require planning criteria to guide RMP preparation. These are 

the constraints or ground rules that guide and direct the development of the RMP. They ensure that it is 

tailored to the identified issues and that unnecessary data collection and analyses are avoided.
1. Introduction

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 1-7

The following criteria were developed based on applicable laws and regulations, agency guidance, and 

public comment:

 The RMP addresses BLM-administered public lands and federal minerals. Decisions will not 

be made for lands not managed by the BLM.

 The RMP is in compliance with FLPMA and all other applicable laws, regulations, and 

policies.

 Impacts from the management alternatives considered in the RMP will be analyzed in the EIS 

and developed in accordance with regulations at 43 CFR, Part 1610, and 40 CFR, Part 1500.

 Broad-based public participation would be an integral part of the RMP planning and EIS 

process.

 Decisions in the RMP would strive to be compatible with existing plans and policies of 

adjacent local, state, tribal, and federal agencies, as long as the decisions are consistent with 

the purposes, policies, and programs of federal law and regulations applicable to BLMadministered lands.

 The RMP would continue to recognize the State of South Dakota’s responsibility and 

authority to manage wildlife. The BLM would consult with South Dakota Game, Fish, and 

Parks (SDGFP) as necessary. The RMP would incorporate state or region-wide planning 

efforts to the fullest extent possible.

 The National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy (BLM 2004) requires that impacts 

on sagebrush habitat and sagebrush-dependent wildlife species (including GRSG) be analyzed 

and considered in BLM land use plans for BLM-administered lands with GRSG/sagebrush 

habitats. In 2010, the USFWS found GRSG to be warranted but precluded from listing as an 

endangered species. 

 The BLM will use the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) 

Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush Habitats (Connelly et al. 

2004), and any other appropriate resources (e.g., peer-reviewed scientific literature, internal 

documents or guidance, other state or federal agencies, and expert opinion), to identify 

GRSG habitat requirements and best management practices (BMPs). WAFWA management 

zones will be used to identify and address cross-state issues, such as regional mitigation and 

adaptive management monitoring response, through WAFWA Management Zone GRSG 

Conservation Teams (Teams). These Teams will convene and respond to issues at the 

appropriate scale, and will utilize existing coordination and management structures to the 

extent possible.

 The RMP will recognize valid existing rights.

 The RMP will incorporate management decisions brought forward from existing planning 

documents.

 The RMP/EIS will incorporate by reference the Montana/Dakotas Standards for Rangeland 

Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management, the Montana/Dakotas Fire/Fuels 

Management Plan, and the Off-Highway Vehicle EIS and Plan Amendment for Montana, 

North Dakota, and Portions of South Dakota.
1. Introduction

1-8 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

 Based on the assumptions of adequate funding, the BLM will periodically review and amend

this plan if necessary. Plans would be evaluated every five years, in accordance with 43 CFR, 

Part 1610.4-9. Information gathered from the five-year evaluation would be used to 

determine planning needs and priority for plan revisions and amendments.

 The interdisciplinary planning team will cooperate and collaborate with the State of South 

Dakota, tribal governments, county and municipal governments, other federal agencies, the 

Dakotas Resource Advisory Council (RAC), and all other interested groups, agencies, and 

individuals.

 The RMP will recognize federal land management agency obligations under tribal treaties and 

laws or executive orders (EO) on Native American reserved rights, religious freedoms, and 

traditional use areas.

 The BLM and cooperating agencies and governments will jointly develop alternatives to 

resolve resource management issues that are within the BLM’s authority.

 The BLM will consult the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), who will be involved 

throughout the planning process.

 Areas with special environmental quality will be protected and, if necessary, designated as 

area of environmental concern (ACEC), Wild and Scenic River, or other appropriate 

designations.

 The RMP will emphasize protection and enhancement of biodiversity in the planning area,

while providing the public with opportunities for compatible activities on BLM-administered 

lands.

 The RMP will recognize local, statewide, and national concerns and lifestyles.

 The BLM will manage lands it acquires in the manner the RMP prescribes for adjacent or 

nearby BLM-administered land, subject to any constraints associated with the acquisition.

 The RMP will provide management direction for lands returned to BLM management 

through any revocation of withdrawals. The plan would also address lands acquired through 

other means.

 Fire management strategies will be consistent with the 2009 Guidance for Implementation of 

Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy, the National Fire Plan, the Fire/Fuels Management 

Plan for Montana and Dakotas, the Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and Implementation 

Procedures Guide with BLM supplemental guidance, the Interagency Standards for Fire and 

Fire Aviation Operations (Redbook), and other BLM handbooks.

 GIS and metadata information will meet Federal Geographic Data Committee standards, as 

required by EO 12906, signed April 11, 1994. Other applicable BLM data standards will be 

followed. The goal is to develop an RMP with spatial and temporal data that can be easily 

accessed for use in subsequent environmental review.

 All proposed management actions will be based on best available scientific information, 

research and technology, and existing inventory and monitoring information.

 The RMP will establish new guidance and identify existing guidance that the BLM will rely on 

in managing public lands in the decision area.
1. Introduction

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 1-9

 The RMP will result in determinations as required by special program and resource-specific 

guidance in Appendix C of the BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook (BLM 2005a).

 Resource allocations must be reasonable and achievable within available technological and 

budgetary constraints.

 The RMP would incorporate existing recovery plans, management strategies, and guidelines 

for federally listed threatened and endangered (T&E) species. State management plans would 

be considered for delisted species.

 The RMP will recognize the State of South Dakota’s authority on its water law and water 

rights.

 The BLM and Forest Service will consider allocative and prescriptive standards to conserve 

GRSG habitat, as well as objectives and management actions to restore, enhance, and 

improve its habitat.

 The BLM and Forest Service will use a collaborative and multi-jurisdictional approach, where 

appropriate, to determine the desired future condition of public lands and National Forest 

System lands for the conservation of GRSG and their habitats.

 The BLM will use SDGFP GRSG data and expertise to the fullest extent practicable in 

making management determinations on federal lands.
1. Introduction

1-10 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

This page intentionally left blank.
September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 2-1

CHAPTER 2

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR 

GREATER SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF GRSG HABITAT MANAGEMENT AREAS

The decision area for GRSG habitat management within this RMP includes BLM-administered lands in 

GRSG habitat management areas, including surface lands and split-estate with BLM subsurface mineral 

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

priority habitat management areas (PHMA) and general habitat management areas (GHMA). Refer to 

Figure 2-1 and Tables 2-1 and 2-2. 

Table 2-1

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

Surface Land Management PHMA GHMA

BLM-administered surface estate 127,735 23,684

BLM-administered mineral estate 412,822 247,771

Source: BLM GIS 2015

Table 2-2

Acres of GRSG Habitat by County in the Decision Area BLM 

Surface and Mineral Estate

County Name1 ARMP

PHMA GHMA Total

Butte 111,392 11,502 122,894

Harding 16,343 12,182 28,525

Total 127,735 23,684 151,419 

Source: BLM GIS 2015

1None of the other counties in the planning area contain mapped GRSG habitat. 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 2-2 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 2-3

PHMA and GHMA are defined as follows: 

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

sustainable GRSG populations. The boundaries and management strategies for PHMA are 

consistent with the GRSG core habitat areas that were established by SDGFP in December 

2014.

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

GRSG populations. The boundaries and management strategies for GHMA are derived from 

and generally follow the preliminary general habitat boundaries identified in the Proposed

RMP/Final EIS. 

There are no proposed SFA in the South Dakota planning area, as GRSG densities are lower and quality 

habitat is limited compared to other western states that have SFA. Other important habitat areas, such 

as winter range, brood-rearing, and nesting areas, are addressed throughout the range of alternatives.

The biologically significant unit (BSU) for this plan is delineated as the “Dakotas population” in the COT 

report (USFWS 2013). Figure 2-2 in Appendix A1 is a map of the PHMA within the BSU.

2.2 SOUTH DAKOTA GRSG CONSERVATION SUMMARY

The ARMP identifies and incorporates conservation measures to protect, enhance, and restore GRSG 

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

The ARMP addresses threats to GRSG and its habitat identified by the USFWS in the March 2010 listing

decision, as well as those threats described in the USFWS’s COT report. In the report, the USFWS 

identified threats by GRSG population across the range and stated whether that threat is present and 

widespread, present but localized, or unknown for that specific population. 

Tables 2-3 and 2-4 identify the threats to GRSG in the planning area. Table 2-4 further describes the 

key components of the ARMP that address these threats.

Table 2-3

Threats to GRSG in the South Dakota Planning Area as Identified by the 

Conservation Objectives Team

GRSG Identified 

Populations from the 

COT Report 

Applicable to the 

South Dakota 

Planning Area

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

Dakotas (North Dakota, 

South Dakota)

1 Y L L Y U L Y Y Y L N N N

Source: USFWS 2013

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

unknown.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

2-4 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

Table 2-4

Key Components of the South Dakota ARMP Addressing the COT Report Threats

Threats to GRSG 

and its Habitat 

(from COT Report)

Key Component of the South Dakota ARMP

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

restrictive land use allocations and management actions to be 

implemented if habitat or population hard triggers are met. 

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

GRSG.

 Monitor implementation and effectiveness of conservation measures in 

GRSG habitats according to the habitat assessment framework (HAF). 

All development 

threats, including 

mining, infrastructure, 

and energy 

development

 PHMA—Implement a human disturbance cap of 3% at the BSU and 

project area scale. 

 PHMA—Implement a density cap of an average of 1 energy and mining 

facility per 640 acres.

 GHMA—Limit surface-disturbing and disruptive activities 0.6 mile from 

leks and in winter range in GHMA. 

 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.

Energy development—

fluid minerals

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

(NSO) stipulation without waiver or modification, and with limited 

exception. 

 GHMA—Open to fluid mineral leasing subject to NSO stipulation within 

0.6 mile of an occupied lek; open with controlled surface use (CSU)

stipulation within two miles of leks. Winter range in GHMA would be 

open subject to NSO stipulation. 

 Prioritize the leasing and development of fluid mineral resources outside 

GRSG habitat.

Energy development—

wind energy

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

development under any conditions).

 GHMA—Exclusion area within one mile of leks. Other portions of GHMA 

would be an avoidance area. Exclusion areas one mile from leks and 

avoidance in other parts of GHMA. Winter range in GHMA would be 

exclusion areas. 

Energy development—

solar energy

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

any conditions).

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

any conditions).

Infrastructure—major 

ROWs

 PHMA—Avoidance area (may be available for major ROW development 

with special stipulations). 

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

stipulations). 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 2-5

Table 2-4

Key Components of the South Dakota ARMP Addressing the COT Report Threats

Threats to GRSG 

and its Habitat 

(from COT Report)

Key Component of the South Dakota ARMP

Infrastructure—minor 

ROWs

 PHMA—Avoidance area (may be available for minor ROW development 

with special conditions).

 GHMA—Avoidance within two miles of leks. Winter range would be 

avoidance areas (may be available for minor ROWs with special 

stipulations). 

Mining—locatable 

minerals

 Apply RDFs to locatable minerals consistent with applicable law.

Mining—salable 

minerals

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

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

active pits if criteria are met).

Mining—coal  PHMA is essential habitat for GRSG for purposes of the suitability criteria 

set forth at 43 CFR, Part 3461.5(o)(1). 

Improper livestock 

grazing

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

PHMA. 

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

permits and leases specific management thresholds, based on the GRSG 

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

to allow adjustments to grazing that have already been subjected to NEPA 

analysis.

 Prioritize field checks in PHMA to ensure compliance with the terms and 

conditions of grazing permits.

Free-roaming equid 

(wild horses and 

burros) management

 Not applicable; none in the planning area.

Range management 

structures

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

conservation benefit to GRSG, such as fences for protecting important 

seasonal habitats.

Recreation  PHMA—Do not construct new recreation facilities.

 Deny special recreation permits (SRP) that would adversely impact GRSG 

or its habitat. 

Fire  PHMA—Prioritize aggressive suppression techniques immediately after life 

and property to conserve the habitat.

 GHMA—Within 3 miles of leks, prioritize aggressive suppression 

techniques immediately after life and property to conserve the habitat.

Nonnative, invasive 

plants species

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

through an integrated pest management (IPM) approach.

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

(but no less than 70%) with a minimum of 15% sagebrush canopy cover or 

as consistent with specific ecological site conditions.

 Ensure that all BLM use authorizations contain terms and conditions

regarding the actions needed to meet or progress toward meeting the 

habitat objectives for GRSG. Limits surface-disturbing activities in PHMA. 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

2-6 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

Table 2-4

Key Components of the South Dakota ARMP Addressing the COT Report Threats

Threats to GRSG 

and its Habitat 

(from COT Report)

Key Component of the South Dakota ARMP

Pinyon and juniper 

expansion

 Not applicable; none in the planning area.

Agricultural conversion 

and exurban 

development

 Retain GRSG habitat in federal management.

The ARMP also identifies conservation measures that are designed to protect, enhance, and restore 

GRSG habitat. The ARMP applies the following summarized management decisions, subject to valid 

existing rights, to other uses and resources: 

 Providing a framework for prioritizing areas in PHMA and GHMA for wildfire, invasive 

annual grass, and conifer treatments

 Requiring specific design features for certain types of lands and realty uses

 Implementing the disturbance management protocol to limit disturbance in PHMA

 Including GRSG habitat objectives in land health standards

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

standards, and ecological site potential

 Applying NSO stipulations, with limited exceptions, to fluid mineral development in PHMA 

and closing PHMA to nonenergy leasable development and mineral material sales

The ARMP also establishes screening criteria and conditions for new human activities in PHMA and 

GHMA to ensure a net conservation gain to GRSG. The ARMP will reduce habitat disturbance and 

fragmentation by limiting surface-disturbing activities, while addressing changes in resource conditions

and use through monitoring and adaptive management.

2.3 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND MANAGEMENT DECISIONS FOR GRSG HABITAT

This section of the ARMP presents the goals, objectives, land use allocations, and management decisions 

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

the BLM in South Dakota. Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all 

resources and all resource use programs will be subject to impact mitigation guidelines and BMPs in 

Appendix J and RDFs in Appendix C. A Monitoring Framework is also included in Appendix D to 

describe how the implemented program decisions will be monitored. 

Many of these goals, objectives, and management decisions identified in this section can also be found in 

Section 3.0 of this RMP for other resources and/or program areas (e.g., Physical Resources) and have 

been consolidated in this section to depict how the agency will manage GRSG habitat. 

Goals specific to GRSG and other Special Status Species include: 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 2-7

 Ensure the long-term and self-sustaining persistence of special status species in South 

Dakota.

 Protect/maintain populations of special status species by minimizing direct mortality and 

impacts on habitat.

 Provide suitable habitat condition to allow for movement between large blocks of habitat 

and seasonal and specialized habitats on a local and landscape scale.

 Maintain or improve specialized habitats on a local and landscape scale.

 Maintain and/or increase GRSG abundance and distribution by conserving, enhancing or 

restoring the sagebrush ecosystem upon which populations depend in cooperation with 

other conservation partners. 

 Within GRSG habitat areas, the BLM will maintain habitat for viable GRSG populations.

 Manage for the biological integrity and habitat suitability to facilitate the conservation, 

recovery, and maintenance of populations of fish and wildlife to avoid contributing to the 

listing of or jeopardizing the continued existence or recovery of special status species and 

their habitats. 

 Maintain or enhance areas of ecological importance for special status wildlife species.

 Conserve and recover special status wildlife species by determining and implementing 

conservation strategies including restoration opportunities, use restrictions, and 

management decisions.

 Manage specific environmental hazards, risks, and impacts in a manner compatible with 

special status wildlife species health.

 Identify habitat thresholds necessary to sustain well-distributed healthy populations of 

special status wildlife species to avoid future listings under the ESA.

 Develop and implement the BMPs, activity plans, or use other mechanisms to protect high 

priority special status wildlife species.

 Manage special status fish and wildlife species in consideration of the working landscape and 

the intermingled land ownership pattern that is present.

 Across the planning area, maintain greater sagebrush cover at levels at or near the full 

potential for the each ecological site.

 Priority will be given to leasing and development of fluid mineral resources, including 

geothermal, outside of PHMA and GHMA. 

 In all PHMA, the desired condition is to maintain all lands ecologically capable of producing 

sagebrush (but no less than 70%) with a minimum of 15% sagebrush canopy cover or as 

consistent with specific ecological site conditions. The attributes necessary to sustain these 

habitats are described in Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health (BLM Tech Ref 1734-

6).

 Manage wildfire and fuels for the protection of public health, safety, property, and resource 

values, emphasizing firefighter and public safety as the single overriding priority. The 

protection of human life is the single, overriding priority. Setting priorities among protecting 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

2-8 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

human communities and community infrastructure, other property and improvements, and 

natural and cultural resources will be done based on the values to be protected, human 

health and safety, and the costs of protection.

 Improve the resilience of wildlife habitats to protect wildlife communities from stressors and 

events such as severe wildfire and climate change.

 Manage PHMA so that discrete anthropogenic (human-caused) disturbances do not 

adversely impact GRSG distribution or abundance.

Table 2-5 is a summary of the allocation decisions presented for each GRSG habitat management area. 

Table 2-5

Summary of Allocation Decisions by GRSG Habitat Management Areas

Resource PHMA GHMA

Land Tenure Retain Retain

Solar Exclusion Avoidance

Wind Exclusion Avoidance

Major ROWs Avoidance Avoidance

Minor ROWs Avoidance Open

Oil and Gas Open with Major Stipulations Open with Minor Stipulations

Geothermal Open with Major Stipulations Open with Minor Stipulations

Non-energy Leasables Closed Open

Salable Minerals Closed except for free use 

permits

Open

Locatable Minerals Open Open

Travel Management Limited Limited

Livestock Grazing Open Open

2.3.1 Management Decisions for Greater Sage-Grouse General Habitat Management 

Areas

MD-10 Greater Sage-Grouse GHMA: includes 23,684 surface and 247,771 subsurface oil and gas 

minerals acres. 

MD-11 Surface Disturbing and Disruptive Activities and Fluid Minerals: Surface disturbing and 

disruptive activities will be avoided within 6/10 of a mile of sage-grouse leks. BLM will apply the lek 

buffer-distances in the US Geological Survey (USGS) Report “Conservation Buffer Distance Estimates 

for Greater Sage-Grouse-A Review (Open File Report 2014-1239)” in both GHMA and PHMA as 

detailed in Appendix B, Applying Lek Buffer-Distances When Approving Actions.

Fluid Minerals - NSO: NSO or use within 6/10 of a mile from leks. The Authorized Officer (AO) ay

waive this stipulation if no portion of the leasehold is within 6/10 mile of the perimeter of an active lek.

MD-12 Renewable Energy ROWs: Renewable Energy ROWs: 1 mile from leks will be an exclusion 

area, the rest of the GHMA will be an avoidance area.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 2-9

Other types of ROWs: Major ROWs (power lines 100 kilovolt (kV) and pipelines 24 inches and over)

will be avoided. Minor ROWs within 2 miles of a lek will be avoidance, the rest of the GHMA will be 

open.

Where new ROWs are necessary, ROWs will be co‐located within existing ROWs where possible.

GHMA and PHMA within the Center of the Nation will be Class 2 land retention areas (Appendix A1: 

Figure 2-10).

MD-13 Land Disposals: Any land disposals will be limited and subject to specialist review. Refer to 

the Land Tenure subsection of the Lands section of this table for additional details about Class 2 

retention criteria.

BLM could also dispose of land in PHMA and GHMA within the Center of the Nation areas in cases 

where there is mixed ownership, and land exchanges will allow for additional or more contiguous 

federal ownership patterns and the criteria below are met. 

Under GRSG habitat areas with minority federal ownership, BLM will develop an additional, effective 

mitigation agreement for any disposal of federal land. As a final preservation measure, consideration will 

be given to pursuing a permanent conservation easement. Lands classified as PHMA and GHMA for 

GRSG will be retained in federal management unless: (1) the agency can demonstrate that disposal of 

the lands, including land exchanges, will provide a net conservation gain to the GRSG or (2) the agency 

can demonstrate that the disposal, including land exchanges, of the lands will have no direct or indirect 

adverse impact on conservation of the GRSG.

MD-14 Surface Disturbing and Disruptive Activities and Fluid Minerals: Surface disturbing and 

disruptive activities will be avoided in winter range for sage-grouse unless the project proponent can 

clearly demonstrate that the impacts can be adequately mitigated, Conservation Actions, Guidelines or 

needed design features (Appendices C and F) are included and the goals for sage-grouse are not 

compromised. Prior to approving any surface disturbance and disruptive activities, the project 

proponent will be required to provide a plan approved by BLM to maintain suitability of habitat and 

avoid or minimize habitat loss and disturbance.

Fluid Minerals - NSO: GRSG crucial winter range will be managed as a NSO for oil and gas development 

and exploration.

MD-15 Renewable Energy/Winter Range: GRSG winter range will be an exclusion area. 

Within GHMA, major ROWs are avoidance and minor ROWs are avoidance within two miles of leks 

with GHMA. The rest of the GHMA is open to minor ROWs. GRSG winter range will be an avoidance 

area. In cases where avoidance is not possible, BLM may require design features to mitigate impacts or 

co-location of new ROWs with existing ROWs where possible.

MD-16 Surface Disturbing and Disruptive Activities and Fluid Minerals: Fluid Minerals - A 

CSU stipulation will apply within 2 miles of leks. The AO may waive this stipulation if no portion of the 

leasehold is within 2 miles of the perimeter of an active lek.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

2-10 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

Fluid Minerals: A CSU stipulation will apply within 2 miles of leks. The AO may waive this stipulation if

no portion of the leasehold is within 2 miles of the perimeter of an active lek.

MD-17 Greater Sage-Grouse GHMA: Same as MD-12. 

MD-18 Utility and Power lines: All new utility and power lines (overhead lines) that can be safely 

buried will be buried within 2 miles of GRSG leks and within GRSG winter range. 

When burial of power lines is not possible, above ground lines will be located and designed to minimize 

impacts of predation, collision and other associated stressors to GRSG.

Existing overhead lines within 2 miles of leks and within GRSG winter range will be evaluated for threats 

to GRSG and if necessary, modified to reduce the threat. If modification is not likely to be effective, the 

overhead line may be relocated. Any requirements for modification or relocation of existing overhead 

lines will be subject to valid existing rights.

Oil and Gas (O&G) - CSU: All new utility and power lines that can be safely buried will be buried within 

2 miles of sage-grouse leks and within sage-grouse winter range.

When burial of power lines is not possible, above ground lines will be located and designed to minimize 

impacts of predation, collision and other associated stressors to sage-grouse.

Existing overhead lines within 2 miles of leks and within sage-grouse winter range will be evaluated for 

threats to sage-grouse and if necessary, modified to reduce the threat. If modification will not likely be 

effective, the overhead line may be relocated. Any requirements for modification or relocation of 

existing overhead lines will be subject to valid existing rights.

MD-19 Weed Treatments: Timing Limit (TL): Herbicide treatments limited to spot weed treatments 

only within a 3 mile buffer zone, of known sage-grouse leks from March 1-June 30. Exceptions to 

treatment types and dates of treatments may be allowed to address aggressively spreading weeds or 

invasive plants that require aggressive and timely treatment during this period following consultation 

with necessary specialists to minimize impacts on sage-grouse.

MD-20 Temporary Travel Closures: Temporary travel closures will be considered in accordance 

with 43 CFR subpart 8364 (Closures and Restrictions); 43 CFR subpart 8351 (Designated National 

Area); 43 CFR subpart 6302 (Use of Wilderness Areas, Prohibited Acts, and Penalties); and 43 CFR 

subpart 8341 (Conditions of Use). Temporary closure or restriction orders under these authorities are 

enacted at the discretion of the AO to resolve management conflicts and protect persons, property, and 

public lands and resources. 

Where an AO determines that off-highway vehicles (OHV) are causing or will cause considerable 

adverse effects upon soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, cultural resources, historical resources, 

threatened or endangered species, wilderness suitability, other authorized uses, or other resources, the 

affected areas shall be immediately closed to the type(s) of vehicle causing the adverse effect until the 

adverse effects are eliminated and measures are implemented to prevent recurrence (43 CFR, Part 

8341.2).
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 2-11

A closure or restriction order will be considered only after other management strategies and 

alternatives have been explored. The duration of temporary closure or restriction orders will be limited 

to 24 months or less; however, certain situations may require longer closures and/or iterative 

temporary closures. This may include closure of routes or areas.

2.3.2 Management Decisions for Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Management 

Areas

MD 1-10 address other Special Status Species. Refer to Special Status Species in Section 3.

MD-20 Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA: Manage PHMA so that discrete anthropogenic (humancaused) disturbances do not adversely impact GRSG distribution or abundance.

MD-21 Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA: PHMA will be the same as the State of South Dakota Sagegrouse Core Areas (SDGFP 2014); which includes 127,735 surface and 412,822 subsurface oil and gas 

minerals acres. See Figure 1-2 and 1-3. Adaptive management for sage-grouse is described in Chapter 2 

Narrative section under Greater Sage-Grouse. BLM will apply the lek buffer-distances in the USGS 

Report “Conservation Buffer Distance Estimates for Greater Sage-Grouse-A Review (Open File Report 

2014-1239)” in both GHMA and PHMA as detailed in Appendix B, Applying Lek Buffer-Distances 

When Approving Actions.

MD-22 Surface Disturbing and Disruptive Activities and Fluid Minerals: Surface disturbing and 

disruptive activities may be allowed if the project proponent can clearly demonstrate that adverse 

impacts on sage-grouse can be adequately mitigated through BMPs, guidelines (Appendix J), 

disturbance is within the 3% disturbance cap limit (Appendix E) and RDFs (Appendix C) are included 

and the goals for sage-grouse not compromised. If the 3% anthropogenic disturbance cap is exceeded on 

lands (regardless of land ownership) within GRSG PHMA in any given BSU, then no further discrete 

anthropogenic disturbances (subject to applicable laws and regulations, such as the 1872 hard rock 

mining law, valid existing rights, etc.) will be permitted by BLM within PHMA in any given BSU until the 

disturbance has been reduced to less than the cap.

If the 3% anthropogenic disturbance cap is exceeded on lands (regardless of land ownership) or if 

anthropogenic disturbance and habitat loss associated with conversion to agricultural tillage or fire 

exceed 5% within a project analysis area in PHMA, then no further discrete anthropogenic disturbances 

(subject to applicable laws and regulations, such as the 1872 Mining Law, valid existing rights, etc.) will be 

permitted by BLM within PHMA in a project analysis area until the disturbance has been reduced to less 

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

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

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

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

exceeded as a result of any project co-location.

Subject to applicable laws and regulations and valid existing rights, if the average density of one energy 

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

in PHMA within a proposed project analysis area, then no further disturbance from energy or mining 

facilities will be permitted by BLM: (1) until disturbance in the proposed project analysis area has been 

reduced to maintain the limit under the cap; or (2) unless the energy or mining facility is co-located into 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

2-12 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

an existing disturbed area. This direction applies to the following: oil and gas wells and development 

facilities, coal mines, wind towers, solar fields, geothermal, and mining (active locatable, leasable, and 

saleable developments). Appendix E provides specific details about how calculations are determined 

for disturbance caps. Prior to approving any surface disturbance and disruptive activities, the project 

proponent will be required to provide a plan approved by BLM to maintain suitability of habitat and 

avoid or minimize habitat loss and disturbance.

Fluid Minerals - NSO: PHMA will be managed as NSO and Use (127,735 surface and 412,822 oil and gas 

subsurface minerals acres). These areas will be open to oil and gas leasing with a NSO stipulation. All 

sage-grouse habitat that is not part of PHMA will be managed as GHMA as noted in Figure 1-2.

Priority will be given to leasing and development of fluid mineral resources, including geothermal, 

outside of PHMA and GHMA.

Waivers or modifications to a fluid minerals lease NSO stipulation will not be granted. The AO may 

grant an exception to a fluid mineral lease NSO stipulation in certain cases. Exceptions based on 

conservation gain (ii) may only be considered in (A) PHMA of mixed ownership where federal minerals 

underlie less than fifty percent of the total surface, or (b) area of the public lands where the proposed 

exception is an alternative to an action occurring on a nearby parcel subject to a valid Federal fluid 

mineral lease existing as of the date of this RMP. See Appendix G.

Oil and gas stipulations will also apply to geothermal resources. Locatable minerals will be open. RDFs 

(Appendix C) and other applicable BMPs and Guidelines (Appendix J) will be applied as BMPs or 

Guidelines for locatable minerals, subject to valid existing rights and the mining laws. Non-energy 

leasable minerals and salable minerals will be closed except for the following exception: 

PHMA are closed to new mineral material sales. However, these areas remain “open” to free use 

permits and the expansion of existing active pits, only if the following criteria are met:

The activity is within the BSU and project area disturbance cap; the activity is subject to the provisions 

set forth in the mitigation measures (Appendix F) BMPs and Guidelines (Appendix J), and RDFs for 

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat (Appendix C) are applied, and the activity is permissible under the 

subregional screening criteria.

Required Design Features: RDFs are required for certain activities in all GRSG habitat. RDFs establish 

the minimum specifications for certain activities to help mitigate adverse impacts. However, the 

applicability and overall effectiveness of each RDF cannot be fully assessed until the project level when 

the project location and design are known. Because of site-specific circumstances, some RDFs may not 

apply to some projects (e.g., a resource is not present on a given site) or may require slight variations 

(e.g., a larger or smaller protective area). All variations in RDFs would require that at least one of the 

following be demonstrated in the NEPA analysis associated with the project or activity:

 A specific RDF is documented to not be applicable to the site-specific conditions of the 

project or activity (e.g., due to site limitations or engineering considerations). Economic 

considerations, such as increased costs, do not necessarily require that an RDF be varied or 

rendered inapplicable.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 2-13

 An alternative RDF, a state-implemented conservation measure or plan-level protection is 

determined to provide equal or better protection for GRSG or its habitat.

 A specific RDF would provide no additional protection to GRSG or its habitat.

Where the federal government owns the mineral estate in PHMA and GHMA, and the surface is in nonfederal ownership, the federal government will apply the same stipulations, Conditions of Approval 

(COAs), and/or conservation measures and mineral RDFs if the mineral estate is developed on BLMadministered lands in that management area, to the maximum extent permissible under existing 

authorities, and in coordination with the landowner.

Where the federal government owns the surface and the mineral estate is in non-federal ownership in 

PHMA and GHMA, the federal government will apply appropriate surface use COAs, stipulations, and 

mineral RDFs through ROW grants or other surface management instruments, to the maximum extent 

permissible under existing authorities, in coordination with the mineral estate owner/lessee.

At the time an application for a new coal lease or lease modification is submitted to the BLM, the BLM 

will determine whether the lease application area is “unsuitable” for all or certain coal mining methods 

pursuant to 43 CFR, Part 3461.5. PHMA is essential habitat for maintaining GRSG for purposes of the 

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

MD-23 Grazing Permits and Leases: 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 (RCA) or fire breaks. This does not apply to or impact 

grazing preference transfers, which are addressed in 43 CFR, Part 4110.2-3.

MD-24 Other Resources Uses: Other resource uses within PHMA may be allowed pending project 

level environmental review provided that Mitigation, BMPs Guidelines, standard operating procedures 

(SOP), and RDFs are implemented, Impacts are evaluated as described in the GRSG Effects Analysis 

Process (Appendix I) and the project does not exceed the disturbance cap (Appendix E) and the 

goals for sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat are not compromised. Categorical Exclusions (CXs) 

including those under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Section 390 will not be used in priority sage-grouse 

habitats due to resource conflicts.

MD-25 Renewable Energy ROWs: PHMA will be exclusion areas. Other types of ROWs: PHMA will

be avoidance areas. Winter range is an exclusion areas for renewable energy ROWs. 

MD-26 General ROWs: PHMA are defined as avoidance areas for all General ROWs (major and 

minor). Renewable ROWs are addressed in MD-25 above. Sage-Grouse winter range is treated the 

same in PHMA and GHMA: These areas are avoidance areas for general ROWs. 

If a proposed project cannot be avoided, the following actions will apply:

Within PHMA all new power and utility lines (overhead lines) that can be safely buried will be buried.

When burial of power lines is not possible, above ground lines will be located and designed to minimize 

impacts of predation, collision and other associated stressors to sage-grouse.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

2-14 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

Existing overhead lines within PHMA and within sage-grouse winter range will be evaluated for threats 

to sage-grouse and if necessary, modified to reduce the threat. If modification is not likely to be 

effective, the overhead line may be relocated.

Any requirements for modification or relocation of existing overhead lines will be subject to valid 

existing rights.

Consider the likelihood of development of not-yet-constructed surface-disturbing activities – as defined 

in Table 2 of the Monitoring Framework (Appendix D)−under valid existing rights prior to authorizing 

new projects in PHMA.

MD-27 Lands and Realty: PHMA and GHMA within the Center of the Nation will be Class 2 land 

retention areas (Appendix A2, Map E and Figure 1-3). Any land disposals will be limited and subject to 

specialist review. Refer to the Land Tenure subsection of the Lands section of this table for additional 

details about Class 2 retention criteria.

BLM could also dispose of land in PHMA and GHMA within the Center of the Nation areas in cases 

where there is mixed ownership, and land exchanges will allow for additional or more contiguous 

federal ownership patterns.

Under sage-grouse habitat areas with minority federal ownership, BLM will develop an additional, 

effective mitigation agreement for any disposal of federal land. As a final preservation measure, 

consideration will be given to pursuing a permanent conservation easement. Lands classified as PHMA 

and GHMA for GRSG will be retained in federal management unless: (1) the agency can demonstrate 

that disposal of the lands, including land exchanges, will provide a net conservation gain to the GRSG or 

(2) the agency can demonstrate that the disposal, including land exchanges, of the lands will have no 

direct or indirect adverse impact on conservation of the GRSG.

The agency can demonstrate that disposal of the lands will provide a net conservation gain to Greater 

Sage-Grouse; or the agency can demonstrate that the disposal of the lands will have no direct or 

indirect adverse impact on conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse.

MD-28 Weed Treatments: TL: Spot weed treatments only, using IPM methods within all suitable 

nesting or brood rearing habitat of known sage-grouse leks from March 1-June 30.

MD-29 Surface Disturbance and Disruptive Activities and Fluid Minerals in Winter Range: 

Winter range in PHMA will be treated the same as winter range in GHMA: Surface disturbing and 

disruptive activities will not be allowed in winter range for sage-grouse unless the project proponent can 

clearly demonstrate that the impacts can be adequately mitigated, conservation actions or needed design 

features are included and the goals of this plan are not compromised. Prior to approving any surface 

disturbance and disruptive activities, the project proponent will be required to provide a plan approved 

by BLM to maintain suitability of habitat and avoid or minimize habitat loss and disturbance.

Fluid Minerals - NSO: Sage-grouse winter range will be managed as a NSO for oil and gas development 

and exploration. Waivers or modifications to a fluid minerals lease no-surface-occupancy stipulation will 

not be granted for NSO stipulations in PHMA.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 2-15

MD-30 Rights of Ways (ROWs): Winter range in PHMA will be treated the same as winter range in 

GHMA: Renewable Energy ROWs in sage-grouse winter range will be an exclusion area. 

Other types of ROWs in sage-grouse winter range will be an avoidance area. In cases where avoidance 

is not possible, BLM may require co-location of new ROWs with existing ROWs where possible.

ROWs are defined for sage-grouse management in terms of major and minor ROWs. Major ROWs 

include transmission lines 100kV and greater and pipelines 24 inches in width and greater. Minor ROWs 

include utilities under these design descriptions, as well as communication sites and towers. 

Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA are avoidance areas for major and minor ROWs. 

Within GHMA, major ROWs are avoidance and minor ROWs are avoidance within two miles of leks 

with GHMA. The rest of the GHMA is open to minor ROWs.

Sage-Grouse winter range is treated the same in PHMA and GHMA: These areas are avoidance areas 

for general ROWs and exclusion areas for renewable energy ROWs. 

MD-31 Seasonal Habitat Objectives: Seasonal habitat objectives identified in Table 2-5 will be 

incorporated into all project designs, as appropriate, based on site conditions and ecological potential.

Habitat objectives include metrics for sagebrush height, cover, and other vegetation characteristics 

typical of sage-grouse habitat at the eastern edge of the species’ distribution.

MD-32 Land Health Standards: BLM will prioritize grazing leases in PHMA to determine if 

modifications are necessary prior to renewals or if the allotment does not meet Land Health Standards.

MD-33 Prescribed Fire: Prescribed fire may be allowed in PHMA and general habitat if it is done 

solely for the purposes of improving or maintaining sage-grouse habitat. If prescribed fire is used in 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, the NEPA analysis for the Burn Plan will address the following:

 Why alternative techniques were not selected as a viable options;

 How Greater Sage-Grouse goals and objectives would be met by its use;

 How the COT report objectives would be addressed and met;

 Develop a risk assessment to address how potential threats to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

would be minimized.

Prescribed fire as a vegetation or fuels treatment shall only be considered after the NEPA analysis for 

the Burn Plan has addressed the four bullets outlined above. Prescribed fire could be used to meet 

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

breaks that would disrupt the fuel continuity across the landscape in stands where annual invasive 

grasses are a minor component in the understory, and burning slash piles from conifer reduction 

treatments, used as a component with other treatment methods to combat annual grasses and restore 

native plant communities).
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

2-16 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

Prescribed fire in known winter range shall only be considered after the NEPA analysis for the Burn Plan 

has addressed the four bullets outlined above. Any prescribed fire in winter habitat would be designed 

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

range habitat quality. Secretarial order SO3336 will be applied to protect GRSG habitat from fire: 

http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/rangeland/index.shtml.

MD-34 Grazing Permits/Leases: The NEPA analysis for renewals and modifications of livestock 

grazing permits/leases within PHMA will include specific management thresholds based on GRSG Habitat 

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

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

grazing that have already been subjected to NEPA analysis.

MD 35 – Grazing Allotments: Allotments within PHMA, focusing on those containing riparian areas, 

including wet meadows, will be prioritized for field checks to help ensure compliance with the terms and 

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

use supervision.

MD 36 – Review and prioritization of Grazing Leases/Permits: The BLM will prioritize (1) the 

review of grazing permits/leases, in particular to determine if modification is necessary prior to renewal, 

and (2) the processing of grazing permits/leases in PHMA. In setting workload priorities, precedence will 

be given to existing permits/leases in these areas not meeting Land Health Standards, with focus on 

those containing riparian areas, including wet meadows. The BLM may use other criteria for 

prioritization to respond to urgent natural resource concerns (ex., fire) and legal obligations.

MD-37: Range Improvements: Range improvements in PHMA would be allowed if the 

improvements would not impact GRSG, improvements would provide a conservation benefit to GRSG 

such as fences for protecting important seasonal habitats, or if improvements would meet the lek buffer 

requirement. Refer to Appendix B for a discussion about GRSG lek buffers.

MD-38 Recreation: In PHMA, BLM will not construct new recreation facilities (e.g., campgrounds, 

trails, trailheads, staging areas) unless the development would have a net conservation gain to GRSG 

habitat (such as concentrating recreation, diverting use away from critical areas, etc.), or unless the 

development is required for visitor health and safety or resource protection.

MD-39: Travel: Temporary travel closures will be considered in accordance with 43 CFR subpart 8364 

(Closures and Restrictions); 43 CFR subpart 8351 (Designated National Area); 43 CFR subpart 6302 

(Use of Wilderness Areas, Prohibited Acts, and Penalties); and 43 CFR subpart 8341 (Conditions of 

Use). Temporary closure or restriction orders under these authorities are enacted at the discretion of 

the AO to resolve management conflicts and protect persons, property, and public lands and resources. 

Where an AO determines that OHVs are causing or will cause considerable adverse effects upon soil, 

vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, cultural resources, historical resources, threatened or endangered 

species, wilderness suitability, other authorized uses, or other resources, the affected areas shall be 

immediately closed to the type(s) of vehicle causing the adverse effect until the adverse effects are 

eliminated and measures are implemented to prevent recurrence (43 CFR, Part 8341.2).
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 2-17

A closure or restriction order will be considered only after other management strategies and 

alternatives have been explored. The duration of temporary closure or restriction orders will be limited 

to 24 months or less; however, certain situations may require longer closures and/or iterative 

temporary closures. This may include closure of routes or areas.

Habitat Objectives

BLM will incorporate Greater Sage-Grouse Seasonal Habitat Objectives (see Table 2-5) into the design 

of projects or activities, as appropriate, based on site conditions and ecological potential, unless 

achievement of fuels management objectives require additional reduction in sagebrush cover to meet 

strategic protection of sage-grouse habitat and conserve habitat quality for the species, unless at least 

one of the following conditions can be demonstrated and documented in the NEPA analysis associated 

with the specific project:

(i) A specific objective is not applicable to the site-specific conditions of the project or activity; 

(ii) An alternative objective is determined to provide equal or better protection for sage-grouse 

or its habitat (based on appropriate scientific findings); or

(iii) Analysis concludes that following a specific objective would provide no more protection to 

sage-grouse or its habitat than not following it, for the project being proposed.

In all PHMA, the desired condition is to maintain all lands ecologically capable of producing sagebrush 

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

ecological site conditions. The attributes necessary to sustain these habitats are described in Interpreting 

Indicators of Rangeland Health (BLM Tech Ref 1734-6).

These habitat objectives in Table 2-5 summarize the characteristics that research has found represent 

the seasonal habitat needs for Greater Sage-Grouse. The specific seasonal components identified in the 

Table were adjusted based on local science and monitoring data to define the range of characteristics 

used in this subregion. Thus, the habitat objectives provide the broad vegetative conditions BLM strives 

to obtain across the landscape that indicate the seasonal habitats used by sage-grouse. These habitat 

indicators are consistent with the rangeland health indicators used by the BLM.

The sage-grouse habitat characteristics will be used as one of several tools for assessing habitats and 

guiding management actions. Site suitability is determined by the relationship among the several indicator 

values in each matrix and the relative abundance of habitat types across the landscape. It is important to 

understand that the desired conditions described for these habitat types are based on average plant 

productivity, structural data, and expert opinion relative to sage-grouse use of a subset of sagebrush 

communities, and they may not apply to all sagebrush communities in the planning area variation (Davies 

et al. 2006). These measures also do not account for inter-annual climate variation (Davies et al. 2006).

Individual indicator values do not define site suitability and overall site suitability descriptions require an 

interpretation of the relationships between the indicators and other factors. Measurement of these 

objectives will follow the steps described in Appendix D.

The habitat objectives will be part of the sage-grouse habitat assessment to be used during land health 

evaluations (see Monitoring Framework, Appendix D). These habitat objectives are not obtainable on 

every acre within the designated GRSG habitat management areas. Therefore, the determination on 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

2-18 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

whether the objectives have been met will be based on the specific site's ecological ability to meet the 

desired condition identified in the table.

Ecological sites are the basic component of a land-type classification system that describes ecological 

potential and ecosystem dynamics of land areas. All land/land use types are identified within the 

ecological site system, including rangeland, pasture, and forest land. An ecological site is defined as a 

distinctive kind of land with specific soil and physical characteristics that differ from other kinds of land 

in its ability to produce a distinctive kind and amount of vegetation and its ability to respond similarly to 

management actions and natural disturbances. Lands are classified considering discrete physical and 

biotic factors. Physical factors include soils, climate, hydrology, geology, and physiographic features. 

Biotic factors include plant species occurrence, plant community compositions, annual biomass 

production, wildlife-vegetation interactions, and other factors. Ecological dynamics, primarily disturbance 

regimes, such as grazing; fire; drought; management actions; and all resulting interactions are also a 

primary factor of ecological sites. Information and data pertaining to a particular ecological site is 

organized into a reference document known as an Ecological Site Description (ESD). ESDs function as a 

primary repository of ecological knowledge regarding an ecological site. ESDs are maintained on the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Ecological Site Information System (ESIS), which is the 

repository for information associated with ESDs and the collection of all site data 

(https://esis.sc.egov.usda.gov/Welcome/pgESDWelcome.aspx). The ESD can help interpret if a site’s 

potential is less than or greater than the identified habitat objectives.

All BLM use authorizations will contain terms and conditions regarding the actions needed to meet or 

progress toward meeting the habitat objectives. If monitoring data show the habitat objectives have not 

been met nor progress being made towards meeting them, there will be an evaluation and a 

determination made as to the cause. If it is determined that the authorized use is a cause, the use will be 

adjusted by the response specified in the instrument that authorized the use.

Table 2-6 describes the seasonal habitat desired conditions for Greater Sage-Grouse.

2.3.3 Adaptive Management Strategy for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management

Decisions

Adaptive Management is a decision process that promotes flexible resource management decisionmaking that can be adjusted in the face of uncertainties as outcomes from management actions and 

other events become better understood. Careful monitoring of these outcomes both advances scientific 

understanding and helps with adjusting resource management directions as part of an iterative learning 

process. Adaptive management also recognizes the importance of natural variability in contributing to 

ecological resilience and productivity. Adaptive management does not represent an end in itself, but 

rather a means to more effective decisions and enhanced benefits. On February 1, 2008, the USDI

published its Adaptive Management Implementation Policy (522 DM 1). The adaptive management 

strategy presented within this EIS complies with this policy and direction. The GRSG Monitoring 

Framework will be used to inform adaptive management; the GRSG Monitoring Framework can be 

found in Appendix D. The following provides the BLM adaptive management strategy for the South 

Dakota ARMP.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 2-19

Table 2-6

Seasonal Habitat Desired Conditions for Greater Sage-Grouse

Attribute Indicator Desired Condition

BREEDING HABITAT (LEK AND NESTING/EARLY BROOD REARING)

Lek Security Proximity of trees7,13 Trees absent or rare. When present trees consist 

of rocky mountain juniper and ponderosa pine > 

328 feet (100 meters) from lek.

Lek Security Proximity of sagebrush to leks13 Adjacent protective sagebrush cover within 328 

feet (100 m) of an occupied lek

NESTING/EARLY BROOD REARING5,10,12,13,14

Sagebrush canopy cover 2,8, 9,11 2-20%

Sagebrush height84-12 inches (10.16-30.48 cm)

Predominant sagebrush shape13 Predominantly spreading shape5

Perennial grass cover (such as native 

rhizomatous and bunchgrasses) 2,8,13

>10%

Perennial grass height (includes residual 

grasses)8,9, 11,13

Adequate nest cover based on ecological site 

potential and seasonal precipitation.15

Perennial forb cover 2,8 >3%, Based on ecological site potential and 

seasonal precipitation

Perennial forb availability13 Preferred forbs are common with several species 

present6

LATE BROOD-REARING/SUMMER1(July-October)1(Apply to all habitat outside of 

nesting/breeding and winter)

Sagebrush canopy cover2, 8 2-20%

Sagebrush height84 - 12 inches (10.16-30.48 cm)

Perennial grass canopy cover 2,8 >10%

Upland and riparian perennial forb 

availability 2,13

Preferred forbs are common with several preferred 

species present,6,

Riparian meadow habitat condition Proper Functioning Condition (PFC)13

WINTER1 November-March1(Apply to areas of known or likely winter-use)

Cover and Food Seasonal habitat extent8 Winter habitat is managed to optimize its potential 

within the constraints of ecological site potential

Sagebrush canopy cover 8,13 2-20% 

Sagebrush height above snow8 Winter habitat is managed to optimize its potential 

within the constraints of ecological site potential 

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1 Seasonal dates can be adjusted by local unit according to geographic region. 

2 Absolute cover is the actual recorded cover and can exceed 100% when recorded across all species and all layers. It is not 

relative cover, which is the proportions of each species, and equals 100%. Note that cover is reported for only those species

(e.g., sagebrush, preferred forbs) that are sampled to determine suitability of habitat for sage-grouse. Overall cover at the site 

will be greater than that sampled for sage-grouse habitat, due to other species present. Percent cover refers to foliar cover, 

measured using the HAF protocol line-point intercept method.

3 Arid corresponds to the 10 – 12 inch precipitation zone; Artemisia tridentata wyomingensis is a common big sagebrush subspecies for this type site (Stiver et al. 2015 In press).

4 Mesic corresponds to the >12 inch precipitation zone. 

5Collectively the indicators for sagebrush (cover, height, and shape), perennial grass and perennial forb (cover, height and/or 

availability) represent the desired condition range for nesting/early brood rearing habitat characteristics, consistent with the 

breeding habitat suitability matrix identified in Stiver et al. 2015 In press. Sagebrush plants that are more tree or columnarshaped provide less protective cover near the ground than sagebrush plants with a spreading shape (Stiver et al. 2015 In press). 

Some sagebrush plants are naturally columnar (e.g., Great Basin big sagebrush), and a natural part of the plant community. 

However, a predominance of columnar shape arising from animal impacts may warrant management investigation or 

adjustments at site specific scales. 

6 Preferred forbs are listed in Stiver et al. 2015 In press. Overall total forb cover may be greater than that of preferred forb 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

2-20 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

Table 2-6

Seasonal Habitat Desired Conditions for Greater Sage-Grouse

cover since not all forb species are listed as preferred.

7Baruch-Mordo, S., J. S. Evans, J. P. Severson, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, J. M. Kiesecker, M. J. Falkowski, C. A. Hagen, and K. P. 

Reese. 2013. Saving sage-grouse from trees.

8 Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage-grouse populations and their 

habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967-985.

9Connelly , J. W., K. P. Reese, and M. A. Schroeder. 2003. Monitoring of Greater sage-grouse habitats and populations. 

University of Idaho College of Natural Resources Experiment Station Bulletin 80. University of Idaho, Moscow, ID.

10Doherty, K. 2008. Sage-grouse and Energy Development: Integrating Science with Conservation Planning to Reduce Impacts. 

Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Montana, Missoula, MT.

11 Hagen, C. A., J. W. Connelly, and M. A. Schroeder. 2007. A meta-analysis of Greater Sage-Grouse Centrocercus urophasianus 

nesting and brood-rearing habitats. Wildlife Biology 13 (Supplement 1):42-50.

12Holloran, M. J., and S. H. Anderson. 2005. Spatial Distribution of Greater Sage-grouse nests in relatively contiguous sagebrush 

habitats. Condor 107:742-752.

13Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinkes, D. E. Naugle, P. D. Makela, D. A. Nance, and J. W. Karl. In press. Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment 

Framework: Multi-scale Habitat Assessment Tool. Bureau of Land Management and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies Technical Reference. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado. 

14 Connelly, J.W., A. Moser, and D. Kemner. 2013. Greater Sage-Grouse breeding habitats: Landscape-based comparisons. 

Grouse News 45. Research Reports.

15 Specific height requirements needed to meet the objective will be set when project level planning is completed. 

Adaptive Management and Monitoring

This EIS contains a monitoring framework plan (Appendix D) that includes an effectiveness monitoring 

component. The agencies intend to use the data collected from the effectiveness monitoring to identify 

any changes in habitat conditions related to the goals and objectives of the plan and other range-wide 

conservation strategies BLM 2004; Stiver et al. 2006; USFWS 2013). The information collected through 

the Monitoring Framework Plan (Appendix D) will be used by the BLM to determine when adaptive 

management hard and soft triggers (discussed below) are met. Adaptive management responses at the 

RMP level were included as part of the assumptions when impacts were analyzed in Chapter 4 of the 

Proposed RMP. In making amendments to this plan, the BLM will coordinate with the FWS as BLM 

continues to meet its objective of conserving, enhancing and restoring GRSG habitat by reducing, 

minimizing or eliminating threats to that habitat. The GRSG adaptive management plan provides a means 

of addressing and responding to unintended negative impacts on GRSG and its habitat before 

consequences become severe or irreversible.

The hard and soft trigger data will be analyzed as soon as it becomes available after the signing of the 

ROD and then at a minimum, analyzed annually thereafter.

Adaptive Management Triggers

Adaptive management triggers are essential for identifying when potential management changes are 

needed in order to continue meeting Greater Sage-Grouse conservation objectives. The BLM will use 

soft and hard triggers.

Soft Triggers

Soft triggers are indicators that management or specific activities may not be achieving the intended 

results of conservation actions. The soft trigger is any negative deviation from normal trends in habitat 

or population in any given year, or if observed across two to three consecutive years. Metrics include, 

but are not limited to, annual lek counts, wing counts, aerial surveys, habitat monitoring, and Density 

and Disturbance Calculation Tool (DDCT) evaluations. BLM field offices, local SDGFP offices, and sage-
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 2-21

grouse working groups will evaluate the metrics. The purpose of these strategies is to address localized 

Greater Sage-Grouse population and habitat changes by providing the framework in which management 

will change if monitoring identifies negative population trends and habitat anomalies.

Each major project (EIS level) will include adaptive management strategies in support of the population 

management objectives for Greater Sage-Grouse set by the State of South Dakota, and will be 

consistent with this Greater Sage-Grouse Adaptive Management Plan. These adaptive management 

strategies will be developed in partnership with the State of South Dakota, project proponents, partners, 

and stakeholders, incorporating the best available science.

Soft Triggers Response

Soft triggers require immediate monitoring and surveillance to determine causal factors and may require 

curtailment of activities in the short or long term, as allowed by law. The project-level adaptive 

management strategies will identify appropriate responses where the project’s activities are identified as 

the causal factor. The management agency and the adaptive management group will implement an 

appropriate response strategy to address causal factors not addressed by specific project adaptive 

management strategies, not attributable to a specific project, or to make adjustments at a larger regional 

or state-wide level. 

Hard Triggers

Hard triggers are indicators that management is not achieving desired conservation results. Hard 

triggers would be considered a catastrophic indicator that the species is not responding to conservation 

actions, or that a larger-scale impact is having a negative effect. Hard triggers are focused on three 

metrics: 1) number of active leks, 2) acres of available habitat, and 3) population trends based on annual 

lek counts. Within the context of normal population variables, hard triggers shall be determined to take 

effect when two of the three metrics exceeds 60% of normal variability for the BSU in a single year, or 

when any of the three metrics exceeds 40% of normal variability for a three-year time period within a 

five-year range of analysis. A minimum of three years is used to determine trends, with a five-year 

period preferred to allow determination of three actual time periods (i.e., Y1-2-3, Y2-3-4, Y3-4-5). 

Baseline population estimates are established by pre-disturbance surveys, reference surveys, and account 

for regional and statewide trends in population levels. Population count data in South Dakota are 

maintained by SDGFP. Estimates of population are determined based upon survey protocols determined 

by SDGFP, and are implemented consistently throughout the state. Population counts are tracked for 

individual leks and are then summarized by county and for the state.

Hard Trigger Response

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

deviation from Greater Sage-Grouse conservation objectives set forth in the BLM plans. As such, the 

ARMP includes a “hard-wired” plan-level response; that is, it provides that, upon reaching the trigger, a 

more restrictive alternative, or an appropriate component of a more restrictive alternative analyzed in 

the Proposed RMP and Final EIS, will be implemented without further action by the BLM. Specific “hardwired” changes in management are identified in Table 2-7, Specific Management Responses, below. In 

addition to the specific changes identified in Table 2-7, the BLM will review available and pertinent data, 

in coordination with Greater Sage-Grouse biologists and managers from multiple agencies, including the 

USFWS, NRCS, and the State of South Dakota, to determine the causal factor(s) and implement a 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

2-22 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

Table 2-7

Specific Management Responses

Program Adaptive Management Response1

Sage-Grouse Management Areas within and adjacent to PHMA where a hard trigger has been 

reached would be the top priority for regional mitigation habitat 

restoration and fuels reduction treatments.

Vegetation Management PHMA would be the top priority for regional mitigation, habitat 

restoration, and fuels reduction treatments.

Wildland Fire Management Reassess GRSG habitat needs to determine if priorities for at-risk 

habitats, fuels management areas, preparedness, suppression, and 

restoration have changed.

Livestock Grazing For areas not achieving the GRSG habitat objectives due to grazing, 

apply adjustments to livestock grazing to achieve objectives. Actions 

would include increased monitoring, changes to season of use or 

timing of grazing, changes to livestock numbers and intensity of 

grazing, changes to stocking rates, installation or removal of range 

improvements. 

Rights-of-Way – Existing 

Corridors

ROW avoidance areas. If allowed, placement of proposed ROWs 

next to existing ROWs when feasible. Proposed above ground 

power lines that can be safely buried would be buried. 

Wind Energy Development No wind energy development would be allowed in PHMA as these 

areas are exclusion areas. Wind energy applications could be denied 

in all avoidance areas in GHMA. 

Industrial Solar No solar energy development would be allowed in PHMA as these 

areas are exclusion areas. Solar energy applications could be denied 

in all avoidance areas in GHMA.

Comprehensive Travel and 

Transportation Management

If travel management planning has not been completed within GRSG 

habitat, PHMA areas where the hard trigger was met would be the 

highest priority for future travel management planning efforts.

If travel management has been completed within GRSG habitat in 

the PHMA where the hard trigger was met, re-evaluate designated 

routes to determine their effects on GRSG. If routes are found to 

be causing population-level impacts, revise their designation status 

to reduce the effect.

Fluid Minerals New leases may be deferred and/or additional mitigation required. 

Ongoing operations may be suspended, including wells shut in, until 

the impacts that tripped a hard trigger are resolved. 

Locatable Minerals New operations would be evaluated for impacts and mitigation 

would be required within the limits of BLM’s authority as defined in 

43 CFR, Part 3715 and 43 CFR, Part 3800. 

Salable Minerals BLM may deny application for new permits or additional mitigation 

may be required. Ongoing operations may be suspended until the 

impacts that tripped a hard trigger are resolved. 

Nonenergy Leasable Minerals and 

Coal

BLM may deny new applications for leases, additional mitigation may 

be required. Ongoing operations may be suspended until the 

impacts that tripped a hard trigger are resolved. 

1 The responses listed above would be implemented in a manner that honors valid, existing rights.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 2-23

corrective strategy. The corrective strategy would include the changes identified in Table 2-7 and could 

also include the need to amend or revise the ARMP to address the situation and modify management 

accordingly.

Upon determination that a hard trigger has been tripped, the BLM will immediately defer issuance of 

discretionary authorizations for new actions within the BSU for a period of 90 days. When a hard 

trigger is hit in a BSU, including those that cross state lines, the WAFWA Management Zone Greater 

Sage-Grouse Conservation Team will convene to determine the casual factor(s), put project level 

responses in place, as appropriate, and discuss further appropriate actions to be applied.

In addition to implementing the hard wired plan-level response, in the event that new scientific 

information becomes available demonstrating that the hard-wired response would be insufficient to stop 

a severe deviation from sage-grouse conservation objectives set forth in the BLM plans, the BLM will 

immediately implement a formal directive to protect GRSG and its habitat and to ensure that 

conservation options are not foreclosed. To the extent that it is supported scientifically, this formal 

directive will be drawn from the range of alternatives analyzed in the RMP Amendments/Revisions.

Mitigation for Sage-Grouse Management

Consistent with the Plan’s goal, the intent of the South Dakota ARMP is to provide a net conservation 

gain to the species. In all sage-grouse habitat, in undertaking BLM management actions, and, consistent 

with valid existing rights and applicable law, in authorizing third-party actions that result in sage-grouse 

habitat loss and degradation, the BLM will require and ensure mitigation that provides a net 

conservation gain to the species, including accounting for any uncertainty associated with the 

effectiveness of such mitigation. This will be achieved by avoiding, minimizing, and compensating for 

impacts by applying beneficial mitigation actions.

Actions that result in habitat loss and degradation including those identified as threats which contribute 

to Greater Sage-Grouse disturbance as identified by the USFWS in its 2010 listing decision (75 FR 

13910) and shown in Table 2 in the attached Monitoring Framework (Appendix D). This is also 

consistent with BLM Manual 6840 – Special Status Species Management, Section .02B, which directs BLM 

“to initiate proactive conservation measures that reduce or eliminate threats to Bureau sensitive species 

to minimize the likelihood of the need for listing of these species under the ESA.”

Mitigation Standards. In undertaking BLM management actions, and, consistent with valid existing rights 

and applicable law, in authorizing-third party actions that result in habitat loss and degradation, the BLM 

will require and ensure mitigation that provides a net conservation gain to the species, including 

accounting for any uncertainty associated with the effectiveness of such mitigation. This will be achieved 

by avoiding, minimizing, and compensating for impacts by applying beneficial mitigation actions. Mitigation 

will follow the regulations from the CEQ (40 CFR, Part 1508.20; e.g., avoid, minimize, and compensate), 

hereafter referred to as the mitigation hierarchy. If impacts from BLM management actions and 

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

and minimization measures (i.e., residual impacts), then compensatory mitigation projects will be used to 

provide a net conservation gain to the species. Any compensatory mitigation will be durable, timely, and 

in addition to that which would have resulted without the compensatory mitigation. 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

2-24 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Team. The BLM will establish a WAFWA Management Zone Greater 

Sage-Grouse Conservation Team (hereafter, Team) to help guide the conservation of Greater SageGrouse, within 90 days of the issuance of the ROD. This Team will develop a WAFWA Management 

Zone Regional Mitigation Strategy (hereafter, Regional Mitigation Strategy). The Team will also compile 

and report on monitoring data (including data on habitat condition, population trends, and mitigation 

effectiveness) from States across the WAFWA Management Zone (see Monitoring section). 

Subsequently, the Team will use these data to either modify the appropriate Regional Mitigation Strategy 

or recommend adaptive management actions (see Adaptive Management section).

The BLM will invite governmental and Tribal partners to participate in this Team, including the SDGFP 

and USFWS, in compliance with the exemptions provided for committees defined in the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act and the regulations that implement that act. The BLM will strive for a 

collaborative and unified approach between Federal agencies, Tribal governments, state and local 

government(s), and other stakeholders for Greater Sage-Grouse conservation. The Team will provide 

advice, and will not make any decisions that impact Federal lands. The BLM will remain responsible for 

making decisions that affect Federal lands.

Developing a Regional Mitigation Strategy. The Team will develop a Regional Mitigation Strategy to inform 

the mitigation components of NEPA analyses for BLM management actions and third-party actions that 

result in habitat loss and degradation. The Strategy will be developed within one year of the issuance of 

the ROD. The BLM’s Regional Mitigation Manual MS-1794 will serve as a framework for developing the 

Regional Mitigation Strategy. The Regional Mitigation Strategy will be applicable to the States/Field 

Offices within the WAFWA Management Zone’s boundaries. 

Regional mitigation is a landscape-scale approach to mitigating impacts on resources. This involves 

anticipating future mitigation needs and strategically identifying mitigation sites and measures that can 

provide a net conservation gain to the species. The Regional Mitigation Strategy developed by the Team 

will elaborate on the components identified above (i.e., avoidance, minimization, and compensation; 

additionality, timeliness, and durability). 

In the time period before the Strategy is developed, BLM will consider regional conditions, trends, and 

sites, to the greatest extent possible, when applying the mitigation hierarchy and will ensure that 

mitigation is consistent with the standards set forth in the first paragraph of this section. 

Incorporating the Regional Mitigation Strategy into NEPA Analyses. The BLM will include the avoidance, 

minimization, and compensatory recommendations from the Regional Mitigation Strategy in one or 

more of the NEPA analysis’ alternatives for BLM management actions and third-party actions that result 

in habitat loss and degradation, and the appropriate mitigation actions will be carried forward into the 

decision.

Implementing a Compensatory Mitigation Program. Consistent with the principles identified above, the BLM 

needs to ensure that compensatory mitigation is strategically implemented to provide a net conservation 

gain to the species, as identified in the Regional Mitigation Strategy. To align with existing compensatory 

mitigation efforts, this compensatory mitigation program will be implemented at a State level (as 

opposed to a WAFWA Management Zone, a Field Office, or a Forest), in collaboration with our 

partners (e.g., Federal, Tribal, and State agencies). 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 2-25

To ensure transparent and effective management of the compensatory mitigation funds, the BLM will 

enter into a contract or agreement with a third-party to help manage the State-level compensatory 

mitigation funds, within one year of the issuance of the ROD. The selection of the third-party 

compensatory mitigation administrator will conform to all relevant laws, regulations, and policies. The 

BLM will remain responsible for making decisions that affect Federal lands. Information on BMPs, 

Guidelines and SOPs can be found in Appendix J. RDFs are described in Appendix C. 

Monitoring Framework for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management

The BLM’s planning regulations, specifically 43 CFR, Part 1610.4-9, require that land use plans establish 

intervals and standards for monitoring based on the sensitivity of the resource decisions. Land use plan 

monitoring is the process of tracking the implementation of land use plan decisions (implementation 

monitoring) and collecting data/information necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of land use plan 

decisions (effectiveness monitoring). For GRSG, these types of monitoring are also described in the 

criteria found in the Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (50 

CFR Vol. 68, No. 60). One of the Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing 

Decisions criteria evaluates whether provisions for monitoring and reporting progress on 

implementation (based on compliance with the implementation schedule) and effectiveness (based on 

evaluation of quantifiable parameters) of the conservation effort are provided. The Monitoring 

Framework is located in Appendix D.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

2-26 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

This page intentionally left blank.
September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 3-1

CHAPTER 3

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

3.1 APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN DECISIONS

The ARMP is now the baseline management plan for the SDFO. Once an RMP is approved, a plan may 

be changed through amendment. An amendment is initiated by the need to consider monitoring and 

evaluation findings, new data, new or revised policy, or a change in circumstances. It may also be 

initiated by a proposed action that may change the scope of resource uses or the terms, conditions, and 

decisions of the approved plan. If the BLM were to propose to amend the plan, the process would

follow the same procedure required for preparing and approving the plan, but the focus would be

limited to that portion of the plan being amended (43 CFR, Part 1610.5-5).

The BLM decisions proposed in this document apply only to BLM-administered surface and mineral 

estate acres. This will include the BLM-administered mineral estate that is under private land, which is 

commonly referred to as split-estate. This ARMP does not include planning or management decisions for 

lands or minerals privately owned, owned by the State of South Dakota, owned by local governments, 

or administered by other federal agencies. The management decisions apply to the entire planning area, 

including ACECs and the exemption area, unless otherwise stated in the Special Designations Section for 

each ACEC or sections that specifically address the exemption area.

This ARMP includes Alternative D of the Proposed South Dakota RMP and Final EIS, which was 

published on May 29, 2014. This section describes the management decisions for the SDFO, which 

replace the relevant decisions in the 1986 South Dakota RMP. For a description of the physical, 

biological, cultural, economic and social conditions of the South Dakota planning area, refer to the 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS (BLM 2015), Internet website http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/fo/

south_dakota_field/rmp.html. 

The BLM decisions in this document do not change existing rights or authorizations (e.g., terms and

conditions of existing oil and gas leases or ROWs). However, post-lease actions or authorizations (e.g.,

application for permit to drill [APD], road ROWs, pipeline ROWs) could be subject to mitigation

measures, as necessary. This would be consistent with the decisions, on a case-by-case basis and as

required through project-specific NEPA analysis or other environmental review. The stipulations or

COAs are in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and, if applicable, lease terms.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-2 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

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

decisions contained in this ARMP. All existing operations and activities authorized under permits, 

contracts, cooperative agreements, or other authorizations will be modified, as necessary, to conform 

to this plan within a reasonable time frame. However, this ARMP does not repeal valid existing rights on 

public lands. A valid existing right is a claim or authorization that takes precedence over the decisions 

developed in this plan. If such authorizations come up for review and can be modified, they will also be 

brought into conformance with this plan.

While the Final South Dakota Field Office Plan constitutes compliance with NEPA for the broad-scale 

decisions made in this ARMP, the BLM will continue to prepare environmental assessments (EAs) and 

EISs where appropriate as part of implementation level planning and decision-making.

3.2 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

This section presents the goals, objectives, land use allocations, and management decisions established 

for protecting and preserving resources on public lands managed by the BLM in the SDFO.

This section presents the goals, objectives, land use allocations, and management decisions established 

for protecting and preserving resources on public lands managed by the BLM in the SDFO. These 

management decisions are presented by program area and combine Alternative D and the Decisions

Common to All Alternatives of the South Dakota Proposed RMP and Final EIS (BLM 2015). Refer to 

Section 2 for Management Actions specific to GRSG. . 

3.2.1 Air Resources

Goal 1: Ensure BLM authorizations and management activities protect the local quality of life and sustain 

economic benefits by complying with tribal, local, county, state, and federal air quality regulations, requirements, 

and implementation plans.

Goal 2: Meet federal and state air quality standards.

Management Decisions

MD-1: O&G - CSU: Tier 4 engine requirements for oil and gas drilling and completion activities will be 

addressed through a CSU as follows: Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special 

operating constraint: Ensure that each diesel-fueled non-road engine with greater than 200 horsepower 

(hp) design rating to be used during drilling or completion activities meets one of the following two 

criteria: (1) the engine was manufactured to meet US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)

nitrogen oxides (NOx) emission standards for Tier 4 non-road diesel engines, or (2) the engine emits 

NOx at rates less than or equal to EPA emission standards for Tier 4 non-road diesel engines. Refer to 

Appendix G.

MD-2: All resource uses will be managed to meet the Rangeland Health Standards for air quality

MD-3: Management will protect air quality throughout the planning area by adapting current BMPs and 

developing and applying mitigation measures, when necessary.

MD-4: Coordinate with regulatory agencies to meet air quality standards.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 3-3

MD-5: A Lease Notice will be applied to all leases stating the lessee/operator is given notice that prior 

to project-specific approval, additional air resource analyses may be required in order to comply with 

NEPA, FLPMA, and/or other applicable laws and regulations Refer to Appendix G. 

3.2.2 Climate

Goal 1: Evaluate the observed and anticipated long-term dynamic of climate change and minimize the impact 

of greenhouse gases (GHG) from projects to the degree practicable and reasonably foreseeable.

Goal 2: Provide for diverse, healthy ecosystems that are resilient to stresses such as climate change.

Goal 3: Provide for flexible, adaptable management that allows for timely responses to changing climatic 

conditions.

Goal 4: Maintain or improve the ability of BLM lands to reduce (sequester) atmospheric GHG.

Management Decisions 

MD-1: BLM authorized actions will consider methods to decrease GHG emissions.

MD-2: Priority will be placed on actions that reduce or mitigate GHG emissions by actions such as:

enhanced energy efficiency, use of lower GHG-emitting technologies, or renewable energy, planning for 

carbon capture and sequestration, and the capture or beneficial use of fugitive methane emissions.

MD-3: Promote vegetative capture and storage of carbon, with consideration for resource objectives, 

by implementing Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines and soil, monitoring, and vegetation BMPs 

at the project planning and implementation level (Appendix J).

MD-4: Adjust the timing of BLM authorized activities as needed, to accommodate long-term changes in 

seasonal weather patterns while considering the impacts of adjustments to other resources and 

resource uses.

3.2.3 Soil Resources

Goal 1: Manage uses to minimize soil erosion, sedimentation to water sources, and compaction; and to 

maintain surface soil water infiltration based on site-specific conditions.

Goal 2: Maintain, improve, or restore soil health and productivity while supporting multiple use management.

Goal 3: Soils are stable and provide for capture, storage, and release of water, appropriate to soil type, climate, 

and land form.

Goal 4: Soils are productive and support vegetation that provides forage, wildlife habitat, watershed protection, 

and esthetic characteristic based on soil type.

Management Decisions

MD-1: Vegetation treatments and livestock grazing will be allowed on sensitive soils provided BMPs and 

Guidelines are followed and these activities are conducted in a manner consistent with the vegetation, 

soil and water goals of this plan.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-4 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

Surface disturbing and disruptive activities will be allowed if the project proponent can clearly 

demonstrate that the impacts can be adequately mitigated, relevant BMPs, Guidelines or needed design 

features are included and such activities are conducted in a manner consistent with the vegetation, soil 

and water goals of this plan. Refer to glossary for definition of surface disturbing and disruptive activities.

O&G – CSU: Surface occupancy and use will be controlled on sensitive soils. Prior to surface 

disturbance on sensitive soils, a reclamation plan must be approved by the administrative officer. The 

plan must demonstrate the following: (1) no other practicable alternatives exist for relocating the 

activity, (2) the activity will be located to reduce impacts on soil and water resources, (3) site 

productivity will be maintained or restored, (4) surface runoff and sedimentation will be adequately 

controlled, (5) on- and off-site areas will be protected from accelerated erosion, (6) that no areas 

susceptible to mass wasting will be disturbed and (7) surface-disturbing activities will be prohibited 

during extended wet periods. Waivers, exceptions, and modifications (WEM) are described in 

Appendix G.

Sensitive soils determined using a combination of slope and soil erodibility which includes slopes 25% or 

greater.

MD-2: Sensitive soils are ROWs avoidance areas for all types of ROWs, including renewable energy 

development.

MD-3: Surface disturbing and disruptive activities: Surface disturbing and disruptive activities will be 

allowed in badlands and rock outcrops if the impacts can be adequately mitigated, relevant BMPs, 

Guidelines or needed design features to reduce erosion are included and the activities will not 

compromise the goals of this plan. 

O&G - NSO: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited on badlands and rock outcrop. WEMs described 

in Appendix G.

MD-4: Badland and rock outcrops are ROW avoidance areas.

MD-5: Road and trail restrictions will be used on routes not necessary for management when soil 

health will be adversely impacted. Roads may be closed and reclaimed if necessary. The AO will consult 

with other users outside the BLM to determine which roads and trails should remain open for their 

management and public safety.

MD-6: BMPs will be implemented at a site-specific project level to maintain or improve soil resources 

(Appendix J).

MD-7: BLM will reclaim/reseed disturbed areas as needed to maintain or improve soil health and 

stability.

MD-8: Rangeland Health Standards will be implemented to maintain and conserve soil resources and 

productivity.

MD-9: Authorizations will be denied in areas where erosion could not be effectively 

controlled/mitigated; and reclamation to BLM program-specific standards are likely to be unsuccessful.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 3-5

MD-10: BMPs and Guidelines will include the BMPs described in Appendix J, South Dakota Field 

Office Reclamation Guidelines – Appendix L, South Dakota Field Office Soil Monitoring Guidelines –

Appendix O, and South Dakota Field Office Mitigation Guidelines – Appendices F and K, and SageGrouse Conservation Decisions in Appendices C, F, and J.

MD-11: Mitigation of surface-disturbing or disruptive activities will be applied where needed to 

minimize impacts of human activities in sensitive soils consistent with the stipulations outlined in this 

section.

MD-12: Mitigation measures will be applied on a case-by-case basis during activity level planning if 

review of the project area indicates that sensitive soils are present or will be affected consistent with 

the management decisions and restrictions found in this section and the Guidelines and BMPs listed in 

Appendix J. Exceptions to restriction requirements may be granted by the AO if an environmental 

review demonstrates that effects could be mitigated to an acceptable level. Exceptions may also be 

granted where the short-term effects are mitigated by the long-term benefits (e.g., riparian restoration 

projects, prescribed fire, or vegetation treatments).

3.2.4 Water Resources

Goal 1: Maintain or improve the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of water resources to protect 

designated beneficial uses and achieve water quality standards and guidelines.

Goal 2: Improve watershed function to minimize erosion and accelerated runoff to streams.

Goal 3: Maintain or improve water quality for municipal, industrial, agricultural, biological, recreational and 

residential purposes.

Goal 4: Maintain or improve stream channel shape, form, and function within the natural range of variability to 

allow for hydrological processes that can fully support beneficial uses.

Goal 5: Maintain existing or acquire new water rights on BLM lands to ensure water availability for multiple use 

management while adhering to the State of South Dakota water rights, and other water quality related laws and 

regulations.

Goal 6: Protect ground and surface water quantity and quality.

Goal 7: Meet water quality standards without adversely affecting prior existing water rights and uses and 

protect beneficial uses of water.

Management Decisions

MD-1: Perennial or intermittent streams, 100 year floodplains, wetlands, lakes, ponds, reservoirs and 

riparian areas.

Surface disturbing and disruptive activities will be allowed in in these areas if the project proponent can 

demonstrate that adverse impacts can be adequately mitigated, relevant BMPs, guidelines, conservation 

actions or needed design features are included and the goals of this plan not compromised.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-6 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

Vegetation treatments and livestock grazing will be allowed in these areas provided Standards for 

Rangeland health are met, BMPs and Guidelines are followed.

Projects to improve or maintain resource conditions or recreational opportunities may be allowed in 

these areas pending project level environmental review and mitigation of impacts.

O&G – NSO: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within perennial or intermittent streams, lakes, 

ponds, reservoirs, 100-year floodplains, wetlands, and riparian areas. Applicable WEMs are described in 

Appendix G.

MD-2: Surface disturbing and disruptive activities will be allowed within 300 feet of perennial or 

intermittent streams, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, 100-year floodplains, wetlands, and riparian areas if 

adverse impacts can be adequately mitigated, Mitigation, RDFs, BMPs and Guidelines RDFs (Appendices 

B through G, and I through K) are used and the goals of this plan not compromised. 

Projects to improve or maintain resource conditions or recreational opportunities may be allowed 

pending project level environmental review and mitigation.

O&G - CSU: Surface occupancy and use will be controlled within 300 feet of riparian and/or wetland 

areas. Surface-disturbing activities will require a plan with design features that demonstrate how all 

actions will maintain and/or improve the functionality of riparian/wetland areas. The plan will address: (a) 

potential impacts on riparian and wetland resources, (b) mitigation to reduce impacts to acceptable 

levels (including timing restrictions), (c) post project restoration, and (d) monitoring (the operator must 

conduct monitoring capable detecting early signs of changing riparian and/or wetland conditions). 

Applicable WEMs are described in Appendix G.

MD-3: ROWs in Streams, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, 100-year floodplains, wetlands, and riparian areas. 

Perennial or intermittent streams, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, 100-year floodplains, wetlands, and riparian 

areas will be managed as ROWs avoidance areas for all types of ROWs including renewable energy 

development. Linear ROWs may be allowed across these areas if no other feasible option is available.

BLM will require off site mitigation prior to approving ROWs in these areas.

MD-4: Surface disturbing and disruptive activities will be allowed within State-designated source water 

protection areas (pending consultation with the State and Counties) if adverse impacts can be 

adequately mitigated, relevant soil and water BMPs and Guidelines are followed (Appendices J) and 

water quality will not be adversely impacted.

O&G - NSO: Surface occupancy and use will be prohibited within State-designated Source Water

Protection Areas. WEMs are described in Appendix G. Prior to approval of any WEMs BLM will

consult with the State of South Dakota.

MD-5: ROWs - Source water protection areas will be ROW avoidance areas for renewable energy and 

other types of ROWs.

MD-6: BLM will utilize road and trail restrictions on routes not necessary for management when water 

quality is likely to be adversely impacted. Roads could be closed and reclaimed if necessary. The AO will
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 3-7

consult with the public, including other users and affected parties to determine which roads and trails 

should remain open for their management and public safety.

MD-7: Rangeland Health Standards and BMPs will be implemented to protect beneficial uses of water.

MD-8: Projects (including mining plans) will be reviewed and current BMPs with mitigation measures 

adapted and applied to minimize impacts on water quality (see Appendices J and K).

MD-9: BLM will continue working in coordination with local, county, state, tribal and federal agencies, 

private landowners, water companies and organizations to meet Total Maximum Daily Load goals.

MD-10: Burned areas will be monitored for weed infestations, flow alterations, and accelerated soil 

erosion. Where sedimentation impacts on adjacent streams are likely, erosion will be mitigated.

MD-11: Mitigation of surface-disturbing or disruptive activities will be applied where needed to 

minimize impacts of human activities in riparian areas, 100 year floodplains of rivers, areas with hydric 

soils, water bodies and streams consistent with the management actions and restrictions outlined in this 

section and the Guidelines and BMPs listed in Appendix J. Mitigation measures will be applied on a 

case-by-case basis during activity level planning if the review of the project area indicates that riparian 

areas, 100 year floodplains of major rivers, and water bodies and streams are present or will be affected.

Exceptions to stipulation requirements may be granted by the AO if an environmental review 

demonstrates that effects could be mitigated to an acceptable level. Frequently flooded soils data set 

(NRCS) will be used for initial identification of floodplains and other features unless 100 year flood plains 

are delineated. Exceptions may also be granted where the short-term effects are mitigated by the longterm benefits (e.g., riparian restoration projects, prescribed fire, or vegetation treatments).

3.2.5 Vegetation Communities

Goal 1: Manage public lands to provide plant communities that support the integrity of the ecological processes 

(water, energy, and nutrient cycles) and to provide forage, watershed protection, and a variety of wildlife habitat.

Goal 2: Public lands meet the Dakotas Standards for Rangeland Health (Appendix J).

Goal 3: A variety of habitat is present with a diverse assemblage of native plant communities indicative of the 

Northern Great Plains.

Goal 4: Native plants dominate the planning area and are resistant to invasive plants, noxious weeds, and 

invasive pests.

Goal 5: The abundance of woody vegetation is maintained or improved on those riparian sites that have the 

potential to support woody vegetation.

Goal 6: Stands of oak, aspen, box elder, ash and other hardwoods are maintained and a variety of age classes 

are present.

Goal 7: In Greater sage-grouse PHMA, the desired condition is to maintain all lands ecologically capable of 

producing sagebrush (but no less than 70%) with a minimum of 15% sagebrush cover or as consistent with 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-8 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

specific ecological site conditions. The attributes necessary to sustain these habitats are described in Interpreting 

Indicators of Rangeland Health (BLM Tech Ref 1734-6).

Management Decisions

MD-1: Vegetation treatments used to achieve desired plant communities could include mechanical, 

prescribed fire, chemical treatments, grazing, seeding or planting. Any mechanical treatments within big 

sagebrush habitat crucial to sagebrush obligate species will be carried out to enhance that resource.

MD-2: Conversion of native vegetation to tame pastures will only be allowed to improve, maintain, or 

protect habitat, sensitive soils, riparian vegetation or special status plants or animals during vulnerable 

periods and in cases where alternative forage sources are needed to defer or change livestock grazing 

patterns to reduce disturbance to wildlife. Vegetation type conversion proposals will be evaluated at the 

project level. No more than 1% (2,740 acres) of the public land in the planning area could be converted 

to non-invasive introduced species over the next 20 years.

MD-3: Priority for funding and implementing range improvements will be given to projects that improve 

multiple resources.

MD-4: The use of native species will be the preferred method of revegetating disturbed sites. Noninvasive introduced species that pose little threat of displacing adjacent native vegetative communities 

could be used to restore vegetation including but not limited to the following circumstances:

1) Emergency rehabilitation is needed to control erosion or weed invasion and native seed is 

not available

2) A non-native nurse crop is needed to establish native vegetation

3) The presence of a problematic soil (as defined in glossary) or severe loss of top soil on a 

disturbed site make re-establishment of native vegetation unlikely.

MD-5: BLM will not designate specific sites for plant gathering except in cases when a specific site 

designation is needed to limit impacts on plants or other resources. Plant gathering for incidental use 

will be allowed, except that only above ground gathering will be allowed in the Fort Meade ACEC (refer 

to Section 3, Figure 3-3) and Fossil Cycad ACEC (Refer to Section 3, Figure 3-4) and BLM could 

restrict gathering within areas if an Interdisciplinary Team determines through monitoring that gathering 

is causing negative impacts on resources within gathering areas. 

MD-6: Management decisions on BLM lands will be consistent with achieving the Dakotas Standards for 

Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management (Appendix J).

MD-7: BLM will complete assessments for rangeland health on a priority allotment basis with emphasis 

on allotments with significant acreage of public land, Special Status Species, and resource problems or 

issues (e.g., I and M category allotments).

MD-8: Allocation of forage will be based on benefits to livestock grazing, wildlife, watershed protection, 

and ecological processes.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 3-9

MD-9: Use of forest products, including firewood, posts, poles, saw timber, Christmas trees, and other 

special forest products will be allowed by permit.

MD-10: Gathering of plants and plant parts will be allowed for incidental use unless otherwise 

restricted. Gathering is limited to above ground at the Fort Meade ACEC. This does not apply to fire 

wood gathering. Refer to the Special Designation section for direction specific to ACECs.

MD-11: Old growth forested stands will not be identified; however, characteristics such as large, old 

trees will be considered in treatments. The BLM will manage for multiple age classes of shrubs and trees.

MD-12: Treatments will be designed to decrease the presence of or reduce the susceptibility to 

invasion by invasive plants and pests and noxious weeds. Treat areas that contain cheatgrass and other 

invasive or noxious species to minimize competition and favor establishment of desired species.

MD-13: Riparian and wetland communities, habitat, and associated uplands will be treated and restored 

through implementation of livestock grazing guidelines to meet Dakotas Standards for Rangeland Health 

(Appendix J).

MD-14: Where riparian and wetland areas are already meeting standards they will be maintained in that 

condition or better. Where a site’s capability is less than PFC BLM will manage to achieve or move 

towards capability.

MD-15: Maintain and/or improve desired mix of seral stages within vegetation communities including 

forest and woodlands, grasslands, shrublands and riparian/wetlands.

MD-16: BLM will consider the potential impacts of climate change on disturbed or degraded areas when 

determining the type of reclamation or the seed mix needed for reclamation. 

MD-17: The use of native plant species will be the preferred method used to revegetate or reclaim 

areas. If non-native species are used, the seed mix will be evaluated and approved by an interdisciplinary

team prior to use to ensure that it has a low probability of displacing adjacent native vegetation.

MD-18: Mitigation measures will be applied on a case-by-case basis during activity level planning to 

protect or maintain desired vegetation types including special status plant species consistent with the 

management decisions and restrictions found in this section and the Guidelines and BMPs listed in 

Appendix J. Exceptions to restriction requirements may be granted by the AO if an environmental 

review demonstrates that effects could be mitigated to an acceptable level. Exceptions may also be 

granted where the short-term effects are mitigated by the long-term benefits (e.g., riparian restoration 

projects, prescribed fire, or vegetation treatments).

3.2.6 Noxious Weeds and Other Invasive Non-Native Species

Goal 1: Minimize infestation of noxious weeds.

Goal 2: Reduce existing acres infested by invasive plants and noxious weeds through IPM treatment methods 

including restoration and elimination of new infestations through early detection and rapid response.

Goal 3: New infestations are not common and existing infestations are declining across the landscape.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-10 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

Goal 4: Invasive plants and noxious weeds are not leading to a decrease in acres that are meeting Standards for 

Rangeland Health.

Management Decisions

MD-1: Herbicide treatments limited to spot treatments within suitable nesting or brood rearing habitat, 

within a 3 mile buffer zone, of known sage-grouse leks from March 1-June 30. Exceptions to treatment 

types and dates of treatments may be allowed to address aggressively spreading weeds or invasive plants 

(MT Category 1 weeds) that require aggressive and timely treatment during this period following 

consultation with necessary specialists to minimize impacts on sage-grouse.

MD-2: Herbicide treatments limited to spot treatments within suitable nesting or brood rearing habitat 

of known sage-grouse leks from March 1 – June 30. Exceptions to treatment types and dates of 

treatments may be allowed to address aggressively spreading weeds or invasive plants (MT Category 1 

weeds) that require aggressive and timely treatment during this period following consultation with 

necessary specialists to minimize impacts on sage-grouse.

MD-3: One quarter mile herbicide weed treatment restriction zone around current year active raptor 

nesting site (including bald eagles) from March 1-August 1. Exceptions may be allowed to address 

aggressively spreading weeds or invasive plants (MT Category 1 weeds) that require treatment during 

this period following consultation with necessary specialists for timing of least impacts on raptors.

MD-4: Poisonous plants could be treated, where found, using IPM methods.

MD-5: Listed T&E and sensitive plant species will have a 100 foot herbicide buffer zone. Any herbicides 

applied in this buffer will be applied by spot treatment only unless broadcast treatment will not have 

adverse impacts on such species. Exceptions to treatment types may be allowed to address aggressively 

spreading weeds or invasive plants (MT Category 1 weeds) that require aggressive and timely treatment 

during this period following consultation with necessary specialists to minimize impacts on sensitive 

status species. 

MD-6: BLM will not designate specific sites or areas for native plant gathering except in cases when a 

specific site designation is needed to limit impacts on plants and high value resources (refer to glossary). 

Plant gathering for incidental or casual use will be allowed, except that only above ground gathering will

be allowed in the Fossil Cycad ACEC and Fort Meade ACEC. Gathering of fire wood is allowed through 

a permit or allowed as casual or incidental use (refer to glossary) for camping and other uses if the 

gathering is within casual or incidental use definitions. BLM could restrict gathering in some areas if an 

Interdisciplinary Team determines that gathering is causing negative impacts on resources or gathering is 

likely to adversely impact a special status species plant or plants listed as rare by the state of South 

Dakota. Refer to the Special Designation section for additional information about plant gathering in 

ACECs. Refer to Special status species for information about Special Status Plants. 

MD-7: BLM will work cooperatively, and in coordination with federal, state, and county agencies, 

private landowners, and organizations to prevent and treat invasive plant species, including noxious 

weeds.

MD-8: Use of a combination of IPM methods and treatment practices for weed management.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 3-11

MD-9: Weed management SOPs and BMPs will be included in all new treatment projects and 

incorporated, where possible, into existing contracts, agreements and land use authorizations which 

result in ground disturbing activities (Appendix J).

MD-10: Certified weed seed free forage (hay and grains) straw and mulch will be required for all 

activities when used on BLM lands (exceptions could be made for emergencies when approved by the 

BLM AO).

MD-11: Reestablish perennial vegetation using native species in rehabilitation and reclamation unless 

site-specific evaluations indicate that non-native species are needed to ensure success or rapid 

vegetation reestablishment. If non-native species are used, the seed mix will be evaluated by an 

interdisciplinary team prior to use to ensure that it has a low probability of displacing adjacent native 

vegetation.

MD-12: Monitoring will evaluate weed management activities at project and field office levels.

MD-13: Provide information and educational material to the public.

MD-14: Mitigation measures will be applied on a case-by-case basis during activity level planning if 

review of the project indicates a potential to spread or introduce invasive species consistent with the 

management decisions and restrictions found in this section and the Guidelines and BMPs listed in 

Appendix J.

MD-15: Exceptions to weed and invasive species control restrictions will be allowed in cases where 

noxious weeds or other invasive species are rapidly spreading or invading and immediate action is 

needed for control provided the long-term impacts on the species being protected is minor. All 

herbicide, insecticide, and pesticide applications will be completed in accordance with label restrictions.

3.2.7 Invasive Terrestrial Animals and Insect Species

Goal 1: Manage invasive terrestrial animal and insect species, and state and locally declared pests. Reduce 

acres and/or density of infestations by invasive species through prevention, early detection and rapid response, 

and provide education opportunities for public land users.

Goal 2: Infestations are not common across the landscape.

Management Decisions

MD-1: Invasive terrestrial species, could be treated using IPM methods, as required by federal, state, 

and local laws, statutes and regulations, or if they are causing economic or environmental harm, or harm 

to human health.

MD-2: State or locally declared pests could be treated using IPM methods, if consultation reveals that 

serious, economic or environmental harm, or harm to human health, may occur.

MD-3: All treatments will be designed to decrease the presence of, or reduce the susceptibility of 

invasion/outbreaks of invasive pests while minimizing adverse impacts on non-target species.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-12 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

MD-4: Grasshopper/Mormon Cricket outbreaks will be managed in cooperation with the United States 

Dept. of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service/Plant Protection and 

Quarantine (APHIS/PPQ).

MD-5: All insecticide and pesticide applications will be completed in accordance with label restrictions.

3.2.8 Invasive Aquatic Species

Goal 1: Keep the aquatic environment free from invasive aquatic species. Prevent the introduction of invasive 

species into the aquatic environment through education of public land users on prevention, early detection, rapid 

response, control, management and restoration.

Goal 2: All lentic (lakeshore/wetland) and lotic (river/stream) areas remain free from invasive aquatic species.

Management Decisions

MD-1: Invasive aquatic species could be treated using IPM methods, as required by federal, state, and 

local laws, statutes and regulations, or if they are causing or have the potential to cause economic or 

environmental harm, or harm to human health.

MD-2: Provide information and educational material to the public.

MD-3: Utilize IPM concepts while working within federal, state laws, statutes, and regulations to 

minimize infestations of invasive aquatic species.

MD-4: BMPs will be included in all new treatment projects, and incorporated, where possible, into 

existing contracts, agreements, and land use authorizations that will potentially result in the introduction 

or spread of invasive aquatic species.

MD-5: All herbicide, insecticide, and pesticide applications will be completed in accordance with label 

restrictions.

3.2.9 Wildlife

Goal 1: Ensure that native wildlife species are provided habitat of sufficient quality and quantity to enhance 

biological diversity and sustain their economic, social and ecological values.

Goal 2: Provide habitat and forage to support wildlife with consideration of South Dakota Wildlife Action Plan 

game management goals and the Northern Great Plains Joint Venture Program.

Goal 3: Improve the resilience of wildlife habitats to protect wildlife communities from stressors and events such 

as severe wildfire and climate change

Goal 4: Movement of big game species between habitats will be facilitated.

Goal 5: Ensure that a full spectrum of biological communities’ habitats and their ecological processes are 

present.

Goal 6: Ensure that populations of native plants and animals are well distributed across the landscape.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 3-13

Goal 7: Provide suitable habitat condition to allow for movement between blocks of habitat and seasonal and 

specialized habitats on a local and landscape scale.

Goal 8: Maintain or improve specialized habitats on a local and landscape scale.

Management Decisions

MD-1: Any mechanical and vegetation treatments within big sagebrush habitat crucial to sagebrush 

obligate species will be evaluated at the project level by an interdisciplinary team to protect that 

resource.

MD-2: Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities within 2 miles of the perimeter of sharp-tailed grouse 

leks will be subject to a plan approved by BLM that provides adequate mitigation measures and 

conservation actions to protect breeding, nesting, and brood-rearing habitats and limit disturbance in a 

manner that will support the long-term populations associated with the lek and surrounding habitat. 

O&G - CSU: Oil and gas leasing within 2 miles of a lek will be subject to a plan approved by BLM that 

provides adequate mitigation measures and conservation actions to protect breeding, nesting, and 

brood-rearing habitats and limit disturbance in a manner that will support the long-term populations 

associated with the lek and surrounding habitat. WEMs are described in Appendix G. 

MD-3: A TL Decision was considered to be unnecessary because of the stipulation provided in MD-2. 

MD-4: Public lands within 2 miles of sharp-tailed grouse and greater prairie-chicken leks will be an 

avoidance area for all types of ROWs including renewable energy ROWs.

MD-5: Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities: Structures over 10 feet that create raptor perches 

will not be authorized or will require anti-perch devices within the 2 mile buffer of sharp-tailed grouse 

and greater prairie-chicken leks to protect nesting habitat. 

O&G – CSU: Structures that are over 10 feet in height that create raptor perches will not be authorized 

or will require anti-perch devices within the 2 mile buffer of sharp-tailed grouse and greater prairiechicken leks.

MD-6: New power lines will be sited and designed in a manner which does not impact sharp-tailed 

grouse or greater prairie-chickens within a 2 mile buffer of leks.

O&G - CSU: Power lines must be buried, designed or sited in a manner which does not impact sharptailed grouse or greater prairie-chickens within a 2 mile buffer of leks.

MD-7: Surface disturbing and disruptive activities within big game winter range will be subject to a plan 

approved by BLM that provides adequate mitigation measures and conservation actions to protect 

habitat and limit disturbance in a manner that will support the long-term populations associated with the 

winter range. 

O&G – CSU: Prior to surface occupancy and use a plan shall be prepared by the proponent as a 

component of the APD, Sundry Notice, etc. and approved by the AO with confirmation from the state 

wildlife management agency. The operator shall not initiate surface-disturbing activities unless the AO
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-14 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

has approved the plan. The plan must demonstrate to the AO’s satisfaction the function and suitability of 

the habitat will not be impaired. WEMs are described in Appendix G.

MD-8: Big game winter range will be an avoidance area for commercial renewable energy development 

and other ROWs.

MD-9: Surface disturbing and disruptive activities will not be allowed within 1⁄4 mile of raptor nest sites 

active within the preceding 7 years unless the project proponent can clearly demonstrate that the

impacts can be adequately mitigated, relevant conservation actions or needed design features are 

included and the goals of this plan not compromised.

O&G – NSO: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1⁄4 mile of raptor nest sites active within 

the preceding 7 years.

MD-10: Surface disturbing and disruptive activities will be avoided within 1⁄2 mile of active raptor nests 

from March 1 through July 31. 

O&G – TL: Surface use is prohibited within 1⁄2 mile of active raptor nest sites from March 1 through 

July 31.

MD-11: Areas within 1⁄4 mile of raptor nests active within the preceding 7 years will be an exclusion 

area for renewable energy ROWs and an avoidance areas for other types of ROWs.

MD-12: One quarter mile weed treatment restriction zone around current year active raptor nesting 

site from March 1-August 1.

MD-13: Snag and cavity bearing tree cutting, removal, and offer for sale or utilization will be allowed for 

public safety, salvage post fire, and/or in response to other resource needs.

MD-14: Limit activities that will destroy or degrade traditional high value roost sites for wild turkeys.

Retain 10 inch or larger diameter at breast height trees in groups of 3 to 6 that have roost tree 

characteristics on slopes and ridges to provide roost sites for turkeys within ponderosa pine habitat.

MD-15: Changes in livestock conversions from cattle to domestic sheep or goats will not be allowed in 

allotments within current or SDGFP proposed bighorn sheep range. Transfer of grazing preference will

only be allowed to livestock types other than domestic sheep and goats within occupied or proposed 

bighorn sheep range.

New domestic sheep and goat allotments or conversions from cattle to domestic sheep or goats will be 

permitted a minimum of 15 miles from known bighorn sheep range. This distance (buffer) will be greater 

if deemed necessary through site-specific analysis and additional research findings.

To minimize contact with bighorn sheep, domestic sheep and goats used for weed control within 10 

miles of bighorn sheep range will only occur with coordination with SDGFP.

MD-16: Surface disturbing and disruptive activities will be allowed in occupied or SDGFP proposed 

bighorn sheep habitat provided any adverse impacts on bighorn sheep can be adequately mitigated, 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 3-15

relevant conservation actions or needed design features are included and the goals of this plan and the 

SDGFP bighorn sheep plan (2007) are not compromised.

O&G – NSO: Surface occupancy and use will not be allowed in occupied or SDGFP proposed bighorn 

sheep range. 

MD-17: Occupied or SDGFP proposed bighorn sheep range will be a ROW avoidance area for 

renewable energy and other types of ROWs.

MD-18: Any Conversion of vegetation type from tame pasture to native vegetation or from native 

vegetation to tame pasture (introduced species) will be allowed when needed to protect, maintain or 

improve wildlife habitat, sensitive soils, riparian vegetation and control weeds/invasive species.

Vegetation type conversion proposals will be evaluated at the project level to protect wildlife habitat 

and watershed resources (e.g., sagebrush habitat important to sagebrush obligate species). No more 

than one percent of BLM administered public land in the planning area will be converted from native 

species to introduced species.

MD-19: Priority for funding and implementing range improvements will be given to improve multiple 

resources.

MD-20: Surface disturbing and disruptive activities will not be allowed within 1⁄4 mile of colonial nesting 

water bird colonies unless the project proponent can clearly demonstrate that the impacts can be 

adequately mitigated, relevant conservation actions or needed design features are included and the goals 

of this plan not compromised.

O&G – NSO: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1⁄4 mile of water bird nesting colonies. 

MD-21: Surface disturbing and disruptive activities will not be allowed within 1⁄2 mile of colonial nesting 

water bird colonies from April 1 through July 15 unless the project proponent can clearly demonstrate 

that the impacts can be adequately mitigated, relevant conservation actions or needed design features 

are included and the goals of this plan not compromised.

O&G – TL: Surface disturbing and disruptive activities will be prohibited within 1⁄2 mile of water bird 

nesting colonies from April 1 through July 15.

MD-22: Areas within 1⁄2 mile of colonial water bird nesting colonies will be exclusion areas for 

Renewable Energy ROWs. 

ROWs - Areas within 1⁄2 mile of colonial water bird nesting colonies will be avoidance areas for other 

types of ROWs. 

MD-23: New fences will follow BLM specifications (BLM Handbook 1741-1 and Washington Office 

(WO)-IM-2010-022) to allow for wildlife passage and located or marked as feasible to minimize 

collisions and other wildlife issues, except for fences built specifically to keep wildlife out of an area.

MD-24: Existing fences will be reviewed to identify areas where fence modification or removal could be 

implemented to improve wildlife movement problems.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-16 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

MD-25: BMPs (Appendix J) including oil and gas BMPs for wildlife will be used to reduce impacts on

wildlife.

MD-26: Functional wildlife escape ramps will be installed and maintained on all water tanks on BLM 

lands.

MD-27: SDGFP Bat Management Plan (2004) will be implemented and mine openings inventoried for 

bat use prior to closing with public safety in mind.

MD-28: Retain a minimum of two existing snags greater than 16 in diameter at breast height (DBH) and 

30 ft. tall per acre, unless a safety hazard exists. Salvage or felling of dead or dying trees will be 

acceptable.

MD-29: Coordinate with other federal, state and private land management agencies in developing a 

habitat management plan.

MD-30: BLM authorized activities will actively manage for multiple ecosystems and a variety of habitat 

conditions for non-game mammals, migratory, and grassland birds.

MD-31: Follow current “Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines” (APLIC 2012) for all land use 

authorizations (summarized in Appendix J).

MD-32: Existing power lines identified for electrocution problems for wildlife on public lands will be 

modified to prevent wildlife electrocution.

MD-33: Fuels treatments will be designed to protect and/or improve wildlife habitat.

MD-34: Manage water developments to reduce the spread of West Nile virus through type, design, and 

siting of water developments (refer to Appendix C and F).

MD-35: Predator control will be permitted subject to the stipulations outlined in the annual Animal 

Damage Control MOU between BLM and USDA-APHIS

MD-36: Identify distribution, key habitat areas, and special management needs for development of 

management plans and conservation measures with emphasis on riparian/wetland areas, cottonwood 

galleries, native grasslands, sagebrush steppe, woody draws and seasonal ranges supporting life cycle 

requirements for wildlife.

MD-37: Mitigation of activities including surface-disturbing or disruptive activities will be applied where 

needed to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce or compensate for impacts of human activities to wildlife or 

wildlife habitat consistent with the management decisions and restrictions found in this section and the 

Guidelines and BMPs listed in Appendix J. Mitigation measures will be applied on a case-by-case basis 

during activity level planning if review of the project area indicates wildlife will be affected. Exceptions to 

stipulation requirements may be granted by the AO if an environmental review demonstrates that 

effects could be mitigated to an acceptable level. Exceptions may also be granted where the short-term 

effects are mitigated by the long-term benefits (e.g., riparian restoration projects, prescribed fire, or 

vegetation treatments).
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 3-17

The sequence of mitigation action will be:

Step 1. Avoid - Adverse impacts on resources are to be avoided and no action shall be 

permitted if there is a practicable alternative with less adverse impact.

Step 2. Minimize - If impacts on resources cannot be avoided, appropriate and practicable steps 

to minimize adverse impacts must be taken.

Step 3. Compensate - Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for 

unavoidable adverse impacts which remain. The amount and quality of compensatory mitigation 

may not substitute for avoiding and minimizing impacts.

3.2.10 Special Status Species

Goal 1: Ensure the long-term and self-sustaining persistence of special status species in South Dakota.

Goal 2: Protect/maintain populations of special status species by minimizing direct mortality and impacts on

habitat.

Goal 3: Provide suitable habitat condition to allow for movement between large blocks of habitat and seasonal 

and specialized habitats on a local and landscape scale.

Goal 4: Maintain or improve specialized habitats on a local and landscape scale.

Goal 5: Maintain and/or increase sage-grouse abundance and distribution by conserving, enhancing or restoring 

the sagebrush ecosystem upon which populations depend in cooperation with other conservation partners. 

Goal 6: Refer to Section 2 GRSG goals in Section 2.

Goal 7: Manage for the biological integrity and habitat suitability to facilitate the conservation, recovery, and 

maintenance of populations of plants, fish and wildlife to avoid contributing to the listing of or jeopardizing the 

continued existence or recovery of special status species and their habitats. 

Goal 8: Maintain or enhance areas of ecological importance for special status wildlife species.

Goal 9: Conserve and recover special status wildlife species by determining and implementing conservation 

strategies including restoration opportunities, use restrictions, and management decisions.

Goal 10: Manage specific environmental hazards, risks, and impacts in a manner compatible with special status 

wildlife species health.

Goal 11: Identify habitat thresholds necessary to sustain well-distributed healthy populations of special status 

species to avoid future listings under the ESA.

Goal 12: Develop and implement the BMPs, activity plans, or use other mechanisms to protect high priority 

special status wildlife species.

Goal 13: Manage special status species in consideration of the working landscape and the intermingled land 

ownership pattern that is present.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-18 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

Goal 14: Across the planning area, maintain sagebrush cover at levels at or near the full potential for the each 

ecological site.

Goal 15: Refer to Section 2 GRSG goals section in Section 2.

Goal 16: In all PHMA, the desired condition is to maintain all lands ecologically capable of producing sagebrush 

(but no less than 70%) with a minimum of 15% sagebrush canopy or as consistent with specific ecological site 

conditions. The attributes necessary to sustain these habitats are described in Interpreting Indicators of 

Rangeland Health (BLM Tech Ref 1734-6).

Management Decisions

Refer to Section 2 for Management Decision for GRSG. 

MD-1 Special Status Raptors: Surface disturbing and disruptive activities will not be allowed within 

1⁄2 mile of known bald eagles nests active within the preceding 5 breeding seasons unless the project 

proponent can clearly demonstrate that the impacts can be adequately mitigated, relevant conservation 

actions or needed design features are included and the goals of this plan not compromised. 

O&G – NSO: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1⁄2 mile of bald eagle nest sites active 

within the preceding 5 years. WEMs are described in Appendix G.

MD-2 Bald Eagles: Renewable Energy ROWs: Public lands within 1⁄2 mile of bald eagle nests will be an 

exclusion area. 

Other types of ROWs: Public lands within 1⁄2 mile of bald eagle nests will be an avoidance area.

MD-3 Bald and Golden Eagles: No weed treatments from 3/1- 8/1 within a 1⁄4 mile buffer zone 

around active bald and golden eagle nesting sites. Exceptions to treatment restrictions may be allowed 

to address aggressively spreading weeds or invasive plants (MT Category 1 weeds) that require 

aggressive and timely treatment during this period following consultation with necessary specialists to 

minimize impacts on eagles.

MD-4 Peregrine Falcons: Surface disturbing and disruptive activities will not be allowed within 1 mile 

of identified peregrine falcon nesting sites active within the preceding 7 breeding seasons unless the 

project proponent can clearly demonstrate that the impacts can be adequately mitigated, relevant 

conservation actions or needed design features are included and the goals of this plan not compromised.

Other surface occupancy and permitted uses could be limited at the project level.

O&G – NSO: NSO or use within 1mile of peregrine nesting sites active within the preceding 7 breeding 

seasons. WEMs are described in Appendix G.

MD-5 Peregrine Falcons: Renewable Energy ROWs: Public lands within 1⁄2 mile of peregrine falcon 

nests will be an exclusion area. Other types of ROWs: Public lands within 1⁄2 mile of peregrine falcon 

nests will be an avoidance area.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 3-19

MD-6 Special Status Raptors: Surface disturbing and disruptive activities will be avoided within 1⁄4 

mile of sensitive and special status raptor nest sites that were active within the last 7 years (eagles and 

peregrine falcons are addressed separately).

O&G – NSO: NSO or use within 1⁄4 mile of special status raptor nests.

MD-7 Special Status Raptors: Surface disturbing and disruptive activities will be avoided within 1⁄2 

mile of active special status raptor nests from March 1 through July 31. Peregrine falcons and bald eagle 

will be addressed separately.

O&G – TL: Surface use is prohibited within 1⁄2 mile of active raptor nest sites from March 1 through 

July 31

MD-8 Special Status Raptors: Renewable Energy ROWs: Areas within 1⁄4 miles of nest of special 

status raptors active within the preceding 7 years will be an exclusion area. Other types of ROWs: 

Areas within 1⁄4 miles of nest of special status raptors active within the preceding 7 years will be an 

avoidance area.

MD-9 Special Status Raptors: One quarter mile weed treatment restriction zone around current 

year active raptor nests from March 1-July 31. Exceptions to treatment types and dates of treatments 

may be allowed to address aggressively spreading weeds or invasive plants (MT Category 1 weeds) that 

require aggressive and timely treatment during this period following consultation with necessary 

specialists to minimize impacts.

Management Decisions (10-33) for GRSG are located in Section 2. 

MD–33 Grassland and migratory birds: Prescribed burning will be allowed to achieve measurable 

landscape level objectives from:

 other resources, including, but not limited to forestry, wildlife, range, vegetation, and 

watershed - the reduction of hazardous fuels (public safety)

 the introduction of fire into fire adapted ecosystems

Prescribed fire may be allowed in Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA and general habitat if it is done solely for 

the purposes of improving or maintaining sage-grouse habitat.

MD-34 Piping Plover: Surface disturbing and disruptive activities will not be allowed within 1⁄4 miles of 

wetlands identified as piping plover habitat unless the project proponent can clearly demonstrate that 

the impacts can be adequately mitigated, relevant conservation actions or needed design features are 

included and the goals of this plan not compromised.

O&G - NSO: Surface occupancy and use will be prohibited within 1⁄4 mile of piping plover habitat. WEMs 

are described in Appendix G.

MD-35 Piping Plover: Public lands within 1⁄4 mile of wetlands or associated habitats identified as piping 

plover habitat will be an exclusion area for renewable energy development and other ROWs.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-20 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

MD-36 Least Tern: Surface disturbing and disruptive activities will not be allowed within 1⁄4 mile of 

wetlands identified as interior least tern habitat unless the project proponent can clearly demonstrate 

that the impacts can be adequately mitigated, relevant conservation actions or needed design features 

are included and the goals of this plan not compromised. 

O&G - NSO: Surface occupancy and use will be prohibited with 1⁄4 miles of interior least tern habitat. 

WEMs are described in Appendix G.

MD-37 Least Tern: Public lands within 1⁄4 mile of wetlands or associated habitats identified as least 

tern habitat will be an exclusion area for commercial renewable energy development and other ROWs.

MD-38 Sprague’s Pipit: Surface disturbing and disruptive activities will not be allowed in moderate to 

high potential Sprague’s Pipit habitat from April 15 to July 15 unless the project proponent can clearly 

demonstrate that the impacts can be adequately mitigated, relevant conservation actions or needed 

design features are included and the goals of this plan not compromised.

O&G - A lease notice will be attached to all leases in documented or potential habitat for Sprague’s 

Pipit. The lease notice will notify the lease holder that mitigation and conservation actions may be 

required including a limit on exploration and development from April 15 to July 15.

MD-39 Sprague’s Pipit: Moderate to high potential habitat for Sprague’s Pipit will be ROWs 

avoidance areas for all types of ROWs.

MD-40 Prairie dogs: Prairie dog colonies that occur entirely on public land will be managed for their 

wildlife, recreational and other values. Treatment will only be considered if they are determined to be 

adversely impacting resources on public land or causing threats to public safety. 

MD-41 Prairie dogs: Treatment of any prairie dog colony that exists on both public and private land 

will be considered through project level planning when the adjoining landowner is controlling the prairie 

dogs on their land.

MD-42 Prairie dogs: Prairie dogs could be considered for reintroduction on historic colonies or large 

unfragmented blocks of public and cooperating adjoining land owners with a minimum of 10,000 or 

more acres of public land, if acquired, with a 1 mile buffer from adjoining private land, and while 

considering other resources and uses.

MD-43 Prairie dogs: Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities will be allowed within prairie dog 

colonies provided that adequate mitigation and conservation actions are developed to maintain the 

functionality of the prairie dog habitat.

O&G – CSU: Oil and gas leasing will be open and surface occupancy and use on prairie dog colonies will

be allowed provided adequate mitigation and conservation actions are implemented to maintain the 

functionality of the prairie dog habitat. WEMs are described in Appendix G.

MD-44 Prairie dogs: Prairie dog colonies will be ROWs avoidance areas.

MD-45 Prairie dogs: BLM may limit treatment of prairie dogs as needed to protect overall prairie dog 

populations or other resources.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 3-21

MD-46 Black-footed ferret: Surface disturbing and disruptive activities will not be allowed in 

occupied black-footed ferret habitat. Currently suitable habitat is not present on BLM public lands in the 

planning area. However, potential habitat does exist and may be occupied in the future.

O&G - NSO: Surface occupancy and use will be prohibited within 1⁄4 mile of occupied black-footed 

ferret habitat. WEMs are described in Appendix G.

MD-47 Black-footed ferret: Occupied black-footed ferret habitat will be a ROW exclusion area.

MD-48 Bats: Bat gates or other suitable measures will be used to protect bats and bat habitat unless 

public health and safety would be sacrificed.

MD-49: Surface disturbing and disruptive activities will be avoided within 1⁄4 mile of the water’s edge of 

the Missouri River to protect pallid and shovel-nosed sturgeon.

O&G – NSO: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1⁄4 mile of the water’s edge of the Missouri 

River to protect pallid and shovel-nosed sturgeon. WEMs are described in Appendix G.

MD-50 Pallid and Shovel Nosed Sturgeon: Areas within 1⁄4 miles of the water’s edge of the 

Missouri River will be ROW avoidance areas. to protect pallid and shovel-nosed sturgeon.

MD-51 Special Status Plants: Livestock grazing in areas with high concentration of special status 

plants will not be allowed unless no adverse impacts would occur as determined through site-specific 

review by interdisciplinary team.

MD-52 American Dipper: Evaluate all actions along Whitewood Creek and limit any actions that 

could decrease water flows and quality to maintain American dipper habitat.

MD-53 Habitat: Special Status Species and their habitat will be given special consideration before any 

actions are taken.

MD-53 Use of BMPs and Guidelines: BMPs and Guidelines including Oil and Gas BMPs for Wildlife 

will be used to reduce impacts on Special Status Species.

MD-54 Inventory: Inventory potential habitat used by BLM special status species.

MD-55 Unoccupied habitat: If unoccupied habitat for special status species exists, BLM will work 

with other agencies, stakeholders, and partners to analyze proposals to reintroduce species while 

considering other resources and uses.

MD-56 Mitigation for GRSG: The mitigation and conservation measures for sage-grouse (Appendix 

F) will be used to mitigate impacts from surface disturbance and disruptive activities in priority and 

general sage-grouse habitat in order to meet the goals and objectives set forth in this ARMP and the 

BLM National Sage-grouse Conservation Strategy.

MD-57 Fences in GRSG habitat: New fences will be located to avoid sage-grouse leks and winter 

range and/or marked if these areas cannot be avoided.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-22 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

MD-58 West Nile virus in GRSG habitat: Manage water developments to reduce the spread of 

West Nile virus within sage-grouse habitat areas (especially for those water impoundments where water 

levels are artificially maintained).

MD-59 Fence hazards and GRSG: Install reflectors on fences for sage-grouse where appropriate.

MD-60 Water development and West Nile virus: Manage water developments to reduce the 

spread of West Nile virus within sage-grouse habitat areas.

MD-61 Avian collisions with power lines: Follow current “Reducing Avian Collisions with Power 

Lines” (APLIC 2012) for all land use authorizations.

MD-62 Hazards from overhead lines: Existing overhead lines that are determined to be a major 

hazard to wildlife will be modified to reduce or eliminate the hazard.

MD-63 Prairie dog control: Prairie dog control will consider impacts on wildlife species associated 

with prairie dog colonies.

MD-64 Movement and genetic diversity of GRSG: Within sage-grouse habitat, BLM will maintain 

habitat for sage-grouse subpopulations to promote movement and genetic diversity. Maintain, restore or 

enhance sage-grouse habitat and connectivity between sagebrush habitats, with emphasis on those 

habitats occupied by sage-grouse.

MD-65 Habitat restoration for GRSG: Within sage-grouse habitat, BLM will evaluate areas for 

habitat restoration or enhancement potential. Specific restoration or enhancement actions will be 

determined at the project (implementation) level. 

MD-66 Special Status Species Habitat: Where suitable conservation actions cannot be achieved, 

seek to acquire state and private lands with intact subsurface mineral estate by donation, purchase or 

exchange in order to best conserve, enhance or restore sage-grouse habitat.

MD-67 Recovery plans: The ARMP incorporates existing recovery plans, management strategies, and 

guidelines for federally listed T&E species. State management plans will be considered for delisted 

species.

MD-68 Mitigation for GRSG: When mitigation for sage-grouse is necessary, BLM will prioritize 

mitigation in priority sage-grouse habitat areas (dependent upon the area-specific ability to increase 

sage-grouse populations; Appendix F).

MD-69 Migratory birds: To insure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, surface disturbing 

and disruptive activities will be avoided from April 15 to July 15 and a Migratory Bird Treaty Act lease 

notice attached to all new leases (Refer to Appendix G).

MD-70 Mitigation: Mitigation of activities including surface-disturbing or disruptive activities will be 

applied where needed to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce or compensate for the impacts of human 

activities to special status species or special status species habitat consistent with the management 

actions and restrictions found in this section and the Guidelines and BMPs listed in Appendix J of the 

South Dakota ARMP. Mitigation measures will be applied on a case-by-case basis during activity level 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 3-23

planning if review of the project area indicates special status species are present or would be affected.

Exceptions to stipulation requirements may be granted by the AO if an environmental review 

demonstrates that effects could be mitigated to an acceptable level. Exceptions may also be granted 

where the short-term effects are mitigated by the long-term benefits (e.g., riparian restoration projects, 

prescribed fire, or vegetation treatments).

The sequence of mitigation action will be:

Step 1. Avoid - Adverse impacts on resources are to be avoided and no action shall be permitted if there 

is a practicable alternative with less adverse impact.

Step 2. Minimize - If impacts on resources cannot be avoided, appropriate and practicable steps to 

minimize adverse impacts must be taken.

Step 3. Compensate - Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable 

adverse impacts which remain. The amount and quality of compensatory mitigation may not substitute 

for avoiding and minimizing impacts.

3.2.11 Fish and Aquatics

Goal 1: Ensure that aquatic habitat is of suitable quality to support a diversity of plant and animal communities.

Goal 2: Promote public awareness, appreciation, and fisheries conservation, management and ecology.

Management Decisions

MD-1: Increase fishing opportunities by development of ponds or reservoirs dependent upon water 

availability and dam constraints.

MD-2: Maintain aquatic habitat and fishing opportunities. Periodic stocking will be allowed by SDGFP or 

BLM.

MD-3: The fisheries habitat in Bear Butte and Whitewood Creek will be improved where feasible.

MD-4: Surface disturbing and disruptive activities will be avoided within 1⁄4 mile of reservoirs with sport 

fisheries.

O&G – NSO: Surface occupancy and use will be prohibited within 1⁄4 mile of designated reservoirs with 

fisheries. WEMs are described in Appendix G.

MD-5: Public lands within 1⁄4 mile of reservoirs with sport fisheries will be an avoidance area for 

renewable energy development and other ROWs except that proposals will be considered for 

implementing individual ROW linear crossings if no other feasible crossing location can be found. If BLM 

allows a ROW crossing of the avoidance area, off site mitigation may be required.

MD-6: Additional water sources and opportunities to maintain or increase water levels will be 

developed to benefit wildlife, fisheries, other aquatic species and livestock.

MD-7: Evaluate all projects for aquatic habitat potential.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-24 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

MD-8: Aquatic stream/river surveys and monitoring will occur to collect baseline and trend data to 

evaluate the existing condition. This information is needed for determining the effects from other 

management on aquatic resources, mitigation and protection measures and identifying habitat 

restoration needs.

MD-9: Survey and monitoring will include (1) fish (2) Macro-invertebrates (3) water quality (4) instream 

habitat (5) riparian habitat.

MD-10: Fishing reservoirs will be surveyed/monitored as needed for fish, riparian, emergent vegetation, 

reservoir condition, water quality, water depth, and condition of access.

MD-11: BLM roads/trail crossings and ROW on fish bearing streams will be made fish and aquatic 

species passable.

MD-12: All fishing reservoirs will be maintained as a fishery as long as BLM and SDGFP determine that 

it is a viable fishery.

MD-13: Coordinate with SDGFP, other agencies and general public on the educational public fishing 

days and other aquatic educational opportunities.

MD-14: Develop habitat structures in reservoirs that are lacking structure or need restoration for 

aquatic species.

MD-15: Coordinate with SDGFP prior to fisheries improvements.

MD-16: Utilize IPM concepts while working within federal, state laws, statutes, and regulations to 

minimize infestations of invasive aquatic species.

3.2.12 Cultural Resources

Refer to the Special Designation Section for additional Goals and Management Decisions for ACECs. 

Goal 1: Identify, preserve, and protect significant cultural resources and ensure that they are available for 

appropriate uses by present and future generations.

Goal 2: Seek to reduce imminent threats and resolve potential conflicts from natural or human-caused 

deterioration or potential conflict with other resource uses by identifying priority geographic areas for new field 

inventory, based on a probability for unrecorded significant resources.

Management Decisions

MD-1: Conduct up to 400 acres of Section 110 cultural inventories per year.

MD-2: Bear Butte National Historic Landmark (NHL) (410 Acres federal minerals) will be 

recommended for withdrawal, while leasable federal minerals and salable federal minerals will be closed 

(no lease).

MD-3: Standard lease conditions (Appendix G) will protect areas within and around cultural sites, 

Native American traditional use areas/Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP), and 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 3-25

Archaeological/Historic Districts that are eligible or potentially eligible for the National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP). 

Protective buffers include:

Surface-disturbing activities will not be allowed within and for a distance of 300 feet from the boundaries 

of cultural properties and archaeological/historic districts determined to be eligible or potentially eligible 

for the NRHP.

O&G – NSO: Surface-disturbing activities will not be allowed within and for a distance of 300 feet from 

the boundaries of cultural properties and archaeological/historic districts determined to be eligible or 

potentially eligible for the NRHP. Standard lease conditions will not allow Surface Occupancy and Use 

within, and for a distance of 1⁄2 mile from the boundaries of cultural properties determined to be of 

importance to Native American Tribal groups, sites determined to be TCPs, and/or designated for 

traditional use. Such properties include (but are not limited to) burial locations, pictograph/petroglyph, 

vision quest locations, certain stone alignments, buttes or other uplift type landforms, plant gathering 

locations, and areas considered sacred or used for religious purposes.

MD-4: The BHAD will be closed to oil and gas leasing due to public safety concerns (see Hazardous 

Materials section). The abandoned town site of Igloo and adjacent NRHP Eligible Historic Property lands 

will have NSO restrictions. WEMs are described in Appendix G. The BHAD and Igloo town site will

be closed to salable minerals, but open to locatable mineral development.

O&G – Closed: The BHAD will be closed to oil and gas leasing due to public safety concerns. NSO: The 

abandoned town site of Igloo and adjacent NRHP Eligible Historic Property lands will have NSO 

restrictions.

MD-5: Surface disturbing and disruptive activities will be avoided within 1/2 mile of National Historic 

Trails unless the project proponent can clearly demonstrate that the impacts can be adequately 

mitigated through design features or other means and the goals of this plan not compromised.

O&G – NSO: A NSO and use stipulation will apply within 1/2 mile of National Historic Trails. WEMs 

are described in Appendix G.

In the case of the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail, the NSO stipulation and limits on surface 

disturbing and disruptive activities will apply to the water bodies and those areas with 1⁄2 mile of the high 

water mark of the Missouri River and its reservoirs.

MD-6: Areas within 1⁄2 mile of National Scenic and Historic Trails (NSHT) will be an exclusion area for 

Renewable energy ROWs. Areas within 1⁄2 mile of NSHT will be an avoidance area for other types of 

ROWs: unless the project proponent can clearly demonstrate that the impacts can be adequately 

mitigated through design features or other means and the goals of this plan are not compromised.

MD-7: BLM will inventory and evaluate cultural resources pursuant to Section 106 and Section 110 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) to consider the effects of proposed BLM actions on 

cultural properties which may be eligible for the NRHP including TCPs.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-26 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

MD-8: Should National Register eligible cultural resources be found during an inventory, impacts on

them will be mitigated, generally through avoidance. Should it be determined the cultural resources 

cannot be avoided; consultation with the SHPO will be initiated. A program on mitigation will be 

developed via consultation between the SDFO, the SHPO, the Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

(THPO), and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

MD-9: The BLM will continue to consult with Native American Tribes to identify areas that are 

important to the tribes. Consultation may result in identifying areas for cultural resource field 

inventories.

MD-10: BLM will consult with Native American tribes to discuss view shed and the potential effects on 

TCPs.

MD-11: The BLM will limit surface-disturbing activities within selected Native American traditional 

cultural and religious sites for continued use by tribes. Traditional cultural sites will be identified in 

consultation with affiliated Native American tribes.

MD-12: BLM will evaluate cultural resources according to the National Register criteria (36 CFR, Part 

60.4) and assign cultural resources to appropriate use categories (BLM Handbook 8110.41 and .42) as 

the basis for management decisions.

MD-13: All sites determined eligible to the NRHP will be allocated and managed for Scientific, Public, 

Traditional, Experimental, and/or Conservation for future use. If another use becomes evident or 

proposed after use allocation has occurred, the use allocation may be changed without a plan 

amendment.

MD-14: The BLM will conduct regular monitoring of at-risk cultural sites to protect sites from conflicts 

with other resources uses and to document natural and human caused deterioration.

MD-15: Where feasible, the BLM will acquire properties adjacent to public lands through donation, 

exchange, or purchase that contain significant cultural resources including, but not limited to, those 

properties eligible for inclusion on the NRHP.

MD-16: The BLM will continue management of Fort Meade according to the goals and objectives of the 

1987 Cultural Resource Management Plan (CRMP) and the 1996 Fort Meade Recreation Area ACEC 

Management Plan. This includes Management Objectives such as: (1) Inventory and evaluate 

sites/features on public lands to determine their best use. (2) Protect significant sites/features and (3)

Insure their proper use by allocating and managing cultural resource sites to Conservation, Scientific, 

Traditional, and /or Public Use. Interpretive sites will be developed as appropriate.

MD-17: For Oil and Gas Leasing, to ensure that leased lands are examined to determine if cultural 

resources are present and to specify protective mitigation measures, the BLM will restrict surfacedisturbing activities by attaching a lease notice for Cultural Resource Survey and a Cultural Resource 

Lease Stipulation for avoidance and protection of cultural resources (Appendix G), to all oil and gas 

lease parcels sold.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 3-27

MD-18: BLM will continue to attach the Cultural Resource Protection condition to all Range Grazing 

Leases (Appendix P).

MD-19: Allocate and manage all National Register eligible Rock Art sites for Conservation, Scientific, 

Traditional, and /or Public Use. Interpretative sites will be developed as appropriate.

MD-20: Allocate and manage all National Register eligible Aboriginal sites such as Occupation (camp 

sites), and Use Sites (quarries, game kills, lithic procurement sites) to Scientific, Traditional, and/or 

Conservation Use. Interpretative sites will not be developed.

MD-21: Allocate and manage all Prehistoric Earthworks sites (Aboriginal earthen mounds) to 

Conservation Use and Traditional Use. Interpretative sites will not be developed.

MD-22: Allocate and manage all National Register eligible Rock alignments, (effigy figures, drive-lines, 

cairns, stone circles) to Conservation Use, Scientific, and Traditional Use. Interpretative sites will not be 

developed.

MD-23: Allocate and manage all National Register eligible Historic Sites--non-mining, (homesteads, 

farmsteads, cabins, historic roads, trails, and rail roads) for scientific use and public use. Interpretative 

sites will be developed as appropriate.

MD-24: Allocate and manage all National Register eligible Historic Mining Complex sites to Public and 

Scientific Use. Interpretative site will be developed at the Belle Eldridge Mine Site, if public access can be 

obtained.

MD-25: Allocate and manage National Register eligible Homestake Gold Historic Powder House 

Structures and related Caretakers House Foundation to Public Use. Interpretive site(s) will be 

developed.

MD-26: Allocate and manage all Vision Quest Sites/Sacred Sites/TCPs/Ethnohistoric as well as burial 

sites to Conservation Use and Traditional Use.

MD-27: Allocate and manage site that have been determined Not Eligible for consideration to the 

NRHP, such as Prehistoric sites with low diversity and limited quantity (50 artifacts), isolated finds; low 

or limited complexity; and small size with exhausted potential after initial recordation, or have been 

destroyed. Historic sites that contain little or no scientific or historical value (isolated trash dumps and 

artifact scatters, isolated features such as mine prospects pits or claim markers, and structural remains 

with no integrity) to Experimental Use or Discharge from Use. Interpretive sites will not be developed. 

MD-28: O&G: The following fluid Mineral lease notice will be used to protect cultural resources: This

lease may be found to contain historic properties and/or resources protected under the NHPA,

American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, EO

13007, or other statutes and EOs. The BLM will not approve any ground disturbing activities that may

affect any such properties or resources until it completes its obligations under applicable requirements of

the NHPA and other authorities. The BLM may require modification to exploration or development

proposals to protect such properties, or disapprove any activity that is likely to result in adverse effects

that cannot be successfully avoided, minimized or mitigated.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-28 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

MD-29: Cultural Resource Survey requirements include: An inventory of those portions of the leased

lands subject to proposed disturbance may be required prior to any surface disturbance to determine if

cultural resources are present and to identify needed mitigation measures. Prior to undertaking any

surface-disturbing activities on the lands covered by this lease, the lessee or operator shall:

1. The lessee or operator shall engage the services of a cultural resource consultant acceptable

to the Surface Management Agency (SMA) to conduct a cultural resource inventory of the

area of proposed surface disturbance. The operator may elect to inventory an area larger

than the standard minimum to cover possible site relocation which may result from

environmental or other considerations. Requirements for inventory methods including the 

size of standard APD survey areas will be followed as described in Inventory Requirements for 

Proposed Well Sites, APD’s - Well Pad/Block Inventory in IM MT2015-043, or subsequent 

updates to this IM. An acceptable inventory report is to be submitted to the SMA for review

and approval no later than that time when an otherwise complete application for approval of

drilling or subsequent surface-disturbing operation is submitted.

2. Implement mitigation measures required by the SMA. Mitigation may include the relocation

of proposed lease-related activities or other protective measures such as data recovery and

extensive recordation. Where impacts on cultural resources cannot be mitigated to the

satisfaction of the SMA, surface occupancy on that area must be prohibited. The lessee or

operator shall immediately bring to the attention of the SMA any cultural resources

discovered as a result of approved operations under this lease, and shall not disturb such

discoveries until directed to proceed by the SMA.

3.2.13 Paleontological Resources

Refer to the Special Designation Section for additional Goals and Management Decisions for ACECs. 

Goal 1: Preserve and enhance paleontological resources on public land.

Goal 2: Provide opportunities for scientific and recreational uses of paleontological resources within the planning 

area.

Goal 3: Significant paleontological resources will be identified and preserved for their scientific values.

Goal 4: Educational and recreational opportunities will be enhanced for the enjoyment of the public.

Management Decisions

MD-1: Prior to approval of surface-disturbing activities, field surveys will be considered for all potential 

fossil yield classification (PFYC) Class 4 and 5 formations in accordance with BLM guidance. A sampling 

of Class 3 formations will be surveyed based on known or likely paleontological occurrences. See Map J 

in Appendix A2. On-site or spot-check monitoring requirements during disturbance activities will be 

determined based on results of the survey.

O&G - Lease Notice: Prior to approval of surface-disturbing activities, field surveys will be considered 

for all PFYC Class 4 and 5 formations in accordance with BLM guidance. A sampling of Class 3 

formations will be surveyed based on known or likely paleontological occurrences. See Map J in 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 3-29

Appendix A2. On-site or spot-check monitoring requirements during disturbance activities will be 

determined based on results of the survey.

MD-2: Hobby collecting areas for common invertebrate and plant fossils will be designated when 

possible using only hand tools. Areas containing significant invertebrate or plant fossils will be identified 

and closed to hobby collecting if warranted. Other surface use authorizations will be assessed for 

adverse impacts on paleontological resources in these localities, and appropriate management 

restrictions applied.

MD-3: Retain public lands with significant paleontological values. Identify non-BLM parcels that contain 

significant paleontological values. Include these parcels in acquisition efforts prompted by other 

resources, as applicable.

MD-4: Significant fossil localities will be identified, recorded, protected, and retained in Federal 

ownership as much as possible.

MD-5: Projects will be designed to avoid disturbance to significant paleontological resources, or proper 

mitigation procedures applied if avoidance is not possible.

MD-6: The PFYC system will be developed and applied to afford proper mitigation actions for all 

surface-disturbing activities and land disposal actions. Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 

designated paleontological sites/localities.

MD-7: BLM will cooperate with permitted institutions or parties to map and record fossil localities.

MD-8: The requirements of Public Law 111-11 Subtitle D - Paleontological Resources Preservation will 

be followed for all management practices.

MD-9: At the Fossil Cycad ACEC casual or commercial collection of invertebrate, vertebrate and plant 

fossil will not be allowed (refer to glossary for definition of casual collection).

MD-10: Scientific collection of invertebrate, vertebrate and plant fossils may be allowed on a case-bycase basis through a permit.

MD-11: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within designated paleontological sites/localities and in 

significant paleontological sites regardless of designation, except in the Fossil Cycad ACEC, which is 

closed to leasing. 

The Special Designations section provides additional direction about paleontological resource protection 

at Fort Meade and Fossil Cycad ACECs.

O&G - NSO: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within designated paleontological sites/localities 

and in significant paleontological sites regardless of designation, except in the Fossil Cycad ACEC, which 

is closed to leasing. 

The Special Designations section provides additional direction about paleontological resource protection 

at Fort Meade and Fossil Cycad ACECs.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-30 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

3.2.14 Visual Resources Management (VRM)

Goal 1: Public lands provide natural appearing landscapes for recreational opportunities.

Management Decisions

MD-1: Designates Fossil Cycad ACEC as VRM Class II, retains Fort Meade Byway as VRM Class II; Class 

III designation is assigned to Fort Meade ACEC portions, and to the Exemption Area SRMA; Class IV 

includes Recreation Development Zones in Fort Meade ACEC and other planning area acres. Maps of 

these areas are shown in Section 3, Figure 3-2 (Exemption Area), Figure 3-3 (Fort Meade ACEC) 

and Figure 3-4 (Fossil Cycad ACEC).

Visual Resource Management (VRM) Classification is:

Table 3-1

VRM Classifications

VRM Class VRM Acres

I 0

II 1,544

III 10,367

IV 259,841

0

(No Designation)

0

MD-2: CSU - Semi-permanent or permanent facilities that are not specifically prohibited in VRM Class II 

areas may require special design including location, size, and camouflage painting to blend with the 

natural surroundings and meet the visual quality objectives for the area (applies to all activities; CSU for 

oil and gas).

Surface-disturbing activities in VRM Class III and IV may also require designs to reduce VRM impacts 

(applies to all activities; lease notice for oil and gas).

O&G – CSU: Semi-permanent or permanent facilities that are not specifically prohibited in VRM Class II 

areas may require special design including location, size, and camouflage painting to blend with the 

natural surroundings and meet the visual quality objectives for the area (applies to all activities).

Surface-disturbing activities in VRM Class III and IV may also require designs to reduce VRM impacts 

(applies to all activities; lease notice for oil and gas).

Exceptions: The field manager may allow temporary projects to exceed VRM standards in Class II-IV 

areas if the project will terminate within 2 years of initiation. Rehabilitation will begin at least by the end 

of the two year period. During the temporary project, the field manager may require phased mitigation 

to better conform with prescribed VRM.

MD-3: Surface occupancy and use will be prohibited in and within 1⁄2 mile buffer of Exemption Area 

SRMA. Surface occupancy and use will be prohibited within 1⁄2 mile buffer around Fort Meade 

SRMA/ACEC.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 3-31

O&G - NSO: Surface occupancy and use will be prohibited in and within 1⁄2 mile of buffer of the 

Exemption Area SRMA. Surface occupancy and use will be prohibited within 1⁄2 mile buffer around the 

Fort Meade SRMA/ACEC. (Minerals will be withdrawn within the Fort Meade SRMA/ACEC.)

MD-4: Public lands will be excluded from commercial wind energy development and will be a ROW 

avoidance area for other types of ROWs in VRM Class I and II designations.

MD-5: All of the Exemption Area is VRM III. 

MD-6: Provide appealing landscapes and enhance opportunities to enjoy attractive settings. Manage 

scenic values in accordance with the objectives established for VRM Classification as described in 

Appendix F of the Proposed South Dakota RMP and Final EIS (BLM 2015) and in coordination with 

other resource uses and values.

MD-7: Surface occupancy and use for energy development will be prohibited in Class I Visual 

Management designations.

MD-8: Where current development degrades potential inventory class and as opportunities arise, 

review options to improve visual inventory class.

MD-9: Require interim reclamation for surface disturbances that are not necessary for production and 

maintenance activities, to reduce visual contrasts.

3.2.15 Fire Management and Ecology

Goal 1: Manage wildfire and fuels for the protection of public health, safety, property, and resource values, 

emphasizing firefighter and public safety as the single overriding priority.

Goal 2: Manage hazardous fuels in areas of urban and industrial interface to reduce potential loss due to 

severe wildfire.

Goal 3: Maintain and/or improve desired mix of seral stages within vegetation communities including forest and 

woodlands, grasslands, shrublands, and riparian/wetlands.

Goal 4: Manage vegetation communities through cooperative efforts by restoring and maintaining natural fire 

regimes and frequency to the landscape, where appropriate.

Goal 5: Maintain and promote partnerships with the public and interagency cooperators to develop and 

strengthen coordination of all fire management activities across jurisdictional boundaries.

Goal 6: Utilize integrated management techniques unless otherwise restricted (defined as prescribed fire, 

mechanical, chemical, or biological, followed by desired seeding) to reduce fuels and to protect high priority areas 

or resource values.

Goal 7: Burned areas pose minimal threat to public safety, property, cultural resources, and/or ecological 

function.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-32 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

Goal 8: Continued ecological improvements in the conifer, grassland, shrubland, and riparian strata. This is 

reflected in moving Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) 3 to 2, Class 2 to 1, and maintaining Class 1; with 

emphasis in wildland urban interface (WUI) areas.

Management Actions

MD-1: Use and movement of heavy equipment (earth moving/tillage equipment) for fire suppression will

be allowed in all areas unless otherwise restricted (ex: known archeological sites, hazardous and 

environmentally sensitive sites, ACECs). Precautions will be applied to protect cultural resources and 

values, archeological districts, reduce impacts on sensitive soils and plants, and to minimize soil erosion.

In areas where heavy equipment is restricted, Cultural Resource Specialists or Resource Advisors will

be consulted for locations of identified areas before use of or anticipated use of heavy equipment.

Heavy equipment will be allowed off roads and trails except where prohibited.

Prescribed burning will be allowed to achieve measurable landscape level objectives from:

 other resources, including, but not limited to forestry, wildlife, range, vegetation, and 

watershed - the reduction of hazardous fuels (public safety);

 the introduction of fire into fire adapted ecosystems.

MD-2: Prescribed fire may be allowed in Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA and GHMA, provided it is done 

to benefit sage-grouse and the burn is consistent with BMPs, guidelines and sage-grouse mitigation and 

conservation actions as described in Appendix C, J, and F. The burn plan in GHMA or PHMA will 

clearly indicate how COT objectives will be addressed and met by its use, and why alternative 

techniques were not selected. 

A Fire Risk Assessment will be completed for implementation of prescribed fire in relation to the GRSG 

goals and objectives.

MD-3: Areas identified for prescribed burning could be rested from livestock grazing up to one year 

prior to treatment if necessary to produce fine fuels to carry the burn, and for a minimum of one 

growing season following treatment to promote recovery of vegetation.

Adaptive Management: Prescribed livestock grazing following fire may be implemented prior to the 

minimum rest period.

Threshold: When an interdisciplinary team has determined that plant communities would move away 

from those plant communities that support the integrity of the ecological processes (water, energy, and 

nutrient cycles) without prescribed livestock grazing, prescribed livestock grazing will be used for special 

management purposes such as reducing annual plant invasion where site-specific interdisciplinary 

planning and the NEPA process has determined it to be a viable management option.

MD-4: All 274,345 acres of BLM-administered lands including the Exemption Area, Fort Meade ACEC, 

and remainder of South Dakota Fire Management Units will be designated as Category B – where fire 

may be desirable for resource benefit, but wildfire would cause negative impacts because of 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 3-33

developments and sensitive resources. Suppression is required in these areas. Prescribed fire and 

mechanical treatments will be used to reduce hazardous fuels and to enhance resources.

MD-5: Consistent with the ARMP, National Fire Suppression Guidelines and the current Fire 

Management Plan will be utilized to guide fire suppression techniques on public lands.

MD-6: In the course of fire suppression, a resource advisor will be consulted or assigned to wildfires 

that involve or threaten public lands.

MD-7: State of South Dakota Division of Wildland Fire will provide suppression responsibilities for 

wildfires on BLM-administered lands in cooperation with local rural and volunteer fire departments 

through Interagency Cooperative Agreements and approved Annual Operating Plans. At the present 

time, the Eastern Montana/Dakotas District Office in Miles City provides suppression resources and 

management for BLM lands and Custer-Gallatin National Forest lands within Harding County in 

northwestern South Dakota, which is in the Northern Rockies Geographical Area.

MD-8: The aerial application of fire retardant will be restricted over areas that contain petroglyphs and 

pictographs.

MD-9: BLM will follow the most recent policy for delivery of wildfire chemicals near waterways.

MD-10: Incident base camps, staging areas, helibases, and other incident management activities will be 

placed outside of and sufficiently distant from known or identified cultural resources and riparian areas.

MD-11: Priority of fire management activities will be placed on fuels reduction in WUI areas in 

conjunction with completed Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs).

MD-12: Fire management activities outside of WUI areas will use FRCC to determine level of fuels 

treatment.

MD-13: Treatments will be designed to protect and/or improve wildlife habitat and reduce the severity 

of wildfires.

MD-14: BLM will protect special status species habitat during suppression and prescribed fire activities 

as described in the National Fire Suppression Guidelines and the current fire management plan.

MD-15: BLM will provide assistance to communities in developing, implementing, and maintaining 

CWPPs.

MD-16: Treat burned areas that pose an unacceptable risk to public safety, property, cultural resources, 

and/or ecological function. Treatments will be in accordance with the National BLM Emergency 

Stabilization and Burned Area Rehabilitation policy.

MD-17: Mitigation measures will be applied on a case-by-case basis during activity level planning 

consistent with the management decisions and restrictions found in this section and the Guidelines and 

BMPs listed in Appendix J.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-34 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

MD-18: In PHMA and within 3 miles of leks in GHMA will use aggressive suppression techniques and 

heavy equipment only when lesser techniques would not adequately protect habitat.

3.2.16 Forest and Woodland Products

Refer to the Special Designation Section for additional Goals and Management Decisions for ACECs. 

Goal 1: Manage public forest and woodlands to provide plant communities that support the integrity of the 

ecological processes (water cycle, energy cycle, and nutrient cycle) and improve or maintain wildlife habitat 

considering economically efficient methods.

Goal 2:

 Forests and woodlands support diverse vegetative communities as indicated by wildlife habitat goals.

 Forests and woodlands will be managed for ecological resiliency, as indicated by fuels and fire 

management goals.

 Forest and woodland treatments may result in vegetative products being available for public or other 

use depending on local market demands

Goal 3: Manage forest resources to improve resilience to severe events and maintain and enhance their ability 

for the long-term sequestration of carbon.

Management Decisions

MD-1: All lands will be available for the sale, use, and treatment of forest and woodland products, 

except sale will not be allowed on the Fossil Cycad ACEC.

MD-2: Forest and woodland products, such as firewood, posts, poles, biomass, timber, and other 

special forest products will be managed to benefit other resources and offered for sale when they have 

an economic value and utilized or treated if there is no economic value. Probable Sale Quantity (PSQ) 

will be 7000 Tons/year for all forest and woodland products.

MD-3: Incidental or casual use of plant materials will be allowed, except that only above ground plant 

gathering will be allowed in the Fossil Cycad ACEC and Fort Meade ACEC. Firewood gathering is 

allowed for camping or other uses if it is within casual or incidental use definitions (refer to glossary), 

Firewood gathering may be allowed through a permit basis if such use does not meet casual or incidental 

use definitions. For additional information related to ACECs refer to MD-1 (Fossil Cycad ACEC) and 

MD-17 (Fort Meade ACEC) under the ACEC portion of Special Designations. 

MD-4: Snag and cavity bearing tree cutting, removal, and offer for sale or utilization will be allowed for 

public safety, salvage post fire, and/or in response to other resource needs.

MD-5: Unless otherwise restricted, new permanent roads may be built for long-term management of 

areas where multiple entries would be necessary to meet objectives. New road construction will be 

kept to the minimum (construction standard, number and length) necessary for multiple use 

management. Rerouting and maintenance of existing authorized roads will be allowed to reduce impacts 

on resources. Temporary road construction will also be kept to a minimum and decommissioned as part 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 3-35

of the project. This applies only to roads associated with forest treatments or removal of forest 

products.

MD-6: If goshawk nest areas occur within 1⁄2 mile of project area and a protected area has not been 

identified, the project analysis will determine whether some of the acreage should be protected.

MD-7: A range of forested conditions (open savannah to dense canopy, newly regenerated to mature 

stands) will be maintained in the forest and woodland types.

MD-8: All appropriate silvicultural systems (Even-aged, Two-aged, Uneven-aged) will be available for 

management.

MD-9: All silvicultural tools will be available (mechanical thinning, hand thinning, horse logging, planting, 

prescribed burning, cable logging, chemical treatments, pheromone application, etc.) to provide the 

desired results.

MD-10: Forestry BMPs for South Dakota will be followed for forest and woodland projects 

(Appendix J). 

MD-11: Retain, where existing, a minimum of 2 existing snags per acre greater than 16 in DBH and 30 

ft. tall, unless a safety hazard. Salvage or felling of dead or dying trees will be acceptable.

MD-12: Forest treatments will retain or improve turkey roost sites.

MD-13: Cross-country travel will be allowed for forest management practices under the terms of a 

permit.

MD-14: Mitigation, BMPs and Guidelines: Mitigation measures will be applied on a case-by-case 

basis during activity level planning consistent with the management actions and restrictions found in this 

section and the Guidelines and BMPs listed in Appendix J. 

3.2.17 Livestock Grazing

Refer to the Special Designation Section for additional Goals and Management Decisions for ACECs. 

Goal 1: Manage for a sustainable level of livestock grazing while meeting or progressing toward the Dakotas 

Standards for Rangeland Health (Appendix J) recognizing the ecological benefits of moderate levels of large 

animal grazing in the Great Plains.

Goal 2: Manage livestock grazing to provide economic opportunities in the planning area.

Objective 1: For allotments without approved specific management objectives and established grazing 

strategies, the utilization level as measured at the end of the grazing season will not exceed 50% on 

herbaceous forage plants on a pasture-wide basis or on selected key areas. Utilization will be monitored 

(within staffing capabilities and budget) to gauge effectiveness of management. Allotments with approved 

management plans will establish allowable use levels for grazing allotments through specific management 

objectives during the management planning process.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-36 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

Objective 2: Across the planning area, BLM will allow permitted use levels consistent with the Missouri 

River Basin (MRB) surveys as outlined in the Animal Unit Month (AUM) Allocations portion of the 

Livestock Grazing section of Chapter 3. The permitted use levels take into account factors of trampled 

and soiled vegetation, ingestion by livestock, wildlife forage/cover requirements and watershed needs.

See the AUMs portion of the Livestock Grazing section of Chapter 3 of the Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

(BLM 2015) for detailed example of livestock forage allocations.

Management Decisions

MD-1: Allocation of forage will be based on MRB surveys with consideration for needs of wildlife and 

watershed.

Adjustments to AUMs will be based on monitoring.

Adaptive Management: An increase in AUMs may be allowed (up to 5% within Decision Area).

Threshold: Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) are implemented and management practices in the AMPs 

to increase AUMs include improved grazing systems, range improvements, changes in season of use 

and/or stocking rates, etc. An allotment will be monitored for three years following an adjustment. If 

increased AUM harvest is found to cause a decrease in range condition, then AUMs will be reverted to 

the number of AUMs prior to the increase. Decreases in original AUMs will occur only after other 

methods to better distribute and manage livestock have been tried and failed.

MD-2: Livestock grazing will be allowed on about 272,000 acres. The amount of forage that could be 

available for permitted use on these lands will be about 77,300 (AUMs).

MD-3: On allotments found to exceed 50% utilization (by weight) at the end of the grazing season, 

utilization will be measured or monitored in every pasture of the allotment at the end of the following 

grazing season. Utilization limits on specific allotments may vary based on site specific conditions and 

management pending project level environmental review.

Adaptive Management: Adjustments in livestock grazing management (livestock numbers and kind, 

seasons of use, rest etc.) may occur with additional monitoring* of livestock grazing effects.

Threshold: Two consecutive years of exceeding 50% utilization by weight on a pasture-wide basis.

Adjustments will be based on monitoring.

*Additional monitoring includes vegetation attributes such as frequency, cover, density, production, 

structure and composition. Other non-vegetative attributes that could be monitored are hydrologic 

function and soil and site stability.

MD-4: Salt, minerals and protein supplements will be used to better distribute livestock grazing use and 

meet nutritional needs of livestock. Livestock supplements will not be allowed within 1⁄4 mile of riparian 

areas. Adjustments to supplement locations will be made if found to create excessive disturbance to 

other resources.

MD-5: 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 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 3-37

livestock grazing or be used for other resource management objectives. This does not apply to or 

impact grazing preference transfers, which are addressed in 43 CFR, Part 4110.2-3.

MD-6: Yearlong leases on M and I allotments will only be allowed where no resource concerns exist, or 

when an AMP or terms and conditions on the grazing lease have been developed to address those 

concerns.

MD-7: Livestock grazing permits/leases will be transferred or renewed for Improve (I), Maintain (M) and 

Custodial (C) category grazing allotments where the AUMs and kind of livestock are the same as the 

previous permit/lease.

A screening criteria checklist (see Appendix K of the Proposed South Dakota RMP and Final EIS (BLM 

2015)) will be reviewed and documented prior to transfer or renewal. Any subsequent updates or 

modifications to the direction in the screening checklist will be used.

In cases where the use will substantially differ from that authorized in the previous grazing permit/lease, 

management circumstances have changed since the previous lease was issued, or land health standards 

are not being met because of livestock grazing, a site-specific interdisciplinary environmental review will

be undertaken.

MD-8: To limit the potential for disease transmission to bighorn sheep, no change in livestock 

conversions from cattle, horses, or bison to domestic sheep or goats will be allowed in allotments 

within current occupied bighorn sheep range. Transfer of grazing preference will only be allowed to 

livestock types other than domestic sheep and goats within current occupied bighorn sheep range.

New domestic sheep and goat allotments or conversions from cattle, horses, or bison to domestic 

sheep or goats will not be permitted within a minimum of 15 miles from known bighorn sheep range.

This distance will be greater if deemed necessary through site-specific analysis and additional research 

findings.

To minimize contact with bighorn sheep, domestic sheep and goats used for weed control within 10

miles of bighorn sheep range will only occur with coordination with SDGFP.

If new bighorn sheep introductions are proposed in areas that are currently not occupied by bighorn 

sheep, BLM will take this information into consideration and analyze the impacts at the project level 

utilizing the same buffer distances listed above.

MD-9: Range improvements (such as improving or increasing water sources) will be allowed as part of 

an overall grazing strategy to benefit multiple resources. Mitigation measures for resource protection 

will be developed for each project.

MD-10: Areas identified for prescribed burning could be rested from livestock grazing up to one year 

prior to treatment if necessary to produce fine fuels to carry the burn, and for a minimum of one 

growing season following treatment to promote recovery of vegetation.

Adaptive Management: Prescribed livestock grazing following fire could be implemented prior to the 

minimum rest period. The prescribed livestock grazing will be used for special management purposes 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-38 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

such as reducing annual plant invasion where site-specific interdisciplinary planning and the NEPA 

process have determined it to be a viable management option.

Threshold: When an interdisciplinary review has determined that plant communities will move away from 

those plant communities that support the integrity of the ecological processes (water, energy, and 

nutrient cycles) without prescribed livestock grazing.

MD-11: Grazing in areas with high concentration of Special Status Plant plants will not be allowed unless 

beneficial or negligible impacts will occur as determined through a review by an interdisciplinary team.

MD-12: To protect other resource values, new grazing allotments will not be authorized in the 

Exemption Area unless capability criteria are met for 50% of the proposed allotment acres.

The grazing lessee will be required to fence new allotments.

Grazing will also be allowed throughout the Exemption Area for beneficial resource uses such as fuels 

treatments, weed control, etc. Any such treatments will be completed following a site-specific 

interdisciplinary team analysis.

Capability criteria are as follows: Capable for cattle grazing; slope less than or equal to 30%, range 

production above or at 200 lbs/acre, wind/water erodibility at slight to moderate. Sheep grazing 

capability is the same as cattle except the slope cutoff is 45%. Areas not meeting these criteria are 

shown in Map 2-24 of the Proposed South Dakota RMP and EIS (2015). There will be approximately 

1,294 acres capable for cattle grazing outside of existing allotments and approximately 2,435 acres noncapable for cattle grazing. There will be approximately 1,608 acres capable for sheep grazing outside of 

existing allotments and approximately 2,121 acres non-capable for sheep grazing.

MD-13: Livestock grazing will be managed through implementation of the Dakotas Standards for 

Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management (Appendix J).

MD-14: Implementation of existing AMPs and development of new AMPs for priority allotments (I and 

M Allotments) will continue.

MD-15: BLM will complete assessments for rangeland health on a priority allotment basis with emphasis 

on allotments with significant acreage of public land, T&E species, and resource problems or issues (e.g., 

I and M category allotments).

MD-16: BLM will work cooperatively on integrated ranch planning so that ranch operations with a 

combination of BLM/deeded/other leased lands can be properly planned and coordinated.

MD-17: Prioritize allotments for AMP development, habitat improvement projects, rangeland health 

assessments and other range-related activities within sage-grouse priority habitat, riparian areas, and 

other high priority locations.

MD-18: Prioritize completion of rangeland health assessments and processing grazing permits/leases 

within PHMA. 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 3-39

MD-19: New fences will follow BLM specifications (BLM Handbook 1741-1 and WO IM-2010-022) to 

allow for wildlife passage and located or marked as feasible to minimize collisions and other wildlife 

issues, except for fences built specifically to keep wildlife out of an area.

MD-20: Existing fences will be reviewed to identify areas where fence modification or removal could be 

implemented to improve wildlife movement.

MD-21: Functional wildlife escape ramps will be installed and maintained on all water tanks on BLM 

lands.

MD-22: Temporary stocking rate adjustments will be done in response to changing conditions (drought, 

fire, etc.) and desired vegetative response (e.g., livestock use to modify vegetation).

MD-23: Certified weed seed free forage (hay and grains) straw and mulch will be required for all 

activities when used on BLM lands (exceptions could be made for emergencies when approved by the 

BLM AO).

MD-24: Joint cooperative monitoring with grazing lessees will be highly encouraged as outlined in IM 

No. 2006-100 and IB No. 2010-015.

MD-25: Requests to divide or combine grazing allotments will be denied when it does not result in 

proper and efficient management of public rangelands (43 CFR, Part 4110.2-4).

MD-26: Unless specifically precluded on the lease or permit, administrative use motorized crosscountry travel (including aircraft) will be allowed to maintain or repair range improvements, treat or 

move livestock, spray weeds, monitor animal and range conditions, and complete other management 

tasks directly associated with livestock and range management. BLM may restrict or prohibit 

administrative cross-country motorized travel in specific areas to protect resources, address safety 

issues or limit other conflicts associated with cross-country travel. 

MD-27: Adjustments to livestock management practices or livestock numbers will be made based on 

results of monitoring studies, rangeland health assessments, allotment evaluations, interdisciplinary 

review and consultation, cooperation and coordination with the affected lessee. Guidelines for Grazing 

Management include practices which mitigate livestock grazing (Appendix J). Additional site-specific 

mitigation will be identified and implemented through environmental review that is completed at the 

implementation phase (project level) when AMPs or grazing lease renewals occur. Other applicable 

BMPs and Guidelines as described in Appendix J will also be used to mitigate impacts.

3.2.18 Recreation

Refer to the Special Designation Section for additional Goals and Management Decisions for ACECs. 

Goal 1: Provide for a range of recreational opportunities while minimizing adverse impacts on other resources.

Goal 2: Encourage community partnerships with BLM for the purpose of improving the recreational 

opportunities in response to the needs of visitors and local communities.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-40 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

Objective 1: The planning area will be managed for approximately 11,652 acres (Fort Meade ACEC 

and the Exemption Area) of Front Country Recreation Setting Characteristics; 261,325 acres of Middle 

Country Characteristics; and 320 acres (Fossil Cycad) of Back Country Characteristics.

Objective 2: The Exemption Area will be managed for Roaded Natural recreation opportunities

Management Decisions

MD-1 Recreation Management Areas: Approximately 259,936 acres will be Public lands not 

designated as Recreation Management Areas. Camping limits, recreation permit/fees, conditions of use, 

travel types and modes may be regulated to achieve or maintain setting characteristics.

MD-2 Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMA): Approximately 11,652 acres (Fort Meade 

ACEC; 6,574 acres and the Exemption Area; 5,078 acres) will be designated SRMA. Fort Meade will be 

managed under the most current Fort Meade Recreation Area Management Plan. Exemption Area 

Recreation Management Plan will be developed for Recreational Setting Characteristics (RSCs). Maps of 

these areas are shown in Section 3, Figures 3-2 (Exemption Area) and 3-3 (Fort Meade ACEC).

MD-3 Recreation Setting Characteristics : The planning area will be managed for approximately 

11,652 acres (Fort Meade ACEC and the Exemption Area) of Front Country Recreation Setting 

Characteristics; 261,325 acres of Middle Country Characteristics; and 320 acres (Fossil Cycad) of Back 

Country Characteristics.

MD-4 Camping: 

a) Camping will be allowed on BLM surface administered lands, with a 16 day stay limit and a 

minimum 1⁄2 mile move on dispersed camping areas.

b) Motorized travel cross country for camping purposes will be limited to within 300 feet of 

existing roads and trails after locating the campsite in a non-motorized fashion.

c) Campfires will be allowed unless restricted by fire closure.

MD-5 Road Designation: Planning Area will be designated as LIMITED for transportation purposes.

Motorized travel will be allowed on existing roads and trails, or designated roads and trails in Travel 

Management Areas (TMAs). Designation of roads and trails will be determined in future 

travel/transportation planning process in accordance with the chosen alternative. Roads and trails may 

be closed to protect resources. New roads and trails may be developed.

MD-6 Hunting/Outfitter/Guide Permits/Trapping:

a) Hunting will be allowed according to state regulation and Outfitter/guide types of SRP may 

be issued. Priority for these permits where there is a conflict will be based on a first come 

basis.

b) Trapping will be allowed according to state regulation. Refer to Fort Meade ACEC actions 

for additional information on trapping. 

MD-7 Fisheries: Fish stocking will be allowed. Fish stocking will be coordinated with and conducted by 

the State in accordance with all state laws and regulations.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 3-41

MD-8 Special Recreation Events: Special Recreation Use Permits (SRUP) will be issued when 

consistent with management objectives; evaluated on a case-by-case basis, analyzing natural and cultural 

resource conditions, visitor safety, conflicting resource uses, and other current conditions or needs.

SRPs will be required for any commercial, competitive, group use, and/or vending activities. Conflicts 

between permit applications that are otherwise acceptable will be resolved on a first come priority 

basis.

MD-9 Geocaching: Geocaching will be allowed if it does not create ground disturbance, is not placed 

in or on historic features, artifacts or structures, and is not commercial in nature.

MD-10 Recreational Gold Panning: Recreational gold panning will be allowed except at Fort Meade 

ACEC and Fossil Cycad ACEC. Recreational gold panning could be restricted if monitoring determined 

negative impacts on resources. Streams may be identified and up to 20 acres could be recommended for 

withdrawal from mineral entry to provide a recreational gold panning opportunity.

MD-11 Recreation and Gathering of Plant Materials : BLM-administered lands will be available for 

other non-consumptive recreational pursuits such as bird watching, sledding, walking, cross-country 

skiing (ungroomed), meditation, etc. SRPs will be required when activities involve groups. Gathering of 

plant materials for incidental use will be allowed, except that only above ground gathering will be 

allowed in the Fossil Cycad and Fort Meade ACECs (does not include firewood gathering).

MD-12 Recreational Sites: Surface occupancy and use will be prohibited within 1⁄2 mile of the SRMAs 

Fort Meade ACEC and Exemption Area.

O&G – NSO: Surface occupancy and use will be prohibited within 1⁄2 mile of the SRMAs including Fort 

Meade ACEC and Exemption Area.

MD-13 ROWs in SRMAs: ROWs for renewable energy will be excluded. ROWs for other uses will

be avoided within 1⁄2 mile of SRMAs (Fort Meade ACEC, Exemption Area and other developed 

recreation sites).

MD-14 Travel with Vehicles Equipped to Travel over Snow: Snowmobiles and vehicles 

specifically equipped to travel over snow will be unrestricted unless adverse impacts on resources or 

infrastructure occurs, safety issues become evident or snowmobile use in important wildlife use areas 

increases to the point that it becomes disruptive (refer to glossary) to wildlife. Note that additional 

snowmobile restrictions in the Fort Meade ACEC and the Exemption Area may apply as shown under 

the Exemption Area or the Special Designation section (Fort Meade ACEC portion) of this table.

Additional restrictions or closures may be developed through travel planning conducted at the 

implementation level. 

MD-15 Recreation Opportunity Classification: Exemption Area will be managed for Roaded 

Natural recreation opportunities.

MD-16 Recreational Management Areas: The Exemption Area will be designated as a SRMA.

Specific planning document will be developed.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-42 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

MD-17 Camping: Designated camping areas and associated regulations may be developed. Black Hills 

Fire Protection District rules shall apply to campfires on BLM land.

MD-18 Roads and Trails: The Mickelson Trail and State Snowmobile trail system will continue to be 

managed by the State of South Dakota and use on these trails will be regulated by that agency.

Snowmobiling will be restricted to designated trails. Hiking trails around Deadwood and potential OHV 

trail connecting Deadwood to other trails may be developed. Other motorized travel will be limited to 

existing trails until the Travel Management Plan designates roads and trails for motorized travel. Roads 

and trails may be closed to protect resources. New permanent and temporary road construction, 

maintenance, rerouting, and decommissioning will be allowed.

MD-19: Fish stocking will be allowed. BLM will increase fishing opportunities by development of ponds, 

such as a pond near the Homestake Powderhouses, dependent upon water availability and dam 

constraints.

MD-20: Recreation Use Permits: Permits will be required at developed, designated campgrounds.

MD-21 Recreation Facilities: Maintain existing recreation facilities and areas in a safe condition.

MD-22 Recreation opportunities: Emphasize recreation opportunities not provided by the private 

sector or other public lands.

MD-23 Weed Free Forage: Forage brought onto BLM-administered public land will be required to 

be certified weed free forage.

MD-24 Shooting: Firearm shooting will be allowed except where specifically restricted or prohibited.

Areas may be closed or restricted to firearm shooting if safety issues arise, littering occurs, or conflicts 

with other resources or resource uses occur. Coordination with user groups and the public will be

conducted to resolve conflicts and problems if they are discovered. Closure will be considered only if 

conflicts or problems cannot be resolved through other means. BLM will notify adjacent local 

governments of events requiring SRUPs or authorized use.

MD-25 Fishing: Fishing will be allowed under state fishing regulations.

MD-26 Special Recreation Use Permits: BLM will issue SRUPs based on evaluation of criteria 

including but not limited to analyzing natural and cultural resource conditions, visitor safety, conflicting 

resource uses, and other current conditions or needs.

MD-27 Special Recreation Permits: Applications for SRPs in sage-grouse PHMA may be denied if 

approval of the permit would adversely impact sage-grouse or sage-grouse habitat.

MD-28 Outfitter/Guides: Outfitter/guide hunting activities on public lands within grazing allotments 

under agreement with the State of South Dakota for wildlife or public access purposes will not be 

allowed and therefore will be excluded from the issuance of Outfitter/Guide SRP. Exceptions may be 

allowed in cases where only a portion of the allotment is under agreement with the State.

MD-29 Non-Recreation Management Areas: Public lands not designated as Recreation 

Management Areas are managed to meet basic Recreation and Visitor Services and resource 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 3-43

stewardship needs. Recreation opportunities are allowed that are not in conflict with the primary uses 

of these lands.

3.2.19 Travel and Transportation

Refer to the Special Designation Section for additional Goals and Management Decisions for ACECs. 

Goal 1: Manage transportation and access to provide for use and enjoyment of the public lands while protecting 

resource values and providing for user safety.

Goal 2: Access is available to larger blocks of BLM-administered surface lands.

Goal 3: Manage transportation network to enhance a variety of uses of public lands.

Management Decisions

MD-1 TMAs: Three TMAs will be developed: Fort Meade Recreation ACEC, Exemption Area, and 

Center of the Nation (the large blocks of public lands in Northern Butte and Southern Harding 

counties). These areas will be considered focus areas when implementation planning for transportation 

(OHV, including snowmobile use, aerial, and non-motorized travel) is initiated. TMAs are a flexible 

planning tool and may be changed without a formal decision-making process as circumstances warrant.

MD-2 Motorized Cross Country Travel: OHV cross-country travel will be limited to 300 feet from 

nearest road to retrieve big game animals. This action may be revised or changed during travel 

management planning and this type of cross-country travel could be prohibited in specific areas pending 

site-specific environmental review.

MD-3 Cross Country Travel to Access Campsites: OHV travel will be allowed within 300 feet of 

roads to access campsite by direct route. This action may be revised or changed during travel 

management planning and this type of cross-country travel could be prohibited in specific areas pending 

site-specific environmental review.

MD-4 Travel with Vehicles Equipped to Travel over Snow: Snowmobiles and vehicles specifically 

equipped to travel on snow will not be limited to designated roads and trails unless monitoring indicates 

degradation to natural resources, disturbance to wildlife, or safety problems. This type of equipment use 

could be restricted in parts of the planning area through subsequent travel management planning.

MD-5 Construction of new roads: New permanent roads may be built for long-term management of 

areas where multiple entries will be necessary to meet objectives. New road construction will be kept 

to the minimum (construction standard, number and length) necessary for multiple use management.

Rerouting and maintenance of existing authorized roads will be allowed to reduce impacts on resources.

Construction of temporary roads could be authorized through project level planning and will be kept to 

a minimum, decommissioned and reclaimed as part of the project.

MD-6 Road and Trail Designations: The planning area will be designated as an ‘OHV Limited Area’, 

except for the Fort Meade and Fossil Cycad ACECs which will be ‘OHV Limited to Designated Routes’.

The OHV limitation will ultimately be to ‘OHV Limited to Designated Routes’ for the planning area as 

determined through a subsequent implementation/activity level Travel Management Plan(s). In the 

interim OHV use on existing routes may occur, however no new routes may be created without specific 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-44 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

authorization. Roads and trails may be closed to protect resources. New roads and trails may be 

developed.

MD-7 Exemption Area: Mickelson Trail and State Snowmobile Trail: Snowmobile and other 

vehicles modified for snow travel use will be limited to designated routes. Cross-country travel by over 

snow vehicles will not be permitted.

MD-8 Motorized wheeled vehicles: Other vehicle travel (motorized wheeled vehicles) will be 

limited to existing roads and trails until such time that a Travel Management Plan is developed. Travel by 

the motorized wheeled vehicles will be limited to designated roads and trails after the Travel 

Management Plan is developed.

MD-9 Exemption Areas: Motorized Travel: Non-motorized trails will be developed in 

coordination with partners and user groups and included in the Travel Management Plan.

MD-10 Fort Meade, Exemption Area and Center of the Nation: The Exemption Area (Figure

3-2) and the Center of the Nation (Appendix A2, Map C show areas designated as TMAs. Areas will 

be designated as open, closed, or limited to various modes of transportation through implementation 

level planning that will be conducted after the ROD for the ARMP is signed. Until such time, all roads on 

BLM administered surface are designated as limited. 

MD-11 Access: Acquire or retain access to public lands to improve management efficiency.

MD-12 Access: Existing mode of travel for accessing private lands through BLM will be continued 

unless adverse resource impacts are occurring.

MD-13 Access coordination with State: Coordinate with SDGFP, the Commissioner of School and 

Public Lands, lessee(s), and adjacent landowners concerning designation of access including routes on 

BLM-administered public land that is adjacent or within hunting management areas such as Walk-In 

areas, etc. (South Dakota Hunting Atlas, printed annually). 

MD-14 Cultural sites: Travel routes through cultural resource sites will be rerouted or mitigated.

MD-15 Designation of routes: The planning area will be designated as an ‘OHV Limited Area’, except 

for the Fort Meade and Fossil Cycad ACECs which will be ‘OHV Limited to Designated Routes’. The 

OHV limitation will ultimately be to ‘OHV Limited to Designated Routes’ for the planning area as 

determined through a subsequent implementation/activity level Travel Management Plan(s). In the 

interim OHV use on existing routes may occur, however no new routes may be created without specific 

authorization. BLM may restrict or prohibit administrative or authorized cross-country motorized travel 

in specific areas to protect resources, address safety issues or limit other conflicts associated with crosscountry travel.

MD-16 Temporary Travel restrictions: Temporary travel restrictions will be implemented in 

emergency situations to comply with fire restrictions or protect the soil and water quality.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 3-45

MD-17 Coordination with road maintenance: Work in coordination with federal, tribal, state, and 

county agencies, private landowners, and organizations for road maintenance issues for existing and new 

roads.

MD-18 Easements: As opportunities arise BLM will establish or maintain access easements for 

administrative and/or for public use with priority on public access to larger blocks of BLM administered 

lands.

MD-19 Disabled hunter/angler access: Game retrieval Authorization of cross-country motorized 

travel for disabled hunter/angler access and game retrieval may be allowed in cooperation with SDGFP 

by special authorization.

MD-20 Cross County travel for disabled: Authorization of cross-country motorized travel for 

other types of disabled user access will be addressed on a case-by-case basis and will require special 

authorization.

MD-21 Back Country Byway: Back Country Byway designation and management will continue as 

detailed in the 1996 Fort Meade ACEC Management Plan.

MD-22 NSHT: Future NSHTs may be designated as a Special Designation and management plans 

developed.

MD-23 Transportation /utility corridors: Designated transportation /utility corridors will be 

located along I-90, State Highway 34 and the Bear Butte Road as described in the Fort Meade ACEC 

Plan (1996). The ACEC is shown in Figure 3-3. Roads will be constructed at the minimum standard 

necessary. An environmental review will be completed if an upgrade is proposed for other purposes that 

require a higher standard.

MD-24 Guidelines and BMPs: Guidelines and BMPs will be used to mitigate impacts of transportation 

(Appendix J). 

MD-25 Upgrading of routes: Allow no upgrading of existing routes that will change route category 

(road, primitive road, or trail) or capacity unless the upgrading will have minimal impact on sage-grouse 

habitat, is necessary for motorist safety, or eliminates the need to construct a new road.

MD-26 Aircraft use: Approval of permanent or temporary air strips will be determined through 

project level planning.

MD-27 Aircraft use: Aircraft landings and takeoffs will be allowed for the purposes of search and 

rescue, law enforcement activities, wildfire suppression, military training and operations, or emergency 

activities and other authorized uses. 

MD-28 Aircraft use: A vender will need a SRP to become an air taxi service.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-46 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

3.2.20 Lands and Realty

Land Use Authorizations

Goal 1: Address needs of industry, utilities, the public, or government entities for land use authorizations (ROW, 

leases and permits) while minimizing adverse impacts on other resource values.

Goal 2: Locate new ROW facilities adjacent to existing ROWs to the extent practical.

Management Decisions

MD-1 ROWs: The Fort Meade ACEC is a ROWs exclusion area except for the Fort Meade utility 

corridors which will be open (Figure 3-3). Fossil Cycad ACEC is a ROW avoidance area. Important 

wildlife, VRM Class II areas and special status species habitat, PHMA, floodplains, and soils that are 

vulnerable to impacts will be ROWs avoidance areas. Minor ROWs within 2 miles of leks and Major 

ROWs will be avoidance in GHMA. VRM Class III and IV will be open.

Surface Acres affected will be as follows:

Open: 19,903 acres

Avoidance: 247,551 acres

Exclusion: 5,836 acres

Table 3-2

Summary of ROW Restrictions

(Does not include renewable ROWs restrictions)

Resource Restriction

Fort Meade ACEC/SRMA +buffer Exclusion

Fossil Cycad ACEC Exclusion

Exemption Area SRMA +buffer Avoidance

Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA Avoidance

Greater Sage-Grouse GHMA/lek Avoid (Major)

Avoid 2mi lek (Minor)

Colonial Nesting Water bird Colonies Avoidance 1⁄2 mi

Exclusion 1⁄4 mi

Greater Sage-Grouse nesting & brood rearing areas Avoidance

Big game/sage-grouse wintering areas Avoidance

Sharp-tailed/greater prairie-chicken lek buffers Avoidance

SSS raptor nests Avoidance

Raptor nests Avoidance

Sprague’s pipit Avoidance

Bighorn sheep range Avoidance

Blackfooted ferret habitat Exclusion

Prairie dog colonies Avoidance

Least terns/piping plover habitat Avoidance

Fisheries Avoidance

Pallid & SN Sturgeon Avoidance
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 3-47

Table 3-2

Summary of ROW Restrictions

(Does not include renewable ROWs restrictions)

Resource Restriction

VRM Class II Avoidance

VRM Class III & IV Open

Streams, water bodies, floodplains, wetland, riparian Avoidance

Sensitive soils (including steep slopes) Avoidance

Badland/rock outcrop Avoidance

Appendices R and S provide a more detailed summary of ROW restrictions. 

MD-2 Burial of Utility and power lines: All new power and utility lines (fiber-optic, telephone, 

power lines etc.) that can be safely buried will be buried. When burial is not safe or practical, new lines 

will be sited to have the least impact on resources.

O&G – CSU: All fiber optic, telephone and power lines that can be safely buried will be buried or sited 

to have least impact on resources. All other utility lines will be evaluated at the project level.

MD-3 Unauthorized use: Unauthorized use, occupancy and development of public lands will be 

investigated and resolved either through termination and removal of facilities or issuance of an 

authorization. However, the option will be open to dispose of Category 2 lands by sale to resolve an 

unauthorized use.

MD-4 Scattering of cremated remains: Individual, noncommercial requests to scatter cremated 

remains will be considered casual use and addressed on a case-by-case basis in compliance with state 

laws and county ordinances. The SDFO may develop guidelines about appropriate scattering procedures 

and locations if conditions warrant. Commercial projects or events involving scattering of cremated 

remains will not be allowed.

MD-5 Land use authorization requests: Requests for land use authorizations (ROWs, leases, 

permits) will be authorized and mitigation applied on a case-by-case basis

MD-6 Contamination: No authorizations will be issued for activities that could result in the 

contamination of the public lands.

MD-7 RS-2477 Roads: Issues in connection with RS 2477 roads will be subject to current guidance.

MD-8 Avian protection: Follow “Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines” (APLIC 2012) for all 

applicable land use authorizations.

MD-9 Existing rights: ROW avoidance and exclusion areas will be subject to valid existing rights.

MD-10 Communication sites: No communications site areas will be designated but should any 

communications sites facilities be authorized, BLM will encourage co-location where possible.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-48 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

MD-11 Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) leases: Retain and renew existing R&PP leases as 

long as they are compatible with the objectives in this management plan.

MD-12 Underground ROWs: All underground ROWs that are terminated will remain buried unless 

there is a threat to life and degradation of resources.

MD-13 R&PP and other classification: R&PP and other classifications will be allowed as needed, but 

no lands will be suitable for Desert Land Entry (DLE) or Indian allotment classification and application.

MD 14 ROW corridors: No new ROW corridors will be designated but applicants will be 

encouraged to use routes with other ROWs. 

MD-15 Utility and transmission line ROWs: Utility and transmission line ROWs may be 

authorized in the Fort Meade ACEC ROW corridor pending environmental review (Figure 3-3).

MD-16 Access: As opportunities arise BLM will establish or maintain access easements for 

administrative and/or for public use with priority on public access to larger blocks of BLM administered 

lands.

3.2.21 Recommended Withdrawals

Goal 1: Utilize withdrawal actions with the least restrictive measures and minimum size necessary to accomplish 

the required purpose.

Goal 2: Protect significant resources or significant government investments.

Management Decisions:

MD-1 Recommended Withdrawals: Locatable federal minerals under Fort Meade ACEC (6,574 

Acres) will be recommended for withdrawal. Fossil Cycad ACEC (320 Acres) and Bear Butte NHL (410 

Acres) will be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry.

MD-2 Withdrawals: All withdrawals will be reviewed prior to termination or as otherwise required 

by law to extend, modify, or retain.

MD-3 Modification or revocation: Modification or revocation will be recommended when the 

purpose for which the lands are withdrawn is no longer applicable to a portion or the entire withdrawal.

MD-4 Other agency requests: BLM will consider other agency requests for withdrawal 

relinquishment, revocation, extensions, or modifications.

MD-5 New withdrawals: New withdrawals will be considered on a case-by-case basis where resource 

values, protection of agency investments, or management could transfer to another agency. New 

withdrawal proposals will be considered on a case-by-case basis where management would transfer to 

another federal agency or when resource values or agency investment are best protected by withdrawal.

New withdrawal proposals will include the minimum area required to meet the purpose of the 

withdrawal
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 3-49

MD-6 Revoked lands: Those lands having withdrawals revoked will be placed in the appropriate 

category based on Land Ownership Adjustment criteria found in Appendix N.

MD-7 Withdrawn lands returned to BLM management: These lands will be managed the same 

as adjacent public lands; or, if isolated the same as comparable, nearby lands provided that management 

on nearby or adjacent lands is consistent with BLM policy and the goals described in this ARMP.

MD-8 Fort Meade ACEC: The Fort Meade Recreational Area ACEC will remain withdrawn from 

locatable mineral entry, will remain closed to leasable mineral entry and will be closed to salable mineral 

entry.

3.2.22 Land Tenure

Goal 1: Retain public lands with high resource values in public ownership.

Goal 2: Adjust land ownership to improve public land pattern and management efficiency.

Goal 3: Acquire lands that enhance public access, high resource values and meets public and community needs.

Goal 4: Access is available to larger blocks of the BLM-administered surface lands at locations identified internally 

or from the public and users

Goal 5: Achieve a more management efficient and consolidated public land pattern.

Goal 6: Effects of infrastructure projects, including siting, will be minimized using the best available science, 

updated as monitoring information on current infrastructure projects becomes available.

Management Decisions

MD-1 Land Ownership Adjustments: Land Ownership Adjustment will be considered on a case-bycase basis based on retention, acquisition, and disposal criteria found in Appendix N.

This will result in the following acres within the categories:

Category 1 – Retention area with no disposal (6,894 acres): Lands managed in Category I – Retention will

include all ACECs and lands acquired through Land and Water Conservation Fund. Category I lands will

not be transferred from BLM management by any method for the life of the plan.

Category 2 - Retention with Limited disposal potential based on specialist review (179,950 acres): Public lands 

within Category II will be considered for limited land ownership adjustments; however, lands in 

Category II will not be available for sale under section 203 of FLPMA. Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA and 

GHMA will be category 2. Lands classified as habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse (PHMA or GHMA) will be 

retained in federal management unless: (1) the agency can demonstrate that disposal of the lands, 

including land exchanges, would provide a net conservation gain to the Greater Sage-Grouse or (2) the 

agency can demonstrate that the disposal, including land exchanges, of the lands would have no direct or 

indirect adverse impact on conservation of the Greater Sage-Grouse.

Category 3 – Disposal contingent on specialist review (86,474 acres): These lands generally are isolated or 

fragmented from other public land ownerships making them difficult to manage. Public land parcels in 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-50 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

this category are relatively smaller in size (typically 160 acres or less). A map of these disposal parcels 

can be found within Appendix A1, Map 2-10 and Appendix A1, Map E. These parcels have been 

found to potentially meet the sale criteria of section 203(a)(1) of FLPMA and could be made available for 

sale or disposal through any method. 

Refer to Appendix N for additional details. This will result in the following acres within the categories:

Category 1 – Retention area with no disposal (6,894 acres). 

Category 2 - Retention with Limited disposal potential based on specialist review (202,395 acres). 

Category 3 – Disposal contingent on specialist review (64,030 acres)

MD-2 Jurisdiction: Jurisdictional transfers with other federal agencies will be considered. Types –

consolidated for increased efficiency or no longer needed by the other agency and/or will serve the 

public or National interest.

MD-3 Disposal of lands: Disposal of lands in the Exemption Area will be considered for sale, 

exchange or R&PP patent unless the parcel contributes to the designation of an SRMA.

MD-4 Land Transfers: Transfer of up to 170 acres of BLM-administered lands to the Black Hills 

National Cemetery may be allowed, provided that impacts are minimal and the transfer is consistent 

with management goals and objectives. If the proposed transfer does not occur the land will remain part 

of the ACEC.

MD-5 Land Transfers: Up to six acres of BLM-administered land in the Fort Meade ACEC (lands 

adjacent to the sewer lagoons) will be considered for transfer to the City of Sturgis pending additional 

further environmental review.

MD-6: Lands or interest in lands could be acquired by purchase, exchange, revocation of another 

agency’s withdrawals, administrative transfer from another agency, cooperative agreement, or donation, 

where they complement existing resource values. All land or mineral ownership adjustments will be 

with willing partners or exchange proponents and the acquired lands will be managed as similar lands are 

under the approved RMP.

MD-7: Evaluate the proposed disposal tracts using the land tenure criteria (refer to the criteria listed in 

MD-1 and in Appendix N).

MD-8: Acquired lands will be managed under the same management prescription as adjacent public 

lands: or, if isolated, the same as comparable, nearby public lands. Provided that this management is 

consistent with BLM policy and the goals described in this ARMP.

MD-9: Parcels of land administered by BLM and discovered through land status updates and corrections 

will be managed as similar lands are managed under the approved RMP.

MD-10: Lands acquired within or adjacent to administratively designated special management areas, 

such as ACECs which have valuable resources, will be managed the same as the special management 

area.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 3-51

MD-11: Access will be acquired from willing landowners using all acquisition methods.

MD-12: Retain existing access to BLM-administered lands in conveyance documents.

MD-13: Pursue reciprocal rights for public access when granting a BLM ROW, as appropriate.

MD-14: Management actions needed to protect newly acquired lands will be considered as part of the 

analysis prior to acquisition.

MD-15: All proposed land ownership adjustment actions will be evaluated under project level planning.

MD-16: The BLM will work with partners and willing landowners to proactively secure access to the 

public lands for the use and enjoyment of the public with consideration of the working landscape and the 

intermingled landownership pattern that is present.

MD-17: Acquire or retain public access to public lands within the retention areas.

3.2.23 Minerals

Refer to the Special Designation Section for additional Goals and Management Decisions for ACECs. 

Goal 1: Manage minerals to provide an opportunity for local economic benefits, while protecting the integrity of 

other resources.

Goal 2: Minerals are developed while wildlife, cultural resources, air and water quality, and other resource 

values are maintained.

Goal 3: As mineral development is completed, surface areas are restored similar to pre-existing conditions.

Goal 4: Priority will be given to leasing and development of fluid mineral resources, including geothermal, outside 

of PHMA and GHMA.

Recommended mineral withdrawal and closure summary: Locatable federal minerals under 

Fort Meade (6,574 Acres), Fossil Cycad ACEC (320 Acres), and Bear Butte NHL (410 Acres) will

remain withdrawn/be recommended for withdrawal, while leasable federal minerals and salable federal 

minerals will be closed (no lease) in these areas. The Abandoned BHAD will be closed to leasable and 

salable minerals. Locatable minerals will be open.

Lease notices, lease stipulations and examples of COA for Fluid Minerals are shown in Appendix G. 

Lease notices, lease stipulations, and COAs address a variety of resource concerns and include specific 

practices and procedures to mitigate impacts and limit conflicts. 

Lease notices (Appendix G.4) include but are not limited to:

 ESA Standard Lease Notice 

 Migratory Bird Treaty Act Standard Lease Notice 

 Sprague’s Pipit Lease Notice
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-52 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

 Setback from Human Occupied Residences Requirement

 Air resources (tier 4 engine requirement)

Standard lease stipulations and lease notices (Appendix G.2 and G.3) include but are not limited to 

 Paleontological survey requirements 

 Cultural survey requirements 

 Tribal consultation requirements 

 Mitigation for wildlife, special status species and other resources. 

Common lease notices and stipulations are shown in Appendix G.2 through G.4. For a more detailed 

list refer to http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/leasing/stipulations.htm.

Conditions of Approval

COAs are mitigation measures that implement restrictions in light of site-specific conditions. General

guidance for COAs and surface operating standards is found in the BLM and Forest Service brochure

entitled “Surface Operating Standards for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development” (USDI BLM 2007)

and BLM Manual 9113 entitled “Roads”.

The BLM commonly applies BMPs when approving APDs. The sources of many of these may be found in 

Appendix J and on the internet at:

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/best_management_practices.html

http://www.blm.gov/bmp/ (a simpler internet address going to the same place)

http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/operations.html

COA (Appendix G.6 and G.7) include but are not limited to the following topics:

 Surface Conditions

 Drilling Operations

 Hydraulic Fracturing

 Engineering

 Gas Flaring

 Issuance of ROWs

 Migratory Birds

 Notification and Report Requirements

 Plugging Requirements

 Hazardous Materials

 Paleontological and Cultural Stipulations

 Construction
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 3-53

 Environment

 Production and Development

 Further Seismic Testing

 Inspections

 Spacing Requirements

 Flow Lines

 Separating, Treating and Storage

 Abandonment

 Restricting reserve pits over shallow water tables

 Reserve pits and use of diesel fuel and other constituents

 Operation and maintenance activities and wildlife timing stipulations

 Noise disturbance

The lists provided above are not all inclusive. Refer to Appendix G and the websites listed above for 

more details. 

Waivers, Exceptions and Modification (WEMs)

WEMs provide an effective means of applying “Adaptive Management” techniques to oil and gas leases

and associated permitting activities to meet changing circumstances. The criteria for approval of WEMs

should be supported by NEPA analysis, either through the land use planning process or site-specific

environmental review. An exception, waiver, or modification must be based on one of two criteria.

According to 43 CFR, Part 3101.1-4, “A stipulation included in an oil and gas lease shall be subject to

modification or waiver only if the AO determines that the factors leading to its inclusion in the lease have

changed sufficiently to make the protection provided by the stipulation no longer justified or if the

proposed operations would not cause unacceptable impacts.”

Management Decisions

MD-1 Lands available for oil, gas leasing and geothermal leasing and stipulations: Public lands 

will be open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawn, closed, or 

administratively restricted.

Some acres will be open to oil and gas leasing and development, subject only to the terms and 

conditions identified on the standard BLM lease form, or subject to additional seasonal or other minor 

constraints or subject to additional NSO or similar major constraints.

Stipulations attached to a lease may be excepted, modified, or waived at the discretion of the 

authorizing officer. WEMs are described in Appendix G.

For sage-grouse related stipulations in PHMA, waivers or modifications to a fluid minerals lease NSO

stipulation will not be granted. The AO may grant an exception to a fluid mineral lease no-surfaceoccupancy stipulation in certain cases. Exceptions based on conservation gain (ii) may only be 

considered in (A) PHMA of mixed ownership where federal minerals underlie less than fifty percent of 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-54 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

the total surface, or (b) area 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 

the ROD for this ARMP. See Appendix G.

MD-2 Mineral leasing: Federal oil and gas under Fort Meade (6,574 acres), Fossil Cycad ACEC (320 

Acres), and Bear Butte NHL (410 Acres) will be closed (no lease).

Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA and the abandoned Igloo town site will be open to oil and gas leasing with 

NSO stipulations and the BHAD will be closed to leasing. Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA include 123,594 

surface acres and 405,849 subsurface acres. All leasable minerals in the abandoned BHAD and the Igloo 

town site will be closed to exploration and development of oil and gas.

MD-3 Oil, gas and geothermal minerals: Types of restrictions and acres affected:

Table 3-3

Summary of Fluid Mineral Restrictions

Restriction Type Surface Acres O&G Mineral Acres

Closed 6,894 19,378

NSO stipulations 152,100 584,118

CSU stipulations 21,175 250,242

TL stipulation 1,169 8,616

Standard Terms 62,236 500,399

In the Planning Area 62,236 surface acres are open to leasing without BLM restrictions other than 

standard terms and conditions. There will be 500,399 mineral acres open without BLM restrictions 

other than standard terms and conditions.

Appendix S provides a more detailed summary of Fluid Mineral Stipulations. 

MD-4 Application of oil, gas and geothermal stipulations for other uses: When applicable, 

stipulations developed for oil and gas development may be applied to other resource uses and activities 

pending environmental review at the project level (implementation level).

MD-5 Coal: An RMP Amendment will be necessary to address future expressions of interest in coal 

leasing, as well as following other laws relating to the analysis of coal development. Selected 

conservation areas (Fort Meade and Fossil Cycad ACECs, and Bear Butte NHL) are closed to coal 

leasing. Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA and the abandoned BHAD may be closed pending a suitability 

study.

MD-6 Coal Leasing: At the time an application for a new coal lease or lease modification is submitted 

to the BLM, the BLM will determine whether the lease application area is “unsuitable” for all or certain 

coal mining methods pursuant to 43 CFR, Part 3461.5. PHMA is essential habitat for maintaining GRSG 

for purposes of the suitability criteria set forth at 43 CFR, Part 3461.5(o)(1).

MD-7 Other leasable minerals: Area wide terms, conditions or other special considerations needed 

to protect other resources or values will be implemented while exploring or developing these types of 

minerals under the non-energy leasable regulations. Leasable solid Federal minerals will be closed under 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 3-55

Fort Meade (Figure 3-3) and Fossil Cycad ACECs (Figure 3-4), Bear Butte HL, sage-grouse PHMA

(Figure 1-3) and BHAD (Figure 3-1). Igloo town site (Figure 3-1) will be NSO.

MD-8 Geothermal Leasing: Leasing and development of federal minerals for geothermal resource 

development within the planning area will be evaluated and considered if requested unless withdrawn or 

administratively restricted. Stipulations adapted for oil and gas leasing and operations will be applied to 

geothermal leasing and operations. Fort Meade and Fossil Cycad ACECs, Bear Butte NHL and BHAD will 

be closed to further consideration for geothermal leasing. Sage-grouse PHMA, within 6/10 of a mile around 

leks in GHMA and Igloo town site will be NSO. There will also be 2 mile CSU around leks in GHMA. 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat management areas are shown in Figure 1-2.

Waivers or modifications to a fluid minerals lease NSO stipulation will not be granted. The AO may 

grant an exception to a fluid mineral lease no-surface-occupancy stipulation in certain cases. Exceptions 

based on conservation gain (ii) may only be considered in (A) PHMA of mixed ownership where federal 

minerals underlie less than fifty percent of the total surface, or (b) area 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 the ROD for this ARMP.

MD-9 Use of oil and gas stipulations for geothermal: Applicable oil and gas and other leasable 

mineral stipulations and direction found in COAs and lease notices (Appendix G) may be applied to 

areas that are open to geothermal exploration and development if needed to limit impacts or conflicts 

with other resources and uses. Use of these stipulations would be determined through implementation 

level planning. Waivers or modifications to a fluid minerals lease NSO stipulation will not be granted in 

PHMA. The AO may grant an exception to a fluid mineral lease NSO stipulation in certain cases.

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

where federal minerals underlie less than fifty percent of the total surface, or (b) area 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 the ROD for this ARMP.

MD-10 Locatable Minerals: Locatable Federal Minerals will be open and available for mineral 

exploration and development subject to special considerations needed to protect other resource values 

while conducting activities under the operation of the mining laws. Locatable federal minerals under Fort 

Meade ACEC (6,574 acres), Fossil Cycad ACEC (320 acres), and Bear Butte NHL (410 acres of mineral 

estate) will be recommended for withdrawal from further consideration for locatable mineral 

development.

MD-11 Standard mineral restrictions: Within the limits of the mining laws, applicable management 

actions or practices, including the leasable mineral Stipulations, COAs, Lease Notices, RDFs, BMPs and 

Guidelines , soil and water mitigation guidelines, COA, Lease notices, and Reclamation Guidelines 

(Appendices B, C,G, J, K, and L) of this ARMP may be applied to all mineral uses including a locatable 

mineral Plan of Operation or Notice as needed to protect resources or limit conflicts with other users.

In addition to the guidance in these Appendices, other site specific evaluation, mitigation, monitoring and 

reclamation practices may be required. A phased approach may be required to limit the numbers of 

acres disturbed at any one given time. Application of these stipulations or practices would be 

determined through implementation level (project level) planning in coordination with the project 

proponent and the public. 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan 3-56 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015
September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 3-57 3. Approved Resource Management Plan
3. Approved Resource Management Plan 3-58 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015
September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 3-59 3. Approved Resource Management Plan
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-60 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

MD-12 Salable minerals: Salable Federal Minerals will be open and available for saleable mineral 

exploration and development subject to special considerations needed to protect other resource values 

while operating under the mineral materials regulations, except the abandoned BHAD, the town of 

Igloo, Fort Meade Recreation Area, Fossil Cycad ACECs, Bear Butte NHL and GRSG PHMA are closed 

to salable mineral development and exploration. In GRSG PHMA these areas remain “open” to free use 

permits and the expansion of existing active pits, only if the following criteria are met:

The activity is within the BSU and project area disturbance cap for sage-grouse; the activity is subject to 

the provisions set forth in the mitigation framework (Appendices D and J - Mitigation Measures, BMPs 

and SOPs), and RDFs for sage-grouse (Appendix C) and the activity is permissible under the sagegrouse subregional screening criteria.

MD-13 Salable mineral development and exploration: Within the limits of the mining laws, 

applicable management actions or practices, including the leasable mineral stipulations and direction 

found in COAs and lease notices, BMPs, soil and water mitigation guidelines, and reclamation guidelines 

(Appendices G, J, K, and L and Q) may be applied to a salable mineral proposal as needed to protect 

resources. In addition to the guidance in these Appendices, other site specific evaluation, mitigation, 

monitoring and reclamation practices may be required. A phased approach may be required to limit the 

amount of disturbance at any one given time.

MD-14 Consistency with State mineral laws: Minerals are managed with consideration of state 

laws.

MD-15 Access to minerals: Allow for needed road access, including new roads for mineral 

extraction operations with consideration of impacts on other resources.

MD-16 Exploration: Leasing and development decisions also apply to geophysical exploration.

MD-17 Mitigation: Mitigation of mineral development and exploration activities will be applied where 

needed to minimize impacts of mineral development consistent with the management actions and 

restrictions and stipulations found in this section and the Guidelines and BMPs listed in Appendix J.

Mitigation measures will be applied on a case-by-case basis during activity level planning if review of the 

project area indicates resources would be affected.

MD-18 Waivers, Exceptions, and Modifications (WEMs): WEMs to lease stipulation 

requirements may be granted by the AO if an environmental review indicates that the stipulation does 

not apply (WEMs are described in Appendix G).

MD-19 Mitigation for GRSG: Applicable mitigation and conservation measures described for sagegrouse in Appendix F will apply to mineral development and exploration.

MD-20 Regulation 3809: If a waiver, exception, or modification is authorized, applicable portions of 

43 CFR, Part 3809 regulations will still apply.

MD-21 Haz/Mat: In areas with known or potential hazardous waste or materials, BLM may defer oil 

and gas exploration and will not consider proposals to explore or develop other minerals until such 

time as the risks of these types of activities are fully known. Remedial action will be required as 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 3-61

necessary, subject to existing State and Federal laws and requirements prior to proceeding with a 

project.

MD-22 Black Hills Army Depot (BHAD): At a minimum, the institutional controls and deed 

restrictions placed on the abandoned BHAD by the Department of Defense when the surface estate was 

transferred to private ownership will apply within the BHAD. Other restrictions or closures for the 

BHAD and the Igloo town site are described under each alternative. Within the limits of BLM’s 

authority, Mitigation, BMPs Guidelines and SOPs (Appendix J) will be applied to locatable mineral 

development.

MD-23 Waste water from coal mining: Waste water from coal bed mining operations will not be 

disposed by spreading onto the ground surface unless the water meets the minimum State water quality 

standards. 

3.2.24 Renewable Energy Resources

Goal 1: Make lands available for renewable energy development, consistent with goals to manage other 

resources.

Goal 2: Provide opportunities for renewable energy development, especially for wind energy, while avoiding or 

minimizing adverse impacts on wildlife, cultural, visual, and other resource values.

Goal 3: Restore areas to near natural conditions when renewable energy development is decommissioned. 

Management Decisions

MD-1: In the Planning Area 19,903 acres (7% of BLM surface estate in western South Dakota) will be 

open to renewable energy development. These areas will be managed as Potential Wind Development 

Areas. At the discretion of the AO, lands designated as Potential Wind Development Areas could be 

offered for competitive leasing. BLM will manage 69,811 acres of the open area as Potential Wind 

Development Areas. Approximately 107,147 acres will be renewable energy ROWs avoidance areas.

Approximately 146,240 acres will be renewable energy ROW exclusion areas. Refer to Appendix A1, 

Figure 2-8 and Map G in Appendix A2.

MD-2: The Fort Meade and Fossil Cycad ACECs, the Exemption Area, VRM Class II areas, Greater 

Sage-Grouse PHMA, within 1mi of leks in GHMA, areas near raptor nests and sharp-tailed grouse leks, 

greater prairie-chicken leks and wintering areas for sage-grouse will be Renewable Energy ROWs 

exclusion areas. Other important wildlife and special status species habitat, other portions of GHMA, 

floodplains, and soils that are vulnerable to impacts will be ROWs avoidance areas. VRM Classes III and 

IV will be open to Renewable Energy ROWs. Refer to summary Table 3-4 below: 

Table 3-4

Summary of Renewable ROW Restrictions

Resource Restriction

Fort Meade ACEC/SRMA +buffer Exclusion

Fossil Cycad ACEC Exclusion

Exemption Area SRMA +buffer Exclusion

Sage-grouse PHMA Exclusion
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-62 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

Table 3-4

Summary of Renewable ROW Restrictions

Resource Restriction

Greater Sage-Grouse GHMA/lek buffers Exclude 1m lek

Avoidance for the rest

Big game wintering Areas Avoidance

Greater Sage-Grouse wintering areas Exclusion

Sharp-tailed grouse/ greater prairie-chicken lek buffers Avoidance

Prairie dog habitat Avoidance

Colonial-nesting water birds Exclusion

Black-footed ferret Habitat Exclusion

Pallid/SN Sturgeon Avoidance

Sprague’s Pipit Avoidance

All Raptor nests Exclusion

Bighorn sheep range Avoidance

Least terns/piping plover habitat Avoidance

Fisheries Avoidance

VRM Class II Exclusion

VRM Class III & IV Open

Streams, water bodies, floodplains, wetlands & riparian Avoidance

Sensitive soils (including steep slopes) Avoidance

Badland/Rock outcrop Avoidance

Appendix R and Appendix S provide a more detailed summary of renewable ROW restrictions. 

MD-3: BLM will require applicants to complete multi-year preconstruction studies to confirm migration, 

wintering or breeding season concentrations of raptors and other wildlife in proposed renewable energy 

development areas.

MD-4: BLM will consider proposals for renewable energy development such as wind, biomass, and 

solar, except where otherwise restricted.

MD-5: This Plan adopts the BMPs provided in the Wind Energy Programmatic EIS (BLM 2005b) for the 

planning area, and follow directives on renewable energy development as outlined in BLM policy and 

guidance.

MD-6: BLM will develop mitigation measures at the project level based on current science.

MD-7: Use of other restrictions and practices: Fluid Mineral Stipulations, COAs and Lease notices, 

BMPs and Guidelines for other uses (Appendix G and J) may be applied to Renewable Energy actions 

when applicable and necessary to limit impacts or conflicts to resources or resource uses. Application of 

these stipulations would be determined through implementation level (project level) planning. 

3.2.25 Special Designations

MD-1: Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within the National Trail Management 

Corridor of the designated Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail along the Missouri River. The River 

Corridor is the designated historic trail for the Lewis and Clark Trail. To protect the Lewis and Clark 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 3-63

Trail and associated settings, this stipulation will be applied to the water portion of the Missouri River 

and its reservoirs and extend out 1⁄2 mile from the high water mark of the River and its reservoirs.

Fort Meade Recreational Areas ACEC (Special Designation)

Goals: 

 Fort Meade ACEC will be managed for Front Country recreation setting characteristics.

 Maintain or enhance PFC of Bear Butte Creek and the associated riparian zone.

 Provide for a diversity of vegetation types across the landscapes including healthy functioning 

riparian areas, woody draws, pine forests and grasslands.

 Perennial grasses make up at least 60% of the vegetative cover in the mid grass association.

 Ensure that adequate food and cover would be available for wildlife before, during and after 

livestock use.

Management Decisions

MD-1: Vegetative management practices will include Rx fire, IPM, and grazing to maintain health and 

productivity of native plant species recognizing that some non-native species such as smooth brome and 

Kentucky bluegrass have become too well established to eradicate unless new technology or methods 

are developed.

MD-2: Revise the current NRHP Nomination for the Fort Meade Historic District site boundary to 

incorporate all additional acres, approximately 3,370 acres, inside the original Military Reservation that 

are administered by the BLM. Consider a NHL nomination, contingent on other partnering agency 

cooperation.

MD-3: Completion of the VRM designation on Fort Meade ACEC will result in the following VRM

Classification approximate acres:

Table 3-5

Fort Meade ACEC VRM Classification

VRM Class Acres

I 0

II 1,231

III 5,284

IV 218

0

(No Designation)

0

MD-4: Forest and Woodland Products will be treated the same as the rest of the planning area except 

no new permanent roads will be allowed. Resource use restrictions for other portions of the planning 

area will apply unless otherwise restricted (refer to Planning Areas Management Decisions of Section 3 

of the ARMP). Rerouting and maintenance of existing authorized roads may be allowed to reduce 

impacts on resources. Temporary roads will be allowed after project level planning, and 

decommissioned as part of the project.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-64 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

MD-5: Incidental use of plant materials will be allowed, except that only above ground plant gathering 

will be allowed in the Fort Meade ACEC. Refer to glossary for incidental and casual use definitions).

 Grazing Objectives for Fort Meade ACEC include: Maintain or enhance PFC of Bear Butte 

Creek and the associated riparian zone.

 Provide for a diversity of vegetation types across the landscapes including healthy functioning 

riparian areas, woody draws, pine forests, hardwoods, and grasslands.

 Perennial grasses make up at least 60% of the vegetative cover in the mid grass association.

 Ensure that adequate food and cover would be available for wildlife before, during and after 

livestock use.

MD-6: A bid process will continue to be conducted to establish vegetative grazing use contracts for the 

Fort Meade and the Bear Butte Allotments (Per 43 CFR, Part 4110.1-1 and previous use administered by 

the Veterans Administration at time of acquisition). The Westside Pasture Allotment(s) could be 

separated from the Bear Butte Allotment and managed under a Section 15 grazing lease(s). Billing for the 

Westside Pasture Allotment(s) will be conducted in a manner consistent with all other Section 15 

grazing leases.

MD-7: The competitive bid process that is used for Fort Meade may be used for the East Pastures 

(South Dakota State University Pastures) if the current R&PP lease expires or is terminated, otherwise 

the authorization will remain under an R&PP lease.

MD-8: Up to 170 acres of public land will be considered for transfer to the Black Hills National 

Cemetery. There will be 17 to 27 AUMs removed from the Fort Meade Allotment if the transfer was 

completed. Actual AUMs affected may change depending on actual acres transferred or additional 

carrying capacity studies.

MD-9: Grazing is allowed in Camp Fechner and the Muzzleloader exclosures on an annual basis to 

reduce the buildup of fine fuels. Periodic grazing of other exclosures may be allowed depending on the 

purpose of the exclosure. If allowed in other exclosures, grazing will be used only for management of 

fuels, other resource benefits, or research.

MD-10: Maintain adequate residual cover to support hydrologic function based on current growth of 

key native plant species.

MD-11: Livestock use dates may vary based on actual conditions but will normally occur from May 15 

to Oct. 31 for the Bear Butte Allotment and from June 15 to Oct. 31 for the Fort Meade Allotment.

MD-12: Fort Meade ACEC will be designated a SRMA, and will continue as an ACEC.

MD-13: Fort Meade ACEC will be managed for Front Country recreation setting characteristics.

MD-14:

 Camping stay limits will be consistent with current BLM policy, and allowed in designated 

campgrounds: Alkali Creek Trailhead Campground; Alkali Creek Horse Camp; Fort Meade 

Reservoir, if it is developed.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 3-65

 Motorized travel cross country will not be allowed. 

 Campfires will be allowed only in established fire pits or grates at designated sites.

Additional use restrictions will be implemented under extreme fire conditions.

MD-15:

 Fort Meade Recreational Area ACEC will be managed the same as rest of the planning area 

except only non-motorized travel will be allowed on existing trails, and snowmobiling will be 

prohibited.

 Approximately 9 miles of the Centennial Trail will be on BLM-administered lands.

 Routing and maintenance of the Centennial Trail will be coordinated with the Forest

Service, the lead agency for the trail.

 Additional local trails may be developed.

 Maintenance of existing trails (Nature Trail, Longstone Building Trail, VFW Chapel Trail, 

Centennial Trail) will be allowed.

MD-16:

 Hunting and use of firearms will be managed the same as the rest of the planning area 

except hunting with firearms or shooting of firearms will be prohibited on certain portions 

of Fort Meade ACEC (Figure 3-3 in this section).

 Pneumatic devices such as pellet guns or air rifles will not be allowed unless authorized in 

writing 

 New permanent target shooting ranges will not be allowed. Target shooting ranges will be 

allowed in the existing muzzleloader range only, utilizing black powder firearms with the 

following exceptions: Applications for temporary firearm or archery use for education 

purposes will be considered in areas adjacent to or near the existing muzzleloader range 

(within the fenced exclosure north of highway 34), if such use is not in conflict with other 

uses that are authorized at the time of application.

 Traps or snares will not be allowed unless authorized in writing for such purposes as 

research or problem animal removal.

MD-17: Incidental use of above ground plant materials is allowed but may be restricted or closed if 

adverse impacts or repeated conflicts with other users occur.

MD-18: Motorized travel will be limited to designated routes except for administrative, authorized or 

emergency use. Temporary road construction will be allowed and decommissioned as part of the 

project.

MD-19: Snowmobiles or vehicles specifically equipped to travel over snow will not be allowed except 

for emergency or administrative use.

MD-20: The existing Old Hooper Dairy Road will be authorized as a new ROW.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-66 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

MD-21: Construction of new permanent roads is not allowed except for rerouting of existing 

authorized roads to reduce impacts on resources. Temporary road construction and decommissioning 

will be allowed on a project specific basis.

MD-22: Establish and maintain a system of marked equestrian, hiking and biking trails. Partnerships with 

user groups will be the preferred method for planning, establishment, and maintenance. New trail 

establishment will be allowed.

MD-23: New R&PP leases could be allowed provided they are compatible with the objectives in the 

Fort Meade ACEC management plan.

MD-24: Unauthorized use, occupancy and development of public lands will be investigated and resolved 

either through termination and removal of facilities or issuance of an authorization where it is 

compatible with the objectives of the Fort Meade ACEC management plan. Disposal is not an option.

MD-25: New permanent target shooting ranges will not be allowed. Target shooting ranges will be 

allowed in the existing muzzleloader range only, utilizing muzzle loading black powder firearms with the 

following exceptions: Applications for temporary firearm or archery use for education purposes will be 

considered in areas adjacent to or near the existing muzzleloader range (within the fenced exclosure 

north of highway 34), if such use is not in conflict with other uses that are authorized at the time of 

application.

MD-26: BLM will allow military exercises that are compatible with the objectives of the Fort Meade 

ACEC management plan.

MD-27: The Fort Meade ACEC will be a ROW exclusion area except for Hooper Dairy Road and all 

other valid existing rights and designated corridors as designated in the Fort Meade ACEC management 

plan of 1996 as shown in Figure 3-3 in this section.

MD-28: Within the designated Fort Meade ROW corridor, all power/utility lines that can be safely 

buried will be buried provided that the burial of lines does not conflict with other resource values. Refer 

to Figure 3 for a display of the Fort Meade ROW corridor.

MD-29: Fort Meade ACEC will be an exclusion area for power/utility lines except for the designated 

corridor (See Figure 3-3). Refer to management decision 28 regarding burial of lines in the designated 

corridor

MD-30: Construction of new roads is not allowed except for rerouting of existing authorized roads to 

reduce impacts on resources and address safety issues.

MD-31: When opportunities exist, BLM will consider acquisition of land adjacent or near Fort Meade 

ACEC to protect or enhance cultural, historic values, and other resource values such as recreation and 

wildlife.

MD-32: BLM may transfer of up to 170 acres of BLM-administered lands to the Black Hills National 

Cemetery may be allowed, provided that impacts are minimal and the transfer is consistent with 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 3-67

management goals and objectives. If the proposed transfer does not occur the land will remain part of 

the ACEC.

MD-33: Up to six acres of BLM-administered land in the Fort Meade ACEC (lands adjacent to the 

sewer lagoons) will be considered for transfer to the City of Sturgis pending additional further 

environmental review.

MD-34: Fort Meade ACEC will be recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry. Closed 

to leasable mineral and salable mineral exploration and development. 

MD-35: The Fort Meade Recreation Area will be a ROW Exclusion area for renewable energy projects 

unless the project is deemed necessary for the management of the Fort Meade ACEC.

MD-36: Transfer of up to 170 acres of BLM-administered lands to the Black Hills National Cemetery 

may be allowed, provided that impacts are minimal and the transfer is consistent with management goals 

and objectives. If the proposed transfer does not occur the land will remain part of the ACEC.

MD-37: Revise the current NRHP Nomination for the Fort Meade Historic District site boundary to 

incorporate all additional acres, approximately 3,370 acres, inside the original Military Reservation that 

are administered by the BLM. Consider a NHL nomination, contingent on other partnering agency 

cooperation.

MD-38: Fort Meade ACEC will continue to be designated as an ACEC for historical and archaeological 

relevance and importance.

MD-39: Fort Meade ACEC will be designated as TMAs.

MD-40: Motorized travel will be limited to designated routes except for administrative, authorized or 

emergency use.

MD-41: Off road travel for game retrieval will not be allowed, exceptions will require written approval 

by the Field Manager.

MD-42: Back Country Byway designation and management will continue as detailed in the 1996 Ft.

Meade ACEC Management Plan.

MD-43: Designated transportation /utility corridors will be located along I-90, State Highway 34 and the 

Bear Butte Road as described in the 1996 Fort Meade ACEC Plan Figure 3-3.

MD-44: Temporary travel restrictions will be implemented in emergency situations to comply with fire 

restrictions or protect the soil and water quality

MD-45: Travel routes through cultural resource sites will be rerouted or mitigated.

MD-46: Lands within the Fort Meade ACEC will not be considered for disposal except 5.83 acres of the 

SDM 74900.

MD-47: Recreational gold panning will be prohibited.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-68 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

MD-48: Camping will be prohibited outside designated campgrounds.

MD-49: Recreation Use Permits (RUPs) will be required at designated campgrounds. SRUPs will be 

authorized where consistent with National BLM SRP policy.

MD-50: The BLM will continue management of Fort Meade according to the goals and objectives of the 

1987 CRMP and the 1996 Fort Meade Recreation Area ACEC Management Plan. This includes 

Management Objectives such as: (1) Inventory and evaluate sites/features on public lands to determine 

their best use, (2) Protect significant sites/features, and (3) Insure their proper use.

MD-51: A minimum of 8 to 12 inches of residual herbaceous growth will be maintained on 50 percent 

of the uplands needed for nesting by ground-nesting birds, particularly sharp-tailed grouse and 

waterfowl.

3.2.26 Fossil Cycad ACEC (Special Designation)

Goal 1: Protect relevant and important values through ACEC designation (Refer to Appendix T in the Proposed 

South Dakota RMP and Final EIS (BLM 2015) and apply special management where standard or routine 

management is not adequate to protect the areas from risks or threats of damage/degradation or to provide for 

public safety from natural hazards. A map of the Fort Meade ACEC is shown in Figure 3-3 of this plan. 

Goal 2: Paleontological resources are preserved. Sites are interpreted for vulnerability to degradation. 

Management Decisions

MD-1: Incidental use of plant materials will be allowed, except that only above ground plant gathering 

will be allowed in the Fossil Cycad ACEC.

MD-2: Fossil Cycad will be managed as VRM Class II.

MD-3: The Fossil Cycad ACEC will be an exclusion area for renewable energy development, including 

testing and monitoring.

MD-4: Locatable federal minerals under Fossil Cycad ACEC will be recommended for withdrawal, while 

leasable federal minerals and salable federal minerals will be closed (no lease).

MD-5: Fossil Cycad will be managed as a ROWs avoidance area for general ROWs. A new ROW or 

modification of the existing ROW associated with vehicle travel or highway/bridge construction on US 

Highway 18 may be allowed at BLM’s discretion. Other forms of general ROWs not associated with 

vehicle travel on Highway 18, or construction of Highway 18 will not be allowed in the Fossil Cycad 

ACEC. 

Prior to approving a ROW action for US Highway 18, the project proponent must clearly demonstrate 

that cultural, paleontological and other high value resources would not be adversely impacted. If 

resources are likely to be adversely impacted, BLM shall require the project proponent to complete 

mitigation and recovery of specimens and all scientific data, as well as specimen curation, and other 

forms of mitigation as described for each program area in the ARMP. 

Fossil Cycad ACEC will be an exclusion area for renewable energy ROWs (refer to MA-3). 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 3-69

MD-6: Fossil Cycad will be retained in public ownership (land retention category 1). Refer to 

Appendix N for retention categories. 

MD-7: All 320 acres within the current ACEC boundary will continue to be managed as an ACEC.

MD-8: Sale of forest products will not be allowed.

MD-9: Casual or commercial collection of invertebrate, vertebrate and plant fossils will not be allowed 

at the Fossil Cycad ACEC (refer to glossary for definition of casual collection).

MD-10: Scientific collection of invertebrate, vertebrate and plant fossils may be allowed on a case-bycase basis through a permit.

3.2.27 Social and Economic

Goal 1: Provide opportunities for economic sustainability at the national, regional and local level.

Goal 2: Provide for a diverse array of opportunities that result in social benefits for local residents, businesses, 

recreationists, visitors, interested citizens and future generations, while minimizing the negative social effects.

Management Decisions

MD-1: At the implementation level, BLM will evaluate projects or direction for potential 

disproportionate negative impacts on minority or low income populations per EO 12898, Environmental 

Justice. If negative disproportionate effects are identified, BLM will remediate these effects to the extent 

possible by identifying mitigation to be added to the alternatives of implementation level (project level) 

environmental review where the effects are found.

3.2.28 Public Safety

Abandoned Mine Lands (AML)

Goal 1: Reclaim AML sites on public land to improve water quality, plant communities, and diverse fish and 

wildlife habitat.

Goal 2: Reduce and/or eliminate risks to human health from hazardous mine openings and other physical and 

chemical safety hazards.

Goal 3: Protect historic resources and wildlife habitat commonly associated with AML sites.

Goal 4: Remove the greatest risks, preserve bat habitat, restore the environment, and preserve representative or 

significant cultural resources.

Management Decisions

MD-1: To the extent possible on BLM lands, BLM will strive to meet state and federal water quality 

standards in watersheds impacted by historic mining.

MD-2: BLM will assess level of risks at AML sites and prioritize for reclamation based on standardized 

risk assessment. Reclamation will be implemented at the highest risk sites first.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-70 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

MD-3: Where deemed appropriate by BLM personnel, BLM will restore severely impacted soils and 

watersheds as close as possible to pre-disturbed conditions that support productive plant communities 

and ensure properly functioning watersheds.

MD-4: Closures of dangerous inactive and abandoned mine sites will be designed to reduce to the risks 

to human health and safety, restore the environment, preserve bat habitat, and protect some mine sites 

as cultural resources and meet or move toward meeting Land Health Standards (Appendix J).

MD-5: Restoration and reclamation activities and repositories will be monitored to determine 

effectiveness of reclamation practices. Repositories of contaminated materials will be maintained to 

assure cap integrity, including maintaining vegetation for stability while preventing tree growth to avoid 

root penetration of the cap.

3.2.29 Public Safety: Hazardous Materials

Goal 1: Mitigate threats and reduce risks to the public and environment from hazardous materials.

Goal 2: Healthy public lands.

Management Decisions

MD-1: Surface disturbing and disruptive activities will not be allowed on Air Force abandoned 

Minuteman missile sites and areas within 1/8 mile of the sites. Surface-disturbing activity will be 

restricted on the Minuteman sites. Subsurface activity will be prohibited under the sites. Proposals for 

surface disturbance will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. This stipulation can be excepted by the AO

if it is determined that the disturbance will not intercept and contribute to the spreading of potential 

residual wastes by a plan that addresses the design of the proposal, stockpiling and respreading of soil 

materials, and sampling and testing.

O&G – CSU; Surface-disturbing activity at U.S. Air Force abandoned Minuteman missile sites will be 

restricted on the sites and approximately 1/8 mile (approximately 200 meters) beyond the sites. 

Subsurface activity will be prohibited under the sites and approximately 1/8 mile (approximately 200 

meters) beyond the sites.

MD-2: Surface disturbing and disruptive activities related to locatable mineral exploration or 

development will not be allowed in the BHAD unless adequate mitigation measures and conservation 

actions are provided and the goals of this plan not compromised.

O&G – Closed: BHAD will be closed to oil and gas leasing and salable minerals due to public safety 

concerns. Open to locatable mineral development.

MD-3: Disposal of hazardous materials on public lands will generally not be permitted. When the use or 

storage of hazardous materials is authorized (i.e., in mining operations, pesticide application or other 

types of commercial activities) special stipulations will be applied to comply with appropriate laws, 

regulations, and policies. In the event of hazardous materials incidents on public land, SOPs will be used 

to respond. Cleanups and reclamation will be conducted in accordance with the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan and the NEPA or Removal Site Evaluation (RSE) /

Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) decision.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 3-71

MD-4: BLM will promote and support the appropriate use and recycling of hazardous materials in public 

facilities and on public land to prevent or minimize the generation and disposal of hazardous wastes.

MD-5: Environmental Site Assessments will be conducted for land acquisitions, land disposals, and for 

ROWs if applicable. Land uses will be authorized and managed to reduce the occurrence and severity of 

hazardous materials incidences on public land.

MD-6: BLM, in cooperation with other agencies and stakeholders will assess the level of risk at hazard 

sites and conduct remediation at highest priority sites if these sites pose a threat to the public and 

environment. In areas with known or potential hazardous waste or materials, BLM may defer oil and gas 

exploration and will not consider proposals to explore or develop other minerals until such time as the 

risks of these types of activities are fully known. Remedial action will be required as necessary, subject 

to existing State and Federal laws and requirements prior to proceeding with a project.

MD-7: BLM may prohibit or limit activities in any area that is found to contain or potentially contain 

hazardous materials.

MD-8: The management boundaries shown in Figure 3-1 will use the existing boundary fences of the 

abandoned BHAD complex. Management boundaries used to identify closure lands can be modified 

pending a clearance of public safety concerns in cooperation with Federal, State, and local government. 

3.2.30 Public Safety: Debris Flows

Goal 1: Prevent debris flows on public lands from occurring if possible.

Goal 2: Reduce risks from debris flows from public lands.

Goal 3: Protect the public from debris flows on public land.

Goal 4: No reasonably preventable debris flow potential caused by management or lack of management.

Management Decisions

MD-1: BLM will take action to prevent/mitigate debris flows with available tools (such as Burned Area 

Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER) teams), and protect the public, if imminent dangers are discovered on 

public lands.

MD-2: Fluid Mineral Stipulations and BMPs and Guidelines (Appendix G and J) may be applied 

to Public Safety actions when applicable and necessary to limit impacts or conflicts to resources or 

resource uses. Application of these stipulations would be determined through implementation level 

(project level) planning. 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-72 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

This page intentionally left blank.
September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 4-1

CHAPTER 4

CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC 

INVOLVEMENT

An interdisciplinary team of resource specialists from the SDFO in Belle Fourche, South Dakota, and the 

Montana/Dakotas State Office in Billings prepared the South Dakota ARMP. Technical review and 

support were provided by cooperators and the State of South Dakota.

4.1 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Butte, Harding, and Meade Counties and the State of South Dakota participated as cooperating agencies 

in developing the ARMP. The Dakota RAC also participated, and a discussion of their involvement is 

included later in this chapter. Custer, Lawrence, and Pennington Counties signed on as cooperating 

agencies. They were invited to cooperating agency meetings but did not attend on a regular basis.

Members of the planning team have consulted formally and informally with numerous agencies, groups, 

and individuals during the preparation of this document. Consultation, coordination, and public 

involvement occurred as a result of scoping meetings, briefings, and meetings with federal, state, tribal, 

and local government representatives, informal meetings, and individual contacts.

To prepare this ARMP, the BLM consulted and coordinated with the USFWS, SHPO, EPA, Forest 

Service, USDA, and NPS. It also consulted and coordinated with the following tribes:

 Pine Ridge Sioux

 Three Affiliated Tribes (Mandan-Hidatsa-Arikara)

 Crow Creek Sioux

 Rosebud Sioux

 Standing Rock Sioux

 Cheyenne River Sioux

 Santee Sioux

 Lower Brule Sioux
4. Consultation, Coordination, and Public Involvement

4-2 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

 Northern Cheyenne

 Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux

The BLM Montana/Dakotas invited the South Dakota SHPOs and tribes to participate in the preparation 

of the ARMP regarding the land use planning decisions included in the South Dakota planning area. The 

BLM sought information about historic properties, in consideration of land use planning decisions 

included in this ARMP and in accordance with the National Programmatic Agreement between the BLM, 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and National Conference of State Historic Preservation 

Officers and the State Protocol Agreement between the BLM and SHPO, or where applicable the 

Section 106 regulations. 

The BLM incorporated the information it received from SHPOs and tribes into the Proposed RMP and 

considered such information in making the land use plan decisions. The BLM has met its obligations 

under Section 106 of the NHPA, 54 USC, Section 306108, as outlined in the National Programmatic 

Agreement and the state protocols or where applicable under the Section 106 regulations. The BLM will 

satisfy the requirements of NHPA Section 106 for future implementation-level decisions, such as project 

proposals, including adequate consultation with SHPO, THPO, 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.

The South Dakota SHPO worked with other state agencies as a formal cooperating agency for planning. 

4.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

A notice of intent (NOI) to prepare the Draft RMP/Final EIS was published in the Federal Register on July 

19, 2007. This notice served as the beginning of the BLM’s formal scoping process. The BLM distributed 

press releases and public service announcements to South Dakota newspapers and television and radio 

stations and prepared outreach materials, including fact sheets and informational flyers to distribute at 

meetings and in communities. The outreach materials provided an overview of the planning process and

the importance of BLM-administered lands and mineral estate in South Dakota. The BLM hosted nine 

scoping open house meetings from August to October 2007.

The SDFO received 24 written submittals as a result of scoping. All those who submitted indicated an 

interest in BLM-administered land and resource management. Many of those who submitted offered 

substantive comments, while others conveyed a desire or an opinion. The BLM’s resource specialists

analyzed and considered 370 individual comments. 

The BLM published the notice of availability (NOA) for the South Dakota Draft RMP and EIS for public 

review and comment in the Federal Register on June 14, 2013. This initiated the 90-day public comment 

period for this document. During this comment period, the BLM held public meetings in Belle Fourche, 

Buffalo, Pierre, Rapid City, and Sturgis. It received 48 comment letters, forms, and e-mails during the 90-

day comment period. These documents contained 322 substantive comments.

The BLM received comment letters by mail, e-mail, fax, and delivered by hand. The comments covered a 

wide spectrum of thoughts, ideas, opinions, and concerns. According to NEPA, the BLM is required to 

identify and formally respond to all substantive public comments. It coded substantive comments from 
4. Consultation, Coordination, and Public Involvement

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 4-3

each submission to appropriate categories, based on content of the comments. The categories generally 

follow the sections presented in the Draft RMP, although some relate to the planning process.

Although all comments were considered, the comment analysis process involves determining whether a 

comment is substantive or not. In performing the analysis, the BLM relied on the CEQ’s regulations to 

determine what constitutes a substantive comment.

The comments received on the Draft RMP did not differ significantly from issues raised during public 

scoping. In some cases, commenters disagreed with the actions proposed in the Preferred Alternative to 

address issues or to achieve goals. In these cases the Alternatives were reviewed and changes were 

made when appropriate. The changes made between Draft and Proposed RMP/Final EIS were 

summarized and placed in Chapter 1 of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS when it was published on May 29, 

2015.
4. Consultation, Coordination, and Public Involvement

4-4 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

This page intentionally left blank.
September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 5-1

CHAPTER 5

PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

5.1 IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN

Implementation, after a BLM RMP is approved, is a continuous and active process. Management 

decisions can be characterized as immediate or one-time future decisions.

Immediate decisions—These are the land use planning decisions that go into effect when the ROD is 

signed. They include goals, objectives, allowable uses, and management direction, such as the allocation 

of lands as open or closed for salable mineral sales, lands open with stipulations for oil and gas leasing, 

and areas designated for OHV use. These decisions require no additional analysis and guide future land 

management actions and subsequent site-specific implementation decisions in the planning area. 

Proposals for future actions, such as oil and gas leasing, land adjustments, and other allocation-based 

actions will be reviewed against these plan decisions to determine if the proposal conforms with the 

plan.

One-time future decisions—These types of decisions are those that are not implemented until additional 

decision-making and site-specific analysis is completed. Examples are implementation of the 

recommendations to withdraw lands from locatable mineral entry or development of travel management 

plans. Future one-time decisions require additional analysis and decision-making and are prioritized as 

part of the BLM budget process. Priorities for implementing one-time RMP decisions will be based on 

the following criteria:

 Current and projected resource needs and demands

 National BLM management direction

 Available resources

General implementation schedule of one-time decisions—Future decisions discussed in this ARMP will 

be implemented over a period of years, depending on budget and staff availability. After issuing the 

ROD, the BLM will prepare implementation plans that establish tentative time frames for completing 

one-time decisions identified in the ARMP. These actions require additional site-specific decision-making 

and analysis. 
5. Plan Implementation

5-2 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

This schedule will assist BLM managers and staff in preparing budget requests and in scheduling work. 

However, the proposed schedule must be considered tentative and will be affected by future funding, 

changing program priorities, nondiscretionary workloads, and by partner and external public 

cooperation. Yearly review of the plan will provide consistent tracking of accomplishments and 

information that can be used to develop annual budget requests to continue implementation.

5.2 MAINTAINING THE PLAN

The ARMP can be maintained as necessary to reflect minor changes in data. Plan maintenance is limited 

to further refining or documenting a previously approved decision incorporated in the plan or clarifying 

previously approved decisions. 

The BLM expects that new information gathered from field inventories and assessments, research, other 

agency studies, and other sources will update baseline data or will support new management techniques, 

BMPs, and scientific principles. Where monitoring shows that land use plan actions or BMPs are not 

effective, the plan may be maintained or amended, as appropriate. 

Plan maintenance will be documented in supporting records; it does not require formal public 

involvement, interagency coordination, or the NEPA analysis required for making new land use plan 

decisions.

5.3 CHANGING THE PLAN

The ARMP may be changed, should conditions warrant, through a plan amendment or revision process. 

A plan amendment may become necessary if major changes are needed or to consider a proposal or 

action that is not in conformance with the plan. Monitoring, evaluating new data, making policy changes, 

or changing public needs might also provide a need to amend the plan. If several areas of the plan 

become outdated or otherwise obsolete, it also might require a plan revision. Plans are amended and 

revised with public input and the appropriate level of environmental analysis conducted according to the 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) procedures for implementation of NEPA.

New information may lead to changes in resource inventories. New use areas and resource locations 

may be identified or use areas and resource locations that are no longer valid may be identified. These 

resources usually cover small areas requiring the same protection or mitigation as identified in this plan. 

Identifying new areas or removing old areas that no longer have those resource values would not 

require a plan amendment or revision.

5.4 PLAN EVALUATION, ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT, AND MONITORING

Evaluation is a process by which the plan and monitoring data are reviewed to see if management goals 

and objectives are being met and if management direction is sound. Land use plan evaluations determine 

if decisions are being implemented, if mitigation measures are satisfactory, if there are significant changes 

in the related plans of other entities, if there is new data of significance to the plan, and if decisions 

should be changed through amendment or revision. Monitoring data gathered over time is examined and 

used to draw conclusions on whether management actions are meeting stated objectives, and if not, why 

not. Conclusions are then used to make recommendations on whether to continue current management 

or to identify what changes need to be made in management practices to meet objectives.
5. Plan Implementation

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 5-3

The BLM will use land use plan evaluations to determine if the decisions in the ARMP, supported by the 

accompanying NEPA analysis, are still valid in light of new information and monitoring data. Evaluations 

will follow the protocols established by the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) or other 

appropriate guidance in effect at the time the evaluation is initiated.
5. Plan Implementation

5-4 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

This page intentionally left blank.
September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 6-1

CHAPTER 6

GLOSSARY

Abandoned Mine Land Program. The BLM’s program that focuses on reclaiming hard rock 

abandoned mine lands on or affecting public lands administered by the BLM. The primary goal of the 

program is to remediate and reduce actual or potential threats that pose physical safety risks and 

environmental degradation. The BLM applies risk-based criteria and uses the watershed approach to 

establish project priorities. The program also works to return mine-impacted lands to productive use.

Acquired lands. Lands acquired for BLM administration in various ways, such as the following:

 Purchased by congressionally appropriated funds

 Donated

 Exchanged

 Acquired through the Land and Water Conservation Fund

 Returned to public land status through withdrawal revocations or relinquishments

 Acquired via split-estate

 Transferred from a federal agency

 Acquired by easement

 Acquired by any other means

Activity plan. A document that describes management objectives, actions, and projects to implement 

decisions of the analysis of the management situation or other BLM planning documents. Usually 

prepared for one or more resources in a specific area. Sometimes referred to as an implementation plan 

or project level plan. 

Adaptive management. The incorporation of new knowledge or adaptation of management resulting 

in the modification of plans in appropriate ways, over time. Adaptive management involves testing, 

monitoring, and evaluating applied strategies, incorporating new knowledge or adapting to changing 

circumstances based on advances in scientific knowledge, monitoring results, and the needs of society.
6. Glossary

6-2 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

Additionality. The conservation benefits of compensatory mitigation that are demonstrably new and 

would not have resulted without the compensatory mitigation project (adapted and modified from BLM 

Manual Section 1794).

Avoidance mitigation. Avoiding an impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an 

action (40 CFR, Part 1508.20[a]; e.g., may also include avoiding the impact by moving the proposed 

action to a different time or location).

Aggregate surfacing. The layer or layers of specified or selected material of designed thickness placed 

on a road sub-base or sub-grade for support. 

Air quality. Depends on the quantity and type of pollutants in the atmosphere and the dispersion 

potential of an area to dilute those pollutants.

Air quality related value (AQRV). A resource identified by the Federal Land Management Agency 

for one or more federal areas that may be adversely affected by a change in air quality. The resource 

may include visibility or a specific scenic, cultural, physical, biological, ecological, or recreational resource 

identified by the Federal Land Manager for a particular area. AQRV impacts may also include sulfur, 

nitrogen, acid deposition, and lake acidification.

Alien species. Per Executive Order 13112 of 1999 (which established the National Invasive Species 

Council), alien species is, with respect to a particular ecosystem, any species, including its seeds, eggs, 

spores, or other biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that 

ecosystem. 

Allotment. An area of land where one or more operators graze their livestock. It generally consists of 

public lands but may include parcels of private or state-owned lands. The number of livestock and 

period of use are stipulated for each allotment. 

Allotment management plan. A plan for managing livestock grazing on specified public land. 

All-terrain vehicle (ATV). Small, three- and four-wheel recreational vehicles capable of operating in 

rugged terrain. 

Ambient air quality. The state of the atmosphere at ground level, as defined by the range of 

measured or predicted ambient concentrations of all significant pollutants for all averaging periods of 

interest. 

Ambient noise. The all-encompassing noise level associated with a given environment, being a 

composite of sounds from all sources. 

Animal unit. An animal unit is one mature cow of approximately 1,000 pounds and a calf up to 

weaning, usually 6 months of age, or their equivalent, such as one horse or five sheep. 

Animal Unit Month. The forage needed to support one 1,000-pound cow, one cow/calf pair, one 

horse, or five sheep for one month (approximately 800 pounds of forage). 

Aquatic. Living or growing in or on the water. 
6. Glossary

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 6-3

Area of critical environmental concern. Area where special management attention is required to 

protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife 

resources, or other natural systems or processes, or to protect humans from natural hazards. 

Attainment area. A geographic area in which levels of a criteria air pollutant meet the health-based 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard for that specific pollutant. 

Attribute. A discreet feature or characteristic of biotic or physical resources that can be measured 

(for example, plant density, which is the number of individuals or stems per unit area). 

Backcountry. A recreational setting characteristics class where the character of the natural landscape 

and any modifications are in harmony with surroundings and are not visually obvious or evident.

Developed trails are made mostly of native materials. Structures are rare and isolated. Other criteria 

apply as described in Appendices L and M.

Backcountry byways. The BLM’s scenic byways program. Scenic corridors along many of the agency’s 

roads that have significant scenic, historical, cultural, or recreational qualities. The Fort Meade ACEC 

Backcountry Byway, which runs from near US Interstate Highway 90 Exit 94 to State Highway 34 west 

of the Veterans Administration Health Center, is listed as the BLM Road on Meade County Records.

Baseline. The existing condition of a defined area or resource that can be quantified by an appropriate 

measurement. During environmental reviews, the baseline is considered the affected environment that 

exists at the time of the review's initiation and is used to compare predictions of the effects of the 

proposed action or a reasonable range of alternatives.

Beneficial uses. A term used in the context of water uses. Beneficial uses of all South Dakota waters 

include irrigation and fish and wildlife propagation, recreation, and stock watering.

Best management practices (BMPs). A suite of techniques or practices used to guide or applied to 

management actions to aid in achieving desired outcomes while reducing the impacts of various 

management actions. BMPs are often adopted or developed in conjunction with resource management 

plans (RMP) but are not considered an RMP decision unless the plan specifies that they are mandatory.

BMPs may be updated or modified without a plan amendment if they are not mandatory.

Big game. Larger species of wildlife that are hunted, such as elk, deer, bighorn sheep, and pronghorn 

antelope. 

Biodiversity (biological diversity). The variety of life and its processes and the interrelationships 

within and among various levels of ecological organization. Conservation, protection, and restoration of 

biological species and genetic diversity are needed to sustain the health of existing biological systems. 

Federal resource management agencies must examine the implications of management actions and 

development decisions on regional and local biodiversity. 

Biological opinion. A document prepared by the US Fish and Wildlife Service staff stating their 

opinion as to whether a federal action will likely jeopardize the continued existence or adversely modify 

the habitat of a listed threatened or endangered species. 
6. Glossary

6-4 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

Biologically significant unit (BSU). For this plan, a BSU is the summary of all the priority habitat 

management areas within a GRSG population, as delineated in the COT report.

Biological treatment. The use of animals (e.g., sheep and goats) and insects to control noxious 

weeds.

Biomass. Trees and woody plants, including limbs, tops, needles, leaves, and other woody parts, grown 

in a forest, woodland, or rangeland environment, that are the byproducts of management, restoration, 

or hazardous fuel reduction treatment.

Buffer. A protective area next to or in an area of concern requiring special attention or protection. In 

contrast to riparian zones, which are ecological units, buffers can be designed to meet varying 

management concerns. 

Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation Program (BAER). It is designed to address the loss of 

vegetation, which exposes soil to erosion and may increase water runoff and cause flooding. Sediments 

may move downstream and damage houses or fill reservoirs and put endangered species and community 

water supplies at risk. The head of each BAER team is chosen by the procedures in the Incident 

Command System, a nationwide system that has been developed for fires and emergencies of all scales.

It applies to all fires, natural disasters, hazardous material spills, and terrorist attacks. A BAER team is 

likely headed by a local person in a small event and is more likely to be an outside person in a large 

event. BAER teams are staffed by specially trained professionals: hydrologists, soil scientists, engineers, 

biologists, silviculturists, range conservationists, archaeologists, and others, who evaluate the burned 

area and prescribe treatments to protect the land quickly and effectively. BAER objectives are as follows:

 To determine if emergency resource or human health and safety conditions exist

 To alleviate emergency conditions to help stabilize soil

 To control water, sediment, and debris movement

 To prevent impairment of ecosystems

 To mitigate significant threats to health, safety, life, property, and downstream values at risk

 To monitor the implementation and effectiveness of emergency treatments

Candidate species. Any species not yet officially listed but is undergoing a status review or is

proposed for listing according to Federal Register notices published by the Secretary of the Interior or 

the Secretary of Commerce. 

Canopy. The part of any stand of trees represented by the tree crowns. It usually refers to the 

uppermost layer of foliage, but it can be used to describe lower layers in a multi-story forest.

Carbon sequestration. When carbon dioxide (CO2) is removed from the atmosphere and stored in 

soils, biomass, and harvested products and is protected or preserved to avoid CO2 release back to the 

atmosphere. These become carbon stores or carbon sinks. 

Casual use. Any short-term noncommercial activity that does not cause appreciable damage or 

disturbance to the public lands, their resources, or improvements and which is not prohibited by closure 
6. Glossary

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 6-5

of the lands to such activities (43 CFR, Part 2920.0-5[k]; refer to casual collection for a definition of this 

term for paleontology purposes). For mining, casual use generally includes collecting geochemical, rock, 

soil, or mineral specimens using hand tools, hand panning, and nonmotorized sluicing. It also generally 

includes use of metal detectors, gold spears, and other battery-operated devices for sensing the 

presence of minerals, and hand and battery-operated dry washers. Casual use does not include 

mechanized earth-moving equipment, truck-mounted drilling equipment, suction dredges, motorized 

vehicles in areas designated as closed to off-road vehicles, chemicals, or explosives. It also does not 

include occupancy or operations where the cumulative effects of the activities result in more than 

negligible disturbance.

Casual collection (paleontology). Collecting a reasonable amount of common invertebrate and plant 

paleontological resources for noncommercial personal use, either by surface collection or the use of 

non-powered hand tools resulting in only negligible disturbance to the Earth’s surface or other 

resources,

Center of the Nation. This area is proposed as one of the planning area’s three designated travel 

management areas. It is in northern Butte and southern Harding Counties and contains the most BLMadministered lands in South Dakota. Its general boundaries are the South Dakota state line on the west, 

US Highway 212 in the south, Arpan Road and US Highway 85 as the east, and the Dillon and Collins 

Roads in Harding County on the north. The travel management area’s main internal roads are Old US 

85, Harding Road, Camp Crook Road, and Albion Road. Refer to Appendix A2 Map C.

Chemical treatment. The use of pesticides and herbicides to control pests and undesirable plant 

species.

Climate. A range of physical processes and states (including atmospheric conditions and earth 

atmosphere interactions) that apply across whole landscapes and over relatively long periods, typically 

decades and longer.

Climax. In ecology, the stable and self-perpetuating end stage in the ecological succession or evolution 

of a plant and animal community.

Closed. Designated areas and trails where the use of OHVs is permanently or temporarily prohibited.

Emergency use of vehicles is allowed. Use may be allowed for other reasons, but such use would be 

made only with the approval of the BLM Authorized Officer. For the purposes of this ARMP, a closed 

area is where motorized and mechanized use is prohibited in all locations at all times. 

Compensatory mitigation. Compensating for the (residual) impact by replacing or providing 

substitute resources or environments (40 CFR, Part 1508.20).

Compensatory mitigation projects. The restoration, creation, enhancement, and preservation of 

impacted resources (adopted and modified from 33 CFR, Part 332), such as on-the-ground actions to 

improve or protect habitats (e.g., chemical vegetation treatments, land acquisitions, conservation 

easements; adapted and modified from BLM Manual Section 1794).

Compensatory mitigation sites: The durable areas where compensatory mitigation projects will 

occur (adapted and modified from BLM Manual Section 1794).
6. Glossary

6-6 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

Commercial thinning. A cutting made in a forest stand to remove excess salable timber in order to 

meet management objectives, including habitat for wildlife, fuels management, forest health, and 

accelerated tree growth; reducing stocking by harvesting trees to be removed for sale or use. 

Commodities. Goods and services produced by industries. 

Concession leases. Authorize the operation of recreation-oriented services and facilities by the 

private sector on BLM-administered lands and in support of BLM recreation programs. The 

concessionaire is authorized through a concession lease administered on a regular basis. The lease 

requires the concessionaire to pay fees to the BLM in exchange for the opportunity to carry out 

business activity. BLM Handbook H-2930-1, Recreation Permit Administration, provides consistent and 

explicit direction to supplement the Recreation Permit Administration Manual 2930 and regulations set 

forth in 43 CFR, Part 2930. 

Condition class. Fire regime condition classes are a measure describing the degree of departure from 

historical fire regimes, possibly resulting in alterations of key ecosystem components, such as species 

composition, structural stage, stand age, canopy closure, and fuel loadings. One or more of the following 

activities may have caused this departure: fire suppression, timber harvesting, livestock grazing, 

introduction and establishment of exotic plant species, or introduced insects or disease.

Condition Class 1. Fire regimes are within a historical range, and the risk of losing key 

ecosystem components from fire is low. Vegetation attributes (species composition and 

structure) are intact and functioning within a historical range.

Condition Class 2. Fire regimes have been moderately altered from their historical range. The 

risk of losing key ecosystem components from fire is moderate. Fire frequencies have departed 

from historical frequencies by one or more return intervals (increased or decreased). This 

results in moderate changes to one or more of the following: fire size, frequency, intensity, 

severity, and landscape patterns. Vegetation attributes have been moderately altered from their 

historical range.

Condition Class 3. Fire regimes have been altered significantly from their historical ranges. 

The risk of losing key ecosystem components from fire is high. Fire frequencies have departed 

from historical frequencies by multiple return intervals. This action results in dramatic changes 

to one or more of the following: fire size, frequency, intensity, severity, and landscape patterns. 

Vegetation attributes have been altered significantly from their historical range.

Condition of Approval (COA). A site-specific and enforceable requirement included in an approved 

application for permit to drill or sundry notice that may limit or amend the specific actions proposed by 

the operator. COAs minimize, mitigate, or prevent impacts on resource values or other uses of public 

lands. 

Condition survey. An inspection of a facility that identifies and documents conditions, deficiencies, and 

physical problems using established maintenance condition standards as a reference. 

Conifer. A tree that bears cones and evergreen needle-like or scale-like leaves. Its families include pine, 

juniper, and spruce. 
6. Glossary

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 6-7

Controlled surface use (CSU). Use or occupancy is allowed (unless restricted by another 

stipulation), but identified values or resources present require special operational constraints that may 

require modification of activities and uses. CSUs are not used as a substitute for the no surface 

occupancy or timing stipulations.

Corrective maintenance. Maintenance that is not routine and is considered to be a one-time only 

cost. 

Criteria pollutant. The US EPA uses six criteria pollutants as indicators of air quality and has 

established for each of them a maximum concentration above which adverse effects on human health 

may occur. The threshold concentrations are called National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The 

criteria pollutants are ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and 

lead. 

Crucial winter range. Those areas that contain key cover, forage, topographical features, or other 

resources that are important to the survival of wildlife during winter.

Cultural resources. Locations of human activity, occupation, or use. Cultural resources are

archaeological, historic, or architectural sites, structures, or places with important public and scientific 

uses and locations of traditional cultural or religious importance to specific social or cultural groups. 

Cultural resources inventory. An inventory to assess the potential presence of cultural resources. 

There are three classes of surveys, as follows: 

Class I. An existing data survey. This is an inventory of a study area that provides a narrative 

overview of cultural resources by using existing information to compile existing cultural 

resources site record data. The data are then used to base the development of the BLM’s site 

record system. 

Class II. A sampling field inventory designed to locate, from surface and exposed profile 

indications, all cultural resource sites within a portion of an area so that an estimate can be 

made of the cultural resources for the entire area. 

Class III. An intensive field inventory designed to locate, from surface and exposed profile 

indications, all cultural resource sites in an area. On completion, no further cultural resources 

inventory work is normally needed. 

Cumulative effects. The direct and indirect effects of a proposed project alternative’s incremental 

impacts when they are added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, regardless of 

who carries out the action. 

Decision area. For purposes of this ARMP, all public land managed by the BLM within the planning area 

(both surface and mineral estate). 

Design narrative. A detailed description of the project to be designed, the extent of required services,

and a preliminary cost estimate. 
6. Glossary

6-8 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

Design value. A statistic that describes the air quality status of a given location relative to the level of 

the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Design values are defined to be consistent with 

the individual NAAQS in terms of their averaging times and their statistical formats.

Density. The size of the population in relation to some unit of space.

Desired future condition (DFC). The condition of rangeland resources on a landscape scale that 

meet management objectives. The DFC is based on ecological, social, and economic considerations 

during the land planning process. It is usually expressed as ecological status or management status of 

vegetation (species composition, habitat diversity, and age and size class of species) and desired soil 

qualities (soil cover, erosion, and compaction). 

Desired plant community. One of several plant community types that may occupy an ecological site, 

the one or combination that meets the minimum quality criteria for the soil, water, air, plant and animal 

resources, and that meets the landowner’s or manager’s objectives.

Diameter at breast height. The diameter of a tree taken at 4.5 feet above ground level and 

expressed in inches.

Disruptive activities. Those resource uses and activities that are likely to alter the behavior of, 

displace, or cause excessive stress to wildlife populations occurring at a specific location and time. In this 

context, disruptive activities refers to those actions that alter behavior or displace wildlife such that 

reproductive success is negatively affected or the physiological ability to cope with environmental stress 

is compromised. This term does not apply to the physical disturbance of the land surface, vegetation, or 

features. Examples of disruptive activities are fence construction, noise, vehicle traffic, or other human 

presence regardless of the activity. The term is used in conjunction with protecting wildlife during 

crucial life stages (e.g., breeding, nesting, and birthing), although it could apply to any resource value.

This definition is not intended to prohibit all activities or authorized uses. For example, the following are 

not considered disruptive activities: emergency activities, such as fire suppression and search and rescue;

rangeland monitoring; routine maintenance associated with an approved authorization; dispersed 

recreational activities, such as hunting and hiking; and livestock grazing.

Diversity. The relative abundance of wildlife species, plant species, communities, habitats, or habitat 

features per unit of area.

Drainage, surface. Runoff or surface flow of water from an area. 

Durability (protective and ecological). Maintaining the effectiveness of a mitigation site and project 

for the duration of the associated impacts, which includes resource, administrative/legal, and financial 

considerations (adapted and modified from BLM Manual Section 1794).

Earnings. Wages and salaries, other labor income, and proprietor’s income (including inventory 

valuation and capital consumption adjustments). 

Easement. Right afforded a person or agency to make limited use of another’s real property for access 

or other purposes. 
6. Glossary

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 6-9

Ecological site. A distinctive kind of land with specific physical characteristics that differs from other 

kinds of land in its ability to produce a distinctive kind and amount of vegetation (USDA NRCS 1997).

The BLM frequently uses Field Office Technical Guides to review and use ecological site descriptions 

that have been developed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service to gain an understanding of 

the characteristics and potential of individual ecological sites. Additional information can be found at

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/technical/fotg.

Ecological site inventory. The basic inventory of present and potential vegetation on BLM rangelands.

Ecological sites are differentiated on the basis of the kind, proportion, or amount of plant species. 

Ecological status. The present state of vegetation and soil protection of an ecological site in relation 

to the potential natural community for the site. Vegetation status is the expression of the relative 

degree of which the kinds, proportions, and amounts of plants in a community resemble that of the 

potential natural community. The four classes of ecological status ratings are early seral, mid-seral, lateseral, and potential natural community, with vegetation corresponding to 0-25%, 26-50%, 51-75%, and 

76-100% of the potential natural community standard. 

Economically/technically feasible. Actions that are practical or feasible from the technical and 

economic standpoint and using common sense, rather than simply desirable from the standpoint of the 

applicant. It is the BLM’s sole responsibility to determine what actions are technically and economically 

feasible. The BLM will consider whether implementation of a proposed action is likely, given past and 

current practice and technology; this consideration does not necessarily require a cost/benefit analysis 

or speculation about an applicant’s costs and profit. 

Ecosystem. An arrangement of living and non-living things and the forces that move among them. 

Living things are plants and animals; non-living parts of ecosystems are rocks and minerals. Weather and 

wildfire are two of the forces that act within ecosystems.

Ecosystem-based management. Management driven by explicit goals, executed by policies, 

protocols, and practices, and made adaptable by monitoring and research based on our best 

understanding of the ecological interactions and processes necessary to sustain ecosystem composition, 

structure, and function. Also, any land management system that seeks to protect viable populations of all 

native species, to perpetuate natural-disturbance regimes on a regional scale, to adopt a planning 

timeline of centuries, and to allow human use at levels that do not result in long-term ecological 

degradation. 

Emergency stabilization and rehabilitation (ESR). Emergency stabilization actions are initiated 

within one year of a fire to stabilize and prevent unacceptable damage of natural and cultural resources, 

to minimize threats to life and property resulting from the effects of a fire, and to 

repair/replace/construct physical improvements necessary to prevent degradation of land or resources.

Rehabilitation actions are taken within three years of the fire to repair or improve lands that are unlikely 

to recover to a management-approved condition and to repair or replace minor facilities damaged by 

fire.

Employee compensation. Wages and salaries paid to employees by industries, plus the value of 

benefits and any contributions to Social Security and pension funds by the employee and employer. 
6. Glossary

6-10 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

Encroachment. The progression of trees from forested areas into grassland or shrub land.

Endangered species. Any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion 

of its range.

Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA). Performed to evaluate alternate removal actions 

or expedited response actions (ERAs) in terms of their effectiveness, implementability, and cost, for 

cleaning up any contamination that may be found. The EPA determines the need for a response action 

under the removal authority, pursuant to Section 104(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (42 USC, Section 9604[a] and Section 

300.415 of the National Contingency Plan, 40 CFR, Part 300). An EE/CA is prepared before such a 

response when it can be done as a non-time-critical removal action.

Ephemeral stream. A stream or reach of a stream that flows only in direct response to precipitation. 

It receives no continuous supply from melting snow or other source, and its channel is above the water 

table at all times.

Erosion. The wearing away of the land surface by water, wind, ice, or other geologic agents and by such 

processes as gravitational creep. Two types are defined in this plan: 

Accelerated erosion. Erosion much more rapid than geologic erosion, occurring mainly as a 

result of human or animal activities or a catastrophe, such as fire, which exposes the surface.

Geologic erosion. Erosion caused by geologic processes acting over long geologic periods and 

wearing away mountains and building up such landscape features as floodplains and coastal 

plains; synonymous with natural erosion.

Even-aged silvicultural system. A planned sequence of treatments designed to manage a stand of 

trees to a single age class in which the range of tree ages in the stand is usually ± 20% of the rotational 

age.

Exceedance. With respect to a National Ambient Air Quality Standard means, one occurrence of a 

measured or modeled concentration greater than the specified concentration level of such standard for 

the averaging period (1-hour, 3-hour, 8-hour, 24-hour, or annual) specified by the standard.

Exception. A one-time exemption for a particular site within the leasehold or other type of 

authorization. Exceptions are determined on a case-by-case basis; the stipulation continues to apply to

all other sites within the leasehold. An exception is a limited type of waiver. See also Waiver and 

Modification. 

Exceptional event. An event that affects air quality, is not reasonably controllable or preventable, is 

caused by human activity that is unlikely to recur at a particular location or a natural event, and is 

determined by the USEPA Administrator, in accordance with 40 CFR, Part 50.14, to be an exceptional 

event. It does not include stagnation of air masses or meteorological inversions, a meteorological event 

involving high temperatures or lack of precipitation, or air pollution relating to source noncompliance.
6. Glossary

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 6-11

Exemption area. Thirty-five sections of land that are completely surrounded by National Forest 

System lands. This area was not included in the Black Hills National Forest because of the complicated 

land pattern and the many mining claim conflicts; thus, it was left under the BLM’s administration. This 

area contains approximately 22,500 acres, approximately 5,080 acres of which are public domain. The 

public domain acreage consists of numerous irregular tracts that range from 0.02 acre to more than 

1,200 acres. Refer to Figure 3-2 in Section 3. 

Existing routes. The roads, trails, or ways that are used by operators of motorized vehicles (jeeps, allterrain vehicles, and motorized dirt bikes, for example), mechanized uses (mountain bikes, 

wheelbarrows, and game carts), pedestrians (hikers), and horseback riders and are, to the best of the 

BLM’s knowledge, in existence at the time of ARMP publication.

Extended attack. A wildfire that has not been contained or controlled by initial attack forces and for 

which more firefighting resources are arriving or being ordered by the initial attack incident commander.

Extended attack implies that the complexity level of the incident will increase beyond the capabilities of 

initial attack incident command.

Extensive recreation management area. An administrative unit that requires specific management 

consideration in order to address recreation use, demand, or recreation and visitor services program 

investments. 

Facility (energy and mining). Human-constructed assets designed and created to serve a particular 

function and to afford a particular convenience or service that is affixed to specific locations, such as oil 

and gas well pads and associated infrastructure.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). Public Law 94-579 signed by the 

president on October 21, 1976. Establishes public land policy for management of lands administered by 

the BLM. The FLPMA specifies several key directions for the BLM, notably that management be on the 

basis of multiple use and sustained yield; that land use plans be prepared to guide management actions; 

that public lands be managed for the protection, development, and enhancement of resources; that 

public lands be retained in federal ownership; and that public participation be used in reaching 

management decisions. 

Fire behavior. The manner in which a fire reacts to the influences of fuels, weather, and topography.

Fire flood (or air injection). Term used in the oil and gas industry. Fire flood works by forcing air 

into a well under great pressure to get it into a producing formation. The air temperature rises to the 

high temperature of the formations 9,000 feet below the surface and under these conditions 

spontaneously ignites some of the remaining oil in the formation. This increases gas pressure and heat 

even more and tends to move the oil as well as water from a pattern of injection wells toward a pattern 

of producing wells to be recovered.

Fire intensity. The product of the available heat of combustion per unit area of ground and the rate of 

spread of the fire. Heat energy released by the fire.
6. Glossary

6-12 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

Fire management. The integration of knowledge of fire protection, prescribed fire, and fire ecology 

into multiple use plans, decision-making, and land management activities. Fire management places fire in 

perspective with overall land management objectives.

Fire management area. One or more parcels of land having a common set of fire management 

objectives. 

Fire Management Plan (FMP). A plan that identifies and integrates all wildland fire management and 

related activities within the context of approved land/resource management plans. It defines a program 

to manage wildland fires (wildfire and prescribed fire). The plan is supplemented by operational plans, 

including preparedness plans, dispatch plans, prescribed fire burn plans, and prevention plans. FMPs 

ensure that wildland fire management goals and components are coordinated.

Fire management unit (FMU). Any land management area definable by objectives, management 

constraints, topographic features, access, values to be protected, political boundaries, fuel types, major 

fire regimes, or groups that set it apart from the management characteristics of an adjacent FMU. FMUs

are scalable and cannot be separated geographically. They may have dominant management objectives 

and preselected strategies assigned to accomplish these objectives. The development of FMUs should 

avoid redundancy; each should be unique, as evidenced by management strategies, objectives, and 

attributes.

Fire planning unit (FPU). Describes the geographic planning area. It can include a single or multiple 

land use plan planning area, cross-jurisdictional boundaries, including adjacent BLM office lands, and 

other partner lands. A FPU consists of one or more FMUs.

Fire regime. A set of recurring conditions of fire that characterize a given fire-maintained ecosystem.

Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC). An interagency standardized tool for determining the degree 

of departure from reference condition vegetation, fuels, and disturbance regimes. Helps to guide 

management objectives and set priorities for treatments. A federal interagency, standardized tool for 

determining how similar a landscape’s fire regime is to its natural or historical state. FRCCs are broken 

down into three categories, as follows:

 FRCC 1 landscapes contain vegetation, fuels, and disturbances characteristic of the natural 

regime

 FRCC 2 landscapes are those that have moderately departed from the natural regime

 FRCC 3 landscapes reflect vegetation, fuels, and disturbances that are uncharacteristic of the 

natural regime 

Classes of fire regimes are then grouped by categories of frequency (expressed as mean fire return 

interval) and severity. Refers specifically to five groups used in federal policy and planning: 0-35 years, 

low severity; 0-35 years, stand replacement; 35-100 years, mixed severity; 35-100 years, stand 

replacement; 200+ years, stand replacement.

Fire suppression. Any act taken to slow, stop, or extinguish a fire. Examples of suppression ARE fire

line construction, backfiring, and applying water or chemical fire retardants.
6. Glossary

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 6-13

Floodplain. The 100-year floodplain, as determined by the best available data. Often used as shorthand 

for the NSO stipulation related to riparian areas, wetlands, 100-year floodplains of rivers and streams, 

and water bodies. 100-year floodplains have been defined by combining the following categories of the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service flooded soils interpretation: very frequent, frequent, 

occasional, and rare (USDA NRCS 2011). These are subcategories of soils that are likely to be flooded 

at varying levels of frequency. The rare category represents lands subject to 1 to 5 floods in 100 years.

(http://soils.usda.gov/technical/handbook/contents/part618.html see: 618.26). The combined flooded soils 

categories are a substitute for unavailable designated 100-year floodplains since it is the best available 

data.

Forage. All browse and herbaceous foods that are available to grazing animals. 

Forage utilization. The percentage of available forage actually consumed by the domestic grazing 

animal based on net forage accumulation that occurs prior to and while they occupy the pasture unit.

Forest health. The condition in which forest ecosystems sustain their complexity, diversity, resiliency, 

and productivity, while providing for human needs and values. 

Fossil. The remains or traces of an organism preserved by natural processes in the Earth’s crust. This 

includes plants and animals, their tracks, burrows, and other imprints and are considered a nonrenewable resource. It does not include minerals such as coal, oil and gas, and tar sands. Vertebrate 

fossils are those of animals with a spinal column; invertebrate fossils are those of organisms without a 

spinal column.

Front country. A recreational setting characteristics class where the character of the natural landscape 

is partially modified but does not overpower the natural landscape (e.g., roads, structures, and utilities).

Rustic facilities such as campsites, restrooms, trailheads, and interpretive displays are present. Other 

criteria apply, as described in Appendices L and M.

Fuel. Combustible plant material, both living and dead, that is capable of burning in a wildland fire 

situation.

Fuel loading. The amount of fuels present expressed quantitatively in terms of weight per unit area.

Fuel type. An identification association of fuel elements of distinctive species, form, size, arrangement, 

or other characteristics that will cause a predictable rate of spread or resistance to control under 

specific weather conditions.

Fuels management. The treatment of fuels that would otherwise interfere with effective fire 

management or control. For instance, prescribed fire can reduce the amount of fuels that accumulate on 

the forest floor before the fuels become so heavy that a natural wildfire in the area would be explosive 

and impossible to control.

Fuels reduction. Manipulation, including combustion or removal, of fuels to reduce the likelihood of 

ignition or to lessen potential damage and resistance to control. Often includes thinning and prescribed 

burning.
6. Glossary

6-14 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

Fuels treatment. The rearrangement or disposal of natural or activity fuels to reduce fire hazard.

Fugitive dust. Particulate matter suspended into the ambient air caused by man-made and natural 

activities, such as the movement of soil from agricultural cropland, vehicles on unpaved roadways, 

construction, blasting, and wind. It is not dust that is emitted from definable point sources, such as 

industrial smokestacks, gravel quarries, or grain mills.

Functional at risk. Riparian-wetland areas that are in functional condition, but an existing soil, water, 

or vegetation attribute makes them susceptible to degradation.

General habitat management areas (GHMA). Areas with or without ongoing or imminent 

impacts containing GRSG habitat outside the priority areas. Management decisions will maintain habitat 

for sustainable GRSG populations to promote movement and genetic diversity. Areas are delineated 

based on GRSG habitat. These areas were formerly called general habitat in the Draft South Dakota

RMP/EIS. 

Geocaching. An outdoor activity in which the participants use a global positioning system receiver or 

other navigational techniques to hide and seek containers, which usually hold a logbook.

Guidelines. See Best management practices.

Grazing preference. A superior or priority position against others for the purpose of receiving a 

grazing permit or lease. This priority is attached to base property owned or controlled by a permittee 

or lessee. 

Grazing relinquishment. The voluntary and permanent surrender by an existing permittee or lessee 

(with the concurrence of any base property lienholder), of their priority (preference) to use a livestock 

forage allocation on public land as well as their permission to use this forage. Relinquishments do not 

require the BLM’s consent or approval. The BLM’s receipt of a relinquishment is not a decision to close 

areas to livestock grazing.

Grazing system. Scheduled grazing use and non-use of an allotment to reach identified goals or 

objectives by improving the quality and quantity of vegetation.

Groundwater (geology). Water filling all the unblocked pores of the material below the water table.

Habitat. A specific set of physical conditions that surround a single species, a group of species, or a 

large community. In wildlife management, the major components of habitat are considered to be food, 

water, cover, and living space.

Habitat management plan (HMP). A written and approved activity plan for a geographical area that 

identifies habitat management activities to be implemented in achieving specific objectives of planning 

decisions.

Harvest efficiency. The total percent of vegetation harvested by a machine or ingested by a grazing 

animal, compared to the total amount of vegetation grown in the area in a given year. For continuous 

grazing, harvest efficiency usually averages 25 percent on rangeland.
6. Glossary

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 6-15

Hazardous fuels. Combustible forest materials. Includes vegetation, such as grass, leaves, ground litter, 

plants, shrubs, and trees that feed a fire.

Hazardous fuels reduction. Any treatment of a hazard that reduces the threat of ignition and fire 

intensity or rate of spread.

Hazardous material. A substance, pollutant, or contaminant that, due to its quantity, concentration, 

or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a potential hazard to human health and safety or to the 

environment if released into the workplace or the environment.

Heterogeneity. The quality or state of having dissimilar elements; having parts that are unlike or 

without interrelation; completely different.

High resource values. Resources that provide an important role in ecosystem function or other 

resource related purposes. They include special status species or rare species identified by the state and 

those resources that provide important aesthetic or cultural values. This term includes areas with the 

caliber of resources to qualify them for inclusion in SMAs, such as ACECs, NWSRs, WSAs (refer to list 

of acronyms at beginning of this document) and high resource areas, such as those that contain critical 

fish and wildlife habitat, wild horse herds, cultural sites, and threatened and endangered species habitat.

Long-term retention of public lands in these SMAs is either required by law through congressional 

action or identified through the land use planning process.

Historic fire regime. Periodicity and pattern of naturally occurring fires in a particular area or 

vegetative type, described in terms of frequency, biological severity, and area of extent.

Hooper Dairy Road. Located on the Fort Meade Recreation east of the Veterans Administration

complex on Highway 34. It provides access to the city of Sturgis ball diamonds and a private residence at 

the former Hooper Dairy. It is shown on Meade County records as Cypress Lane.

Hydric soil. A soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during 

the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. One indicator of a hydric soil is a 

bluish/grayish soil color.

Implementation planning. NEPA planning conducts at the individual project scale for the purposes of 

implementing the selected alternative of the ARMP/EIS or to ensure project level requests are 

consistent with the direction found in the ARMP. Also referred to as project level planning.

Incidental use. Personal use of other vegetative resources on the site where they are obtained, or if 

they are transported to a secondary location, personal use of the resources within a reasonable period 

by the person obtaining them (43 CFR, Part 5400.0-5).

Initial attack. The suppression action that is carried out exclusively by the forces that are planned and 

used for action on initiating fires. The actions taken by the first resources on arrival at a wildfire to 

protect lives and property and to prevent further expansion of the fire.

Integrated pest management (IPM). An important component of proposed weed management 

approach for noxious weed control under all of the alternatives. IPM is defined as an effective and 
6. Glossary

6-16 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

environmentally sensitive approach to pest management that relies on a combination of common sense 

practices. This approach is intended to reduce noxious weed damage to tolerable levels by using 

predators, parasites, genetically resistant hosts, and environmental modifications, and when necessary 

and appropriate, chemical pesticides or herbicides. Treatment methods and acceptable levels of 

infestation are to be described in site-specific environmental analyses. An acceptable level of infestation 

may be incorporated into a desired plant community where total eradication is not economically or 

biologically reasonable.

Integrated weed management (IWM). A decision-making process that uses site-specific 

information to make decisions about treatment choices. IWM involves four general categories of 

management: cultural, biological, physical, and chemical. IWM is based on the fact that combined 

strategies for weed management work more effectively than a single strategy.

Interim management policy (IMP). Policy for managing public lands under wilderness review.

Section 603(c) of FLPMA states “During the period of review of such areas and until Congress has 

determined otherwise, the Secretary shall continue to manage such lands according to his authority 

under this Act and other applicable law in a manner so as not to impair the suitability of such areas for 

preservation as wilderness, subject, however, to the continuation of existing mining and grazing uses and 

mineral leasing in the manner and degree in which the same was being conducted on [the date of 

approval of this act]: Provided, That, in managing the public lands the Secretary shall by regulation or 

otherwise take any action required to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands and their 

resources or to afford environmental protection.”

Intermittent stream. A stream or reach of a stream that flows for prolonged periods only when it 

receives groundwater discharge or long, continued contributions from melting snow or other surface 

and shallow subsurface sources.

Introduced species. A species not part of the original fauna or flora of the area in question but 

introduced from another geographical region through human activity. Synonymous with exotic; not 

synonymous with invasive species.

Invasive plants. Plants that are not part of (if exotic) or are a minor component of (if native) the 

original plant community or communities; have the potential to become a dominant or co-dominant 

species on the site if their future establishment and growth is not controlled by management or are 

classified as exotic or noxious plants under state or federal law. Species that become dominant for only 

one to several years (e.g., short-term response to drought or wildfire) are not invasive plants.

Invasive species. Invasive species are plants, animals, or pathogens that are nonnative to the 

ecosystem under consideration and whose introduction causes or is likely to harm the economy, the 

environment, or human health (Executive Order 13112).

Invertebrate. An animal lacking a backbone or spinal column.

Jurisdictional wetlands. Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a 

frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence 

of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions and meet the requirements of “waters 

of the United States.” To meet this definition three elements 
6. Glossary

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 6-17

are essential and made mandatory (through policy) for regulatory purposes: hydrophytic vegetation, 

hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar 

areas.

Karst region. An irregular limestone region with sinks, underground streams, and caverns.

Key area. A relatively small portion of a rangeland selected, based on its location, use, or grazing value, 

as a monitoring site for grazing use. Key areas, when properly selected, reflect the overall acceptability 

of current grazing management over a pasture or area.

Lease stipulation (oil and gas). Conditions of lease issuance that protect other resource values or 

land uses by establishing authority for substantial delay or site changes or the denial of operations within 

the terms of the lease contract. The authorized officer has the authority to relocate, control timing, and 

impose other mitigation measures under Section 6 of the Standard Lease Form. Lease stipulations clarify 

the BLM’s intent to protect known resources or resource values.

Leasable minerals. Those minerals or materials designated as leasable under the Mineral Leasing Act 

of 1920: coal, phosphate, asphalt, sulphur, potassium and sodium minerals, and oil and gas. Geothermal 

resources are also leasable under the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970.

Lek. For this ARMP, leks are areas used by GRSG during the mating season where males display to 

attract receptive females. Leks are typically used with great fidelity, for decades or longer, though they 

may move some over time. These sites are characterized by low vegetation with sparse shrubs, often 

surrounded by big sagebrush communities. Leks are considered to be the center of GRSG activities. The 

existence of a GRSG lek is supported by data collection, defined as a minimum of two years with two or 

more males lekking on-site (preferred) or one year with two or more males lekking on-site followed 

with evidence of lekking (vegetation trampling, feathers, and droppings) during a subsequent year. For 

the purpose of this ARMP, the BLM follows South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks in recognizing leks as 

active or inactive. 

Lentic. Pertaining to standing water, such as lakes and ponds.

Limited. Designated areas and trails where the use of OHVs is subject to restrictions, such as limiting 

the number or types of vehicles allowed, dates and times of use (seasonal restrictions), limiting use to 

existing or designated roads and trails. Under the designated roads and trails designation, use would be 

allowed only on roads and trails that are signed for use. Combinations of restrictions, such as limiting 

use to certain types of vehicles during certain times of the year, are possible. For the purposes of this 

ARMP, a limited area is one where motorized and mechanized travel is restricted to designated routes, 

unless otherwise noted. Off-road cross-country travel is prohibited in limited areas. Some routes may 

be closed in limited areas.

Lithic site. An archaeological site containing debris left from the manufacture, use, or maintenance of 

flaked stone tools.

Litter. Top layer of the forest, scrubland, or grassland floor, directly above the fermentation layer. It is 

composed of loose debris, including sticks, branches, twigs, and recently fallen leaves or needles, little 

altered in structure by decomposition.
6. Glossary

6-18 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

Loam. Soil material that is 7 to 27 percent clay particles, 28 to 50 percent silt particles, and less than 52 

percent sand particles.

Locatable minerals. Minerals or materials subject to claim and development under the Mining Law of 

1872, as amended. Generally includes metallic minerals, such as gold and silver, and other materials not 

subject to lease or sale (such as some bentonites, limestone, talc, and some xeolites). Whether a 

particular mineral deposit is locatable depends on such factors as quality, quantity, mineability, demand, 

and marketability. 

Lotic. Pertaining to moving water, such as streams and rivers.

Maintenance. The work required to keep a facility (road or building) in such a condition that it may be 

continuously used at its original or designed capacity and efficiency and for its intended purposes. 

Maintenance level. An established standard that prescribes the frequency and intensity of 

maintenance necessary to meet the management and use objectives of the facility. 

Major ROWs. Defined as 100 kilovolts and over for transmission lines and 24 inches and over for 

pipelines. Guidance for this definition comes from the BLM Washington, DC, Office’s consistency ADPP 

teams.

Management framework plan. BLM land use plan; predecessor to a resource management plan. 

Map unit. The basic system of description in a soil survey and delineation on a soil map. Can vary in 

level of detail. 

Mast. Any type of fruit or nut produced by trees or shrubs and eaten by wildlife.

Middle country. A recreational characteristic setting class where the character of the natural 

landscape is mostly retained. A few modifications contrast with the character of the landscape (e.g. 

fences and primitive roads). Facilities usually contain maintained and marked trails, simple trailhead 

development, and basic toilets. Other criteria apply, as shown in Appendices L and M.

Mineral entry. Claiming public lands (administered by the BLM) under the Mining Law of 1872 for the 

purpose of exploiting minerals. May also refer to mineral exploration and development under the 

mineral leasing laws and the Material Sale Act of 1947.

Mineral materials. Common varieties of such material as sand, building stone, gravel, clay, and moss 

rock obtainable under the Minerals Act of 1947, as amended.

Mining claim. A parcel of land that a miner takes and holds for mining purposes, having acquired the 

right of possession by complying with the Mining Law of 1872 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.

Minimization mitigation. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its 

implementation (40 CFR, Part 1508.20[b]).
6. Glossary

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 6-19

Minimum impact suppression tactics (MIST). The concept of MIST is to use the minimum amount 

of force necessary to achieve wildland fire management protection objectives, consistent with land and 

resource management objectives.

Mining Law of 1872. Provides for claiming and gaining title to locatable minerals on public lands. Also 

referred to as the General Mining Law or Mining Law.

Minor ROWs. Defined as other ROWs not considered major ROWs (see above). Also includes 

communication sites and towers.

Mitigation. Actions taken to avoid, minimize, or rectify impacts of a land management practice; 

reducing or eliminating the impact by preservation and maintenance operations.

Modification. A change to the provisions of a lease stipulation, either temporarily or for the term of 

the lease. Depending on the specific modification, the stipulation may or apply to all sites within the 

leasehold to which the restrictive criteria are applied. 

Monitoring. Regularly collecting data to evaluate as to whether objectives or land health standards are 

being achieved and the effectiveness of management actions.

Mosaic. Landscape elements that are arranged in a pattern that resembles an abstract tile mosaic, 

where many small patches of varying shape and size fill the entire landscape.

Mountain Pine Beetle Risk. The susceptibility of ponderosa pine stands to infestation by mountain 

pine beetle, based on stand density: 0-59 square feet of basal area = Low; 60-100 square feet of basal 

area = Moderate; greater than 100 square feet of basal area = High.

Multiple use management. Management of public land and resource values to best meet various 

present and future needs of the American people. This means coordinated management of resources 

and uses to ensure the long-term health of the ecosystem. 

Multiplier. A change in an economic measure resulting from a specified change in some other 

economic measure.

Multi-story. Consisting of an overstory of trees or shrubs and an understory of other smaller plants.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Public Law 91-190, establishes 

environmental policy for the nation. Among other stipulations, NEPA requires federal agencies to 

consider environmental values in decision-making.

National Fire Plan. A planning document that directs the actions of USDA Forest Service and 

Department of the Interior agencies in preparing for wildland fires and reducing their impacts on people 

and resources. It is based on the key points of firefighting: rehabilitation and restoration, hazardous fuel 

reduction, community assistance, and accountability.

National Register of Historic Places. A listing of architectural, historical, archaeological, and cultural 

sites of local, state, or national significance, established by the Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 

maintained by the National Park Service.
6. Glossary

6-20 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

National Historic Landmark. Nationally significant historic places designated by the Secretary of the 

Interior because they possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of 

the United States.

Naturalness (a primary wilderness value). An area that generally appears to have been affected 

primarily by the forces of nature, wherein the imprint of people’s work is substantially unnoticeable.

Net conservation gain. The actual benefit or gain above baseline conditions. For GRSG, the intent is 

to provide a net conservation gain to the species. To do so, in undertaking BLM management actions, 

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

in habitat loss and degradation within priority habitat (core population areas and core population 

connectivity corridors), the BLM will require and ensure mitigation that provides a net conservation gain 

to the species, including accounting for any uncertainty associated with the effectiveness of such 

mitigation. This will be achieved by avoiding, minimizing, and compensating for impacts by applying 

beneficial mitigation actions.

No surface occupancy (NSO). Use or occupancy of the land surface for fluid mineral exploration 

and development is prohibited to protect identified resource values. NSO restrictions do not restrict 

the lessees of fluid minerals from exploiting the fluid mineral resources under the leases restricted by 

this constraint through use of directional drilling from sites outside the NSO area. An NSO stipulation 

may be applied to other uses depending on the type of occupancy and use the potential level of surface 

disturbance or disruption may create. In most cases, NSO restrictions would not apply to range 

improvements, structures associated with monitoring, restoration or improvement of wildlife habitat 

conditions and small scale recreation facilities. Refer to Surface-disturbing activities and Disruptive activities

for related subject matter.

Non-constructional improvements. A practice or treatment that improves the resource condition 

or production for multiple use. Such improvements may include seedlings; plant control through 

chemical, mechanical, biological means; prescribed burning; water spreaders; pitting; chiseling; and 

contour furrowing.

Nonfunctional. Riparian-wetland areas that clearly are not providing adequate vegetation, landform, or 

large woody debris to dissipate stream energy associated with high flows and thus are not reducing 

erosion or improving water quality. 

Non-invasive introduced species. Plants that meet the introduced species definition and do not 

spread aggressively from the area in which they originally occurred or were planted. They pose little 

threat to natural area diversity or managed agricultural area productivity.

Nonnative plant. A plant introduced with human help (intentionally or accidentally) to a new place or 

new type of habitat where it was not previously found. Note: Not all nonnative plants are invasive.

Nonpoint source pollution. Comes from many sources over a wide area. (Agricultural practices are 

a major form, including fertilizer runoff into streams.)
6. Glossary

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 6-21

Northern Great Plains Joint Venture Program. A USFWS program intended to maintain and 

increase the populations of high priority wetland, grassland, forest, riverine, and riparian wildlife species 

in the Northern Great Plains Joint Venture region.

Noxious weed. A plant species designated by federal or state law as generally possessing one or more 

of the following characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage; parasitic; a carrier or host of serious 

insects or disease; or nonnative, new, or not common to the United States.

Nurse crop. A type of vegetation that is used to provide shade, nutrients, or other benefits to seeded 

vegetation. Nurse crops last for one or two growing seasons and usually consist of annual or short-lived 

perennial plants.

Nutrient, plant. Any element taken in by a plant essential to its growth. Plant nutrients are mainly 

nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, sulfur, iron, manganese, copper, boron, and zinc 

obtained from the soil and carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen obtained from the air and water.

Off-highway vehicle (OHV). Any motorized vehicle capable of, or designed for, travel on or 

immediately over land, water, or other natural terrain, excluding the following:

 Any nonamphibious registered motorboat

 Any military, fire, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle while being used for emergency 

purposes

 Any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the BLM Authorized Officer or otherwise 

officially approved

 Vehicles in official use

 Any combat or combat support vehicle when used in times of national defense emergencies

(43 CFR, Part 8340.0-5[a])

Off-road vehicle designations. Public lands designated for OHV use. Lands in the planning area are 

designated as open, limited, or closed for OHV use.

Open. Designated areas and trails where OHVs may be operated (subject to operating regulations and 

vehicle standards set forth in BLM Manuals 8341 and 8343). For the purposes of this ARMP, an open 

area is where all types of motorized vehicles (for example, jeeps, all-terrain vehicles, and motorized dirt 

bikes) and mechanized uses (mountain bikes, wheelbarrows, and game carts) are allowed to travel freely 

at all times, anywhere in the area, on roads or cross country, subject to the operating regulations and 

vehicle standards set forth in 43 CFR, Parts 8341 and 8342. Also, areas that are available for ROWs and 

associated development.

Paleontological resources. The physical remains or other physical evidence of plants and animals 

preserved in soils and sedimentary rock formations. Paleontological resources are important for 

correlating and dating rock strata and for understanding past environments, environmental change, and 

the evolution of life.
6. Glossary

6-22 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

Patented claim. A claim on which title has passed from the federal government to the mining claimant 

under the Mining Law of 1872.

Planning area. The geographical area for which land use and resource management plans are 

developed and maintained. The planning area includes the entire state of South Dakota. See also Decision 

area.

Perennial stream. A stream in which water is present during all seasons of the year.

Permeability. The quality of the soil that enables water to move downward through the profile,

measured as the number of inches per hour that water moves downward through the saturated soil. 

Permitted use. The forage allocated by, or under the guidance of, an applicable land use plan for 

livestock grazing in an allotment under a permit or lease and is expressed in AUMs.

Personal income. Employee compensation plus property income.

Personal use. Use other than for sale, barter, trade, or obtaining a profit (43 CFR, Part 5400.0-5).

Pest. Any plant or animal (including insects, mites, weeds, bacteria, fungi, viruses, and vertebrates) 

whose activities interfere with human health, convenience, comfort, or profits. Broadly defined to 

include pests affecting food, fiber, and shelter, pests that threaten public health, and nuisance pests.

Philtown Road. Locally known as Old Stone Road. It extends from the west boundary of Fort Meade 

Recreation Area ACEC to the Backcountry Byway and is opened as a bypass during the Sturgis 

Motorcycle Rally.

Point source pollution. Input of pollution from a single source in a specific location.

Policy. A guiding principle that a specific decision or set of decisions is based on.

Potential fossil yield classification (PFYC). Geologic units are classified according to this system, 

usually at the formation or member level, based on the relative abundance of significant fossils and their 

sensitivity to adverse impacts. The classification uses a ranking of 1 through 5, with Class 5 assigned to 

units with a very high potential for fossils, as follows:

Class 1 – Very Low. Igneous or metamorphic geologic units, or other units not likely to 

contain recognizable fossil remains. Management concern is negligible for Class 1 units and 

mitigation requirements are rarely necessary.

Class 2 – Low. Sedimentary geologic units that are not likely to contain vertebrate fossils or 

significant invertebrate fossils. Management concern is low for Class 2 units and mitigation 

requirements are not likely.

Class 3 – Moderate or Unknown. Fossiliferous sedimentary geologic units, where fossil 

content varies in significance, abundance, and predictable occurrence, or sedimentary units of 

unknown fossil potential. Management concern may extend across the entire range of 

management. Ground-disturbing activities require sufficient assessment to determine whether 
6. Glossary

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 6-23

significant resources occur in the area of the proposed action and whether the action could 

affect the paleontological resources. Pre-disturbance surveys, monitoring, or avoidance may be 

necessary.

Class 4 – High. Geologic units containing known occurrences of significant fossils, but these 

occurrences may vary in local abundance and predictability. Management concern is moderate to 

high, depending on the potential impacts of the proposed action and local geologic conditions.

Pre-disturbance field surveys are often needed, and avoidance or on-site monitoring may often 

be necessary during project activities.

Class 5 – Very High. Highly fossiliferous geologic units that consistently and predictably 

produce significant fossils and that are at risk of human-caused adverse impacts or natural 

degradation. Class 5 areas merit a high level of management focus. Mitigation of grounddisturbing activities, including pre-disturbance surveys, on-site monitoring, or avoidance 

procedures, are nearly always necessary. These units are often the focus of illegal collecting 

activities. Special management designations may be appropriate for protection or interpretation.

Potential natural community (PNC). The biotic community that would become established on an 

ecological site if all successional sequences were completed without interferences by man under the 

present environmental conditions. Natural disturbances are inherent in its development. The PNC may 

include acclimatized or naturalized nonnative species. 

Potential to emit. The maximum capacity of a facility or emitting unit, within physical and operational 

design, to emit a pollutant. Any physical or operational limitation on the capacity of the facility or 

emitting unit to emit a pollutant, including air pollution control equipment and restrictions on hours of 

operation or on the type or amount of material combusted, stored, or processed, is treated as part of 

its design only if the limitation or the effect it would have on emissions is federally enforceable. 

Pre-commercial thinning. The removal of trees not for immediate financial return but to reduce 

stocking to concentrate growth on the more desirable trees.

Prescribed burning. Controlled application of fire to wildland fuels in either their natural or modified 

state. This burning is done under specified environmental conditions that allow the fire to be confined to 

a predetermined area and at the same time to produce the fire line intensity and rate of spread required 

to attain planned resource management objectives.

Prescribed fire. A wildland fire originating from a planned ignition to meet specific objectives identified 

in a written, approved, prescribed fire plan for which NEPA requirements have been met before ignition.

Prescription. In terms of fire and fuels management, prescriptions are practices to accomplish specific 

land and resource management objectives and measurable criteria that guide the selection of 

appropriate management actions. Prescription criteria may include safety, economic, public health, 

environmental, geographic, administrative, social, and legal considerations under which a fire will be 

allowed to burn. Also, a specific set of management practices or techniques that are usually applied at 

the implementation level to accomplish natural resource goals or objectives. 
6. Glossary

6-24 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD). A regulatory program under the Clean Air Act 

(Public Law 84-159, as amended) to limit air quality and AQRV degradation in areas currently achieving 

the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The PSD program established air quality classes in which 

differing amounts of additional air pollution are allowed above a legally defined baseline level. Small 

additional air pollution may be considered significant in PSD Class I areas (certain large national parks 

and wilderness areas in existence on August 7, 1977, and specific tribal lands redesignated since then). 

PSD Class II areas allow deterioration associated with moderate well-controlled growth (most of the 

country). Area classes are described below.

Class I—An area that allows only minimal degradation above the baseline. The Clean Air Act 

designated existing national parks over 6,000 acres and national wilderness areas over 5,000 

acres in existence on August 7, 1977, as mandatory federal Class I areas. These areas also have 

special visibility protection. In addition, four tribal governments have redesignated their lands as 

Class I Areas.

Class II—An area that allows moderate degradation above the baseline. Most of the United 

States (outside nonattainment areas) is Class II.

Class III—Any area that allows the maximum amount of degradation above the baseline. 

Although Congress allows air quality regulatory agencies to redesignate Class II lands to 

Class III, none have been designated.

Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) increment and increment analysis. The 

allowable PSD increment is the change in pollutant concentration allowed in a Class I, II, or III area. PSD 

increment values are provided in EPA regulations. As performed by the BLM for NEPA analysis, PSD 

increment analysis is a method of comparing predicted (modeled) pollutant concentrations to the EPA’s 

allowable PSD increment values for the purpose of public disclosure only. The BLM increment analysis is

not a regulatory analysis. State air quality agencies and the EPA perform regulatory PSD increment 

analyses.

Primitive and unconfined recreation (a primary wilderness value). Nonmotorized and 

undeveloped types of outdoor recreation. Refers to wilderness recreation opportunities, such as nature 

study, hiking, photography, backpacking, fishing, hunting, and other related activities. Does not include 

the use of motorized vehicles, bicycles, or other mechanized means of travel. Also, a recreational setting 

characteristics (RSC) class that contains an undisturbed landscape. Other RSC criteria apply as described 

in Appendices L and M.

Primitive road. A linear route managed for by four-wheel drive or high-clearance vehicles. Primitive 

roads do not normally meet any BLM road design standard. 

Priority habitat management areas (PHMA). Areas with limited impacts containing substantial 

and high quality GRSG habitat that support sustainable GRSG populations. Management decisions will

emphasize the protection and enhancement of sustainable GRSG populations. Areas are delimitated by 

using key, core, and connectivity data and maps and other resources.
6. Glossary

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 6-25

Probable sale quantity (PSQ). The allowable harvest level that can be maintained without decline 

over the long term if the schedule of harvest and regeneration are followed. Not a commitment to offer 

for sale a specific level of timber volume every year.

Problem or problematic soil. Soils with physical or chemical properties that make reclamation 

difficult. Some examples are soils with high salinity or sodicity, soils with low fertility, soils that lack 

cohesiveness and are susceptible to erosion, and soils with extremely high clay content.

Productivity. 

Soil productivity: The capacity of a soil to produce plant growth, due to its chemical, physical, 

and biological properties, such as depth, temperature, water-holding capacity, and mineral, 

nutrient, and organic matter content.

Vegetative productivity: The rate of production of vegetation within a given period.

General: The innate capacity of an environment to support plant and animal life over time.

Project level planning. NEPA planning conducted at the individual project scale for implementing the 

selected alternative of the RMP/EIS or to ensure project level requests are consistent with the direction 

found in the selected alternative of the RMP. Also referred to as implementation planning.

Proper functioning condition. Referring to riparian-wetlands, properly functioning when adequate 

vegetation, landform, or large woody debris are present to dissipate stream energy associated with high 

water flows. The functioning condition of these areas is influenced by geomorphic features, soil, water, 

and vegetation.

Public land. Any land or interest in land owned by the United States and administered by the Secretary 

of the Interior through the BLM.

Public road. Part of a public agency road system. A public road is not within the BLM’s jurisdiction, 

does not receive support from BLM construction or maintenance funds, and is not subject to BLM 

regulations. This differs from a road built to serve a BLM facility, which the public is allowed to use, such 

as a road to a recreation site. A BLM road remains under BLM control, even though it serves the 

general public. The BLM administers no legal public roads. A public road must meet the criteria for 

public roads as established by the Secretary of Transportation (23 USC, Sections 101 and 104).

Range of historical variability. Ecological conditions and the spatial and temporal variation in these 

conditions that are relatively unaffected by people within a period and geographical area appropriate to 

an expressed goal.

Rangeland. Land on which the potential natural vegetation is predominantly grasses, grass-like plants, 

forbs, or shrubs suitable for grazing or browsing. It includes natural grasslands, savannas, many wetlands, 

some deserts, tundra, and areas that support certain forb and shrub communities.

Rangeland health. The degree to which the integrity of the soil and the ecological processes of 

rangeland ecosystems are sustained.
6. Glossary

6-26 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

Raptor. Bird of prey with sharp talons and strongly curved beaks, such as hawks, owls, vultures, and 

eagles.

Reclamation. Returning disturbed lands to a form and productivity that will be ecologically balanced 

and in conformity with a predetermined land management plan.

Reconstruction. Replacing, rebuilding, or restoring an improvement, facility, or treatment, such as a

fence, spring development, cattle guard, road, trail, building, or parking lot, to its original or modified 

condition.

Recreation opportunity spectrum. A means of characterizing recreation opportunities in terms of 

setting, activity, and experience opportunities.

Recreation setting characteristic. A method for describing setting characteristics for recreation 

use, drawing on physical, social, and operational facets. See Appendices L and M.

Recreation site. An area where management actions are required to provide a specific recreation 

setting and activity opportunities to protect resource values, to provide public visitor safety and health, 

or to meet public recreational use demands and recreation partnership commitments. A site may or 

may not have permanent facilities. 

Recreation use permits. Authorizations for use of developed facilities that meet the fee criteria 

established by the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1964, as amended, or subsequent 

authority (such as the pilot fee demonstration program). Recreation use permits are issued to ensure 

that US residents receive a fair and equitable return for the use of those facilities to help recover the 

cost of construction, operation, maintenance, and management of the permits.

Recreational gold panning. See Casual use.

Reference conditions. Information on the vegetation structure and composition and the processes 

that shaped them that are used to define management or restoration goals.

Refugia. An area where special environmental circumstances have enabled a species or community of 

species to survive after decline or extinction in surrounding areas

Rehabilitation. The activities necessary to repair damage or disturbance caused by wildfire or the fire 

suppression activity.

Removal site evaluation. A document that determines if a removal action is necessary, which is 

composed of a preliminary assessment and a site inspection.

Reportable quantity. The amount of a hazardous material or substance that is considered reportable 

under CERCLA. Reportable quantities are one pound or greater or an amount as established and listed 

at 40 CFR, Part 302.4, or under Section 111 of the Clean Water Act.

Required Design Features (RDFs). Required for certain activities in all GRSG habitat. RDFs establish 

the minimum specifications for certain activities to help mitigate adverse impacts. However, the 

applicability and overall effectiveness of each RDF cannot be fully assessed until the project level, when 
6. Glossary

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 6-27

the project location and design are known. Because of site-specific circumstances, some RDFs may not 

apply to some projects (e.g., a resource is not present on a given site) or may require slight variations 

(e.g., a larger or smaller protective area). All variations in RDFs would require that at least one of the 

following be demonstrated in the NEPA analysis associated with the project/activity:

 A specific RDF is documented to not be applicable to the site-specific conditions of the 

project/activity (e.g., due to site limitations or engineering considerations). Economic 

considerations, such as increased costs, do not necessarily require that an RDF be varied or

rendered inapplicable.

 An alternative RDF, state-implemented conservation measure, or plan-level protection is 

determined to provide equal or better protection for GRSG or its habitat.

 A specific RDF will provide no additional protection to GRSG or its habitat.

Reserve common allotment. An area designated in the land use plan as available for livestock grazing 

but reserved as an area available for use as an alternative to grazing in another allotment in order to 

facilitate rangeland restoration treatments and recovery from natural disturbances, such as drought or 

wildfire. The reserve common allotment would provide needed flexibility that would help the agency 

apply temporary rest from grazing where vegetation treatments and management would be most 

effective.

Resource management plan. A land use plan as described by the FLPMA.

Restoration. Actions taken to modify an ecosystem to achieve desired, healthy, and functioning 

conditions and processes. May be used in the context of repair or reestablishment of a specific 

component of the ecosystem, such as vegetation restoration.

Retirement. Ending livestock grazing on a specific area of land. 

Right-of-way. A permit or an easement authorizing the use of public land for certain specified 

purposes, commonly for pipelines, roads, telephone lines, electric lines, and reservoirs. Also, the 

reference to the land covered by such an easement or permit.

Right-of-way avoidance area. An environmentally sensitive area where a right-of-way may be 

granted only when no feasible alternative is available. 

Right-of-way corridor. A parcel of land identified by law or by order of the Secretary of the Interior, 

through a land use plan, or by other management decision as being the preferred location for existing 

and future rights-of-way grants and suitable to accommodate one type of right-of-way or one or more 

rights-of-way that are similar, identical, or compatible.

Right-of-way exclusion area. An environmentally sensitive area where a right-of-way will be granted 

only in cases where there is a legal requirement to provide such access.

Rilling. Formation of channels by concentrated surface runoff that is less than one square foot in crosssectional area. It typically forms where rainfall and surface runoff is concentrated on fill slopes, cut

banks, and ditches. Larger channels are called gullies.
6. Glossary

6-28 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

Riparian. BLM Technical Reference 1737-9 defines riparian areas as a form of wetland transition 

between permanently saturated wetlands and upland areas. These areas exhibit vegetation or physical 

characteristics reflective of permanent surface or subsurface water influence. Lands along perennially 

and intermittently flowing rivers and streams, glacial potholes, and the shores of lakes and reservoirs 

with stable water levels are typical riparian areas. Excluded are such sites as ephemeral streams or 

washes that do not exhibit the presence of vegetation (USDI BLM 1998).

Riparian/aquatic system. Interacting system between aquatic and terrestrial situations. Identified by a 

stream channel and distinctive vegetation that requires or tolerates free or inbound water.

Riparian ecosystem. The ecosystems around or next to water areas that support unique vegetation 

and animal communities as a result of the influence of water.

Road. A linear route declared a road by the owner, managed for use by low-clearance vehicles having 

four or more wheels, and maintained for regular and continuous use.

Roadless. Refers to the absence of roads that have been constructed and maintained by mechanical 

means to ensure regular and continuous use.

Roadway. As used herein, the portion of a road within the limits of the excavation and embankment.

Routes. A combination of roads, trails, or ways that are used by motorized vehicles (such as jeeps, allterrain vehicles, and motorized dirt bikes), mechanized uses (mountain bikes, wheelbarrows, and game 

carts), pedestrians (hikers), and horseback riders.

Runoff. The precipitation discharged into stream channels from an area. The water that flows off the 

surface of the land without sinking into the soil is called surface runoff.; water that enters the soil before 

reaching surface streams is called groundwater runoff or seepage flow from groundwater.

Sage-grouse. In this plan, this term refers only to GRSG (Centrocercus urophasianus).

Salable minerals. Common varieties of mineral materials such as sand, gravel, and stone, as well as 

petrified wood. Common mineral materials may be sold or disposed of through free use permits under 

the provision of the Materials Act of July 31, 1947, amended July 23, 1955, and September 25, 1962.

Saline soil. A soil containing soluble salts in an amount that impairs the growth of plants. A saline soil 

does not contain excess exchangeable sodium.

Sand (geology). A rock fragment or detrital particle between 0.0025 and 0.08 inch in diameter.

Saw timber. Trees or logs that are large enough (usually at least 9 inches in diameter) to be sawed 

into lumber. Minimum length is usually 8 feet.

Scenic river. A river or section of a river that is free of impoundments and whose shorelines are 

largely undeveloped but accessible in places by roads.

Section 03 Grazing Permit. Issued to graze livestock on public lands within grazing districts, as 

outlined in the Taylor Grazing Act, as amended 1934. Grazing preference is given to nearby landowners 
6. Glossary

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 6-29

engaged in the livestock business or owners of water or water rights as may be necessary to permit the 

proper use of the land or water that they own.

Section 15 Grazing Lease. Grazing lease issued to graze livestock on public lands outside of grazing 

districts, as outlined in the Taylor Grazing Act, as amended 1934. Grazing preference is given to 

landowners owning land contiguous with public lands.

Section 202 lands. Lands being considered for wilderness designation under Section 202 of FLPMA.

Sediment. Soil, rock particles, and organic or other debris carried from one place to another by wind, 

water, or gravity.

Sensitive Class II Area. A Class II area under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

Program for which a federal land management agency, state agency, or tribal authority requests air 

quality-related value (AQRV) analysis comparable to that performed for PSD Class I areas. Agencies 

with jurisdiction over sensitive Class II areas sometimes request that the lead agency implement 

mitigation measures to protect AQRVs at sensitive Class II areas. Sensitive Class II areas are not 

addressed by the Clean Air Act.

Sensitive Soil. Characteristics may include erodibility by water and wind, compaction, fugitive dust 

resistance, and reclamation suitability. The criteria to define and identify areas with sensitive soils in this 

ARMP were outlined by the BLM’s State Coordinator for Soils, Water, and Riparian, soil scientists in the 

BLM Montana-Dakotas organization, and the NRCS. The method was outlined in an original 

organization-specific reclamation suitability interpretation criteria. Sensitive soils is equivalent to 

representative slope* multiplied by wind erodibility index* greater than or equal to seven (where * 

designates individual interpretations within the NRCS’s Soil Survey Geographic Databases [USDA NRCS 

2011]). A site-specific evaluation found that some steep slopes were overlooked by this analysis in South 

Dakota. This problem did not present itself in other BLM Montana-Dakota field offices. Since every state 

NRCS conducts soil surveys in a slightly different manner, this issue was addressed by the BLM South 

Dakota Office by adding slopes over 25% from the Digital Elevation Model data to the sensitive soils 

criteria for GIS analysis. The criteria used to define and identify areas with sensitive soils may be adapted 

as conditions change or new information or technology becomes available. The criteria used to define 

and identify areas with sensitive soils may be adapted as conditions change or new information or 

technology becomes available.

Series, soil. A nationally defined soil type set apart on distinct soil properties that affect use and 

management. In a soil survey, this includes a group of soils that have profiles that appear most alike, 

except for differences in texture of the surface layer or of the underlying material. All the soils of a 

series have horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.

Seral. Refers to species or communities that are eventually replaced by other species or communities 

within a sere (a natural succession of plant or animal communities, especially a full series from 

uncolonized habitat to the appropriate climax vegetation).

Sheet erosion. The removal of a fairly uniform layer of soil material from the land surface by rainfall 

and surface runoff.
6. Glossary

6-30 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

Shoulder. The portion of the roadway contiguous to the travel way for accommodation of stopped 

vehicles, for emergency use, and for lateral support of pavement structure or the edge of the travel way 

if no shoulder width exists.

Significant paleontological resource (also, significant fossil resource). Any paleontological 

resource that is considered to be of scientific interest, including most vertebrate fossil remains and 

traces and certain rare or unusual invertebrate and plant fossils. A significant paleontological resource is 

considered to be scientifically important because it is a rare or previously unknown species, it is of high 

quality and well-preserved, it preserves a previously unknown anatomical or other characteristic, 

provides new information about the history of life on earth, or has identified educational or recreational 

value.

Silviculture. The science, art, and practice of caring for, cultivating, managing, and development of 

forests.

Slash. Debris left after logging, pruning, thinning, or brush cutting; can include logs, chips, bark, 

branches, stumps, and broken understory trees or brush.

Slope. The inclination of the land surface from the horizontal. Percentage of slope is the vertical 

distance divided by horizontal distance, then multiplied by 100. For example, a slope of 20 percent is a 

drop of 20 feet in 100 feet of horizontal distance.

Snags. Standing dead trees with no live branches.

Sodic (alkali) soil. A soil having so high a degree of alkalinity (pH 8.5 or higher) or so high a 

percentage of exchangeable sodium (15 percent or more of the total exchangeable bases), or both, that 

plant growth is restricted.

Soil. A natural, three-dimensional body at Earth’s surface. It is capable of supporting plants and has 

properties resulting from the integrated effect of climate and living matter acting on earthy parent 

material, as conditioned by relief over time.

Soil association. A group of soils geographically associated in a characteristic repeating pattern and 

defined and delineated as a single soil map unit.

Soil classification. The systematic arrangement of soils into groups or categories on the basis of their 

characteristics.

Soil compaction. An increase in soil bulk density of 15 percent or more from the undisturbed level.

Soil complex. A map unit of two or more kinds of soils in such an intricate pattern or so small an area 

that it is not practical to map them separately at the selected scale of mapping.

Soil productivity. The capacity of a soil for producing a specified plant or sequence of plants under 

specific management.

Soil profile. A vertical section of the soil extending through all its horizons and into the parent 

material.
6. Glossary

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 6-31

Soil survey. A field investigation resulting in a soil map showing the geographic distribution of various 

kinds of soil and an accompanying report that describes the soil types and interprets the findings

Soil texture. The relative proportions of sand, silt, and clay particles in a mass of soil.

Source water protection area. An area defined by a community, that contributes water to a well, 

and is protected from certain activities and sources of pollution to avoid costly treatment or relocation. 

South Dakota Oil and Gas Reasonably Foreseeable Development Study Area. The 

geographical area in western South Dakota studied for the oil and gas reasonably foreseeable 

development scenario.

Special recreation management area (SRMA). An administrative unit where existing or proposed 

recreation opportunities and RSCs are recognized for their unique value, importance, or distinctiveness, 

especially as compared to other areas used for recreation. 

Special recreation permits. Authorizations that allow for recreational uses of public lands and 

related waters. Issued as a means to control visitor use, to protect recreational and natural resources, 

and to provide for the health and safety of visitors. Commercial special recreation permits also are 

issued as a mechanism to provide a fair return for the commercial use of public lands.

Special status species. Plant or animal species known to be or suspected to be limited in distribution, 

rare or uncommon within a specific area, or vulnerable to activities that may affect their survival. Lists of 

special status species are prepared by knowledgeable specialists throughout South Dakota. The BLM 

updates the list of BLM sensitive species as new information becomes available or new direction and 

guidance is provided.

Special stipulation. A specific operating condition or limitation added to a mineral lease to protect 

sensitive resources that modifies the original terms and conditions of that lease.

Spot treatment. The application of herbicides directly on or around the undesired plants.

Stand. A group of standing trees that usually has characteristics that would distinguish it from other 

stands. Differences could be the species, average diameter, density, and location. 

Stand density. An expression of the total stocking of a stand of trees and is measured in square feet of 

basal area per acre.

Stand replacement. When a stand has been totally modified by some disturbance (fire, insects, 

disease, or logging) and needs to start or be started over.

Standard. A principle that must be followed or a condition that must be met.

Standard landscape assessment. Method of determining characteristics that make up a landscape.

Means of describing a geographic area using GIS.

Stewardship contracting. Allows private organizations or businesses to remove forest products, 

such as trees and undergrowth, in return for performing work to restore and maintain healthy forest 
6. Glossary

6-32 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

ecosystems. Work performed under stewardship contracts can provide a source of local employment 

and income to contribute to the development of sustainable communities.

Stipulations. Requirements that are part of the terms of an authorization, usually a mineral lease. In 

this plan, stipulations and restrictions may be consolidated under the general term restrictions. Some 

stipulations are standard on all federal leases; other stipulations may be applied to the lease at the 

discretion of the surface management agency to protect valuable surface resources and uses. An oil and 

gas lease stipulation is a condition of lease issuance that provides a level of protection for other 

resource values or land uses by restricting lease operations during certain times or locations or to avoid 

unacceptable impacts, to an extent greater than standard lease terms or regulations. A stipulation is an 

enforceable term of the lease contract, supersedes any inconsistent provisions of the standard lease 

form, and is attached to and made a part of the lease. Lease stipulations further implement the BLM’s

regulatory authority to protect resources or resource values. Lease stipulations are developed through 

the land use planning process. 

Steep slopes. Areas with steep slopes may present a management problem when disturbances on the 

surface cause unacceptable resource impacts (loss of soil productivity or excessive downslope 

sedimentation) or can be difficult to reclaim. Within this RMP, steep slopes, currently defined as areas 

with a slope over 25 percent, are incorporated into the sensitive soil criteria. See Sensitive soils. 

Structure. How the parts of ecosystems are arranged, both horizontally and vertically. Structure might 

reveal a pattern, mosaic, or total randomness of vegetation.

Structure, soil. The arrangement of primary soil particles into compound particles or aggregates.

Succession. The progressive replacement of plant communities on a site following disturbance.

Described in terms of early, mid, late, and potential natural community.

Suppression. All the work of extinguishing a fire or confining fire spread.

Surface occupancy and use. See No surface occupancy (NSO). 

Surface fuels. Loose litter on the soil surface, normally consisting of fallen leaves or needles, twigs, 

bark, cones, and small branches that have not yet decayed; also grasses, forbs, low and medium shrubs, 

tree seedlings, heavier branch wood, downed logs, and stumps interspersed with or partially replacing 

the litter.

Sustained yield. Maintenance of an annual or regular periodic output of a renewable resource from 

public land and consistent with the principles of multiple use.

Surface-disturbing activities. The physical disturbance or removal of land surface and vegetation.

Some examples of surface-disturbing activities include construction of roads, well pads, pipelines, power

lines, pits and reservoirs, facilities, recreation sites, and mining. Vegetation renovation treatments that 

involve soil penetration or substantial mechanical damage to plants (plowing, chiseling, and chopping) are 

also surface-disturbing activities. This definition is not intended to prohibit all activities or authorized 

uses. For example, emergency activities, such as fire suppression and search and rescue, rangeland 

monitoring, routine maintenance associated with an approved authorization, dispersed recreational 
6. Glossary

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 6-33

activities, such as hunting and hiking, and livestock grazing are not considered surface-disturbing 

activities.

Technically/Economically Feasible. Actions that are practical or feasible from the technical and 

economic standpoint and using common sense, rather than simply desirable from the standpoint of the 

applicant. It is the BLM’s sole responsibility to determine what actions are technically and economically 

feasible. The BLM will consider whether implementation of a proposed action is likely, given past and 

current practice and technology; this consideration does not necessarily require a cost/benefit analysis 

or speculation about an applicant’s costs and profit (modified from the CEQ’s 40 Most Asked Questions 

and BLM NEPA Handbook, Section 6.6.3).

Terrestrial. Living or growing in or on the land.

Thinning. Reduction in density of stocking by harvesting or deadening trees to prevent overcrowding 

and stagnation of a stand of trees, to accelerate growth or to improve the health of the trees that 

remain.

Threatened species. Any species or significant population of that species likely to become endangered 

within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Usually includes only 

those species that have been recognized and listed as threatened by federal and state governments but 

may include species categorized as rare, very rare, or depleted.

Timber. Standing trees, downed trees, or logs that are capable of being measured in board feet.

Timeliness. The lack of a time lag between impacts and the achievement of compensatory mitigation 

goals and objectives (BLM Manual Section 1794).

Timing limitation (seasonal restriction). Prohibits surface use during specified periods to protect 

identified resource values. 

Total dissolved solids. Salt or an aggregate of carbonates, bicarbonates, chlorides, sulfates, 

phosphates, and nitrates of calcium, magnesium, manganese, sodium, potassium, and other cations that 

form salts.

Total maximum daily load. A calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body 

can receive and still meet water quality standards and an allocation of that amount to the pollutant’s 

sources. The sum of the allowable loads of a single pollutant from all contributing point and nonpoint 

sources.

Traditional cultural property. A cultural property that is eligible for inclusion in the National 

Register of Historic Places because of its association with a living community’s cultural practices or 

beliefs that are rooted in that community’s history and are important in maintaining the community’s 

continuing cultural identity.

Trail. A linear route managed for human-powered, stock, or off-highway vehicle forms of 

transportation or for historical values. Trails are not generally managed for use by four-wheel drive or 

high-clearance vehicles.
6. Glossary

6-34 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

Travel management area (TMA). Polygons or delineated areas where travel management (either 

motorized or nonmotorized) needs particular focus. These areas may be designated as open, closed, or 

limited to motorized use and will typically have an identified or designated network of roads, trails, 

ways, and other routes that provide for public access and travel across the planning area. All designated 

travel routes within TMAs should have a clearly identified need and purpose as well as clearly defined 

activity types, modes of travel, and seasons or times for allowable access or other limitations.

Trend. The direction of change in ecological status observed over time. Trend is described as toward 

or away from the potential natural plant community or as not apparent. Trend is also used to describe 

an increase or decrease in a population or an activity or types of an activity over a period of time.

Trespass. Any unauthorized use of public land.

Two-aged silvicultural system. A planned sequence of treatments designed to maintain and 

regenerate a stand with two age classes.

Understory. That portion of a plant community growing underneath the taller plants on the site. All 

the plants that grow beneath the main canopy of a forest. The understory may contain seedlings of the 

overstory trees, small trees, shrubs, and forbs.

Undertaking. According to 36 CFR, Part 800.16(y), a project, activity, or program funded in whole or 

in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a federal agency, including those carried out by or on 

behalf of a federal agency, those carried out with federal financial assistance, and those requiring a 

federal permit, license, or approval.

Uneven-aged silvicultural system. A planned sequence of treatments designed to maintain and 

regenerate a stand with three or more age classes.

Unplanned ignition. The initiation of a wildland fire by lightning, volcanoes, and unauthorized and 

accidental human-caused fires.

Upland (geology). In general, land at a higher elevation than the alluvial plain or stream terrace; land 

above the lowlands along streams.

Utility corridor. Tract of land varying in width and forming passageway that various commodities, such 

as oil, gas, and electricity, are transported through.

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 fee title ownership, 

mineral rights, rights-of-way, easements, permits, and licenses. Such rights may have been reserved, 

acquired, leased, granted, permitted, or otherwise authorized over time.

Vegetation loss. The loss of vegetation cover.

Vegetation manipulation. Alteration of present vegetation by using fire, plowing, or other means to 

manipulate natural succession trends.
6. Glossary

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 6-35

Vegetation type. A plant community with immediately distinguishable characteristics based on and 

named after the apparent dominant plant species.

Vertebrate. An animal having a backbone or spinal column.

Viewshed. Everything that can be seen from a certain point.

Visual resources. The visible physical features on a landscape (topography, water, vegetation, animals, 

structures, and other features) that comprise the scenery of the area.

Visual Resource Management. The inventory and planning actions taken to identify visual resource 

values and to establish objectives for managing those values and the management actions taken to 

achieve the visual resource management objectives.

Visual Resource Management Classes. Used to identify the degree of acceptable visual change 

within a characteristic landscape. A classification is assigned to public lands based on the guidelines 

established for scenic quality, visual sensitivity, and visibility.

Class I provides for natural ecological changes with very little management activity. This class 

includes primitive areas, some natural areas, some wild and scenic rivers, and other similar areas 

where landscape modification activities should be restricted.

Class II areas are those areas where changes in any of the basic elements (form, line, color, or 

texture) caused by management activity should not be evident in the characteristic landscape. 

The goal is to retain the existing landscape character. 

Class III includes areas where changes in the basic elements (form, line, color, or texture) 

caused by a management activity may be evident in the characteristic landscape. The level of 

change from an activity should not dominate the landscape, but may attract attention of the 

casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic landscape elements. 

Class IV applies to areas where changes may subordinate the original composition and character; 

however, they should reflect what could be a natural occurrence within the characteristic 

landscape, if possible. The level of change to the existing landscape can be high and may 

dominate the view. This class provides for management activities which require modification to 

the existing landscape character.

Visual sensitivity. A measure of public concern for scenic quality and existing or proposed visual 

change.

Waiver. A waiver is a permanent exemption from a lease stipulation. The stipulation no longer applies 

anywhere within the leasehold.

Waiver, Exceptions and Modification. Exceptions, waivers, and modifications provide an effective 

means of applying adaptive management techniques to oil and gas leases and associated permitting 

activities to meet changing circumstances. The criteria for approval of exceptions, waivers, and 

modifications should be supported by NEPA analysis, either through the land use planning process or 

site-specific environmental review. An exception, waiver, or modification must be based on one of two 
6. Glossary

6-36 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

criteria. According to 43 CFR, Part 3101.1-4, “A stipulation included in an oil and gas lease shall be 

subject to modification or waiver only if the authorized officer determines that the factors leading to its 

inclusion in the lease have changed sufficiently to make the protection provided by the stipulation no 

longer justified or if the proposed operations would not cause unacceptable impacts.” Refer to 

Appendix G for more information.

WAFWA GRSG Conservation Team. WAFWA management zones are used to identify and 

address cross-state issues, such as regional mitigation and adaptive management monitoring and 

response, through WAFWA GRSG Conservation Teams. These teams convene to advise on these 

specific tasks and use existing coordination and management structures to the extent possible.

Watershed. Topographical region or area delineated by water draining to a particular watercourse or 

body of water.

Waterway. Any body of water including lakes, rivers, streams, and ponds whether or not they contain 

aquatic life.

Way. As used herein, a road-like feature used by vehicles having four or more wheels but not declared 

a road by the owner and which receives no maintenance to guarantee regular and continuous use.

Wetlands. Federal policy defines wetlands as areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or 

groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and which, under normal circumstances 

do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. BLM Manual 

1737, Riparian-Wetland Area Management, includes marshes, shallow swamps, lakeshores, bogs, 

muskegs, wet meadows, estuaries, and riparian areas as wetlands (USDI BLM 1998).

Wilderness. An area formally designated by Congress as a part of the National Wilderness 

Preservation System.

Wildfire. An unplanned ignition of a wildland fire, such as that caused by lightning, volcanoes, 

unauthorized and accidental human-caused fires, and escaped prescribed fires.

Wildland fire. A general term describing any non-structure fire that occurs in the wildland.

Wildland Fire Decision Support System. This system assists fire managers and analysts in making 

strategic and tactical decisions for fire incidents, as follows:

 Develops a scalable decision support system for agency administrators

 Uses appropriate fire behavior modeling, economic principles, and information technology

 Supports effective wildland fire decisions consistent with resource and fire management 

plans

 Removes alternative comparison and decision tree development

 Pre-loads information from land management plans/fire management plans, other sources, 

planned decision criteria, local spatial data files

 Provides scalability for incident complexity
6. Glossary

September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 6-37

 Can be ended at any level, can progress through levels, or jump to appropriate level

Wildland urban interface. The line, area, or zone where structures and other human development 

meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuel.

Wintering areas or winter range. Areas with woody vegetation or trees that are used by wildlife 

for hiding, sheltering, or foraging during winter. Wintering areas in the South Dakota RMP planning area 

include riparian areas with shrubs or trees, juniper woodlands, large woody draws, rough topographic 

lands within the Two Rivers Area, and sagebrush cover over 10 percent. 

Withdrawal. An action that restricts the use of public land and segregates the land from the operation 

of some or all of the public land and mineral laws. Withdrawals are also used to transfer jurisdiction of 

management of public lands to other federal agencies.

Woodland. Forest land on which trees are present but form only an open canopy, the intervening 

areas being occupied by lower vegetation. Forest lands that produce or are capable of producing no 

more than 20 cubic feet per acre per year of commercially important tree species.
6. Glossary

6-38 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

This page intentionally left blank.
September 2015 South Dakota Approved RMP 7-1

CHAPTER 7

REFERENCES

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee. 2012. Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines. The State 

of the Art in 2012. Internet website: http://www.aplic.org/uploads/files/11218/

Reducing_Avian_Collisions_2012watermarkLR.pdf.

Connelly, J. W., S. T. Knick, M. A. Schroeder, and S. J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation assessment of Greater 

Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush Habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

Unpublished report. Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Davies K. W., J. D. Bates, and R.F. Miller. 2006. “Vegetation characteristics across part of the Wyoming 

big sagebrush alliance.” Rangeland Ecology and Management 59(6):567-575. 

South Dakota Game Fish and Parks (SDGFP). 2004. South Dakota Bat Management Plan. Report 

2004-08.

South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks (SDGFP). 2007. Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Management Plan.

USDA, NRCS. 1997. National Range and Pasture Handbook.

South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks (SDGFP). 2014. Sage-grouse management plan for South Dakota 

2014-2018. Wildlife Division Report Number 2014-02. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish 

and Parks, Pierre.

Stiver, S. J., A. D. Apa, J. R. Bohne, S. D. Bunnell, P. A. Diebert, 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.

USDA, USFS. 2000. Buffalo Gap National Grasslands Final EIS and Land and Resource Management Plan 

– Nebraska and Samuel R. McKelvie National Forests, Oglala, Buffalo Gap, and Fort Pierre 

National Grasslands.

_____. 2004. Custer National Forest, Sioux Ranger District Oil and Gas Leasing Analysis Final EIS.
7. References

7-2 South Dakota Approved RMP September 2015

USDI. 2008. Adaptive Management Implementation Policy. 522 DM1.

USDI and USDA. 2007. The Gold Book: Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development. BLM/WO/ST-06/021+3071/REV 07. Bureau of Land Management. 

Denver, Colorado.

USDI, BLM. 1986. Record of Decision for South Dakota Resource Management Plan and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement.

_____. 1998. A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for 

Lotic Areas. Riparian Area Management TR 1737-15.

_____. 2004. National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy. 

_____. 2004. Handbook 8110.41 and .42 National Historic Places. 

_____. 2005a. Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1.

_____. 2005b. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy Development on 

BLM-Administered Lands in the Western United States. FES 05-11. Washington, DC. June 2005.

_____. 2007a. Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development Fourth Edition. Publication P-417. 88 pages.

_____. 2008. BLM NEPA Handbook, H-1790-1. 

_____. 2009. South Dakota Scoping Report. South Dakota Field Office. April 14.

_____. 2013. South Dakota Draft RMP and Final EIS.

_____. 2015 South Dakota Proposed RMP and Final EIS.

_____. GIS 2015. BLM GIS data.

USDI, USFWS. 2010. 12 month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater Sage Grouse as Threatened or 

Endangered (FWS-R6-ES-2010-0018). 

USFWS. 2013. Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report. 

US Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. February 2013.

USGS. 2014. Conservation Buffer Distance Estimates for Greater Sage Grouse-A Review (Open File 

Report 2014-1239).
APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

APPROVED RMP MAPS

APPENDIX A1

APPROVED RMP GRSG HABITAT MANAGEMENT MAPS

SD ARMP Appendix A1

Approved RMP GRSG Habitat Management Maps 
SD ARMP Appendix A1

Approved RMP GRSG Habitat Management Maps 
SD ARMP Appendix A1

Approved RMP GRSG Habitat Management Maps 
SD ARMP Appendix A1

Approved RMP GRSG Habitat Management Maps 
SD ARMP Appendix A1

Approved RMP GRSG Habitat Management Maps 
SD ARMP Appendix A1

Approved RMP GRSG Habitat Management Maps 
SD ARMP Appendix A1

Approved RMP GRSG Habitat Management Maps 
SD ARMP Appendix A1

Approved RMP GRSG Habitat Management Maps 
SD ARMP Appendix A1

Approved RMP GRSG Habitat Management Maps 
SD ARMP Appendix A1

Approved RMP GRSG Habitat Management Maps 
SD ARMP Appendix A1

Approved RMP GRSG Habitat Management Maps 
SD ARMP Appendix A1

Approved RMP GRSG Habitat Management Maps 
SD ARMP Appendix A1

Approved RMP GRSG Habitat Management Maps 
SD ARMP Appendix A1

Approved RMP GRSG Habitat Management Maps 
SD ARMP Appendix A1

Approved RMP GRSG Habitat Management Maps 
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX A2

APPROVED RMP MAPS

SD ARMP Appendix A2

Approved RMP Planning Area Maps 
SD ARMP Appendix A2

Approved RMP Planning Area Maps 
SD ARMP Appendix A2

Approved RMP Planning Area Maps 
SD ARMP Appendix A2

Approved RMP Planning Area Maps 
SD ARMP Appendix A2

Approved RMP Planning Area Maps 
SD ARMP Appendix A2

Approved RMP Planning Area Maps 
SD ARMP Appendix A2

Approved RMP Planning Area Maps 
SD ARMP Appendix A2

Approved RMP Planning Area Maps 
SD ARMP Appendix A2

Approved RMP Planning Area Maps 
SD ARMP Appendix A2

Approved RMP Planning Area Maps 
APPENDIX B

APPLYING GRSG LEK BUFFER-DISTANCES WHEN APPROVING DECISIONS

SD ARMP Appendix B

Applying Lek Buffer-Distances B-1 September 2015

Appendix B

Applying Sage-Grouse Lek 

Buffer-Distances When Approving Actions

In November 2014, the USGS released their Report on Conservation Buffer Distance Estimates for Greater SageGrouse USGS Report – A Review (Open File Report 2014-1239. The purpose of this report is to provide a reference 

for land managers and others who are working to develop biologically relevant and socioeconomically practical 

buffer distances around sage-grouse habitats. The proposed plan imposes restrictions targeted to the individual 

threats to breeding and nesting activity in GRSG habitat. The findings of the Buffer Study have been incorporated 

into the Proposed Plan. 

Buffer Distances and Evaluation of Impacts to Leks

Evaluate impacts to leks from actions requiring NEPA analysis. In addition to any other relevant information 

determined to be appropriate (e.g., State wildlife agency plans), the BLM will assess and address impacts from the 

following activities using the lek buffer-distances as identified in the USGS Report Conservation Buffer Distance 

Estimates for Greater Sage-Grouse – A Review (Open File Report 2014-1239). The BLM will apply the lek bufferdistances specified as the lower end of the interpreted range in the report unless justifiable departures are determined to 

be appropriate (see below). The lower end of the interpreted range of the lek buffer-distances is as follows:

• Linear features (roads) within 3.1 miles of leks

• Infrastructure related to energy development within 3.1 miles of leks

• Tall structures (e.g., communication or transmission towers, transmission lines) within 2 miles of leks

• Low structures (e.g., fences, rangeland structures) within1.2 miles of leks

• Surface disturbance (continuing human activities that alter or remove the natural vegetation) within 3.1 miles 

of leks

• Noise and related disruptive activities, including those that do not result in habitat loss (e.g., motorized 

recreational events) at least 0.25 miles from leks

Justifiable departures to decrease or increase from these distances, based on local data, best available science, 

landscape features, and other existing protections (e.g., land use allocations, state regulations) may be appropriate for 

determining activity impacts. The USGS report recognized “that because of variation in populations, habitats, 

development patterns, social context, and other factors, for a particular disturbance type, there is no single distance 

that is an appropriate buffer for all populations and habitats across the sage-grouse range.” The USGS report also 

states that “various protection measures have been developed and implemented... [which have] the ability (alone or 

in concert with others) to protect important habitats, sustain populations, and support multiple-use demands for 

public lands.” All variations in lek buffer-distances will require appropriate analysis and disclosure as part of activity 

authorization.

In determining lek locations, the BLM will use the most recent active or occupied lek data available from the state 

wildlife agency.

For Actions in GHMA

The BLM will apply the lek buffer-distances identified above as required conservation measures to fully address the 

impacts on leks as identified in the NEPA analysis. Impacts should first be avoided by locating the action outside of 

the applicable lek buffer-distance(s) identified above.

• Impacts should first be avoided by locating the action outside of the applicable lek buffer-distance(s) 

identified above.
Appendix B SD ARMP

September 2015 B-2 Applying Lek Buffer-Distances

The BLM may approve actions in GHMA that are within the applicable lek buffer distance identified above 

only if: 

- Based on best available science, landscape features, and other existing protections (e.g., land use 

allocations, state regulations), the BLM determines that a lek buffer-distance other than the 

applicable distance identified above offers the same or a greater level of protection to GRSG and 

its habitat, including conservation of seasonal habitat outside of the analyzed buffer area; or 

- The BLM determines that impacts on GRSG and its habitat are minimized such that the project 

will cause minor or no new disturbance (ex. co-location with existing authorizations); and

- Any residual impacts within the lek buffer-distances are addressed through compensatory 

mitigation measures sufficient to ensure a net conservation gain, as outlined in the Mitigation 

Strategy (Appendix F).

For Actions in PHMA

The BLM will apply the lek buffer-distances identified above as required conservation measures to fully address the 

impacts to leks as identified in the NEPA analysis. Impacts should be avoided by locating the action outside of the 

applicable lek buffer-distance(s) identified above. 

The BLM may approve actions in PHMA that are within the applicable lek buffer distance identified above only if: 

• The BLM, with input from the state fish and wildlife agency, determines, based on best available 

science, landscape features, and other existing protections, that a buffer distance other than the distance 

identified above offers the same or greater level of protection to GRSG and its habitat, including 

conservation of seasonal habitat outside of the analyzed buffer area. 

• The BLM will explain its justification for determining the approved buffer distances meet these 

conditions in its project decision.

• Range improvements which do not impact GRSG, or, range improvements which provide a conservation 

benefit to GRSG such as fences for protecting important seasonal habitats, meet the lek buffer requirement.

• The BLM will explain its justification for determining the approved buffer distances meet these conditions in 

its project decision.
APPENDIX C 

GRSG REQUIRED DESIGN FEATURES

SD ARMP Appendix C

GRSG Required Design Features C-1 September 2015

Appendix C

Greater Sage-Grouse Required Design Features

This appendix includes the Required Design Features for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat. Required Design Features 

(RDFs) are required for certain activities in all GRSG habitat. RDFs establish the minimum specifications for certain 

activities to help mitigate adverse impacts. However, the applicability and overall effectiveness of each RDF cannot 

be fully assessed until the project level when the project location and design are known. Because of site-specific 

circumstances, some RDFs may not apply to some projects (e.g., a resource is not present on a given site) and/or 

may require slight variations (e.g., a larger or smaller protective area). All variations in RDFs would require that at 

least one of the following be demonstrated in the NEPA analysis associated with the project/activity:

• A specific RDF is documented to not be applicable to the site-specific conditions of the project/activity 

(e.g.due to site limitations or engineering considerations). Economic considerations, such as increased 

costs, do not necessarily require that an RDF be varied or rendered inapplicable;

• An alternative RDF is determined to provide equal or better protection for GRSG or its habitat;

• A specific RDF will provide no additional protection to GRSG or its habitat.

Required Design Features for how to make a pond that won’t produce mosquitoes that transmit 

West Nile virus (from Doherty [2007])

1. Increase the size of ponds to accommodate a greater volume of water than is discharged. This will result in 

un‐vegetated and muddy shorelines that breeding Cx. tarsalis avoid (De Szalay and Resh 2000). This 

modification may reduce Cx. tarsalis habitat but could create larval habitat for Culicoides sonorensis, a 

vector of blue tongue disease, and should be used sparingly (Schmidtmann et al. 2000). Steep shorelines 

should be used in combination with this technique whenever possible (Knight et al. 2003). 

2. Build steep shorelines to reduce shallow water (>60 centimeters [cm]) and aquatic vegetation around the 

perimeter of impoundments (Knight et al. 2003). Construction of steep shorelines also will create more 

permanent ponds that are a deterrent to colonizing mosquito species like Cx. tarsalis which prefer newly 

flooded sites with high primary productivity (Knight et al. 2003).

3. Maintain the water level below that of rooted vegetation for a muddy shoreline that is unfavorable habitat 

for mosquito larvae. Rooted vegetation includes both aquatic and upland vegetative types. Avoid flooding 

terrestrial vegetation in flat terrain or low lying areas. Aquatic habitats with a vegetated inflow and outflow 

separated by open water produce 5‐10 fold fewer Culex mosquitoes than completely vegetated wetlands 

(Walton and Workman 1998). Wetlands with open water also had significantly fewer stage III and IV 

instars which may be attributed to increased predator abundances in open water habitats (Walton and 

Workman 1998).

4. Construct dams or impoundments that restrict down slope seepage or overflow by digging ponds in flat 

areas rather than damming natural draws for effluent water storage, or lining constructed ponds in areas 

where seepage is anticipated (Knight et al. 2003).

5. Line the channel where discharge water flows into the pond with crushed rock, or use a horizontal pipe to 

discharge inflow directly into existing open water, thus precluding shallow surface inflow and 

accumulation of sediment that promotes aquatic vegetation.

6. Line the overflow spillway with crushed rock, and construct the spillway with steep sides to preclude the 

accumulation of shallow water and vegetation.

7. Fence pond site to restrict access by livestock and other wild ungulates that trample and disturb shorelines, 

enrich sediments with manure and create hoof print pockets of water that are attractive to breeding 

mosquitoes.
Appendix C SD ARMP

September 2015 C-2 GRSG Required Design Features

Literature Cited

De Szalay, F.A. and V.H. Resh. 2000. Factors influencing macroinvertebrate colonization of seasonal wetlands: 

responses to emergent plant cover. Freshwater Biology. 45: 295‐308.

Doherty, M.K. 2007. Mosquito populations in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming: a comparison of natural, 

agricultural and effluent coal bed natural gas aquatic habitats. M.S. Thesis. Montana State University, Bozeman, 

U.S.A.

Knight, R.L., W.E. Walton, G.F. Meara, W.K. Riesen and R. Wass. 2003. Strategies for effective mosquito control 

in constructed treatment wetlands. Ecological Engineering. 21: 211‐232.

Schmidtmann, E.T., R.J. Bobian, R.P. Beldin. 2000. Soil chemistries define aquatic habitats with immature 

populations of the Culicoides variipennis complex (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae). Journal of Medical Entomology. 37: 

38‐64.

Walton, W.E., and P.D. Workman. 1998. Effect of marsh design on the abundance of mosquitoes in experimental 

constructed wetlands in Southern California. Journal of the American mosquito control Association 14:95‐107.

Required Design Features for Fluid Mineral Development

Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMA)

Roads

• Design roads to an appropriate standard no higher than necessary to accommodate their intended purpose.

• Locate roads to avoid important areas and habitats.

• Coordinate road construction and use among right-of-way (ROW) holders. 

• Construct road crossing at right angles to ephemeral drainages and stream crossings.

• Establish speed limits on BLM system roads to reduce vehicle/wildlife collisions or design roads to be 

driven at slower speeds.

• Establish trip restrictions or minimization through use of telemetry and remote well control (e.g., 

Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition).

• Do not issue ROWs to counties on newly constructed energy development roads, unless for a temporary 

use consistent with all other terms and conditions included in this document.

• Restrict vehicle traffic to only authorized users on newly constructed routes (use signing, gates, etc.) 

• Use dust abatement practices on roads and pads.

• Close and rehabilitate duplicate roads.

Operations 

• Cluster disturbances, operations (fracture stimulation, liquids gathering, etc.), and facilities.

• Use directional and horizontal drilling to reduce surface disturbance.

• Place infrastructure in already disturbed locations where the habitat has not been restored.

• Consider using oak (or other material) mats for drilling activities to reduce vegetation disturbance and for

roads between closely spaced wells to reduce soil compaction and maintain soil structure to increase 

likelihood of vegetation reestablishment following drilling.

• Apply a phased development approach with concurrent reclamation.

• Place liquid gathering facilities outside of priority areas. Have no tanks at well locations within priority 

areas (minimizes perching and nesting opportunities for ravens and raptors and truck traffic). Pipelines 

must be under or immediately adjacent to the road (Bui et al. 2010).

• Restrict the construction of tall facilities and fences to the minimum number and amount needed. 

• Site and/or minimize linear ROWs to reduce disturbance to sagebrush habitats.
SD ARMP Appendix C

GRSG Required Design Features C-3 September 2015

• Place new utility developments (power lines, pipelines, etc.) and transportation routes in existing utility or 

transportation corridors.

• Bury distribution power lines.

• Corridor power, flow, and small pipelines under or immediately adjacent to roads.

• Design or site permanent structures which create movement (e.g. a pump jack) to minimize impacts to 

sage-grouse. 

• Cover (e.g., fine mesh netting or use other effective techniques) all drilling and production pits and tanks 

regardless of size to reduce sage-grouse mortality.

• Equip tanks and other above ground facilities with structures or devices that discourage nesting of raptors 

and corvids.

• Control the spread and effects of non-native plant species (e.g. by washing vehicles and equipment).

• Use only closed-loop systems for drilling operations and no reserve pits.

• Restrict pit and impoundment construction to reduce or eliminate threats from West Nile virus (Doherty 

2007).

• Remove or re-inject produced water to reduce habitat for mosquitoes that vector West Nile virus. If surface 

disposal of produced water continues, use the following steps for reservoir design to limit favorable 

mosquito habitat:

• Overbuild size of ponds for muddy and non-vegetated shorelines.

• Build steep shorelines to decrease vegetation and increase wave actions.

• Avoid flooding terrestrial vegetation in flat terrain or low lying areas.

• Construct dams or impoundments that restrict down slope seepage or overflow.

• Line the channel where discharge water flows into the pond with crushed rock.

• Construct spillway with steep sides and line it with crushed rock.

• Treat waters with larvicides to reduce mosquito production where water occurs on the surface.

• The BLM would work with proponents to limit project-related noise where it would be expected to reduce 

functionality of habitats that support GRSG populations. The BLM would evaluate the potential for 

limitation of new noise sources on a case-by-case basis as appropriate.

• As additional research and information emerges, specific new limitations appropriate to the type of projects 

being considered would be evaluated, and appropriate limitations would be implemented where necessary 

to minimize potential for noise impacts on GRSG population behavioral cycles.

• As new research is completed, new specific limitations would be coordinated with the NDGF and partners. 

Noise levels at the perimeter of the lek should not exceed 10 dBA above ambient noise at sunrise at the 

perimeter of a lek during active lek season.

• Require noise shields when drilling during the lek, nesting, broodrearing, or wintering season. 

• Fit transmission towers with anti-perch devices (Lammers and Collopy 2007).

• Require sage-grouse-safe fences.

• Locate new compressor stations outside PHMA and design them to reduce noise that may be directed 

towards PHMA.

• Clean up refuse.

• Locate man camps outside of PHMA.

Reclamation

• Include objectives for ensuring habitat restoration to meet sage-grouse habitat needs in reclamation 

practices/sites (Pyke 2011). Address post reclamation management in reclamation plan such that goals and 

objectives are to protect and improve sage-grouse habitat needs.

• Maximize the area of interim reclamation on long-term access roads and well pads including reshaping, 

topsoiling and revegetating cut and fill slopes.

• Restore disturbed areas at final reclamation to the pre-disturbance landforms and desired plant community.

• Irrigate interim reclamation if necessary for establishing seedlings more quickly.

• Utilize mulching techniques to expedite reclamation and to protect soils. 
Appendix C SD ARMP

September 2015 C-4 GRSG Required Design Features

General Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Areas (GHMA)

• Make applicable BMPs mandatory as Conditions of Approval (COA) within GHMA. BMPs are 

continuously improving as new science and technology become available and therefore are subject to 

change. At a minimum include the following BMPs:

Roads

• Design roads to an appropriate standard no higher than necessary to accommodate their intended purpose.

• Do not issue ROWs to counties on mining development roads, unless for a temporary use consistent with 

all other terms and conditions included in this document.

• Establish speed limits on BLM system roads to reduce vehicle/wildlife collisions or design roads to be 

driven at slower speeds.

• Coordinate road construction and use among ROW holders.

• Construct road crossing at right angles to ephemeral drainages and stream crossings.

• Use dust abatement practices on roads and pads.

• Close and reclaim duplicate roads, by restoring original landform and establishing desired vegetation.

Operations

• Cluster disturbances associated with operations and facilities as close as possible.

• Use directional and horizontal drilling to reduce surface disturbance.

• Clean up refuse.

• Restrict the construction of tall facilities and fences to the minimum number and amount needed.

• Cover (e.g., fine mesh netting or use other effective techniques) all pits and tanks regardless of size to 

reduce sage-grouse mortality.

• Equip tanks and other above ground facilities with structures or devices that discourage nesting of raptors 

and corvids.

• Use remote monitoring techniques for production facilities and develop a plan to reduce the frequency of 

vehicle use.

• Control the spread and effects of non-native plant species (Gelbard and Belnap 2003, Bergquist et al. 

2007).

• Restrict pit and impoundment construction to reduce or eliminate augmenting threats from West Nile virus 

(Doherty 2007).

Reclamation

• Include restoration objectives to meet sage-grouse habitat needs in reclamation practices/sites. Address post 

reclamation management in reclamation plan such that goals and objectives are to protect and improve 

sage-grouse habitat needs.

Literature Cited

Blickley, J.L., D. Blackwood, and G.L. Patricelli. In preparation. Experimental evidence for avoidance of chronic 

anthropogenic noise by greater sage‐grouse. University of California‐Davis, California, USA.

Bui, T.D., J.M. Marzluff, and B. Bedrosian. 2010. Common raven activity in relation to land use in western 

Wyoming: implications for greater sage‐grouse reproductive success. Condor 112:65‐78.

Doherty, M.K. 2007. Mosquito populations in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming: a comparison of natural, 

agricultural and effluent coal‐bed natural gas aquatic habitats. M.S. thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman, 

Montana, USA.

Evangelista, P.H., A.W. Crall, and E. Bergquist. 2011. Invasive plants and their response to energy development. 

Pages 115‐129 in D.E. Naugle, editor. Energy development and wildlife conservation in western North America. 

Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Lammers, W.M., and M.W. Collopy. 2007. Effectiveness of avian predator perch deterrents on electric transmission 

lines. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2752‐2758.
SD ARMP Appendix C

GRSG Required Design Features C-5 September 2015

Lyon, A.G. and S.H. Anderson. 2003. Potential gas development impacts on sage grouse nest initiation and 

movement. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31: 486‐491.

Patricelli, G.L., J.L. Blickley, and S. Hooper. 2010. Incorporating the impacts of noise pollution into greater sage‐

grouse conservation planning. 27th Meeting of the Western Agencies Sage and Columbian Sharp‐tailed Grouse 

Technical Committee Workshop. Twin Falls, Idaho, USA.

Pyke, D.A. 2011. Restoring and rehabilitating sagebrush habitats. Pp. 531‐548 in S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly 

(editors). Greater sage‐grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian 

Biology 38. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA.

Required Design Features for Fire & Fuels

Fuels Management

1. Where applicable, design fuels treatment objective to protect existing sagebrush ecosystems, modify fire 

behavior, restore native plants, and create landscape patters which most benefit sage‐grouse habitat.

2. Provide training to fuels treatment personnel on sage‐rouse biology, habitat requirements, and identification 

of areas utilized locally.

3. Use fire prescriptions that minimize undesirable effects on vegetation or soils (e.g., minimize mortality of 

desirable perennial plant species and reduce risk of hydrophobicity).

4. Ensure proposed sagebrush treatments are planned with interdisciplinary input from BLM and /or state 

wildlife agency biologist and that treatment acreage is conservative in the context of surrounding sagegrouse seasonal habitats and landscape.

5. Where appropriate, ensure that treatments are configured in a manner (e.g., strips) that promotes use by 

sage‐grouse (See Connelly et al. 2000*)

6. Where applicable, incorporate roads and natural fuel breaks into fuel break design.

7. Power‐wash all vehicles and equipment involved in fuels management activities prior to entering the area 

to minimize the introduction of undesirable and/or invasive plant species.

8. Design vegetation treatment in areas of high frequency to facilitate firefighting safety, reduce the risk of 

extreme fire behavior; and to reduce the risk and rate of fire spread to key and restoration habitats.

9. Give priority for implementing specific sage‐grouse habitat restoration projects in annual grasslands first to 

sites which are adjacent to or surrounded by sage‐grouse key habitats. Annual grasslands are second 

priority for restoration when the sites not adjacent to key habitat, but within two miles of key habitat. The 

third priority for annual grasslands habitat restoration projects are sites beyond two miles of key habitat. 

The intent is to focus restoration outward from existing, intact habitat.

10. As funding and logistics permit, restore annual grasslands to a species composition characterized by 

perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs.

11. Emphasize the use of native plant species, recognizing that non‐native species may be necessary depending 

on the availability of native seed and prevailing site conditions.

12. Remove standing and encroaching trees within at least 100 meters of occupied sage‐grouse leks and other 

habitats (e.g., nesting, wintering, and brood rearing) to reduce the availability of perch sites for avian 

predators, as appropriate, and resources permit.

13. Protect wildland areas from wildfire originating on private lands, infrastructure corridors, and recreational 

areas.

14. Reduce the risk of vehicle or human‐caused wildfires and the spread of invasive species by planting 

perennial vegetation (e.g., green‐strips) paralleling road rights‐of‐way.

15. Strategically place and maintain pre‐treated strips/areas (e.g., mowing, herbicide application, and strictly 

managed grazed strips) to ail in controlling wildfire should wildfire occur near key habitats or important 

restoration areas (such as where investments in restoration have already been made).

Fire Management

1. Develop state‐specific sage‐grouse toolboxes containing maps, a list of resource advisors, contact 

information, local guidance, and other relevant information.
Appendix C SD ARMP

September 2015 C-6 GRSG Required Design Features

2. Provide localized maps to dispatch offices and extended attack incident commanders for use in prioritizing 

wildfire suppression resources and designing suppression tactics.

3. Assign a sage‐grouse resource advisor to all extended attack fires in or near key sage‐grouse habitat areas. 

Prior to the fire season, provide training to sage‐grouse resource advisors on wildfire suppression 

organization, objectives, tactics, and procedures to develop a cadre of qualified individuals.

4. On critical fire weather days, pre‐position additional fire suppression resources to optimize a quick and 

efficient response in sage‐grouse habitat areas.

5. During periods of multiple fires, ensure line officers are involved in setting priorities.

6. To the extent possible, locate wildfire suppression facilities (i.e., base camps, spike camps, drop points, 

staging areas, heli‐bases) in areas where physical disturbance to sage‐grouse habitat can be minimized. 

These include disturbed areas, grasslands, near roads/trails or in other areas where there is existing 

disturbance or minimal sagebrush cover.

7. Power‐wash all firefighting vehicles, to the extent possible, including engines, water tenders, personnel 

vehicles, and all-terrain vehicles prior to deploying in or near sage‐grouse habitat areas to minimize 

noxious weed spread.

8. Minimize unnecessary cross‐country vehicle travel during fire operations in sage‐grouse habitat.

9. Minimize burnout operations in key sage‐grouse habitat areas by constructing direct fireline whenever safe 

and practical to do so.

10. Utilize retardant and mechanized equipment to minimize burned acreage during initial attack.

11. As safety allows, conduct mop‐up where the black adjoins unburned islands, dog legs, or other habitat 

features to minimize sagebrush loss.

Literature Cited

Connelly, J.W., M.A Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun 2000. Guidelines to Manage Sage‐grouse Populations 

and Their Habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967‐985.

Required Design Features for Solid Minerals (except Locatable)

Introduction

The following measures would be applied as RDFs for all solid minerals, except locatable minerals. The measures 

outlined below would be applied as recommended BMPs for locatable minerals. The RDFs or BMPs would be 

applied as appropriate in PHMA and GHMA, and to the extent allowable by law (i.e., to prevent unnecessary and 

undue degradation). 

Roads

• Design roads to an appropriate standard no higher than necessary to accommodate their intended purpose.

• Locate roads to avoid important areas and habitats.

• Coordinate road construction and use among ROW holders.

• Construct road crossing at right angles to ephemeral drainages and stream crossings.

• Establish speed limits on BLM system roads to reduce vehicle/wildlife collisions or design roads to be 

driven at slower speeds.

• Do not issue ROWs to counties on mining development roads, unless for a temporary use consistent with 

all other terms and conditions included in this document.

• Restrict vehicle traffic to only authorized users on newly constructed routes (e.g., use signing, gates, etc.)

• Use dust abatement practices on roads and pads.

• Close and reclaim duplicate roads, by restoring original landform and establishing desired vegetation.

Operations

• Cluster disturbances associated with operations and facilities as close as possible.

• Place infrastructure in already disturbed locations where the habitat has not been restored.

• Restrict the construction of tall facilities and fences to the minimum number and amount needed.

• Site and/or minimize linear ROWs to reduce disturbance to sagebrush habitats.
SD ARMP Appendix C

GRSG Required Design Features C-7 September 2015

• Place new utility developments (power lines, pipelines, etc.) and transportation routes in existing utility or 

transportation corridors.

• Bury power lines.

• Cover (e.g., fine mesh netting or use other effective techniques) all pits and tanks regardless of size to 

reduce sage‐grouse mortality.

• Equip tanks and other above ground facilities with structures or devices that discourage nesting of raptors 

and corvids.

• Control the spread and effects of non‐native plant species (Gelbard and Belnap 2003, Bergquist et al. 

2007).

• Restrict pit and impoundment construction to reduce or eliminate threats from West Nile virus (Doherty 

2007).

• Remove or re‐inject produced water to reduce habitat for mosquitoes that vector West Nile virus. If surface 

disposal of produced water continues, use the following steps for reservoir design to limit favorable 

mosquito habitat:

• Overbuild size of ponds for muddy and non‐vegetated shorelines.

• Build steep shorelines to decrease vegetation and increase wave actions.

• Avoid flooding terrestrial vegetation in flat terrain or low lying areas.

• Construct dams or impoundments that restrict down slope seepage or overflow.

• Line the channel where discharge water flows into the pond with crushed rock.

• Construct spillway with steep sides and line it with crushed rock.

• Treat waters with larvicides to reduce mosquito production where water occurs on the surface.

• Require sage‐grouse‐safe fences around sumps.

• Clean up refuse (Bui et al. 2010).

• Locate man camps outside of PHMA.

Reclamation

• Include restoration objectives to meet sage‐grouse habitat needs in reclamation practices/sites.

• Address post reclamation management in reclamation plan such that goals and objectives are to protect and 

improve sage‐grouse habitat needs.

• Maximize the area of interim reclamation on long‐term access roads and well pads including reshaping, 

topsoiling and revegetating cut and fill slopes.

• Restore disturbed areas at final reclamation to pre‐disturbance landform and desired plant community.

• Irrigate interim reclamation as necessary during dry periods.

• Utilize mulching techniques to expedite reclamation.

Literature Cited

Bergquist, E., P. Evangelista, T. J. Stohlgren, and N. Alley. 2007. Invasive species and coal bed methane 

development in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 128:381‐394.

Bui, T.D., J.M. Marzluff, and B. Bedrosian. 2010. Common raven activity in relation to land use in western 

Wyoming: implications for greater sage‐grouse reproductive success. Condor 112:65‐78.

Doherty, M.K. 2007. Mosquito populations in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming: a comparison of natural, 

agricultural and effluent coal bed natural gas aquatic habitats. Thesis. Montana State University, Bozeman, U.S.A.

Gelbard, J.L., and J. Belnap. 2003. Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in a semiarid landscape. 

Conservation Biology 17:420‐432.
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX D

GRSG MONITORING FRAMEWORK

THE GREATER 

SAGE-GROUSE

MONITORING

FRAMEWORK

Bureau of Land Management 

U.S. Forest Service 

Developed by 

the Interagency 

Greater 

Sage-Grouse 

Disturbance 

and Monitoring 

Subteam 

May 30, 2014 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework
 

Developed by the Interagency Greater Sage-Grouse Disturbance and Monitoring Subteam 

Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 3
 

I. Broad and Mid Scales.................................................................................................................. 7
 

A. Implementation (Decision) Monitoring ..................................................................................... 7
 

B. Habitat Monitoring..................................................................................................................... 8
 

B.1. Sagebrush Availability (Measure 1)....................................................................................... 10
 

a. Establishing the Sagebrush Base Layer .......................................................................... 11
 

b. Monitoring Sagebrush Availability ................................................................................ 19
 

B.2. Habitat Degradation Monitoring (Measure 2) ................................................................. 22
 

a. Habitat Degradation Datasets and Assumptions............................................................. 22
 

b. Habitat Degradation Threat Combination and Calculation ............................................ 26
 

B.3. Energy and Mining Density (Measure 3)......................................................................... 26
 

a. Energy and Mining Density Datasets and Assumptions................................................. 28
 

b. Energy and Mining Density Threat Combination and Calculation ................................ 28
 

C. Population (Demographics) Monitoring .................................................................................. 29
 

D. Effectiveness Monitoring......................................................................................................... 29
 

II. Fine and Site Scales................................................................................................................. 35
 

III. Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 37
 

IV. The Greater Sage-Grouse Disturbance and Monitoring Subteam Membership ...................... 37
 

Figure 1. Map of Greater Sage-Grouse range, populations, subpopulations, and Priority
 

Areas for Conservation as of 2013.................................................................................... 5
 

Table 1. Indicators for monitoring implementation of the national planning strategy, 

RMP/LUP decisions, sage-grouse habitat, and sage-grouse populations at the 

broad and mid scales......................................................................................................... 6
 

Table 2. Relationship between the 18 threats and the three habitat disturbance measures
 

for monitoring. ................................................................................................................ 9
 

Table 3. Datasets for establishing and monitoring changes in sagebrush availability.................. 13
 

Table 4. Ecological Systems in BpS and EVT capable of supporting sagebrush vegetation 

and capable of providing suitable seasonal habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse................. 13
 

Table 5. Ecological Systems with conifers most likely to encroach into sagebrush vegetation. .. 18
 

Table 6. Geospatial data sources for habitat degradation (Measure 2). ........................................ 27
 

Literature Cited .............................................................................................................................. 39
 

Attachment A: An Overview of Monitoring Commitments......................................................... 43
 

Attachment B: User and Producer Accuracies for Aggregated Ecological Systems within 

LANDFIRE Map Zones....................................................................................... 45
 

Attachment C: Sagebrush Species and Subspecies Included in the Selection Criteria for
 

Building the EVT and BpS Layers ...................................................................... 47
 

1 
2
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION
 

The purpose of this U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) 

Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework (hereafter, monitoring framework) is to describe 

the methods to monitor habitats and evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the BLM’s 

national planning strategy (attachment to BLM Instruction Memorandum 2012-044), the BLM 

resource management plans (RMPs), and the USFS’s land management plans (LMPs) to 

conserve the species and its habitat. The regulations for the BLM (43 CFR 1610.4-9) and the 

USFS (36 CFR part 209, published July 1, 2010) require that land use plans establish intervals 

and standards, as appropriate, for monitoring and evaluations based on the sensitivity of the 

resource to the decisions involved. Therefore, the BLM and the USFS will use the methods 

described herein to collect monitoring data and to evaluate implementation and effectiveness of 

the Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) (hereafter, sage-grouse) planning strategy and the conservation 

measures contained in their respective land use plans (LUPs). A monitoring plan specific to the 

Environmental Impact Statement, land use plan, or field office will be developed after the 

Record of Decision is signed. For a summary of the frequency of reporting, see Attachment A, 

An Overview of Monitoring Commitments. Adaptive management will be informed by data 

collected at any and all scales. 

To ensure that the BLM and the USFS are able to make consistent assessments about sagegrouse habitats across the range of the species, this framework lays out the methodology—at 

multiple scales—for monitoring of implementation and disturbance and for evaluating the 

effectiveness of BLM and USFS actions to conserve the species and its habitat. Monitoring 

efforts will include data for measurable quantitative indicators of sagebrush availability, 

anthropogenic disturbance levels, and sagebrush conditions. Implementation monitoring results 

will allow the BLM and the USFS to evaluate the extent that decisions from their LUPs to 

conserve sage-grouse and their habitat have been implemented. State fish and wildlife agencies 

will collect population monitoring information, which will be incorporated into effectiveness 

monitoring as it is made available. 

This multiscale monitoring approach is necessary, as sage-grouse are a landscape species and 

conservation is scale-dependent to the extent that conservation actions are implemented within 

seasonal habitats to benefit populations. The four orders of habitat selection (Johnson 1980) used 

in this monitoring framework are described by Connelly et al. (2003) and were applied 

specifically to the scales of sage-grouse habitat selection by Stiver et al. (in press) as first order 

(broad scale), second order (mid scale), third order (fine scale), and fourth order (site scale). 

Habitat selection and habitat use by sage-grouse occur at multiple scales and are driven by 

multiple environmental and behavioral factors. Managing and monitoring sage-grouse habitats 

are complicated by the differences in habitat selection across the range and habitat use by 

individual birds within a given season. Therefore, the tendency to look at a single indicator of 

habitat suitability or only one scale limits managers’ ability to identify the threats to sage-grouse 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and to respond at the appropriate scale. For descriptions of these habitat suitability indicators for 

each scale, see “Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework: Multiscale Habitat Assessment 

Tool” (HAF; Stiver et al. in press). 

Monitoring methods and indicators in this monitoring framework are derived from the current 

peer-reviewed science. Rangewide, best available datasets for broad- and mid-scale monitoring 

will be acquired. If these existing datasets are not readily available or are inadequate, but they are 

necessary to inform the indicators of sagebrush availability, anthropogenic disturbance levels, 

and sagebrush conditions, the BLM and the USFS will strive to develop datasets or obtain 

information to fill these data gaps. Datasets that are not readily available to inform the fine- and 

site-scale indicators will be developed. These data will be used to generate monitoring reports at 

the appropriate and applicable geographic scales, boundaries, and analysis units: across the range 

of sage-grouse as defined by Schroeder et al. (2004), and clipped by Western Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Management Zone (MZ) (Stiver et al. 2006) boundaries and 

other areas as appropriate for size (e.g., populations based on Connelly et al. 2004). (See Figure 

1, Map of Greater Sage-Grouse range, populations, subpopulations, and Priority Areas for 

Conservation as of 2013.) This broad- and mid-scale monitoring data and analysis will provide 

context for RMP/LMP areas; states; GRSG Priority Habitat, General Habitat, and other sagegrouse designated management areas; and Priority Areas for Conservation (PACs), as defined in 

“Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report” 

(Conservation Objectives Team [COT] 2013). Hereafter, all of these areas will be referred to as 

“sage-grouse areas.” 

4 
Figure 1. Map of Greater Sage-Grouse range, populations, subpopulations, and Priority Areas for 

Conservation as of 2013. 

5 
This monitoring framework is divided into two sections. The broad- and mid-scale methods, 

described in Section I, provide a consistent approach across the range of the species to monitor 

implementation decisions and actions, mid-scale habitat attributes (e.g., sagebrush availability 

and habitat degradation), and population changes to determine the effectiveness of the planning 

strategy and management decisions. (See Table 1, Indicators for monitoring implementation of 

the national planning strategy, RMP/LMP decisions, sage-grouse habitat, and sage-grouse 

populations at the broad and mid scales.) For sage-grouse habitat at the fine and site scales, 

described in Section II, this monitoring framework describes a consistent approach (e.g., 

indicators and methods) for monitoring sage-grouse seasonal habitats. Funding, support, and 

dedicated personnel for broad- and mid-scale monitoring will be renewed annually through the 

normal budget process. For an overview ofBLM and USFS multiscale monitoring commitments, 

see Attachment A. 

Table 1. 	 Indicators for monitoring implementation of the national planning strategy, RMP/LMP 

decisions, sage-grouse habitat, and sage-grouse populations at the broad and mid scales. 

Implementation Habitat Population 

(State Wildlife 

Agencies) 

Geographic 

Scales 

Availability 

Broad Scale: 

From the 

range of sagegrouse to 

WAFWA 

Management 

Zones 

BLM/USFS Distribution and 

National planning amount of 

strategy goal and sagebrush within 

objectives the range 

Degradation 

Distribution and 

amount of 

energy, mmmg, 

and 

infrastructure 

facilities 

Demographics 

WAFWA 

Management 

Zone 

population 

trend 

Mid Scale: RMP/LMP Mid-scale habitat 

From decisions indicators (HAF; 

WAFWA Table 2 herein, 

Management e.g., percent of 

Zone to sagebrush per 

populations; unit area) 

PACs 

Distribution and Individual 

amount of population 

energy, mmmg, trend 

and 

infrastructure 

facilities (Table 2 

herein) 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I. BROAD AND MID SCALES
 

First-order habitat selection, the broad scale, describes the physical or geographical range of a 

species. The first-order habitat of the sage-grouse is defined by populations of sage-grouse 

associated with sagebrush landscapes, based on Schroeder et al. 2004, and Connelly et al. 2004, 

and on population or habitat surveys since 2004. An intermediate scale between the broad and 

mid scales was delineated by WAFWA from floristic provinces within which similar 

environmental factors influence vegetation communities. This scale is referred to as the 

WAFWA Sage-Grouse Management Zones (MZs). Although no indicators are specific to this 

scale, these MZs are biologically meaningful as reporting units. 

Second-order habitat selection, the mid-scale, includes sage-grouse populations and PACs. The 

second order includes at least 40 discrete populations and subpopulations (Connelly et al. 2004). 

Populations range in area from 150 to 60,000 mi2 and are nested within MZs. PACs range from 

20 to 20,400 mi2 and are nested within population areas. 

Other mid-scale landscape indicators, such as patch size and number, patch connectivity, linkage 

areas, and landscape matrix and edge effects (Stiver et al. in press) will also be assessed. The 

methods used to calculate these metrics will be derived from existing literature (Knick et al. 

2011, Leu and Hanser 2011, Knick and Hanser 2011). 

A. Implementation (Decision) Monitoring 

Implementation monitoring is the process of tracking and documenting the implementation (or 

the progress toward implementation) of RMP/LMP decisions. The BLM and the USFS will 

monitor implementation of project-level and/or site-specific actions and authorizations, with 

their associated conditions of approval/stipulations for sage-grouse, spatially (as appropriate) 

within Priority Habitat, General Habitat, and other sage-grouse designated management areas, at 

a minimum, for the planning area. These actions and authorizations, as well as progress toward 

completing and implementing activity-level plans, will be monitored consistently across all 

planning units and will be reported to BLM and USFS headquarters annually, with a summary 

report every 5 years, for the planning area. A national-level GRSG Land Use Plan Decision 

Monitoring and Reporting Tool is being developed to describe how the BLM and the USFS will 

consistently and systematically monitor and report implementation-level activity plans and 

implementation actions for all plans within the range of sage-grouse. A description of this tool 

for collection and reporting of tabular and spatially explicit data will be included in the Record of 

Decision or approved plan. The BLM and the USFS will provide data that can be integrated with 

other conservation efforts conducted by state and federal partners. 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B. Habitat Monitoring 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), in its 2010 listing decision for the sage-grouse, 

identified 18 threats contributing to the destruction, modification, or curtailment of sage-grouse 

habitat or range (75 FR 13910 2010). The BLM and the USFS will, therefore, monitor the 

relative extent of these threats that remove sagebrush, both spatially and temporally, on all lands 

within an analysis area, and will report on amount, pattern, and condition at the appropriate and 

applicable geographic scales and boundaries. These 18 threats have been aggregated into three 

broad- and mid-scale measures to account for whether the threat predominantly removes 

sagebrush or degrades habitat. (See Table 2, Relationship between the 18 threats and the three 

habitat disturbance measures for monitoring.) The three measures are: 

Measure 1: Sagebrush Availability (percent of sagebrush per unit area) 

Measure 2: Habitat Degradation (percent of human activity per unit area) 

Measure 3: Energy and Mining Density (facilities and locations per unit area) 

These three habitat disturbance measures will evaluate disturbance on all lands, regardless of 

land ownership. The direct area of influence will be assessed with the goal of accounting for 

actual removal of sagebrush on which sage-grouse depend (Connelly et al. 2000) and for habitat 

degradation as a surrogate for human activity. Measure 1 (sagebrush availability) examines 

where disturbances have removed plant communities that support sagebrush (or have broadly 

removed sagebrush from the landscape). Measure 1, therefore, monitors the change in sagebrush 

availability—or, specifically, where and how much of the sagebrush community is available 

within the range of sage-grouse. The sagebrush community is defined as the ecological systems 

that have the capability of supporting sagebrush vegetation and seasonal sage-grouse habitats 

within the range of sage-grouse (see Section I.B.1., Sagebrush Availability). Measure 2 (see 

Section I.B.2., Habitat Degradation Monitoring) and Measure 3 (see Section I.B.3., Energy and 

Mining Density) focus on where habitat degradation is occurring by using the footprint/area of 

direct disturbance and the number of facilities at the mid scale to identify the relative amount of 

degradation per geographic area of interest and in areas that have the capability of supporting 

sagebrush and seasonal sage-grouse use. Measure 2 (habitat degradation) not only quantifies 

footprint/area of direct disturbance but also establishes a surrogate for those threats most likely to 

have ongoing activity. Because energy development and mining activities are typically the most 

intensive activities in sagebrush habitat, Measure 3 (the density of active energy development, 

production, and mining sites) will help identify areas of particular concern for such factors as 

noise, dust, traffic, etc. that degrade sage-grouse habitat. 

8 
 

 

Table 2. Relationship between the 18 threats and the three habitat disturbance measures for monitoring. 

Note: Data availability may preclude specific analysis of individual layers. See the detailed methodology 

for more information. 

Energy and 

Sagebrush Habitat Mining 

USFWS Listing Decision Threat Availability Degradation Density 

Agriculture X
 

Urbanization X
 

Wildfire X
 

Conifer encroachment X
 

Treatments X
 

Invasive Species X
 

Energy (oil and gas wells and development X X facilities) 

Energy (coal mines) X X
 

Energy (wind towers) X X
 

Energy (solar fields) X X
 

Energy (geothermal) X X
 

Mining (active locatable, leasable, and saleable X X developments) 

Infrastructure (roads) X
 

Infrastructure (railroads) X
 

Infrastructure (power lines) X
 

Infrastructure (communication towers) X
 

Infrastructure (other vertical structures) X
 

Other developed rights-of-way X
 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The methods to monitor disturbance found herein differ slightly from methods used in Manier et 

al. 2013, which provided a baseline environmental report (BER) of datasets of disturbance across 

jurisdictions. One difference is that, for some threats, the BER data were for federal lands only. 

In addition, threats were assessed individually, using different assumptions from those in this 

monitoring framework about how to quantify the location and magnitude of threats. The 

methodology herein builds on the BER methodology and identifies datasets and procedures to 

use the best available data across the range of the sage-grouse and to formulate a consistent 

approach to quantify impact of the threats through time. This methodology also describes an 

approach to combine the threats and calculate each of the three habitat disturbance measures. 

B.1. Sagebrush Availability (Measure 1) 

Sage-grouse populations have been found to be more resilient where a percentage of the 

landscape is maintained in sagebrush (Knick and Connelly 2011), which will be determined by 

sagebrush availability. Measure 1 has been divided into two submeasures to describe sagebrush 

availability on the landscape: 

Measure 1a: the current amount of sagebrush on the geographic area of interest, and 

Measure 1b: the amount of sagebrush on the geographic area of interest compared with 

the amount of sagebrush the landscape of interest could ecologically support. 

Measure 1a (the current amount of sagebrush on the landscape) will be calculated using this 

formula: [the existing updated sagebrush layer] divided by [the geographic area of interest]. The 

appropriate geographic areas of interest for sagebrush availability include the species’ range, 

WAFWA MZs, populations, and PACs. In some cases these sage-grouse areas will need to be 

aggregated to provide an estimate of sagebrush availability with an acceptable level of accuracy. 

Measure 1b (the amount of sagebrush for context within the geographic area of interest) will be 

calculated using this formula: [existing sagebrush divided by [pre-EuroAmerican settlement 

geographic extent of lands that could have supported sagebrush]. This measure will provide 

information to set the context for a given geographic area of interest during evaluations of 

monitoring data. The information could also be used to inform management options for 

restoration or mitigation and to inform effectiveness monitoring. 

The sagebrush base layer for Measure 1 will be based on geospatial vegetation data adjusted for 

the threats listed in Table 2. The following subsections of this monitoring framework describe 

the methodology for determining both the current availability of sagebrush on the landscape and 

the context of the amount of sagebrush on the landscape at the broad and mid scales. 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. Establishing the Sagebrush Base Layer 

The current geographic extent of sagebrush vegetation within the rangewide distribution of sagegrouse populations will be ascertained using the most recent version of the Existing Vegetation 

Type (EVT) layer in LANDFIRE (2013). LANDFIRE EVT was selected to serve as the 

sagebrush base layer for five reasons: 1) it is the only nationally consistent vegetation layer that 

has been updated multiple times since 2001; 2) the ecological systems classification within 

LANDFIRE EVT includes multiple sagebrush type classes that, when aggregated, provide a 

more accurate (compared with individual classes) and seamless sagebrush base layer across 

jurisdictional boundaries; 3) LANDFIRE performed a rigorous accuracy assessment from which 

to derive the rangewide uncertainty of the sagebrush base layer; 4) LANDFIRE is consistently 

used in several recent analyses of sagebrush habitats (Knick et al. 2011, Leu and Hanser 2011, 

Knick and Hanser 2011); and 5) LANDFIRE EVT can be compared against the geographic 

extent of lands that are believed to have had the capability of supporting sagebrush vegetation 

pre-EuroAmerican settlement [LANDFIRE Biophysical Setting (BpS)]. This fifth reason 

provides a reference point for understanding how much sagebrush currently remains in a defined 

geographic area of interest compared with how much sagebrush existed historically (Measure 

1b). Therefore, the BLM and the USFS have determined that LANDFIRE provides the best 

available data at broad and mid scales to serve as a sagebrush base layer for monitoring changes 

in the geographic extent of sagebrush. The BLM and the USFS, in addition to aggregating the 

sagebrush types into the sagebrush base layer, will aggregate the accuracy assessment reports 

from LANDFIRE to document the cumulative accuracy for the sagebrush base layer. The 

BLM—through its Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) program and, specifically, the 

BLM’s landscape monitoring framework (Taylor et al. 2014)—will provide field data to the 

LANDFIRE program to support continuous quality improvements of the LANDFIRE EVT layer. 

The sagebrush layer based on LANDFIRE EVT will allow for the mid-scale estimation of the 

existing percent of sagebrush across a variety of reporting units. This sagebrush base layer will 

be adjusted by changes in land cover and successful restoration for future calculations of 

sagebrush availability (Measures 1a and 1b). 

This layer will also be used to determine the trend in other landscape indicators, such as patch 

size and number, patch connectivity, linkage areas, and landscape matrix and edge effects (Stiver 

et al. in press). In the future, changes in sagebrush availability, generated annually, will be 

included in the sagebrush base layer. The landscape metrics will be recalculated to examine 

changes in pattern and abundance of sagebrush at the various geographic boundaries. This 

information will be included in effectiveness monitoring (See Section I.D., Effectiveness 

Monitoring). 

Within the USFS and the BLM, forest-wide and field office–wide existing vegetation 

classification mapping and inventories are available that provide a much finer level of data than 

what is provided through LANDFIRE. Where available, these finer-scale products will be useful 

for additional and complementary mid-scale indicators and local-scale analyses (see Section II, 

11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fine and Site Scales). The fact that these products are not available everywhere limits their utility 

for monitoring at the broad and mid scale, where consistency of data products is necessary across 

broader geographies. 

Data Sources for Establishing and Monitoring Sagebrush Availability 

There were three criteria for selecting the datasets for establishing and monitoring the change in 

sagebrush availability (Measure 1): 

 Nationally consistent dataset available across the range 

 Known level of confidence or accuracy in the dataset 

 Continual maintenance of dataset and known update interval 

Datasets meeting these criteria are listed in Table 3, Datasets for establishing and monitoring 

changes in sagebrush availability. 

LANDFIRE Existing Vegetation Type (EVT) Version 1.2 

LANDFIRE EVT represents existing vegetation types on the landscape derived from remote 

sensing data. Initial mapping was conducted using imagery collected in approximately 2001. 

Since the initial mapping there have been two update efforts: version 1.1 represents changes 

before 2008, and version 1.2 reflects changes on the landscape before 2010. Version 1.2 will be 

used as the starting point to develop the sagebrush base layer. 

Sage-grouse subject matter experts determined which of the ecological systems from the 

LANDFIRE EVT to use in the sagebrush base layer by identifying the ecological systems that 

have the capability of supporting sagebrush vegetation and that could provide suitable seasonal 

habitat for the sage-grouse. (See Table 4, Ecological systems in BpS and EVT capable of 

supporting sagebrush vegetation and capable of providing suitable seasonal habitat for Greater 

Sage-Grouse.) Two additional vegetation types that are not ecological systems were added to the 

EVT: Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana Shrubland Alliance and Quercus gambelii Shrubland 

Alliance. These alliances have species composition directly related to the Rocky Mountain 

Lower Montane-Foothill Shrubland ecological system and the Rocky Mountain Gambel OakMixed Montane Shrubland ecological system, both of which are ecological systems in 

LANDFIRE BpS. In LANDFIRE EVT, however, in some map zones, the Rocky Mountain 

Lower Montane-Foothill Shrubland ecological system and the Rocky Mountain Gambel OakMixed Montane Shrubland ecological system were named Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Shrubland Alliance and Quercus gambelii Shrubland Alliance, respectively. 

12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3. Datasets for establishing and monitoring changes in sagebrush availability. 

Dataset Source 

Update 

Interval 

Most Recent 

Version Year Use 

BioPhysical Setting 

v1.1 

LANDFIRE Static 2008 Denominator for 

sagebrush availability 

Existing Vegetation 

Type v1.2 

LANDFIRE Static 2010 Numerator for 

sagebrush availability 

Cropland Data Layer National 

Agricultural 

Statistics Service 

Annual 2012 Agricultural updates; 

removes existing 

sagebrush from 

numerator of 

sagebrush availability 

National Land Cover 

Dataset Percent 

Imperviousness 

Multi-Resolution 

Land 

Characteristics 

Consortium 

(MRLC) 

5-Year 2011 (next 

available in 2016) 

Urban area updates; 

removes existing 

sagebrush from 

numerator of 

sagebrush availability 

Fire Perimeters GeoMac Annual 2013 < 1,000-acre fire 

updates; removes 

existing sagebrush 

from numerator of 

sagebrush availability 

Burn Severity Monitoring 

Trends in Burn 

Severity 

Annual 2012 (2-year delay 

in data 

availability) 

> 1,000-acre fire 

updates; removes 

existing sagebrush 

from numerator of 

sagebrush availability 

except for unburned 

sagebrush islands 

Table 4. Ecological systems in BpS and EVT capable of supporting sagebrush vegetation and capable 

of providing suitable seasonal habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Ecological System Sagebrush Vegetation that the Ecological System has 

the Capability of Producing 

Colorado Plateau Mixed Low Sagebrush 

Shrubland 

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longiloba 

Artemisia bigelovii 

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia frigida 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Columbia Plateau Low Sagebrush Steppe Artemisia arbuscula 

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longiloba 

Artemisia nova 

13 
Columbia Plateau Scabland Shrubland Artemisia rigida 

Columbia Plateau Steppe and Grassland Artemisia spp. 

Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush 

Shrubland 

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longicaulis 

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longiloba 

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush 

Shrubland 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. xericensis 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush 

Steppe 

Artemisia cana ssp. cana 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. xericensis 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Artemisia tripartita ssp. tripartita 

Artemisia frigida 

Inter-Mountain Basins Curl-Leaf Mountain 

Mahogany Woodland and Shrubland 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Artemisia arbuscula 

Artemisia tridentata 

Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert 

Scrub 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Artemisia spinescens 

Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia arbuscula 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. spiciformis 

Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert ShrubSteppe Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia bigelovii 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Northwestern Great Plains Mixed Grass 

Prairie 

Artemisia cana ssp. cana 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Artemisia frigida 

Northwestern Great Plains Shrubland Artemisia cana ssp. cana 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed 

Montane Shrubland 

Artemisia tridentata 

Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill 

Shrubland 

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia frigida 

Western Great Plains Floodplain Systems Artemisia cana ssp. cana 

Western Great Plains Sand Prairie Artemisia cana ssp. cana 

Wyoming Basins Dwarf Sagebrush 

Shrubland and Steppe 

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longiloba 

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Artemisia tripartita ssp. rupicola 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Shrubland Alliance (EVT only) 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Quercus gambelii Shrubland Alliance (EVT 

only) 

Artemisia tridentata 

14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accuracy and Appropriate Use of LANDFIRE Datasets 

Because of concerns over the thematic accuracy of individual classes mapped by LANDFIRE, all 

ecological systems listed in Table 4 will be merged into one value that represents the sagebrush 

base layer. With all ecological systems aggregated, the combined accuracy of the sagebrush base 

layer (EVT) will be much greater than if all categories were treated separately. 

LANDFIRE performed the original accuracy assessment of its EVT product on a map zone 

basis. There are 20 LANDFIRE map zones that cover the historical range of sage-grouse as 

defined by Schroeder (2004). (See Attachment B, User and Producer Accuracies for Aggregated 

Ecological Systems within LANDFIRE Map Zones.) The aggregated sagebrush base layer for 

monitoring had user accuracies ranging from 57.1% to 85.7% and producer accuracies ranging 

from 56.7% to 100%. 

LANDFIRE EVT data are not designed to be used at a local level. In reports of the percent 

sagebrush statistic for the various reporting units (Measure 1a), the uncertainty of the percent 

sagebrush will increase as the size of the reporting unit gets smaller. LANDFIRE data should 

never be used at the 30m pixel level (900m2 resolution of raster data) for any reporting. The 

smallest geographic extent for using the data to determine percent sagebrush is at the PAC level; 

for the smallest PACs, the initial percent sagebrush estimate will have greater uncertainties 

compared with the much larger PACs. 

Agricultural Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer 

The dataset for the geographic extent of agricultural lands will come from the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Cropland Data Layer (CDL) 

(http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/Cropland/Release/index.htm). CDL data are generated 

annually, with estimated producer accuracies for “large area row crops ranging from the mid 

80% to mid-90%,” depending on the state 

(http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/Cropland/sarsfaqs2.htm#Section3_18.0). Specific 

information on accuracy may be found on the NASS metadata website 

(http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/Cropland/metadata/meta.htm). CDL provided the only 

dataset that matches the three criteria (nationally consistent, known level of accuracy, and 

periodically updated) for use in this monitoring framework and represents the best available 

agricultural lands mapping product. 

The CDL data contain both agricultural classes and nonagricultural classes. For this effort, and in 

the baseline environmental report (Manier et al. 2013), nonagricultural classes were removed 

from the original dataset. The excluded classes are: 

Barren (65 & 131), Deciduous Forest (141), Developed/High Intensity (124), Developed/Low 

Intensity (122), Developed/Med Intensity (123), Developed/Open Space (121), Evergreen Forest 

(142), Grassland Herbaceous (171), Herbaceous Wetlands (195), Mixed Forest (143), Open 

15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water (83 & 111), Other Hay/Non Alfalfa (37), Pasture/Hay (181), Pasture/Grass (62), Perennial 

Ice/Snow (112), Shrubland (64 & 152), Woody Wetlands (190). 

The rule set for adjusting the sagebrush base layer for agricultural lands (and for updating the 

base layer for agricultural lands in the future) is that once an area is classified as agriculture in 

any year of the CDL, those pixels will remain out of the sagebrush base layer even if a new 

version of the CDL classifies that pixel as one of the nonagricultural classes listed above. The 

assumption is that even though individual pixels may be classified as a nonagricultural class in 

any given year, the pixel has not necessarily been restored to a natural sagebrush community that 

would be included in Table 4. A further assumption is that once an area has moved into 

agricultural use, it is unlikely that the area would be restored to sagebrush. Should that occur, 

however, the method and criteria for adding pixels back into the sagebrush base layer would 

follow those found in the sagebrush restoration monitoring section of this monitoring framework 

(see Section I.B.1.b., Monitoring Sagebrush Availability). 

Urban Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer 

The National Land Cover Database (NLCD) (Fry et al. 2011) includes a percent imperviousness 

dataset that was selected as the best available dataset to be used for urban adjustments and 

monitoring. These data are generated on a 5-year cycle and are specifically designed to support 

monitoring efforts. Other datasets were evaluated and lacked the spatial specificity that was 

captured in the NLCD product. Any new impervious pixel in NLCD will be removed from the 

sagebrush base layer through the monitoring process. Although the impervious surface layer 

includes a number of impervious pixels outside of urban areas, this is acceptable for the 

adjustment and monitoring for two reasons. First, an evaluation of national urban area datasets 

did not reveal a layer that could be confidently used in conjunction with the NLCD product to 

screen impervious pixels outside of urban zones. This is because unincorporated urban areas 

were not being included, thus leaving large chunks of urban pixels unaccounted for in this rule 

set. Second, experimentation with setting a threshold on the percent imperviousness layer that 

would isolate rural features proved to be unsuccessful. No combination of values could be 

identified that would result in the consistent ability to limit impervious pixels outside urban 

areas. Therefore, to ensure consistency in the monitoring estimates, all impervious pixels will be 

used. 

Fire Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer 

Two datasets were selected for performing fire adjustments and updates: GeoMac fire 

perimeters and Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity (MTBS). An existing data standard in the 

BLM requires that all fires of more than 10 acres are to be reported to GeoMac; therefore, there 

will be many small fires of less than 10 acres that will not be accounted for in the adjustment and 

monitoring attributable to fire. Using fire perimeters from GeoMac, all sagebrush pixels falling 

16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

within the perimeter of fires less than 1,000 acres will be used to adjust and monitor the 

sagebrush base layer. 

For fires greater than 1,000 acres, MTBS was selected as a means to account for unburned 

sagebrush islands during the update process of the sagebrush base layer. The MTBS program 

(http://www.mtbs.gov) is an ongoing, multiyear project to map fire severity and fire perimeters 

consistently across the United States. One of the burn severity classes within MTBS is an 

unburned to low-severity class. This burn severity class will be used to represent unburned 

islands of sagebrush within the fire perimeter for the sagebrush base layer. Areas within the other 

severity classes within the fire perimeter will be removed from the base sagebrush layer during 

the update process. Not all wildfires, however, have the same impacts on the recovery of 

sagebrush habitat, depending largely on soil moisture and temperature regimes. For example, 

cooler, moister sagebrush habitat has a higher potential for recovery or, if needed, restoration 

than does the warmer, dryer sagebrush habitat. These cooler, moister areas will likely be detected 

as sagebrush in future updates to LANDFIRE. 

Conifer Encroachment Adjustment for the Sagebrush Base Layer 

Conifer encroachment into sagebrush vegetation reduces the spatial extent of sage-grouse habitat 

(Davies et al. 2011, Baruch-Mordo et al. 2013). Conifer species that show propensity for 

encroaching into sagebrush vegetation resulting in sage-grouse habitat loss include various 

juniper species, such as Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma), western juniper (Juniperus 

occidentalis), Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum), pinyon species, including 

singleleaf pinyon (Pinus monophylla) and pinyon pine (Pinus edulis), ponderosa pine (Pinus 

ponderosa), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) (Gruell et 

al. 1986, Grove et al. 2005, Davies et al. 2011). 

A rule set for conifer encroachment was developed to adjust the sagebrush base layer. To capture 

the geographic extent of sagebrush that is likely to experience conifer encroachment, ecological 

systems within LANDFIRE EVT version 1.2 (NatureServe 2011) were identified if they had the 

capability of supporting both the conifer species (listed above) and sagebrush vegetation. Those 

ecological systems were deemed to be the plant communities with conifers most likely to 

encroach into sagebrush vegetation. (See Table 5, Ecological systems with conifers most likely 

to encroach into sagebrush vegetation.) Sagebrush vegetation was defined as including sagebrush 

species or subspecies that provide habitat for the Greater Sage-Grouse and that are included in 

the HAF. (See Attachment C, Sagebrush Species and Subspecies Included in the Selection 

Criteria for Building the EVT and BpS Layers.) An adjacency analysis was conducted to identify 

all sagebrush pixels that were directly adjacent to these conifer ecological systems, and these 

pixels were removed from the sagebrush base layer. 

17 
Table 5. Ecological systems with conifers most likely to encroach into sagebrush vegetation. 

EVT Ecological Systems 

Coniferous Species and Sagebrush Vegetation that 

the Ecological System has the Capability of 

Producing 

Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Pinus edulis 

Juniperus osteosperma 

Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia arbuscula 

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Artemisia bigelovii 

Artemisia pygmaea 

Columbia Plateau Western Juniper Woodland and 

Savanna 

Juniperus occidentalis 

Pinus ponderosa 

Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia arbuscula 

Artemisia rigida 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

East Cascades Oak-Ponderosa Pine Forest and 

Woodland 

Pinus ponderosa 

Pseudotsuga menziesii 

Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia nova 

Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Pinus monophylla 

Juniperus osteosperma 

Artemisia arbuscula 

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Northern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Pinus ponderosa 

Woodland and Savanna Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia arbuscula 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine-Juniper 

Woodland 

Juniperus osteosperma 

Juniperus scopulorum 

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia tridentata 

Rocky Mountain Poor-Site Lodgepole Pine Forest Pinus contorta 

Pseudotsuga menziesii 

Pinus ponderosa 

Artemisia tridentata 

Southern Rocky Mountain Pinyon-Juniper 

Woodland 

Pinus edulis 

Juniperus monosperma 

Artemisia bigelovii 

Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine 

Woodland 

Pinus ponderosa 

Pseudotsuga menziesii 

18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pinus edulis 

Pinus contorta 

Juniperus spp. 

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia arbuscula 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Invasive Annual Grasses Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer 

There are no invasive species datasets from 2010 to the present (beyond the LANDFIRE data) 

that meet the three criteria (nationally consistent, known level of accuracy, and periodically 

updated) for use in the determination of the sagebrush base layer. For a description of how 

invasive species land cover will be incorporated in the sagebrush base layer in the future, see 

Section I.B.1.b., Monitoring Sagebrush Availability. 

Sagebrush Restoration Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer 

There are no datasets from 2010 to the present that could provide additions to the sagebrush base 

layer from restoration treatments that meet the three criteria (nationally consistent, known level 

of accuracy, and periodically updated); therefore, no adjustments were made to the sagebrush 

base layer calculated from the LANDFIRE EVT (version 1.2) attributable to restoration 

activities since 2010. Successful restoration treatments before 2010 are assumed to have been 

captured in the LANDFIRE refresh. 

b. Monitoring Sagebrush Availability 

Monitoring Sagebrush Availability 

Sagebrush availability will be updated annually by incorporating changes to the sagebrush base 

layer attributable to agriculture, urbanization, and wildfire. The monitoring schedule for the 

existing sagebrush base layer updates is as follows: 

2010 Existing Sagebrush Base Layer = [Sagebrush EVT] minus [2006 Imperviousness Layer] 

minus [2009 and 2010 CDL] minus [2009/10 GeoMac Fires that are less than 1,000 acres] minus 

[2009/10 MTBS Fires that are greater than 1,000 acres, excluding unburned sagebrush islands 

within the perimeter] minus [Conifer Encroachment Layer] 

2012 Existing Sagebrush Update = [2010 Existing Sagebrush Base Layer] minus [2011 

Imperviousness Layer] minus [2011 and 2012 CDL] minus [2011/12 GeoMac Fires < 1,000 

acres] minus [2011/12 MTBS Fires that are greater than 1,000 acres, excluding unburned 

sagebrush islands within the perimeter] 

Monitoring Existing Sagebrush post 2012 = [Previous Existing Sagebrush Update Layer] minus 

[Imperviousness Layer (if new data are available)] minus [Next 2 years of CDL] minus [Next 2 

years of GeoMac Fires < 1,000 acres] minus [Next 2 years of MTBS Fires that are greater than 

19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1,000 acres, excluding unburned sagebrush islands within the perimeter] plus 

[restoration/monitoring data provided by the field]
 

Monitoring Sagebrush Restoration 

Restoration after fire, after agricultural conversion, after seedings of introduced grasses, or after 

treatments of pinyon pine and/or juniper are examples of updates to the sagebrush base layer that 

can add sagebrush vegetation back into sagebrush availability in the landscape. When restoration 

has been determined to be successful through rangewide, consistent, interagency fine- and sitescale monitoring, the polygonal data will be used to add sagebrush pixels back into the broadand mid-scale sagebrush base layer. 

Measure 1b: Context for Monitoring the Amount of Sagebrush in a Geographic Area of 

Interest 

Measure 1b describes the amount of sagebrush on the landscape of interest compared with the 

amount of sagebrush the landscape of interest could ecologically support. Areas with the 

potential to support sagebrush were derived from the BpS data layer that describes sagebrush 

pre-EuroAmerican settlement (v1.2 of LANDFIRE). 

The identification and spatial locations of natural plant communities (vegetation) that are 

believed to have existed on the landscape (BpS) were constructed based on an approximation of 

the historical (pre-EuroAmerican settlement) disturbance regime and how the historical 

disturbance regime operated on the current biophysical environment. BpS is composed of map 

units that are based on NatureServe (2011) terrestrial ecological systems classification. 

The ecological systems within BpS used for this monitoring framework are those ecological 

systems that are capable of supporting sagebrush vegetation and of providing seasonal habitat for 

sage-grouse (Table 4). Ecological systems selected included sagebrush species or subspecies that 

are included in the HAF and listed in Attachment C. 

The BpS layer does not have an associated accuracy assessment, given the lack of any reference 

data. Visual inspection of the BpS data, however, reveals inconsistencies in the labeling of pixels 

among LANDFIRE map zones. The reason for these inconsistencies is that the rule sets used to 

map a given ecological system will vary among map zones based on different physical, 

biological, disturbance, and atmospheric regimes of the region. These variances can result in 

artificial edges in the map. Metrics will be calculated, however, at broad spatial scales using BpS 

potential vegetation type, not small groupings or individual pixels. Therefore, the magnitude of 

these observable errors in the BpS layer will be minor compared with the size of the reporting 

units. Since BpS will be used to identify broad landscape patterns of dominant vegetation, these 

inconsistencies will have only a minor impact on the percent sagebrush availability calculation. 

As with the LANDFIRE EVT, LANDFIRE BpS data are not designed to be used at a local level. 

LANDFIRE data should never be used at the 30m pixel level for reporting. 

20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In conclusion, sagebrush availability data will be used to inform effectiveness monitoring and 

initiate adaptive management actions as necessary. The 2010 estimate of sagebrush availability 

will serve as the base year, and an updated estimate for 2012 will be reported in 2014 after all 

datasets become available. The 2012 estimate will capture changes attributable to wildfire, 

agriculture, and urban development. Subsequent updates will always include new fire and 

agricultural data and new urban data when available. Restoration data that meet the criteria for 

adding sagebrush areas back into the sagebrush base layer will be factored in as data allow. 

Given data availability, there will be a 2-year lag (approximately) between when the estimate is 

generated and when the data used for the estimate become available (e.g., the 2014 sagebrush 

availability will be included in the 2016 estimate). 

Future Plans 

Geospatial data used to generate the sagebrush base layer will be available through the BLM’s 

EGIS web portal and geospatial gateway or through the authoritative data source. Legacy 

datasets will be preserved so that trends may be calculated. Additionally, accuracy assessment 

data for all source datasets will be provided on the portal either spatially, where applicable, or 

through the metadata. Accuracy assessment information was deemed vital to help users 

understand the limitation of the sagebrush estimates; it will be summarized spatially by map zone 

and will be included in the portal. 

LANDFIRE plans to begin a remapping effort in 2015. This remapping has the potential to 

improve the overall quality of data products greatly, primarily through the use of higher-quality 

remote sensing datasets. Additionally, the BLM and the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics 

Consortium (MRLC) are working to improve the accuracy of vegetation map products for broadand mid-scale analyses through the Grass/Shrub mapping effort. The Grass/Shrub mapping effort 

applies the Wyoming multiscale sagebrush habitat methodology (Homer et al. 2009) to depict 

spatially the fractional percent cover estimates for five components rangewide and West-wide. 

These five components are percent cover of sagebrush vegetation, percent bare ground, percent 

herbaceous vegetation (grass and forbs combined), annual vegetation, and percent shrubs. A 

benefit of the design of these fractional cover maps is that they facilitate monitoring “within” 

class variation (e.g., examination of declining trend in sagebrush cover for individual pixels). 

This “within” class variation can serve as one indicator of sagebrush quality that cannot be 

derived from LANDFIRE’s EVT information. The Grass/Shrub mapping effort is not a substitute 

for fine-scale monitoring but will leverage fine-scale data to support the validation of the 

mapping products. An evaluation will be conducted to determine if either dataset is of great 

enough quality to warrant replacing the existing sagebrush layers. At the earliest, this evaluation 

will occur in 2018 or 2019, depending on data availability. 

21 
 

 

 

B.2. Habitat Degradation Monitoring (Measure 2) 

The measure of habitat degradation will be calculated by combining the footprints of threats 

identified in Table 2. The footprint is defined as the direct area of influence of “active” energy 

and infrastructure; it is used as a surrogate for human activity. Although these analyses will try to 

summarize results at the aforementioned meaningful geographic areas of interest, some may be 

too small to report the metrics appropriately and may be combined (smaller populations, PACs 

within a population, etc.). Data sources for each threat are found in Table 6, Geospatial data 

sources for habitat degradation. Specific assumptions (inclusion criteria for data, width/area 

assumptions for point and line features, etc.) and methodology for each threat, and the combined 

measure, are detailed below. All datasets will be updated annually to monitor broad- and midscale year-to-year changes and to calculate trends in habitat degradation to inform adaptive 

management. A 5-year summary report will be provided to the USFWS. 

a. Habitat Degradation Datasets and Assumptions 

Energy (oil and gas wells and development facilities) 

This dataset will compile information from three oil and gas databases: the proprietary IHS 

Enerdeq database, the BLM Automated Fluid Minerals Support System (AFMSS) database, and 

the proprietary Platts (a McGraw-Hill Financial Company) GIS Custom Data (hereafter, Platts) 

database of power plants. Point data from wells active within the last 10 years from IHS and 

producing wells from AFMSS will be considered as a 5-acre (2.0ha) direct area of influence 

centered on the well point, as recommended by the BLM WO-300 (Minerals and Realty 

Management). Plugged and abandoned wells will be removed if the date of well abandonment 

was before the first day of the reporting year (i.e., for the 2015 reporting year, a well must have 

been plugged and abandoned by 12/31/2014 to be removed). Platts oil and gas power plants data 

(subset to operational power plants) will also be included as a 5-acre (2.0ha) direct area of 

influence. 

Additional Measure: Reclaimed Energy-related Degradation. This dataset will include 

those wells that have been plugged and abandoned. This measure thereby attempts to 

measure energy-related degradation that has been reclaimed but not necessarily fully 

restored to sage-grouse habitat. This measure will establish a baseline by using wells that 

have been plugged and abandoned within the last 10 years from the IHS and AFMSS 

datasets. Time lags for lek attendance in response to infrastructure have been documented 

to be delayed 2–10 years from energy development activities (Harju et al. 2010). 

Reclamation actions may require 2 or more years from the Final Abandonment Notice. 

Sagebrush seedling establishment may take 6 or more years from the point of seeding, 

depending on such variables as annual precipitation, annual temperature, and soil type and 

depth (Pyke 2011). This 10-year period is conservative and assumes some level of habitat 

improvement 10 years after plugging. Research by Hemstrom et al. (2002), however, 

22 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

proposes an even longer period—more than 100 years—for recovery of sagebrush habitats, 

even with active restoration approaches. Direct area of influence will be considered 3 acres 

(1.2ha) (J. Perry, personal communication, February 12, 2014). This additional 

layer/measure could be used at the broad and mid scale to identify areas where sagebrush 

habitat and/or potential sagebrush habitat is likely still degraded. This layer/measure could 

also be used where further investigation at the fine or site scale would be warranted to: 1) 

quantify the level of reclamation already conducted, and 2) evaluate the amount of 

restoration still required for sagebrush habitat recovery. At a particular level (e.g., 

population, PACs), these areas and the reclamation efforts/success could be used to inform 

reclamation standards associated with future developments. Once these areas have 

transitioned from reclamation standards to meeting restoration standards, they can be 

added back into the sagebrush availability layer using the same methodology as described 

for adding restoration treatment areas lost to wildfire and agriculture conversion (see 

Monitoring Sagebrush Restoration in Section I.B.1.b., Monitoring Sagebrush Availability). 

This dataset will be updated annually from the IHS dataset. 

Energy (coal mines) 

Currently, there is no comprehensive dataset available that identifies the footprint of active coal 

mining across all jurisdictions. Therefore, point and polygon datasets will be used each year to 

identify coal mining locations. Data sources will be identified and evaluated annually and will 

include at a minimum: BLM coal lease polygons, U.S. Energy Information Administration mine 

occurrence points, U.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement coal mining 

permit polygons (as available), and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Mineral Resources Data 

System mine occurrence points. These data will inform where active coal mining may be 

occurring. Additionally, coal power plant data from Platts power plants database (subset to 

operational power plants) will be included. Aerial imagery will then be used to digitize manually 

the active coal mining and coal power plants surface disturbance in or near these known 

occurrence areas. While the date of aerial imagery varies by scale, the most current data 

available from Esri and/or Google will be used to locate (generally at 1:50,000 and below) and 

digitize (generally at 1:10,000 and below) active coal mine and power plant direct area of 

influence. Coal mine location data source and imagery date will be documented for each 

digitized coal polygon at the time of creation. Subsurface facility locations (polygon or point 

location as available) will also be collected if available, included in density calculations, and 

added to the active surface activity layer as appropriate (if an actual direct area of influence can 

be located). 

Energy (wind energy facilities) 

This dataset will be a subset of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Digital Obstacles 

point file. Points where “Type_” = “WINDMILL” will be included. Direct area of influence of 

these point features will be measured by converting to a polygon dataset as a direct area of 

23 
 

 

 

influence of 3 acres (1.2ha) centered on each tower point. See the BLM’s “Wind Energy 

Development Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement” (BLM 2005). Additionally, Platts 

power plants database will be used for transformer stations associated with wind energy sites 

(subset to operational power plants), also with a 3-acre (1.2ha) direct area of influence. 

Energy (solar energy facilities) 

This dataset will include solar plants as compiled with the Platts power plants database (subset to 

operational power plants). This database includes an attribute that indicates the operational 

capacity of each solar power plant. Total capacity at the power plant was based on ratings of the 

in-service unit(s), in megawatts. Direct area of influence polygons will be centered over each 

point feature representing 7.3ac (3.0ha) per megawatt of the stated operational capacity, per the 

report of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), “Land-Use Requirements for 

Solar Power Plants in the United States” (Ong et al. 2013). 

Energy (geothermal energy facilities) 

This dataset will include geothermal wells in existence or under construction as compiled with 

the IHS wells database and power plants as compiled with the Platts database (subset to 

operational power plants). Direct area of influence of these point features will be measured by 

converting to a polygon dataset of 3 acres (1.2ha) centered on each well or power plant point. 

Mining (active developments; locatable, leasable, saleable) 

This dataset will include active locatable mining locations as compiled with the proprietary 

InfoMine database. Aerial imagery will then be used to digitize manually the active mining 

surface disturbance in or near these known occurrence areas. While the date of aerial imagery 

varies by scale, the most current data available from Esri and/or Google will be used to locate 

(generally at 1:50,000 and below) and digitize (generally at 1:10,000 and below) active mine 

direct area of influence. Mine location data source and imagery date will be documented for each 

digitized polygon at the time of creation. Currently, there are no known compressive databases 

available for leasable or saleable mining sites beyond coal mines. Other data sources will be 

evaluated and used as they are identified or as they become available. Point data may be 

converted to polygons to represent direct area of influence unless actual surface disturbance is 

available. 

Infrastructure (roads) 

This dataset will be compiled from the proprietary Esri StreetMap Premium for ArcGIS. Dataset 

features that will be used are: Interstate Highways, Major Roads, and Surface Streets to capture 

most paved and “crowned and ditched” roads while not including “two-track” and 4-wheel-drive 

routes. These minor roads, while not included in the broad- and mid-scale monitoring, may 

support a volume of traffic that can have deleterious effects on sage-grouse leks. It may be 

24 
 

 

 

appropriate to consider the frequency and type of use of roads in a NEPA analysis for a proposed 

project. This fine- and site-scale analysis will require more site-specific data than is identified in 

this monitoring framework. The direct area of influence for roads will be represented by 240.2ft, 

84.0ft, and 40.7ft (73.2m, 25.6m, and 12.4m) total widths centered on the line feature for 

Interstate Highways, Major Roads, and Surface Streets, respectively (Knick et al. 2011). The 

most current dataset will be used for each monitoring update. Note: This is a related but 

different dataset than what was used in BER (Manier et al. 2013). Individual BLM/USFS 

planning units may use different road layers for fine- and site-scale monitoring. 

Infrastructure (railroads) 

This dataset will be a compilation from the Federal Railroad Administration Rail Lines of the 

USA dataset. Non-abandoned rail lines will be used; abandoned rail lines will not be used. The 

direct are of influence for railroads will be represented by a 30.8ft (9.4m) total width (Knick et 

al. 2011) centered on the non-abandoned railroad line feature. 

Infrastructure (power lines) 

This line dataset will be derived from the proprietary Platts transmission lines database. Linear 

features in the dataset attributed as “buried” will be removed from the disturbance calculation. 

Only “In Service” lines will be used; “Proposed” lines will not be used. Direct area of influence 

will be determined by the kV designation: 1–199 kV (100ft/30.5m), 200–399 kV (150ft/45.7m), 

400–699 kV (200ft/61.0m), and 700-or greater kV (250ft/76.2m) based on average right-of-way 

and structure widths, according to BLM WO-300 (Minerals and Realty Management). 

Infrastructure (communication towers) 

This point dataset will be compiled from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 

communication towers point file; all duplicate points will be removed. It will be converted to a 

polygon dataset by using a direct area of influence of 2.5 acres (1.0ha) centered on each 

communication tower point (Knick et al. 2011). 

Infrastructure (other vertical structures) 

This point dataset will be compiled from the FAA’s Digital Obstacles point file. Points where 

“Type_” = “WINDMILL” will be removed. Duplicate points from the FCC communication 

towers point file will be removed. Remaining features will be converted to a polygon dataset 

using a direct area of influence of 2.5 acres (1.0ha) centered on each vertical structure point 

(Knick et al. 2011). 

Other Developed Rights-of-Way 

Currently, no additional data sources for other rights-of-way have been identified; roads, power 

lines, railroads, pipelines, and other known linear features are represented in the categories 

25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

described above. The newly purchased IHS data do contain pipeline information; however, this 

database does not currently distinguish between above-ground and underground pipelines. If 

additional features representing human activities are identified, they will be added to monitoring 

reports using similar assumptions to those used with the threats described above. 

b. Habitat Degradation Threat Combination and Calculation 

The threats targeted for measuring human activity (Table 2) will be converted to direct area of 

influence polygons as described for each threat above. These threat polygon layers will be 

combined and features dissolved to create one overall polygon layer representing footprints of 

active human activity in the range of sage-grouse. Individual datasets, however, will be 

preserved to indicate which types of threats may be contributing to overall habitat degradation. 

This measure has been divided into three submeasures to describe habitat degradation on the 

landscape. Percentages will be calculated as follows: 

Measure 2a. Footprint by geographic area of interest: Divide area of the active/direct 

footprint by the total area of the geographic area of interest (% disturbance in geographic 

area of interest). 

Measure 2b. Active/direct footprint by historical sagebrush potential: Divide area of the 

active footprint that coincides with areas with historical sagebrush potential (BpS 

calculation from habitat availability) within a given geographic area of interest by the 

total area with sagebrush potential within the geographic area of interest (% disturbance 

on potential historical sagebrush in geographic area of interest). 

Measure 2c. Active/direct footprint by current sagebrush: Divide area of the active 

footprint that coincides with areas of existing sagebrush (EVT calculation from habitat 

availability) within a given geographic area of interest by the total area that is current 

sagebrush within the geographic area of interest (% disturbance on current sagebrush in 

geographic area of interest). 

B.3. Energy and Mining Density (Measure 3) 

The measure of density of energy and mining will be calculated by combining the locations of 

energy and mining threats identified in Table 2. This measure will provide an estimate of the 

intensity of human activity or the intensity of habitat degradation. The number of energy 

facilities and mining locations will be summed and divided by the area of meaningful geographic 

areas of interest to calculate density of these activities. Data sources for each threat are found in 

Table 6. Specific assumptions (inclusion criteria for data, width/area assumptions for point and 

line features, etc.) and methodology for each threat, and the combined measure, are detailed 

26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

below. All datasets will be updated annually to monitor broad- and mid-scale year-to-year 

changes and 5-year (or longer) trends in habitat degradation. 

Table 6. Geospatial data sources for habitat degradation (Measure 2). 

Direct Area of Area 

Degradation Type Subcategory Data Source Influence Source 

Energy (oil & gas) Wells IHS; BLM (AFMSS) 5.0ac (2.0ha) BLM WO300 

Power Plants Platts (power plants) 5.0ac (2.0ha) BLM WO300 

Energy (coal) Mines BLM; USFS; Office of Surface Polygon area Esri/ 

Mining Reclamation and (digitized) Google 

Enforcement; USGS Mineral Imagery 

Resources Data System 

Power Plants Platts (power plants) Polygon area Esri Imagery 

(digitized) 

Energy (wind) Wind Turbines Federal Aviation 3.0ac (1.2ha) BLM WOAdministration 300 

Power Plants Platts (power plants) 3.0ac (1.2ha) BLM WO300 

Energy (solar) Fields/Power Platts (power plants) 7.3ac NREL 

Plants (3.0ha)/MW 

Energy Wells IHS 3.0ac (1.2ha) BLM WO-

(geothermal) 300 

Power Plants Platts (power plants) Polygon area Esri Imagery 

(digitized) 

Mining Locatable InfoMine Polygon area Esri Imagery 

Developments (digitized) 

Infrastructure Surface Streets Esri StreetMap Premium 40.7ft (12.4m) USGS 

(roads) (Minor Roads) 

Major Roads Esri StreetMap Premium 84.0ft (25.6m) USGS 

Interstate Esri StreetMap Premium 240.2ft USGS 

Highways (73.2m) 

Infrastructure Active Lines Federal Railroad 30.8ft (9.4m) USGS 

(railroads) Administration 

Infrastructure 1-199kV Lines Platts (transmission lines) 100ft (30.5m) BLM WO-

(power lines) 300 

200-399 kV Lines Platts (transmission lines) 150ft (45.7m) BLM WO300 

400-699kV Lines Platts (transmission lines) 200ft (61.0m) BLM WO300 

700+kV Lines Platts (transmission lines) 250ft (76.2m) BLM WO300 

Infrastructure Towers Federal Communications 2.5ac (1.0ha) BLM WO-

(communication) Commission 300 

27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a.	 Energy and Mining Density Datasets and Assumptions 

Energy (oil and gas wells and development facilities) 

(See Section I.B.2., Habitat Degradation Monitoring.) 

Energy (coal mines) 

(See Section I.B.2., Habitat Degradation Monitoring.) 

Energy (wind energy facilities) 

(See Section I.B.2., Habitat Degradation Monitoring.) 

Energy (solar energy facilities) 

(See Section I.B.2., Habitat Degradation Monitoring.) 

Energy (geothermal energy facilities) 

(See Section I.B.2., Habitat Degradation Monitoring.) 

Mining (active developments; locatable, leasable, saleable) 

(See Section I.B.2., Habitat Degradation Monitoring.) 

b.	 Energy and Mining Density Threat Combination and Calculation 

Datasets for energy and mining will be collected in two primary forms: point locations (e.g., 

wells) and polygon areas (e.g., surface coal mining). The following rule set will be used to 

calculate density for meaningful geographic areas of interest including standard grids and per 

polygon: 

1)	 Point locations will be preserved; no additional points will be removed beyond the 

methodology described above. Energy facilities in close proximity (an oil well close 

to a wind tower) will be retained. 

2)	 Polygons will not be merged, or features further dissolved. Thus, overlapping 

facilities will be retained, such that each individual threat will be a separate polygon 

data input for the density calculation. 

3)	 The analysis unit (polygon or 640-acre section in a grid) will be the basis for counting 

the number of mining or energy facilities per unit area. Within the analysis unit, all 

point features will be summed, and any individual polygons will be counted as one 

(e.g., a coal mine will be counted as one facility within population). Where polygon 

features overlap multiple units (polygons or pixels), the facility will be counted as one 

in each unit where the polygon occurs (e.g., a polygon crossing multiple 640-acre 

28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sections would be counted as one in each 640-acre section for a density per 640-acresection calculation). 

4)	 In methodologies with different-sized units (e.g., MZs, populations, etc.) raw facility 

counts will be converted to densities by dividing the raw facility counts by the total 

area of the unit. Typically this will be measured as facilities per 640 acres. 

5)	 For uniform grids, raw facility counts will be reported. Typically this number will 

also be converted to facilities per 640 acres. 

6)	 Reporting may include summaries beyond the simple ones above. Zonal statistics 

may be used to smooth smaller grids to help display and convey information about 

areas within meaningful geographic areas of interest that have high levels of energy 

and/or mining activity. 

7)	 Additional statistics for each defined unit may also include adjusting the area to 

include only the area with the historical potential for sagebrush (BpS) or areas 

currently sagebrush (EVT). 

Individual datasets and threat combination datasets for habitat degradation will be available 

through the BLM’s EGIS web portal and geospatial gateway. Legacy datasets will be preserved 

so that trends may be calculated. 

C.	 Population (Demographics) Monitoring 

State wildlife management agencies are responsible for monitoring sage-grouse populations 

within their respective states. WAFWA will coordinate this collection of annual population data 

by state agencies. These data will be made available to the BLM according to the terms of the 

forthcoming Greater Sage-Grouse Population Monitoring Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) (2014) between WAFWA and the BLM. The MOU outlines a process, timeline, and 

responsibilities for regular data sharing of sage-grouse population and/or habitat information for 

the purposes of implementing sage-grouse LUPs/amendments and subsequent effectiveness 

monitoring. Population areas were refined from the “Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report” (COT 2013) by individual state wildlife 

agencies to create a consistent naming nomenclature for future data analyses. These population 

data will be used for analysis at the applicable scale to supplement habitat effectiveness 

monitoring of management actions and to inform the adaptive management responses. 

D.	 Effectiveness Monitoring 

Effectiveness monitoring will provide the data needed to evaluate BLM and USFS actions 

toward reaching the objective of the national planning strategy (BLM IM 2012-044)—to 

conserve sage-grouse populations and their habitat—and the objectives for the land use planning 

29 
 

 

 

area. Effectiveness monitoring methods described here will encompass multiple larger scales, 

from areas as large as the WAFWA MZ to the scale of this LUP. Effectiveness data used for 

these larger-scale evaluations will include all lands in the area of interest, regardless of surface 

ownership/management, and will help inform where finer-scale evaluations are needed, such as 

population areas smaller than an LUP or PACs within an LUP (described in Section II, Fine and 

Site Scales). Data will also include the trend of disturbance within these areas of interest to 

inform the need to initiate adaptive management responses as described in the land use plan. 

Effectiveness monitoring reported for these larger areas provides the context to conduct 

effectiveness monitoring at finer scales. This approach also helps focus scarce resources to areas 

experiencing habitat loss, degradation, or population declines, without excluding the possibility 

of concurrent, finer-scale evaluations as needed where habitat or population anomalies have been 

identified through some other means. 

To determine the effectiveness of the sage-grouse national planning strategy, the BLM and the 

USFS will evaluate the answers to the following questions and prepare a broad- and mid-scale 

effectiveness report: 

1)	 Sagebrush Availability and Condition: 

a.	 What is the amount of sagebrush availability and the change in the amount 

and condition of sagebrush? 

b.	 What is the existing amount of sagebrush on the landscape and the change in 

the amount relative to the pre-EuroAmerican historical distribution of 

sagebrush (BpS)? 

c.	 What is the trend and condition of the indicators describing sagebrush 

characteristics important to sage-grouse?
 

2) Habitat Degradation and Intensity of Activities:
 

a.	 What is the amount of habitat degradation and the change in that amount? 

b.	 What is the intensity of activities and the change in the intensity? 

c.	 What is the amount of reclaimed energy-related degradation and the change in 

the amount? 

3) What is the population estimation of sage-grouse and the change in the population 

estimation? 

4) How are the BLM and the USFS contributing to changes in the amount of sagebrush? 

5) How are the BLM and the USFS contributing to disturbance? 

The compilation of broad- and mid-scale data (and population trends as available) into an 

effectiveness monitoring report will occur on a 5-year reporting schedule (see Attachment A), 

which may be accelerated to respond to critical emerging issues (in consultation with the 

USFWS and state wildlife agencies). In addition, effectiveness monitoring results will be used to 

identify emerging issues and research needs and inform the BLM and the USFS adaptive 

30 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

management strategy (see the adaptive management section of this Environmental Impact 

Statement). 

To determine the effectiveness of the sage-grouse objectives of the land use plan, the BLM and 

the USFS will evaluate the answers to the following questions and prepare a plan effectiveness 

report: 

1) Is this plan meeting the sage-grouse habitat objectives? 

2) Are sage-grouse areas within the LUP meeting, or making progress toward meeting, land 

health standards, including the Special Status Species/wildlife habitat standard? 

3) Is the plan meeting the disturbance objective(s) within sage-grouse areas? 

4) Are the sage-grouse populations within this plan boundary and within the sage-grouse 

areas increasing, stable, or declining? 

The effectiveness monitoring report for this LUP will occur on a 5-year reporting schedule (see 

Attachment A) or more often if habitat or population anomalies indicate the need for an 

evaluation to facilitate adaptive management or respond to critical emerging issues. Data will be 

made available through the BLM’s EGIS web portal and the geospatial gateway. 

Methods 

At the broad and mid scales (PACs and above) the BLM and the USFS will summarize the 

vegetation, disturbance, and (when available) population data. Although the analysis will try to 

summarize results for PACs within each sage-grouse population, some populations may be too 

small to report the metrics appropriately and may need to be combined to provide an estimate 

with an acceptable level of accuracy. Otherwise, they will be flagged for more intensive 

monitoring by the appropriate landowner or agency. The BLM and the USFS will then analyze 

monitoring data to detect the trend in the amount of sagebrush; the condition of the vegetation in 

the sage-grouse areas (MacKinnon et al. 2011); the trend in the amount of disturbance; the 

change in disturbed areas owing to successful restoration; and the amount of new disturbance the 

BLM and/or the USFS has permitted. These data could be supplemented with population data 

(when available) to inform an understanding of the correlation between habitat and PACs within 

a population. This overall effectiveness evaluation must consider the lag effect response of 

populations to habitat changes (Garton et al. 2011). 

Calculating Question 1, National Planning Strategy Effectiveness: The amount of sagebrush 

available in the large area of interest will use the information from Measure 1a (I.B.1., Sagebrush 

Availability) and calculate the change from the 2012 baseline to the end date of the reporting 

period. To calculate the change in the amount of sagebrush on the landscape to compare with the 

historical areas with potential to support sagebrush, the information from Measure 1b (I.B.1., 

Sagebrush Availability) will be used. To calculate the trend in the condition of sagebrush at the 

mid scale, three sources of data will be used: the BLM’s Grass/Shrub mapping effort (Future 

Plans in Section I.B.1., Sagebrush Availability); the results from the calculation of the landscape 

31 
 

 

 

 

 

 

indicators, such as patch size (described below); and the BLM’s Landscape Monitoring 

Framework (LMF) and sage-grouse intensification effort (also described below). The LMF and 

sage-grouse intensification effort data are collected in a statistical sampling framework that 

allows calculation of indicator values at multiple scales. 

Beyond the importance of sagebrush availability to sage-grouse, the mix of sagebrush patches on 

the landscape at the broad and mid scale provides the life requisite of space for sage-grouse 

dispersal needs (see the HAF). The configuration of sagebrush habitat patches and the land cover 

or land use between the habitat patches at the broad and mid scales also defines suitability. There 

are three significant habitat indicators that influence habitat use, dispersal, and movement across 

populations: the size and number of habitat patches, the connectivity of habitat patches (linkage 

areas), and habitat fragmentation (scope of unsuitable and non-habitats between habitat patches). 

The most appropriate commercial software to measure patch dynamics, connectivity, and 

fragmentation at the broad and mid scales will be used, along with the same data layers derived 

for sagebrush availability. 

The BLM initiated the LMF in 2011 in cooperation with the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS). The objective of the LMF effort is to provide unbiased estimates of vegetation 

and soil condition and trend using a statistically balanced sample design across BLM lands. 

Recognizing that sage-grouse populations are more resilient where the sagebrush plant 

community has certain characteristics unique to a particular life stage of sage-grouse (Knick and 

Connelly 2011, Stiver et al. in press), a group of sage-grouse habitat and sagebrush plant 

community subject matter experts identified those vegetation indicators collected at LMF 

sampling points that inform sage-grouse habitat needs. The experts represented the Agricultural 

Research Service, BLM, NRCS, USFWS, WAFWA, state wildlife agencies, and academia. The 

common indicators identified include: species composition, foliar cover, height of the tallest 

sagebrush and herbaceous plant, intercanopy gap, percent of invasive species, sagebrush shape, 

and bare ground. To increase the precision of estimates of sagebrush conditions within the range 

of sage-grouse, additional plot locations in occupied sage-grouse habitat (Sage-Grouse 

Intensification) were added in 2013. The common indicators are also collected on sampling 

locations in the NRCS National Resources Inventory Rangeland Resource Assessment 

(http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/technical/nra/nri/?&cid=stelprdb10416 

20). 

The sage-grouse intensification baseline data will be collected over a 5-year period, and an 

annual sage-grouse intensification report will be prepared describing the status of the indicators. 

Beginning in year 6, the annual status report will be accompanied with a trend report, which will 

be available on an annual basis thereafter, contingent on continuation of the current monitoring 

budget. This information, in combination with the Grass/Shrub mapping information, the midscale habitat suitability indicator measures, and the sagebrush availability information will be 

used to answer Question 1 of the National Planning Strategy Effectiveness Report. 

32 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Calculating Question 2, National Planning Strategy Effectiveness: Evaluations of the amount of 

habitat degradation and the intensity of the activities in the area of interest will use the 

information from Measure 2 (Section I.B.2., Habitat Degradation Monitoring) and Measure 3 

(Section I.B.3., Energy and Mining Density). The field office will collect data on the amount of 

reclaimed energy-related degradation on plugged and abandoned and oil/gas well sites. The data 

are expected to demonstrate that the reclaimed sites have yet to meet the habitat restoration 

objectives for sage-grouse habitat. This information, in combination with the amount of habitat 

degradation, will be used to answer Question 2 of the National Planning Strategy Effectiveness 

Report. 

Calculating Question 3, National Planning Strategy Effectiveness: The change in sage-grouse 

estimated populations will be calculated from data provided by the state wildlife agencies, when 

available. This population data (Section I.C., Population [Demographics] Monitoring) will be 

used to answer Question 3 of the National Planning Strategy Effectiveness Report. 

Calculating Question 4, National Planning Strategy Effectiveness: The estimated contribution by 

the BLM or the USFS to the change in the amount of sagebrush in the area of interest will use 

the information from Measure 1a (Section I.B.1., Sagebrush Availability). This measure is 

derived from the national datasets that remove sagebrush (Table 3). To determine the relative 

contribution of BLM and USFS management, the current Surface Management Agency 

geospatial data layer will be used to differentiate the amount of change for each management 

agency for this measure in the geographic areas of interest. This information will be used to 

answer Question 4 of the National Planning Strategy Effectiveness Report. 

Calculating Question 5, National Planning Strategy Effectiveness: The estimated contribution by 

the BLM or the USFS to the change in the amount of disturbance in the area of interest will use 

the information from Measure 2a (Section I.B.2., Monitoring Habitat Degradation) and Measure 

3 (Section I.B.3., Energy and Mining Density). These measures are all derived from the national 

disturbance datasets that degrade habitat (Table 6). To determine the relative contribution of 

BLM and USFS management, the current Surface Management Agency geospatial data layer 

will be used to differentiate the amount of change for each management agency for these two 

measures in the geographic areas of interest. This information will be used to answer Question 5 

of the National Planning Strategy Effectiveness Report. 

Answers to the five questions for determining the effectiveness of the national planning strategy 

will identify areas that appear to be meeting the objectives of the strategy and will facilitate 

identification of population areas for more detailed analysis. Conceptually, if the broad-scale 

monitoring identifies increasing sagebrush availability and improving vegetation conditions, 

decreasing disturbance, and a stable or increasing population for the area of interest, there is 

evidence that the objectives of the national planning strategy to maintain populations and their 

habitats have been met. Conversely, where information indicates that sagebrush is decreasing 

and vegetation conditions are degrading, disturbance in sage-grouse areas is increasing, and/or 

33 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

populations are declining relative to the baseline, there is evidence that the objectives of the 

national planning strategy are not being achieved. Such a determination would likely result in a 

more detailed analysis and could be the basis for implementing more restrictive adaptive 

management measures. 

With respect to the land use plan area, the BLM and the USFS will summarize the vegetation, 

disturbance, and population data to determine if the LUP is meeting the plan objectives. 

Effectiveness information used for these evaluations includes BLM/USFS surface management 

areas and will help inform where finer-scale evaluations are needed, such as seasonal habitats, 

corridors, or linkage areas. Data will also include the trend of disturbance within the sage-grouse 

areas, which will inform the need to initiate adaptive management responses as described in the 

land use plan. 

Calculating Question 1, Land Use Plan Effectiveness: The condition of vegetation and the 

allotments meeting land health standards (as articulated in “BLM Handbook 4180-1, Rangeland 

Health Standards”) in sage-grouse areas will be used to determine the LUP’s effectiveness in 

meeting the vegetation objectives for sage-grouse habitat set forth in the plan. The field 

office/ranger district will be responsible for collecting this data. In order for this data to be 

consistent and comparable, common indicators, consistent methods, and an unbiased sampling 

framework will be implemented following the principles in the BLM’s AIM strategy (Taylor et 

al. 2014; Toevs et al. 2011; MacKinnon et al. 2011), in the BLM’s Technical Reference 

“Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health” (Pellant et al. 2005), and in the HAF (Stiver et al. 

in press) or other approved WAFWA MZ–consistent guidance to measure and monitor sagegrouse habitats. This information will be used to answer Question 1 of the Land Use Plan 

Effectiveness Report. 

Calculating Question 2, Land Use Plan Effectiveness: Sage-grouse areas within the LUP that are 

achieving land health stands (or, if trend data are available, that are making progress toward 

achieving them)—particularly the Special Status Species/wildlife habitat land health standard— 

will be used to determine the LUP’s effectiveness in achieving the habitat objectives set forth in 

the plan. Field offices will follow directions in “BLM Handbook 4180-1, Rangeland Health 

Standards,” to ascertain if sage-grouse areas are achieving or making progress toward achieving 

land health standards. One of the recommended criteria for evaluating this land health standard is 

the HAF indicators. 

Calculating Question 3, Land Use Plan Effectiveness: The amount of habitat disturbance in sagegrouse areas identified in this LUP will be used to determine the LUP’s effectiveness in meeting 

the plan’s disturbance objectives. National datasets can be used to calculate the amount of 

disturbance, but field office data will likely increase the accuracy of this estimate. This 

information will be used to answer Question 3 of the Land Use Plan Effectiveness Report. 

34 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Calculating Question 4, Land Use Plan Effectiveness: The change in estimated sage-grouse 

populations will be calculated from data provided by the state wildlife agencies, when available, 

and will be used to determine LUP effectiveness. This population data (Section I.C., Population 

[Demographics] Monitoring) will be used to answer Question 4 of the Land Use Plan 

Effectiveness Report. 

Results of the effectiveness monitoring process for the LUP will be used to inform the need for 

finer-scale investigations, initiate adaptive management actions as described in the land use plan, 

initiate causation determination, and/or determine if changes to management decisions are 

warranted. The measures used at the broad and mid scales will provide a suite of characteristics 

for evaluating the effectiveness of the adaptive management strategy. 

II. FINE AND SITE SCALES 

Fine-scale (third-order) habitat selected by sage-grouse is described as the physical and 

geographic area within home ranges during breeding, summer, and winter periods. At this level, 

habitat suitability monitoring should address factors that affect sage-grouse use of, and 

movements between, seasonal use areas. The habitat monitoring at the fine and site scale (fourth 

order) should focus on indicators to describe seasonal home ranges for sage-grouse associated 

with a lek or lek group within a population or subpopulation area. Fine- and site-scale monitoring 

will inform LUP effectiveness monitoring (see Section I.D., Effectiveness Monitoring) and the 

hard and soft triggers identified in the LUP’s adaptive management section. 

Site-scale habitat selected by sage-grouse is described as the more detailed vegetation 

characteristics of seasonal habitats. Habitat suitability characteristics include canopy cover and 

height of sagebrush and the associated understory vegetation. They also include vegetation 

associated with riparian areas, wet meadows, and other mesic habitats adjacent to sagebrush that 

may support sage-grouse habitat needs during different stages in their annual cycle. 

As described in the Conclusion (Section III), details and application of monitoring at the fine and 

site scales will be described in the implementation-level monitoring plan for the land use plan. 

The need for fine- and site-scale-specific habitat monitoring will vary by area, depending on 

proposed projects, existing conditions, habitat variability, threats, and land health. Examples of 

fine- and site-scale monitoring include: habitat vegetation monitoring to assess current habitat 

conditions; monitoring and evaluation of the success of projects targeting sage-grouse habitat 

enhancement and/or restoration; and habitat disturbance monitoring to provide localized 

disturbance measures to inform proposed project review and potential mitigation for project 

impacts. Monitoring plans should incorporate the principles outlined in the BLM’s AIM strategy 

(Toevs et al. 2011) and in “AIM-Monitoring: A Component of the Assessment, Inventory, and 

Monitoring Strategy” (Taylor et al. 2014). Approved monitoring methods are: 

35 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 “BLM Core Terrestrial Indicators and Methods” (MacKinnon et al. 2011); 

	 The BLM’s Technical Reference “Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health” 

(Pellant et al. 2005); and, 

	 “Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework: Multiscale Assessment Tool” (Stiver 

et al. in press). 

Other state-specific disturbance tracking models include: the BLM’s Wyoming Density and 

Disturbance Calculation Tool (http://ddct.wygisc.org/) and the BLM’s White River Data 

Management System in development with the USGS. Population monitoring data (in cooperation 

with state wildlife agencies) should be included during evaluation of the effectiveness of actions 

taken at the fine and site scales. 

Fine- and site-scale sage-grouse habitat suitability indicators for seasonal habitats are identified 

in the HAF. The HAF has incorporated the Connelly et al. (2000) sage-grouse guidelines as well 

as many of the core indicators in the AIM strategy (Toevs et al. 2011). There may be a need to 

develop adjustments to height and cover or other site suitability values described in the HAF; 

any such adjustments should be ecologically defensible. To foster consistency, however, 

adjustments to site suitability values at the local scale should be avoided unless there is strong, 

scientific justification for making those adjustments. That justification should be provided. 

WAFWA MZ adjustments must be supported by regional plant productivity and habitat data for 

the floristic province. If adjustments are made to the site-scale indicators, they must be made 

using data from the appropriate seasonal habitat designation (breeding/nesting, brood-rearing, 

winter) collected from sage-grouse studies found in the relevant area and peer-reviewed by the 

appropriate wildlife management agency(ies) and researchers. 

When conducting land heath assessments, the BLM should follow, at a minimum, “Interpreting 

Indicators of Rangeland Health” (Pellant et. al. 2005) and the “BLM Core Terrestrial Indicators 

and Methods” (MacKinnon et al. 2011). For assessments being conducted in sage-grouse 

designated management areas, the BLM should collect additional data to inform the HAF 

indicators that have not been collected using the above methods. Implementation of the 

principles outlined in the AIM strategy will allow the data to be used to generate unbiased 

estimates of condition across the area of interest; facilitate consistent data collection and rollup 

analysis among management units; help provide consistent data to inform the classification and 

interpretation of imagery; and provide condition and trend of the indicators describing sagebrush 

characteristics important to sage-grouse habitat (see Section I.D., Effectiveness Monitoring). 

36 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

III. CONCLUSION
 

This Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework was developed for all of the Final 

Environmental Impact Statements involved in the sage-grouse planning effort. As such, it 

describes the monitoring activities at the broad and mid scales and provides a guide for the BLM 

and the USFS to collaborate with partners/other agencies to develop the land use plan- specific 

monitoring plan. 

IV. THE GREATER SAGE-GROUSE DISTURBANCE AND MONITORING SUBTEAM 

MEMBERSHIP 

Gordon Toevs (BLM -WO) Robin Sell (BLM-CO) 

Duane Dippon (BLM-WO) Paul Makela (BLM-ID) 

Frank Quamen (BLM-NOC) Renee Chi (BLM-UT) 

David Wood (BLM-NOC) Sandra Brewer (BLM-NV) 

Vicki Herren (BLM-NOC) Glenn Frederick (BLM-OR) 

Matt Bobo (BLM-NOC) Robert Skorkowsky (USFS) 

Michael “Sherm” Karl (BLM-NOC) Dalinda Damm (USFS) 

Emily Kachergis (BLM-NOC) Rob Mickelsen (USFS) 

Doug Havlina (BLM-NIFC) Tim Love (USFS) 

Mike Pellant (BLM-GBRI) Pam Bode (USFS) 

John Carlson (BLM-MT) Lief Wiechman (USFWS) 

Jenny Morton (BLM -WY) Lara Juliusson (USFWS) 

37 
38
 
 

 

LITERATURE CITED
 

Baruch-Mordo, S., J.S. Evans, J.P. Severson, D.E. Naugle, J.D. Maestas, J.M. Kiesecker, M.J. Falkowski, 

C.A. Hagen, and K.P. Reese. 2013. Saving sage-grouse from the trees: A proactive solution to reducing a 

key threat to a candidate species. Biological Conservation 167:233–241. 

Connelly, J.W., S.T Knick, M.A. Schroeder, and S.J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation assessment of Greater 

Sage-Grouse and sagebrush habitats. Unpublished report. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies, Cheyenne, WY. Available at http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov/docs/Greater_Sagegrouse_Conservation_Assessment_060404.pdf. 

Connelly, J.W., K.P. Reese, and M.A. Schroeder. 2003. Monitoring of Greater Sage-Grouse habitats and 

populations. Station Bulletin 80. College of Natural Resources Experiment Station, University of Idaho, 

Moscow, ID. 

Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse 

populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967–985. 

Davies, K.W., C.S. Boyd, J.L. Beck, J.D. Bates, T.J. Svejcar, and M.A. Gregg. 2011. Saving the 

sagebrush sea: An ecosystem conservation plan for big sagebrush plant communities. Biological 

Conservation 144:2573–2584. 

Fry, J.A., G. Xian, S. Jin, J.A. Dewitz, C.G. Homer, L. Yang, C.A. Barnes, N.D. Herold, and J.D. 

Wickham. 2011. Completion of the 2006 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United 

States. PE&RS 77(9):858–864. 

Garton, E.O., J.W. Connelly, J.S. Horne, C.A. Hagen, A. Moser, and M. Schroeder. 2011. Greater SageGrouse population dynamics and probability of persistence. In Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and 

conservation of a landscape species and its habitats, edited by S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly, 293–382. 

Studies in Avian Biology, vol. 38. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 

Grove, A.J., C.L. Wambolt, and M.R. Frisina. 2005. Douglas-fir’s effect on mountain big sagebrush 

wildlife habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:74–80. 

Gruell, G.E., J.K. Brown, and C.L. Bushey. 1986. Prescribed fire opportunities in grasslands invaded by 

Douglas-fir: State-of-the-art guidelines. General Technical Report INT-198. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 19pp. 

Harju, S.M., M.R. Dzialak, R.C. Taylor, L.D. Hayden-Wing, J.B. Winstead. 2010. Thresholds and time 

lags in effects of energy development on Greater Sage-Grouse populations. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 74(3):437–448. 

39 
 

 

 

 

 

Hemstrom, M. A., M. J. Wisdom, M. M. Rowland, B. Wales, W. J. Hann, and R. A. Gravenmier. 2002. 

Sagebrush-steppe vegetation dynamics and potential for restoration in the Interior Columbia Basin, USA. 

Conservation Biology 16:1243–1255. 

Homer, C.G., C.L. Aldridge, D.K. Meyer, M.J. Coan, and Z.H. Bowen. 2009. Multiscale sagebrush 

rangeland habitat modeling in southwest Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008– 

1027. 14pp. 

Johnson, D.H. 1980. The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource 

preference. Ecology 61:65–71. 

Knick, S.T., and J.W. Connelly (editors). 2011. Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and conservation of a 

landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology, vol. 38. University of California Press, 

Berkeley, CA. 

Knick, S.T., and S.E. Hanser. 2011. Connecting pattern and process in greater sage-grouse populations 

and sagebrush landscapes. In Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and conservation of a landscape species and 

its habitats, edited by S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly, 383–405. Studies in Avian Biology, vol. 38. 

University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 

Knick, S.T., S.E. Hanser, R.F. Miller, D.A. Pyke, M.J. Wisdom, S.P. Finn, E.T. Rinkes, and C.J. Henny. 

2011. Ecological influence and pathways of land use in sagebrush. In Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and 

conservation of a landscape species and its habitats, edited by S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly, 203–251. 

Studies in Avian Biology, vol. 38. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 

LANDFIRE: LANDFIRE Existing Vegetation Type layer. (2013, June – last update.) U.S. Department of 

the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. [Online.] Available at: http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/ [2013, 

May 8]. 

Leu, M., and S.E. Hanser. 2011. Influences of the human footprint on sagebrush landscape patterns: 

implications for sage-grouse conservation. In Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and conservation of a 

landscape species and its habitats, edited by S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly, 253–271. Studies in Avian 

Biology, vol. 38. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 

MacKinnon, W.C., J.W. Karl, G.R. Toevs, J.J. Taylor, M. Karl, C.S. Spurrier, and J.E. Herrick. 2011. 

BLM core terrestrial indicators and methods. Tech Note 440. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management, National Operations Center, Denver, CO. 

Manier, D.J., D.J.A Wood, Z.H. Bowen, R.M. Donovan, M.J. Holloran, L.M. Juliusson, K.S. Mayne, S.J. 

Oyler-McCance, F.R. Quamen, D.J. Saher, and A.J. Titolo. 2013. Summary of science, activities, 

programs, and policies that influence the rangewide conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus): U.S. Geological Survey Open–File Report 2013–1098. 170pp. 

40 
 

 

 

NatureServe. 2011. International ecological classification standard: Terrestrial ecologicalclassifications. 

NatureServe Central Databases, Arlington, VA. Data current as of July 31, 2011. 

Ong, S., C. Campbell, P. Denholm, R. Margolis, and G. Heath. 2013. Land-use requirements for solar 

power plants in the United States. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy 

Technical Report NREL/TP-6A20-56290. 39pp. Available at 

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56290.pdf. 

Pellant, M., P. Shaver, D.A. Pyke, and J.E. Herrick. 2005. Interpreting indicators of rangeland health, 

version 4. Technical Reference 1734-6. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

National Science and Technology Center, Denver, CO. BLM/WO/ST-00/001+1734/REV05. 122pp. 

Perry, J. Personal communication. February 12, 2014. 

Pyke, D.A. 2011. Restoring and rehabilitating sagebrush habitats. In Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and 

conservation of a landscape species and its habitats, edited by S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly, 531–548. 

Studies in Avian Biology, vol. 38. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 

Schroeder, M.A., C.L. Aldridge, A.D. Apa, J.R. Bohne, C.E. Braun, S.D. Bunnell, J.W. Connelly, P.A. 

Deibert, S.C. Gardner, M.A. Hilliard, G.D. Kobriger, S.M. McAdam, C.W. McCarthy, J.J. McCarthy, 

D.L. Mitchell, E.V. Rickerson, and S.J. Stiver. 2004. Distribution of sage-grouse in North America. 

Condor 106: 363–376. 

Stiver, S.J., A.D. Apa, J.R. Bohne, S.D. Bunnell, P.A. Deibert, S.C. Gardner, M.A. Hilliard, C.W. 

McCarthy, and M.A. Schroeder. 2006. Greater Sage‐Grouse comprehensive conservation strategy. 

Unpublished report. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Cheyenne, WY. Available at 

http://www.wafwa.org/documents/pdf/GreaterSage-grouseConservationStrategy2006.pdf. 

Stiver, S.J., E.T. Rinkes, D.E. Naugle, P.D. Makela, D.A. Nance, and J.W. Karl. In press. Sage-grouse 

habitat assessment framework: Multiscale habitat assessment tool. Bureau of Land Management and 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Technical Reference. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO. 

Taylor, J., E. Kachergis, G. Toevs, J. Karl, M. Bobo, M. Karl, S. Miller, and C. Spurrier. 2014. AIMmonitoring: A component of the BLM assessment, inventory, and monitoring strategy. Tech Note 445. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, Denver, CO. 

Toevs, G.R., J.J. Taylor, C.S. Spurrier, W.C. MacKinnon, M.R. Bobo. 2011. Bureau of Land 

Management assessment, inventory, and monitoring strategy: For integrated renewable resources 

management. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, 

Denver, CO. 

41 
 

 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layer. {YEAR}. 

Published crop-specific data layer [online]. USDA-NASS, Washington, D.C. Available at 

http://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/(accessed {DATE}; verified {DATE}). 

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Handbook H-4180-1, 

Release 4-107. Rangeland health standards handbook. Available at 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_handbook. 

Par.61484.File.dat/h4180-1.pdf. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2005. Wind Energy Development 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). BLM Washington Office, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2011. BLM national Greater Sage-Grouse 

land use planning strategy. Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-044. BLM Washington Office, 

Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered and threatened wildlife and 

plants; 12-month findings for petitions to list the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as 

threatened or endangered. Proposed Rule. Federal Register 75: 13910–14014 (March 23, 2010). 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) conservation objectives: Final report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. 

42 
Attachment A. An Overview of Monitoring Commitments 

Broad and Mid Scales Fine and Site 

Implemen- Sagebrush Habitat Scales 

Population Effectiveness tation Availability Degradation 

How will Track and Track changes Track changes in Track trends in Characterize the Measure seasonal 

the data be document in land cover disturbance sage-grouse relationship habitat, 

used? implementation (sagebrush) and (threats) to sage- populations among connectivity at 

ofland use plan inform adaptive grouse habitat (and/or leks; as disturbance, the fine scale, and 

decisions and management and inform determined by implementation habitat conditions 

inform adaptive adaptive state wildlife actions, and at the site scale, 

management management agencies) and sagebrush calculate 

inform adaptive metrics and disturbance, and 

management inform adaptive inform adaptive 

management management 

Who is BLMFOand NOC and NIFC National datasets State wildlife Comes from BLM FO and SO, 

collecting USFS Forest (NOC), BLM agencies other broad- and USFS Forests and 

the data? FOs, and USFS through mid-scale RO (with 

Forests as WAFWA monitoring partners) 

applicable types, analyzed 

by the NOC 

How often 

are the 

data 

collected, 

reported, 

and made 

available 

to 

USFWS? 

Collected and Updated and 

reported changes 

annually; reported 

summary report annually; 

every 5 years summary 

report every 5 

years 

Collected and State data 

changes reported reported 

annually; annually per 

summary report W AFW A 

every 5 years MOU; 

summary report 

every 5 years 

Collected and Collection and 

reported every 5 trend analysis 

years (coincident ongoing, reported 

with LUP every 5 years or 

evaluations) as needed to 

inform adaptive 

management 

What is Summarized by Summarized by Summarized by Summarized by Summarized by Variable (e.g., 

the spatial LUP with PACs (size PACs (size PACs (size MZ and LUP projects and 

scale? flexibility for dependent) dependent) with dependent) with flexibility seasonal habitats) 

reporting by with fl exibility flexibility for with flexibility for reporting by 

other units for reporting by reporting by for reporting by other units (e.g., 

other units other units other units PAC) 

What are Additional At a minimum, At a minimum, No additional Additional Additional 

the capacity or re­ current skills current skills and personnel or capacity or re- capacity or repotential prioritization of and capacity capacity must be budget impacts prioritization of prioritization of 

personnel ongoing must be maintained; data for the BLM or ongoing ongoing 

and budget monitoring maintained; management and the USFS monitoring work monitoring work 

impacts? work and data data layer and budget and budget 

budget management purchase cost are realignment realignment 

realignment costs are TBD TBD 

43 
Who has 1) BLMFO 1) NOC 1) NOC 1) WAFWA 1) Broad and 1) BLMFO& 

primary &SO; 2) wo 2) BLMSO, & state mid scale at USFS Forests 

and USFS USFSRO, wildlife theNOC, 2) BLMSO& 

secondary Forest & & agencies LUPat USFS RO 

responsi- RO appropriate 2) BLMSO, BLMSO, 

bilities for 2) BLM & programs USFSRO, USFSRO 

reporting? USFS NOC 

Planning 

What new National Updates to Data standards Standards in Reporting Data standards 

processes/ implementation national land and roll up population methodologies data storage; and 

tools are datasets and cover data methods for monitoring reporting 

needed? analysis tools these data (WAFWA) 

FO (field office); NIFC (National Interagency Fire Center); NOC (National Operations Center); RO 

(regional office); SO (state office); TBD (to be determined); WO (Washington Office) 

44 
Attachment B. User and Producer Accuracies for Aggregated Ecological Systems within LANDFIRE 

Map Zones 

LANDFIRE Map Zone Name User 

Accuracy 

Producer 

Accuracy 

% of Map Zone 

within Historical 

Schroeder 

Wyoming Basin 76.9% 90.9% 98.5% 

Snake River Plain 68.8% 85.2% 98.4% 

Missouri River Plateau 57.7% 100.0% 91.3% 

Grand Coulee Basin of the Columbia Plateau 80.0% 80.0% 89.3% 

Wyoming Highlands 75.3% 85.9% 88.1% 

Western Great Basin 69.3% 75.4% 72.9% 

Blue Mountain Region of the Columbia Plateau 85.7% 88.7% 72.7% 

Eastern Great Basin 62.7% 80.0% 62.8% 

Northwestern Great Plains 76.5% 92.9% 46.3% 

Northern Rocky Mountains 72.5% 89.2% 42.5% 

Utah High Plateaus 81.8% 78.3% 41.5% 

Colorado Plateau 65.3% 76.2% 28.8% 

Middle Rocky Mountains 78.6% 73.3% 26.4% 

Cascade Mountain Range 57.1% 88.9% 17.3% 

Sierra Nevada Mountain Range 0.0% 0.0% 12.3% 

Northwestern Rocky Mountains 66.7% 60.0% 7.3% 

Southern Rocky Mountains 58.6% 56.7% 7.0% 

Northern Cascades 75.0% 75.0% 2.6% 

Mogollon Rim 66.7% 100.0% 1.7% 

Death Valley Basin 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 

45 
 

 

There are two anomalous map zones with 0% user and producer accuracies, attributable to no 

available reference data for the ecological systems of interest. 

User accuracy is a map-based accuracy that is computed by looking at the reference data for a class and 

determining the percentage of correct predictions for these samples. For example, if I select any 

sagebrush pixel on the classified map, what is the probability that I'll be standing in a sagebrush stand 

when I visit that pixel location in the field? Commission Error equates to including a pixel in a class 

when it should have been excluded (i.e., commission error = 1 – user’s accuracy). 

Producer accuracy is a reference-based accuracy that is computed by looking at the predictions produced 

for a class and determining the percentage of correct predictions. In other words, if I know that a 

particular area is sagebrush (I've been out on the ground to check), what is the probability that the digital 

map will correctly identify that pixel as sagebrush? Omission Error equates to excluding a pixel that 

should have been included in the class (i.e., omission error = 1 – producer’s accuracy). 

46 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment C. Sagebrush Species and Subspecies Included in the Selection Criteria for Building the 

EVT and BpS Layers 

 Artemisia arbuscula subspecies longicaulis 

 Artemisia arbuscula subspecies longiloba 

 Artemisia bigelovii 

 Artemisia nova 

 Artemisia papposa 

 Artemisia pygmaea 

 Artemisia rigida 

 Artemisia spinescens 

 Artemisia tripartita subspecies rupicola 

 Artemisia tripartita subspecies tripartita 

 Tanacetum nuttallii 

 Artemisia cana subspecies bolanderi 

 Artemisia cana subspecies cana 

 Artemisia cana subspecies viscidula 

 Artemisia tridentata subspecies wyomingensis 

 Artemisia tridentata subspecies tridentata 

 Artemisia tridentata subspecies vaseyana 

 Artemisia tridentata subspecies spiciformis 

 Artemisia tridentata subspecies xericensis 

 Artemisia tridentata variety pauciflora 

 Artemisia frigida 

 Artemisia pedatifida 

47 
APPENDIX E

GRSG DISTURBANCE CAPS

SD ARMP Appendix E

Greater Sage-Grouse Disturbance Caps E-1 September 2015

Appendix E

Greater Sage-Grouse Disturbance Caps

In the USFWS’s 2010 listing decision for sage-grouse, the USFWS identified 18 threats contributing to the 

destruction, modification, or curtailment of the sage-grouse’s habitat or range (75 FR 13910 2010). The 18 threats 

have been aggregated into three measures: 

Sagebrush Availability (percent of sagebrush per unit area)

Habitat Degradation (percent of human activity per unit area) 

Density of Energy and Mining (facilities and locations per unit area)

Habitat Degradation and Density of Energy and Mining will be evaluated under the Disturbance Cap and Density 

Cap respectively and are further described in this appendix. The three measures, in conjunction with other 

information, will be considered during the NEPA process for projects authorized or undertaken by the BLM. 

Disturbance Cap:

This land use plan has incorporated a 3% anthropogenic disturbance cap within Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) 

Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMAs) and the subsequent land use planning actions if the cap is met: 

If the 3% anthropogenic disturbance cap is exceeded on lands (regardless of land ownership) within GRSG 

PHMAs in any given Biologically Significant Unit, then no further discrete anthropogenic disturbances 

(subject to applicable laws and regulations, such as the 1872 hard rock mining law, valid existing rights, 

etc.) would be permitted by BLM within GRSG PHMAs in any given Biologically Significant Unit until the 

disturbance has been reduced to less than the cap.

If the 3% anthropogenic disturbance cap is exceeded on lands (regardless of land ownership) or if 

anthropogenic disturbance and habitat loss associated with conversion to agricultural tillage or fire exceed 

5% within a project analysis area in PHMAs, then no further discrete anthropogenic disturbances (subject 

to applicable laws and regulations, such as the 1872 Mining Law, valid existing rights, etc.) will be 

permitted by BLM within PHMA in a project analysis area until the disturbance has been reduced to less 

than the cap.

The disturbance cap applies to the PHMA within both the Biologically Significant Units (BSU) and at the project 

authorization scale. For the BSUs, west-wide habitat degradation (disturbance) data layers (Table 1) will be used at a 

minimum to calculate the amount of disturbance and to determine if the disturbance cap has been exceeded as the 

land use plans (LUP) are being implemented. Locally collected disturbance data will be used to determine if the 

disturbance cap has been exceeded for project authorizations, and may also be used to calculate the amount of 

disturbance in the BSUs. 

Although locatable mine sites are included in the degradation calculation, mining activities under the 1872 mining 

law may not be subject to the 3% disturbance cap. Details about locatable mining activities will be fully disclosed 

and analyzed in the NEPA process to assess impacts to sage-grouse and their habitat as well as to BLM goals and 

objectives, and other BLM programs and activities.
Appendix E SD ARMP

September 2015 E-2 Greater Sage-Grouse Disturbance Caps

Formulas for calculations of the amount of disturbance in the PHMA in a BSU and or in a proposed project area are 

as follows:

• For the BSUs: 

% Degradation Disturbance = (combined acres of the 12 degradation threats1) ÷ (acres of all 

lands within the PHMAs in a BSU) x 100. 

• For the Project Analysis Area: 

% Degradation Disturbance = (combined acres of the 12 degradation threats1 plus the 7 site scale 

threats2 and acres of habitat loss1

) ÷ (acres of all lands within the PHMA in the project analysis 

area) x 100. 

1 see Table 1. 2 see Table 2

The denominator in the disturbance calculation formula consists of all acres of lands classified as PHMA within the 

analysis area (BSU or project area). Areas that are not sage-grouse seasonal habitats, or are not currently supporting 

sagebrush cover (e.g., due to wildfire), are not excluded from the acres of PHMA in the denominator of the formula. 

Information regarding sage-grouse seasonal habitats, sagebrush availability, and areas with the potential to support 

sage-grouse populations will be considered along with other local conditions that may affect sage-grouse during the 

analysis of the proposed project area. 

Density Cap:

This land use plan has also incorporated a cap on the density of energy and mining facilities at an average of one 

facility per 640 acres in the PHMA in a project authorization area. If the disturbance density in the PHMA in a 

proposed project area is on average less than 1 facility per 640 acres, the analysis will proceed through the NEPA 

process incorporating mitigation measures into an alternative. If the disturbance density is greater than an average of 

1 facility per 640 acres, the proposed project will either be deferred until the density of energy and mining facilities 

is less than the cap or co-located it into existing disturbed area (subject to applicable laws and regulations, such as 

the 1872 Mining Law, valid existing rights, etc.). Facilities included in the density calculation (Table 3) are:

• Energy (oil and gas wells and development facilities)

• Energy (coal mines)

• Energy (wind towers)

• Energy (solar fields)

• Energy (geothermal)

• Mining (active locatable, leasable, and saleable developments)

Project Analysis Area Method for Permitting Surface Disturbance Activities:

• Determine potentially affected occupied leks by placing a four mile boundary around the proposed area 

of physical disturbance related to the project. All occupied leks located within the four mile project 

boundary and within PHMA will be considered affected by the project. 

• Next, place a four mile boundary around each of the affected occupied leks. 

• The PHMA within the four mile lek boundary and the four mile project boundary creates the project 

analysis area for each individual project. If there are no occupied leks within the four-mile project 

boundary, the project analysis area will be that portion of the four-mile project boundary within the 

PHMA. 

• Digitize all existing anthropogenic disturbances identified in Table 1, the 7 additional features that are 

considered threats to sage-grouse (Table 2), and areas of sagebrush loss. Using 1 meter resolution 

NAIP imagery is recommended. Use existing local data if available. 
SD ARMP Appendix E

Greater Sage-Grouse Disturbance Caps E-3 September 2015

• Calculate percent existing disturbance using the formula above. If existing disturbance is less than 3% 

anthropogenic disturbance or 5% total disturbance, proceed to next step. If existing disturbance is 

greater than 3% anthropogenic disturbance or 5% total disturbance, defer the project.

• Add proposed project disturbance footprint area and recalculate the percent disturbance. If disturbance 

is less than 3% anthropogenic disturbance or 5% total disturbance, proceed to next step. If disturbance 

is greater than 3% anthropogenic disturbance or 5% total disturbance, defer project.

• Calculate the disturbance density of energy and mining facilities (listed above). If the disturbance 

density is less than 1 facility per 640 acres, averaged across project analysis area, proceed to the NEPA 

analysis incorporating mitigation measures into an alternative. If the disturbance density is greater than 

1 facility per 640 acres, averaged across the project analysis area, either defer the proposed project or 

co-locate it into existing disturbed area.

• If a project that would exceed the degradation cap or density cap cannot be deferred due to valid 

existing rights or other existing laws and regulations, fully disclose the local and regional impacts of 

the proposed action in the associated NEPA.
Appendix E SD ARMP

September 2015 E-4 Greater Sage-Grouse Disturbance Caps

Table 1. Anthropogenic disturbance types for disturbance calculations. Data sources are described for the west-wide 

habitat degradation estimates (Table copied from the GRSG Monitoring Framework)

Degradation Type Subcategory Data Source

Direct Area of 

Influence 

Area 

Source

Energy (oil & gas) Wells IHS; BLM (AFMSS) 5.0ac (2.0ha) BLM WO300

Power Plants Platts (power plants) 5.0ac (2.0ha) BLM WO300

Energy (coal) Mines BLM; USFS; Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement; USGS Mineral 

Resources Data System

Polygon area 

(digitized)

Esri/

Google 

Imagery

Power Plants Platts (power plants) Polygon area 

(digitized)

Esri Imagery

Energy (wind) Wind Turbines Federal Aviation 

Administration

3.0ac (1.2ha) BLM WO300

Power Plants Platts (power plants) 3.0ac (1.2ha) BLM WO300

Energy (solar) Fields/Power

Plants

Platts (power plants) 7.3ac 

(3.0ha)/MW 

NREL

Energy 

(geothermal)

Wells IHS 3.0ac (1.2ha) BLM WO300

Power Plants Platts (power plants) Polygon area 

(digitized)

Esri Imagery

Mining Locatable 

Developments

InfoMine Polygon area 

(digitized)

Esri Imagery

Infrastructure 

(roads)

Surface Streets 

(Minor Roads)

Esri StreetMap Premium 40.7ft (12.4m) USGS

Major Roads Esri StreetMap Premium 84.0ft (25.6m) USGS

Interstate 

Highways

Esri StreetMap Premium 240.2ft 

(73.2m) 

USGS

Infrastructure 

(railroads)

Active Lines Federal Railroad 

Administration

30.8ft (9.4m) USGS

Infrastructure 

(power lines)

1-199kV Lines Platts (transmission lines) 100ft (30.5m) BLM WO300

200-399 kV Lines Platts (transmission lines) 150ft (45.7m) BLM WO300

400-699kV Lines Platts (transmission lines) 200ft (61.0m) BLM WO300

700+kV Lines Platts (transmission lines) 250ft (76.2m) BLM WO300

Infrastructure 

(communication) 

Towers Federal Communications 

Commission

2.5ac (1.0ha) BLM WO300
SD ARMP Appendix E

Greater Sage-Grouse Disturbance Caps E-5 September 2015

Table 2. The seven site scale features considered threats to sage-grouse included in the disturbance calculation for 

project authorizations. 

1. Coalbed Methane Ponds

2. Meteorological Towers

3. Nuclear Energy Facilities

4. Airport Facilities and Infrastructure

5. Military Range Facilities & Infrastructure

6. Hydroelectric Plants

7. Recreation Areas Facilities and Infrastructure

Definitions:

1. Coalbed Methane and other Energy-related Retention Ponds – The footprint boundary will 

follow the fenceline and includes the area within the fenceline surrounding the impoundment. If the 

pond is not fenced, the impoundment itself is the footprint. Other infrastructure associated with the 

containment ponds (roads, well pads, etc.) will be captured in other disturbance categories.

2. Meteorological Towers – This feature includes long-term weather monitoring and temporary 

meteorological towers associated with short-term wind testing. The footprint boundary includes the area 

underneath the guy wires. 

3. Nuclear Energy Facilities – The footprint boundary includes visible facilities (fence, road, 

etc.) and undisturbed areas within the facility’s perimeter.

4. Airport Facilities and Infrastructure (public and private) –The footprint boundary of will 

follow the boundary of the airport or heliport and includes mowed areas, parking lots, hangers, 

taxiways, driveways, terminals, maintenance facilities, beacons and related features. Indicators of the 

boundary, such as distinct land cover changes, fences and perimeter roads, will be used to encompass 

the entire airport or heliport.

5. Military Range Facilities & Infrastructure – The footprint boundary will follow the outer 

edge of the disturbed areas around buildings and includes undisturbed areas within the facility’s 

perimeter. 

6. Hydroelectric Plants – The footprint boundary includes visible facilities (fence, road, etc.) 

and undisturbed areas within the facility’s perimeter.

7. Recreation Areas & Facilities – This feature includes all sites/facilities larger than 0.25 acres 

in size. The footprint boundary will include any undisturbed areas within the site/facility.
Appendix E SD ARMP

September 2015 E-6 Greater Sage-Grouse Disturbance Caps

Table 3. Relationship between the 18 threats and the three habitat disturbance measures for monitoring and 

disturbance calculations.

USFWS Listing Decision Threat

Sagebrush 

Availability

Habitat 

Degradation 

Energy and 

Mining 

Density

Agriculture X

Urbanization X

Wildfire X

Conifer encroachment X

Treatments X

Invasive Species X

Energy (oil and gas wells and development facilities) X X

Energy (coal mines) X X

Energy (wind towers) X X

Energy (solar fields) X X

Energy (geothermal) X X

Mining (active locatable, leasable, and saleable 

developments) X X

Infrastructure (roads) X

Infrastructure (railroads) X

Infrastructure (power lines) X

Infrastructure (communication towers) X

Infrastructure (other vertical structures) X

Other developed rights-of-way X
APPENDIX F

GRSG REGIONAL MITIGATION STRATEGY 

SD ARMP Appendix F

GRSG Regional Mitigation Strategy F-1 September 2015

Appendix F

GRSG Regional Mitigation Strategy

In undertaking BLM management actions, and, consistent with valid existing rights and applicable law, in 

authorizing third party actions that result in habitat loss and degradation, the BLM will require and ensure mitigation 

that provides a net conservation gain to the species including accounting for any uncertainty associated with the 

effectiveness of such mitigation. This will be achieved by avoiding, minimizing, and compensating for impacts by 

applying beneficial mitigation actions. Mitigation will follow the regulations from the White House Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR 1508.20; e.g. avoid, minimize, and compensate), hereafter referred to as the 

mitigation hierarchy. If impacts from BLM management actions and authorized third party actions that result in 

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

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

mitigation will be durable, timely, and in addition to that which would have resulted without the compensatory 

mitigation (see glossary).

The BLM, via the WAFWA Management Zone Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Team, will develop a WAFWA 

Management Zone Regional Mitigation Strategy that will inform the NEPA decision making process including the 

application of the mitigation hierarchy for BLM management actions and third party actions that result in habitat 

loss and degradation. A robust and transparent Regional Mitigation Strategy will contribute to greater sage-grouse 

habitat conservation by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing threats and compensating for residual impacts to 

greater sage-grouse and its habitat.

The BLM’s Regional Mitigation Manual MS-1794 serves as a framework for developing and implementing a 

Regional Mitigation Strategy. The following sections provide additional guidance specific to the development and 

implementation of a WAFWA Management Zone Regional Mitigation Strategy. 

Developing a WAFWA Management Zone Regional Mitigation Strategy

The BLM, via the WAFWA Management Zone Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Team, will develop a WAFWA 

Management Zone Regional Mitigation Strategy to guide the application of the mitigation hierarchy for BLM 

management actions and third party actions that result in habitat loss and degradation. The Strategy should consider 

any State-level greater sage-grouse mitigation guidance that is consistent with the requirements identified in this 

Appendix. The Regional Mitigation Strategy should be developed in a transparent manner, based on the best science 

available and standardized metrics. 

As described in Chapter 2, the BLM will establish a WAFWA Management Zone Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Team (hereafter, Team) to help guide the conservation of greater sage-grouse, within 90 days of the 

issuance of the Record of Decision. The Strategy will be developed within one year of the issuance of the Record of 

Decision.

The Regional Mitigation Strategy should include mitigation guidance on avoidance, minimization, and 

compensation, as follows:

Avoidance

Include avoidance areas (e.g. right-of-way avoidance/exclusion areas, no surface occupancy areas) already included 

in laws, regulations, policies, and/or land use plans (e.g. Resource Management Plans, Forest Plans, State Plans); 

and,

Include any potential, additional avoidance actions (e.g. additional avoidance best management practices) with 

regard to greater sage-grouse conservation.
Appendix F SD ARMP

September 2015 F-2 GRSG Regional Mitigation Strategy

Minimization

Include minimization actions (e.g. required design features, best management practices) already included in laws, 

regulations, policies, land use plans, and/or land-use authorizations; and,

Include any potential, additional minimization actions (e.g. additional minimization best management practices) 

with regard to greater sage-grouse conservation.

Compensation

Include discussion of impact/project valuation, compensatory mitigation options, siting, compensatory project types 

and costs, monitoring, reporting, and program administration. Each of these topics is discussed in more detail below.

Residual Impact and Compensatory Mitigation Project Valuation Guidance

A common standardized method should be identified for estimating the value of the residual impacts and value of 

the compensatory mitigation projects, including accounting for any uncertainty associated with the effectiveness of 

the projects. 

This method should consider the quality of habitat, scarcity of the habitat, and the size of the impact/project.

For compensatory mitigation projects, consideration of durability (see glossary), timeliness (see glossary), and the 

potential for failure (e.g. uncertainty associated with effectiveness) may require an upward adjustment of the 

valuation.

The resultant compensatory mitigation project will, after application of the above guidance, result in proactive 

conservation measures for Greater Sage-grouse (consistent with BLM Manual 6840 – Special Status Species 

Management, section .02).

Compensatory Mitigation Options

Options for implementing compensatory mitigation should be identified, such as:

Utilizing certified mitigation/conservation bank or credit exchanges.

Contributing to an existing mitigation/conservation fund.

Authorized-user conducted mitigation projects.

For any compensatory mitigation project, the investment must be additional (i.e. additionality: the conservation 

benefits of compensatory mitigation are demonstrably new and would not have resulted without the compensatory 

mitigation project).

Compensatory Mitigation Siting

Sites should be in areas that have the potential to yield a net conservation gain to the greater sage-grouse, regardless 

of land ownership.

Sites should be durable (see glossary).

Sites identified by existing plans and strategies (e.g. fire restoration plans, invasive species strategies, healthy land 

focal areas) should be considered, if those sites have the potential to yield a net conservation gain to greater sagegrouse and are durable.

Compensatory Mitigation Project Types and Costs

Project types should be identified that help reduce threats to greater sage-grouse (e.g. protection, conservation, and 

restoration projects).

Each project type should have a goal and measurable objectives.
SD ARMP Appendix F

GRSG Regional Mitigation Strategy F-3 September 2015

Each project type should have associated monitoring and maintenance requirements, for the duration of the impact.

To inform contributions to a mitigation/conservation fund, expected costs for these project types (and their 

monitoring and maintenance), within the WAFWA Management Zone, should be identified.

Compensatory Mitigation Compliance and Monitoring

Mitigation projects should be inspected to ensure they are implemented as designed, and if not, there should be 

methods to enforce compliance.

Mitigation projects should be monitored to ensure that the goals and objectives are met and that the benefits are 

effective for the duration of the impact.

Compensatory Mitigation Reporting

Standardized, transparent, scalable, and scientifically-defensible reporting requirements should be identified for 

mitigation projects.

Reports should be compiled, summarized, and reviewed in the WAFWA Management Zone in order to determine if 

greater sage-grouse conservation has been achieved and/or to support adaptive management recommendations.

Compensatory Mitigation Program Implementation Guidelines

Guidelines for implementing the State-level compensatory mitigation program should include holding and applying 

compensatory mitigation funds, operating a transparent and credible accounting system, certifying mitigation 

credits, and managing reporting requirements.

Incorporating the Regional Mitigation Strategy into NEPA Analyses

The BLM will include the avoidance, minimization, and compensatory recommendations from the Regional 

Mitigation Strategy in one or more of the NEPA analysis’ alternatives for BLM management actions and third party 

actions that result in habitat loss and degradation and the appropriate mitigation actions will be carried forward into 

the decision.

Implementing a Compensatory Mitigation Program

The BLM need to ensure that compensatory mitigation is strategically implemented to provide a net conservation 

gain to the species, as identified in the Regional Mitigation Strategy. In order to align with existing compensatory 

mitigation efforts, this compensatory mitigation program will be managed at a State-level (as opposed to a WAFWA 

Management Zone or Field Office), in collaboration with our partners (e.g. Federal, Tribal, and State agencies). 

To ensure transparent and effective management of the compensatory mitigation funds, the BLM will enter into a 

contract or agreement with a third-party to help manage the State-level compensatory mitigation funds, within one 

year of the issuance of the Record of Decision. The selection of the third-party compensatory mitigation 

administrator will conform to all relevant laws, regulations, and policies. The BLM will remain responsible for 

making decisions that affect Federal lands.
Appendix F SD ARMP

September 2015 F-4 GRSG Regional Mitigation Strategy

Glossary of Terms used in this Appendix

Additionality: The conservation benefits of compensatory mitigation are demonstrably new and would not have 

resulted without the compensatory mitigation project. (Adopted and modified from BLM Manual Section 1794).

Avoidance mitigation: Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. (40 CFR 

1508.20(a)) (e.g. may also include avoiding the impact by moving the proposed action to a different time or 

location.)

Compensatory mitigation: Compensating for the (residual) impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or 

environments. (40 CFR 1508.20)

Compensatory mitigation projects: The restoration, creation, enhancement, and/or preservation of impacted 

resources (adopted and modified from 33 CFR 332), such as on-the-ground actions to improve and/or protect 

habitats (e.g. chemical vegetation treatments, land acquisitions, conservation easements). (Adopted and modified 

from BLM Manual Section 1794).

Compensatory mitigation sites: The durable areas where compensatory mitigation projects will occur. (Adopted 

and modified from BLM Manual Section 1794).

Durability (protective and ecological): the maintenance of the effectiveness of a mitigation site and project for the 

duration of the associated impacts, which includes resource, administrative/legal, and financial considerations. 

(Adopted and modified from BLM Manual Section 1794).

Minimization mitigation: Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its 

implementation. (40 CFR 1508.20 (b))

Residual impacts: Impacts that remain after applying avoidance and minimization mitigation; also referred to as 

unavoidable impacts.

Timeliness: The lack of a time lag between impacts and the achievement of compensatory mitigation goals and 

objectives (BLM Manual Section 1794).
APPENDIX G

FLUID MINERAL STIPULATIONS

APPENDIX G

FLUID MINERAL STIPULATIONS

SD ARMP Appendix G.1

Fluid Mineral Stipulations G-1 September 2015

Appendix G

Appendix G.1 - Fluid Mineral Stipulations

Summary List of Stipulations

Note that, in addition, some right-of-way (ROW) actions may affect fluid mineral operations. A summary of ROW restrictions can be 

found in Appendix R. 

Air Resources:

Management Decision 1: Controlled Surface Use. Tier 4 Engine Requirements - Nitrogen Oxides.

Water Resources:

Management Decision 1: NSO. Wetlands, Riparian Areas, Floodplains

Management Decision 2: CSU. Water, Riparian, Wetlands

Management Decision 4: NSO. Source Water Protection Areas

Soil Resources: 

Management Decision 1: CSU. Sensitive Soils

Management Decision 3: NSO. Badlands and Rock Outcrop. 

Wildlife: 

Management Decision 2: NSO. Sharp-Tailed Grouse and Greater Prairie-Chicken Leks

Management Decision 5: CSU. Sharp-Tailed Grouse and Prairie Chicken Nesting Area - Raptor Perches

Management Decision 6: CSU. Sharp-Tailed Grouse and Greater Prairie-Chicken - Underground Utility 

(Power and Transmission) Lines

Management Decision 7: TLS. Big Game Winter Range

Management Decision 9: NSO. Raptor Nest Sites Not Defined as Sensitive and Special Status

Management Decision 10: TLS. Active Raptor Nest Sites 

Management Decision 16: NSO. Bighorn Sheep Range

Management Decision 20: NSO. Colonial Nesting Water Birds

Management Decision 21: TLS. Colonial Nesting Water Birds

Special Status Species:

Management Decision 1: NSO. Bald Eagle Nests

Management Decision 4: NSO. Peregrine Falcon Nests

Management Decision 6: NSO. Special Status Raptor Nests

Management Decision 7: TLS. Special Status Species Raptor Nests

Management Decision 11: NSO. Greater Sage-Grouse Leks

Management Decision 14: TLS. Greater Sage-Grouse Winter Range

Management Decision 16: CSU. Greater Sage-Grouse Nesting Habitat

Management Decision 18: CSU. Greater Sage-Grouse General Habitat (GHMAs) - Underground Utility 

(Power and Transmission) Lines

Management Decision 22: NSO. Greater Sage-Grouse Protection Habitat (PHMAs)

Management Decision 28: NSO. Sage Grouse Winter Range in PHMAs

Management Decision 34: NSO. Piping Plover Habitat

Management Decision 36: NSO. Interior Least Tern Habitat

Management Decision 38: LN. Sprague’s Pipit Habitat

Management Decision 43: LN. Prairie Dog Habitat

Management Decision 46: LN. Black-footed Ferret Habitat

Management Decision 49: LN. Pallid and Shovel-nosed Sturgeon
Appendix G.1 SD ARMP 

September 2015 G-2 Fluid Mineral Stipulations

Fisheries and Aquatics:

Management Decision 4: NSO. Fisheries and Aquatics

Visual Resources:

Management Decision 2: CSU. VRM Facilities Camouflage

Management Decision 3: NSO. VRM Special Recreation Management Areas

Recreation:

Management Decision 12: NSO. Recreation - SRMAs

Lands and Realty:

Management Decision 2: ROW Authorizations for Visual Resources and Wildlife

Public Safety:

Management Decision 1: NSO. Abandoned Minuteman Missile Sites

Management Decision 2: Closed. – Black Hills Army Depot (BHAD)

Cultural Resources:

Management Decision 3: NSO: National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Eligible Properties/Districts and 

Traditional Cultural Properties

Management Decision 4: NSO and Closed. Igloo and Black Hills Army Depot (BHAD)

Management Decision 5: NSO: National Historic Trails

Management Decision 28 LN: Cultural Resources and Tribal Consultation

Management Decision 29 Cultural Resource Survey Requirements

Paleontological Resources:

Management Decision 1: LN: Paleontological Surveys and CSU in Potential Fossil Yield Classes 3, 4 and 5

Management Decision 11: NSO: Designated Paleontological Sites/Localities

When applicable, stipulations developed for oil and gas development may be applied to other resource uses and activities 

pending environmental review at the project level (implementation level).

BLM would inform affected landowners, local government, SD GFP and SD DENR when a waiver, exception or 

modification is being considered if such an action would directly affect resources or uses managed by these parties. 

Waivers, Exceptions and Modification (WEMs)

Waivers, exceptions and modifications (WEMs) provide an effective means of applying “Adaptive Management”

techniques to oil and gas leases and associated permitting activities to meet changing circumstances. The criteria for

approval of waivers, exceptions, and modifications should be supported by National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

analysis, either through the land use planning process or site-specific environmental review. An exception, waiver, or

modification must be based on one of two criteria. According to 43 CFR 3101.1-4, “A stipulation included in an oil and

gas lease shall be subject to modification or waiver only if the authorized officer determines that the factors leading to its

inclusion in the lease have changed sufficiently to make the protection provided by the stipulation no longer justified or

if the proposed operations will not cause unacceptable impacts.”

Definitions from BLM IM 2008-032

A Lease Stipulation is a condition of lease issuance that provides a level of protection for other resource values or land

uses by restricting lease operations during certain times or locations or to avoid unacceptable impacts, to an extent 

greater than standard lease terms or regulations. A stipulation is an enforceable term of the lease contract, supersedes 

any inconsistent provisions of the standard lease form, and is attached to and made a part of the lease. Lease stipulations

further implement the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) regulatory authority to protect resources or resource values.

Lease stipulations are developed through the land use planning process.

A Condition of Approval (COA) means a site-specific and enforceable requirement included in an approved Application

for Permit to Drill (APD) or Sundry Notice that may limit or amend the specific actions proposed by the operator.
SD ARMP Appendix G.1

Fluid Mineral Stipulations G-3 September 2015

Conditions of Approval mitigate impacts to resource values or other uses of public lands. Refer to Appendix G-6 for

more details.

Note: While the term lease “stipulation” is used frequently in this document, it should be noted that the concepts

contained within this policy can also be applied with some adaptation to Terms and Conditions and to Conditions of

Approval.

A waiver is a permanent exemption from a lease stipulation. The stipulation no longer applies anywhere within the

leasehold.

An exception is a one-time exemption for a particular site within the leasehold; exceptions are determined on a case-bycase basis; the stipulation continues to apply to all other sites within the leasehold. An exception is a limited type of

waiver.

A modification is a change to the provisions of a lease stipulation, either temporarily or for the term of the lease.

Depending on the specific modification, the stipulation may or may not apply to all sites within the leasehold to which

the restrictive criteria are applied.

Stipulations for the Approved South Dakota RMP Plan

Air Resources: Management Decision 1: 

Resource: Air Resources

Stipulation: Controlled Surface Use Stipulation: Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special 

operating constraint: Ensure that each diesel-fueled nonroad engine with greater than 200 horsepower 

(hp) design rating to be used during drilling or completion activities meets one of the following two 

criteria: (1) the engine was manufactured to meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

nitrogen oxides (NOx) emission standards for Tier 4 nonroad diesel engines, or (2) the engine emits NOx

at rates less than or equal to EPA emission standards for Tier 4 nonroad diesel engines. Any changes to 

this stipulation will be made in accordance with the land use plan and/or the regulatory provisions for 

such changes.

Objective: For the purpose of: Protecting air resources and ensuring compliance with the 1-hour nitrogen dioxide 

(NO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).

Exception: An exception may be granted by the authorized officer if air quality modeling, air quality monitoring, or 

other information demonstrates compliance with the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.

Modification: This stipulation may be modified if the EPA or the South Dakota Department of Environment and 

Natural Resources (DENR) deletes, or revises NOx emission standards for drill rig, completion rig, or 

nonroad engines.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if air quality modeling, air quality monitoring, or other information 

demonstrates that all drilling and completion activity within the lease area will meet the 1-hour NO2

NAAQS. The stipulation may also be waived if the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS is revoked or otherwise 

rendered inapplicable to drilling/completion operations.

Water Resources: Management Decision 1

Resource: Water, Riparian, Wetland, Floodplains

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within perennial or intermittent 

streams, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, 100-year floodplains, wetlands, and riparian areas.

Objective: To protect the unique biological and hydrological features and functions associated with perennial 

and intermittent streams, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, floodplains, wetlands, and riparian areas. 
Appendix G.1 SD ARMP 

September 2015 G-4 Fluid Mineral Stipulations

Exception: No exceptions will be allowed in streams, natural lakes, or wetlands. An exception may be granted by 

the authorized officer for riparian areas, floodplains, and artificial ponds or reservoirs if the operator 

can demonstrate that: (1) there are no practicable alternatives to locating facilities in these areas, (2) 

the proposed actions will maintain or enhance resource functions, and (3) all reclamation goals and 

objectives will be met.

Modification: The authorized officer may modify the boundaries of the stipulated area if it is determined that 

portions of the leasehold do not include these types of areas.

Waiver: The authorized officer may waive this stipulation if it is determined that the entire leasehold does 

not include these types of areas.

Water Resources: Management Decision 2

Resource: Water, Riparian, Wetlands

Stipulation: Controlled Surface Use: Surface occupancy and use will be controlled within 300 feet of riparian 

and/or wetland areas. Surface-disturbing activities will require a plan with design features that 

demonstrate how all actions will maintain and/or improve the functionality of riparian/wetland areas. 

The plan will address: (a) potential impacts to riparian and wetland resources, (b) mitigation to reduce 

impacts to acceptable levels (including timing restrictions), (c) post project restoration, and (d) 

monitoring (the operator must conduct monitoring capable detecting early signs of changing riparian 

and/or wetland conditions).

Objective: To protect the unique biological and hydrological features associated with wetland and riparian areas. 

Disturbances adjacent to wetland and/or riparian areas (including road use) can adversely impact 

these sensitive areas. This stipulation will protect these features from indirect effects produced within 

the adjacent ground. This will also encompass the floodplain along most first to third order streams.

Exception: The Authorized Officer (AO) may grant an exception to this stipulation if the operator can 

demonstrate that the proposed action will not adversely impact wetland or riparian function or 

associated water quality.

Modification: The area affected by this stipulation can be modified by the AO if it is determined that portions of the 

lease area do not contain wetlands or riparian areas.

Waiver: This stipulation can be waived by the AO if it is determined that the entire lease area does not contain 

wetlands or riparian areas.

Water Resources: Management Decision 4

Resource: Source Water Protection Areas

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within State-designated Source Water 

Protection Areas.

Objective: To protect human health by minimizing the potential contamination of public water systems. Source 

water is untreated water from streams, rivers, lakes, or aquifers used to supply public water systems. 

Ensuring that source water is protected from contamination can reduce the costs of treatment and risks to 

public health. This stipulation will protect the State-designated Source Water Protection Areas that 

protect public water systems from potential contamination. 

Exception: The authorized officer may not grant exceptions to this stipulation.
SD ARMP Appendix G.1

Fluid Mineral Stipulations G-5 September 2015

Modification: The authorized officer may modify the boundaries of the stipulated area if it is determined that portions 

of the leasehold do not include Source Water Protection Areas.

Waiver: The authorized officer may waive this stipulation if it is determined that the entire leasehold does not 

include Source Water Protection Areas.

Soil Resources: Management Decision 1

Resource: Sensitive Soils

Stipulation: Controlled Surface Use: Surface occupancy and use will be controlled on sensitive soils. Prior to 

surface disturbance on sensitive soils, a reclamation plan must be approved by the Authorized Officer 

(AO). The plan must demonstrate the following: (1) no other practicable alternatives exist for 

relocating the activity, (2) the activity will be located to reduce impacts to soil and water resources, 

(3) site productivity will be maintained or restored, (4) surface runoff and sedimentation will be 

adequately controlled, (5) on- and off-site areas will be protected from accelerated erosion, (6) that no 

areas susceptible to mass wasting will be disturbed and (7) surface-disturbing activities will be 

prohibited during extended wet periods.

Objective: To maintain the chemical, physical, and biotic properties of soils. This includes maintaining soil 

productivity, soil stability, and soil biotic communities. This will prevent excessive erosion, 

potential mass wasting, and improve the likelihood of successful reclamation.

Exception: The AO may grant an exception to this stipulation if the operator can demonstrate that the 

proposed action will not contribute to degradation of the soil resource (e.g. excessive soil erosion, 

mass wasting, and/or lost productivity) or downslope resource conditions (e.g. reduced water 

quality due to sedimentation).

Modification: The AO may modify the area affected by this stipulation if it is determined that portions of the 

leasehold do not contain sensitive soils.

Waiver: The AO may waive this stipulation if it is determined that the entire leasehold does not contain 

sensitive soils.

Soil Resources: Management Decision 3

Resource: Badlands, Rock Outcrop

Stipulation: No Surface Use: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited on badlands and rock outcrop.

Objective: To prevent excessive soil erosion and to avoid disturbing areas subject to potential reclamation 

problems.

Exception: The authorized officer may not grant exceptions to this stipulation.

Modification: The authorized officer may modify the area affected by this stipulation if it is determined that portions of 

the leasehold do not include these types of areas.

Waiver: The authorized officer may waive this stipulation if it is determined that the entire leasehold does not 

include these types of areas.

Wildlife: Management Decision 2

Resource: Sharp-Tailed Grouse and Greater Prairie-Chicken Leks
Appendix G.1 SD ARMP 

September 2015 G-6 Fluid Mineral Stipulations

Stipulation: Controlled Surface Use: Oil and gas leasing within 2 miles of a lek will be subject to a plan 

approved by BLM that provides adequate mitigation measures and conservation actions to protect 

breeding, nesting, and brood-rearing habitats and limit disturbance in a manner that will support the 

long-term populations associated with the lek and surrounding habitat. 

Objective: Protection of sharp-tailed grouse and greater prairie-chicken nesting and brood rearing habitat.

Exception: An exception to this stipulation can be granted by the Authorized Officer (AO) if the operator submits

a plan that demonstrates that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately

mitigated.

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that portions of the area no

longer are within 2 mile of sharp-tailed grouse and greater prairie-chicken leks.

Waiver: This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold no longer is within 2

mile of sharp-tailed grouse and greater prairie-chicken leks.

Wildlife: Management Decision 5

Resource: Sharp-Tailed Grouse and Greater Prairie-Chicken Nesting Area Raptor Perches

Stipulation: Controlled Surface Use: Structures that are over 10 feet in height that create raptor perches will not be

authorized or will require anti-perch devices within the 2 mile buffer of sharp-tailed grouse and greater

prairie-chicken leks.

Objective: Reduce raptor predation of sharp-tailed grouse and greater prairie-chickens in nesting areas.

Exception: None.

Modification: None.

Waiver: This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold no longer contains sharptailed or greater prairie-chicken nesting habitat within 2 miles of a lek.

Wildlife: Management Decision 6

Resource: Sharp-Tailed Grouse and Greater Prairie-Chickens - Underground Utility (Power and Transmission)

Lines

Stipulation: Controlled Surface Use: Power lines must be buried, designed or sited in a manner which does not

impact sharp-tailed grouse or greater prairie-chickens within a 2 mile buffer of leks.

Objective: Reduce hazards to grouse and greater prairie-chickens from power lines and reduce raptor predation of

sharp-tailed grouse and greater prairie-chickens in nesting areas.

Exception: None.

Modification: None.

Waiver: This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold no longer contains sharptailed or greater prairie-chicken nesting habitat within 2 miles of a lek.

Wildlife: Management Decision 7

Resource: Big Game Winter Range
SD ARMP Appendix G.1

Fluid Mineral Stipulations G-7 September 2015

Stipulation: Controlled Surface Use: Prior to surface occupancy and use a plan shall be prepared by the 

proponent as a component of the APD, Sundry Notice, etc. and approved by the authorized 

officer with confirmation from the state wildlife management agency. The operator shall not 

initiate surface-disturbing activities unless the authorized officer has approved the plan. The plan 

must demonstrate to the authorized officer’s satisfaction the function and suitability of the habitat 

will not be impaired.

Objective: Maintain big game habit and avoid or minimize habitat loss and disturbance.

Exception: An exception to this stipulation can be granted by the Authorized Officer (AO) if the operator submits

a plan that demonstrates that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately

mitigated.

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that portions of the area no

longer contain crucial winter range for wildlife.

Waiver: This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold no longer contains crucial

winter range for wildlife.

Wildlife: Management Decision 9

Resource: Raptor nest sites not defined as special status raptors that were active within the last 7 years

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1⁄4 mile of raptor nests sites 

active within the last 7 years.

Objective: Limit nesting disturbance to raptors that are not identified as special status raptor species.

Exception: An exception to this stipulation can be granted by the Authorized Officer (AO) if the operator submits

a plan that demonstrates impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately

mitigated.

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that portions of the area are

no longer within 1⁄4 mile of raptor nest sites active within the past 7 years.

Waiver: This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold no longer is within 1⁄4

mile of raptor nest sites active within the past 7 years.

Wildlife: Management Decision 10

Resource: Raptor nest sites that were active within the last 7 years

Stipulation: Timing Limit: Surface use is prohibited within 1⁄2 mile of active raptor nest sites from March 1 

through July 31. 

Objective: Limit nesting disturbance to raptors.

Exception: An exception to this stipulation can be granted by the Authorized Officer (AO) if the operator submits

a plan that demonstrates impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately

mitigated.

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that portions of the area are

no longer within 1⁄2 mile of raptor nest sites active within the past 7 years.
Appendix G.1 SD ARMP 

September 2015 G-8 Fluid Mineral Stipulations

Waiver: This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold no longer is within 1⁄2 

mile of raptor nest sites active within the past 7 years.

Wildlife: Management Decision 16

Resource: Bighorn Sheep Range

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy: Surface occupancy and use will not be allowed in occupied or SDGFP 

proposed bighorn sheep range. 

Objective: Limit disturbance to bighorn sheep.

Exception: None.

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the Authorized Officer (AO) determines that

portions of the area no longer contain bighorn sheep habitat.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold no longer contains

bighorn sheep habitat.

Wildlife: Management Decision 20

Resource: Colonial Nesting Water-Birds

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1⁄4 mile of waterbird nesting 

colonies. 

Objective: Limit disturbance to Colonial Nesting Water-Birds.

Exception: None.

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the Authorized Officer (AO) determines that

portions of the area no longer contain colonial nesting water-birds.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold no longer contains

colonial nesting water-birds.

Wildlife: Management Decision 21

Resource: Colonial Nesting Water-Birds

Stipulation: Timing Limit: Surface disturbing and disruptive activities will be prohibited within 1⁄2 mile of 

waterbird nesting colonies from April 1 through July 15. 

Objective: Limit disturbance to colonial nesting water-birds.

Exception: None.

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the Authorized Officer (AO) determines that

portions of the area no longer contain colonial nesting water-birds.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold no longer contains

colonial nesting water-birds.
SD ARMP Appendix G.1

Fluid Mineral Stipulations G-9 September 2015

Special Status Species: Management Decision 1

Resource: Bald Eagle Nests

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1⁄2 mile of bald eagle nest 

sites active within the preceding 5 years.

Objective: Limit disturbance to bald eagle nesting habitat.

Exception: An exception can be granted by the Authorized Officer (AO) if the operator submits a plan that

demonstrates that the proposed action will not affect bald eagles or their habitat. If the AO determines

that the action can affect bald eagles or their habitat, consultation with the USFWS will be required

prior to final determination on the exception.

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO, in consultation with the USFWS,

determines that portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting bald eagle nest sites or

nesting habitat.

Waiver: This stipulation can be waived if the AO, in consultation with the USFWS, determines that the entire

leasehold can be occupied without adversely affecting bald eagle nest sites or nesting habitat or the

bald eagle is declared recovered and no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

Special Status Species: Management Decision 4

Resource: Peregrine Falcon Nests

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy: No surface occupancy or use within 1 mile of peregrine nesting sites 

active within the preceding 7 breeding seasons.

Objective: Limit disturbance to peregrine falcon nesting habitat.

Exception: An exception may be granted by the Authorized Officer (AO) if the operator submits a plan that

demonstrates that the proposed action will not affect the peregrine falcon or its habitat. If the AO

determines that the action may or will have an adverse effect, the operator may submit a plan

demonstrating that the impacts can be adequately mitigated. This plan must be approved by the BLM

in consultation with the USFWS.

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the AO, in consultation with the USFWS,

determines that portions of the area are no longer critical to the peregrine falcon.

Waiver: The stipulation maybe waived if the AO, in consultation with the USFWS, determines that the entire

leasehold no longer contains habitat critical to the peregrine falcon or the peregrine falcon is declared

recovered and no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Special Status Raptors: Management Decision 6

Resource: Golden eagle, burrowing owl, ferruginous hawk, Swainson’s hawk, osprey, prairie falcon, and northern

goshawk. Does not include peregrine falcon or bald eagle.

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy: No surface occupancy or use within 1⁄4 mile of special status raptor nests. 

Objective: Limit nesting disturbance to raptors that have been identified as special status raptor species.
Appendix G.1 SD ARMP 

September 2015 G-10 Fluid Mineral Stipulations

Exception: An exception to this stipulation can be granted by the Authorized Officer (AO) if the operator submits

a plan that demonstrates impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately

mitigated.

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that portions of the area are

no longer within 1⁄4 mile of raptor nest sites.

Waiver: This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold no longer is within 1⁄4

miles of raptor nest sites.

Special Status Raptors: Management Decision 7

Resource: Golden eagle, burrowing owl, ferruginous hawk, Swainson’s hawk, osprey, prairie falcon, and northern

goshawk. Does not include peregrine falcon or bald eagle.

Stipulation: Timing Limit: Surface use is prohibited within 1⁄2 mile of active raptor nest sites from March 1 

through July 31.

Objective: Limit nesting disturbance to raptors that have been identified as special status raptor species.

Exception: An exception to this stipulation can be granted by the Authorized Officer (AO) if the operator submits

a plan that demonstrates impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately

mitigated.

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that portions of the area are

no longer within 1⁄2 mile of raptor nest sites.

Waiver: This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold no longer is within 1⁄2

miles of raptor nest sites.

Special Status Species: Management Decision 11

Resource: Greater Sage-Grouse General Habitat Leks

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy: No surface occupancy or use within 6/10 of a mile from leks.

Objective: Limit disturbance to sage-grouse nesting habitat.

Exception: The Authorized Officer may grant an exception only where the proposed action:

(i) Will not have direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on GRSG or its habitat; or,

(ii) Is proposed to be undertaken as an alternative to a similar action occurring on a nearby parcel, 

and 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 RMP. (See further requirements in the 

WEMs preamble near the beginning of Appendix G.1.)

Modification: None.

Waiver: The AO may waive this stipulation if no portion of the leasehold is within 6/10 mile of the perimeter 

of an active lek.
SD ARMP Appendix G.1

Fluid Mineral Stipulations G-11 September 2015

Special Status Species: Management Decision 14

Resource: Greater Sage-Grouse

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy: Sage-grouse crucial winter range will be managed as a No Surface 

Occupancy for oil and gas development and exploration.

Objective: Within the sage-grouse General Habitat, maintain integrity of the habitat to support sustainable sagegrouse populations.

Exception: The Authorized Officer may grant an exception only where the proposed action:

(i) Will not have direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on GRSG or its habitat; or,

(ii) Is proposed to be undertaken as an alternative to a similar action occurring on a nearby parcel, 

and 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 RMP. (See further requirements in the 

WEMs preamble near the beginning of Appendix G.1.)

Modification: None.

Waiver: None.

Special Status Species: Management Decision 16

Resource: Greater Sage-Grouse General Habitat

Stipulation: Controlled Surface Use: Surface use prohibited within 2 miles of a lek. Surface disturbing and 

disruptive activities within 2 miles of a lek will be avoided unless the project proponent can clearly 

demonstrate that the impacts can be adequately mitigated and conservation actions or needed 

design features are included and the goals of this plan not compromised.

Objective: Within the Greater Sage-Grouse General Habitat, maintain integrity of the habitat, to support

sustainable sage-grouse populations.

Exception: The Authorized Officer (AO) may grant an exception to specific requirements of this stipulation if the

action, as proposed or conditioned will not compromise the habitat for sage-grouse and meet the goals

for sage-grouse habitat.

a) Surface disturbing/disruptive activities will prevent or minimize disturbance to Greater SageGrouse or their habitat. Except as identified above or during emergency situations, activities will

not compromise the habitat.

b) Continuous noise (related to long-term operations and/or activities) will be no greater than 49

decibels at 1⁄4 mile from the perimeter of the lek.

c) Temporary noise (related to installation, maintenance, one-time use, emergency operations, etc.)

exceeding 49 decibels at 1⁄4 mile from the perimeter of a lek or surface disturbing/ disruptive

activities may be allowed, but only from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. between March 15 and May 15.

d) Manage water developments to reduce the spread of West Nile virus within sage-grouse habitat

areas.

e) Site and/or minimize linear ROW to reduce disturbance to sagebrush habitats.

f) Maximize placement of new utility developments (power lines, pipelines, etc.) and transportation

routes in existing utility or transportation corridors.

g) Power lines will be buried, eliminated, designed or sited in a manner which does not impact

sage-grouse.
Appendix G.1 SD ARMP 

September 2015 G-12 Fluid Mineral Stipulations

h) Placement of other high profile structures, exceeding 10 feet in height, will be eliminated,

designed or sited in a manner which does not impact sage-grouse.

i) Remote monitoring of production facilities must be utilized and all permit applications must contain 

a plan to reduce the frequency of vehicle use.

j) Maximize the area of interim reclamation on long-term access roads and well pads including

reshaping, topsoiling and revegetating cut and fill slopes.

k) Restore disturbed areas at final reclamation to pre-disturbance conditions or desired plant

community.

l) Permanent (longer than 2 months) structures which create movement must be designed or sited to

minimize impacts to sage-grouse.

m) Consider use of off-site mitigation, (e.g., creation of sagebrush habitat, purchase conservation

easements, or buying down grazing) with proponent dollars to offset habitat losses.

n) Consider creation of a “Mitigation Trust Account” when impacts cannot be avoided, minimized,

or effectively mitigated through other means. If approved by the BLM, the proponent may 

contribute funding to maintain habitat function based on the estimated cost of habitat treatments

or other mitigation needed to maintain the functions of impacted habitats. Off-site mitigation

should only be considered when no feasible options are available to adequately mitigate within

and immediately adjacent to the impacted site, or when the off-site location will provide more

effective mitigation of the impact than can be achieved on-site.

Modification: The AO may modify the area subject to the stipulation if an environmental analysis finds a portion of

the General Habitat Area is nonessential or no longer sage-grouse habitat.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived by the AO if no portion of the leasehold is within 2 miles of the 

perimeter of an active lek.

Special Status Species: Management Decision 18

Resource: Greater Sage-Grouse General Habitat (GHMAs) - Underground Utility (Power and Transmission)

Lines

Stipulation: Controlled Surface Use: All new utility and power lines that can be safely buried will be buried

within 2 miles of sage-grouse leks and within sage-grouse winter range.

When burial of power lines is not possible, above ground lines will be located and designed to

minimize impacts of predation, collision and other associated stressors to sage-grouse.

Existing overhead lines within 2 miles of leks and within sage-grouse winter range will be evaluated

for threats to sage-grouse and if necessary, modified to reduce the threat. If modification will not likely

be effective, the overhead line may be relocated. Any requirements for modification or relocation of

existing overhead lines will be subject to valid existing rights.

Objective: Reduce collision hazards to sage-grouse from power lines and reduce raptor predation on sage-grouse

within Greater Sage-Grouse General Habitat (GHMAs).

Exception: None.

Modification: None.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived, if after consultation with the appropriate State and federal wildlife

agencies, it is determined that significant portions of the Greater Sage-Grouse General Habitat has

been altered to the point sage-grouse no longer occupy the site and there is no reasonable likelihood

of functional habitat being restored.

Special Status Species: Management Decision 22

Resource: Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMAs)
SD ARMP Appendix G.1

Fluid Mineral Stipulations G-13 September 2015

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy: Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs will be managed as No Surface 

Occupancy and Use (127,735 surface and 412,822 oil and gas subsurface minerals acres.) These 

areas will be open to oil and gas leasing with a no surface occupancy stipulation. All sagegrouse habitat that is not part of PHMAs will be managed as GHMA as noted in Figure 1-2.

Objective: Within Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs maximize the integrity of the habitat, strive to maintain or

improve sage-grouse populations, and at a minimum sage-grouse habitat so populations in the Greater

Sage- Grouse PHMAs reflect population trends exhibited by representative sage-grouse trend data from

SDGFP lek data (protection priority area controlled surface use).

Exception: The Authorized Officer may grant an exception only where the proposed action:

(i) Will not have direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on GRSG or its habitat; or,

(ii) Is proposed to be undertaken as an alternative to a similar action occurring on a nearby parcel, 

and 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 RMP. (See further requirements in the 

WEMs preamble near the beginning of Appendix G.1.)

Modification: None

Waiver: None

Special Status Species: Management Decision 28

Resource: Greater Sage-Grouse Winter Range in Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMAs)

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy: Sage-grouse crucial winter range will be managed as a No Surface 

Occupancy for oil and gas development and exploration. 

Objective: Within Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs maximize the integrity of the habitat, strive to maintain or

improve sage-grouse populations, and at a minimum sage-grouse habitat so populations in the Greater

Sage- Grouse PHMAs reflect population trends exhibited by representative sage-grouse trend data from

SDGFP lek data (protection priority area controlled surface use).

Exception: The Authorized Officer may grant an exception only where the proposed action:

(i) Will not have direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on GRSG or its habitat; or,

(ii) Is proposed to be undertaken as an alternative to a similar action occurring on a nearby parcel, 

and 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 RMP. (See further requirements in the 

WEMs preamble near the beginning of Appendix G.1.)

Modification: None.

Waiver: None.
Appendix G.1 SD ARMP 

September 2015 G-14 Fluid Mineral Stipulations

Special Status Species: Management Decision 34

Resource: Piping Plover Habitat

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy: Surface occupancy and use will be prohibited within 1⁄4 mile of piping

plover habitat.

Objective: Protection of piping plover habitat.

Exception: An exception can be granted by the Authorized Officer (AO) if the operator submits a plan that

demonstrates that the proposed action will not affect the piping plover or its habitat. If the AO

determines that the action can affect the piping plover or its habitat, consultation with the USFWS will

be required prior to final determination on the exception.

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the AO, in consultation with USFWS,

determines that portions of the area are no longer essential to the piping plover.

Waiver: The stipulation can be waived if the AO, in consultation with USFWS, determines that the entire

leasehold no longer contains habitat essential to the piping plover or the piping plover is declared

recovered and is no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

Special Status Species: Management Decision 36

Resource: Interior Least Tern Habitat

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy: Surface occupancy and use will be prohibited with 1⁄4 miles of interior 

least tern habitat. 

Objective: Protection of interior least tern habitat.

Exception: An exception can be granted by the Authorized Officer (AO) if the operator submits a plan that

demonstrates that the proposed action will not affect the least tern or its habitat. If the AO determines

that the action can affect the least tern or its habitat, consultation with the USFWS will be required

prior to final determination on the exception.

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO, in consultation with the USFWS,

determines that portions of the area are no longer essential to the least tern.

Waiver: The stipulation can be waived if the AO, in consultation with the USFWS, determines that the entire

leasehold no longer contains habitat essential to the least tern or the least tern is declared recovered and

no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Special Status Species: Management Decision 38

Resource: Sprague’s Pipit Habitat

Stipulation: A lease notice will be attached to all leases in documented or potential habitat* for Sprague’s pipit. 

The lease notice will notify the lease holder that mitigation and conservation actions may be 

required including a limit on exploration and development from April 15 to July 15. 

*Currently habitat is present but not well identified in western South Dakota.

Objective: Protection of Sprague’s pipit habitat.

Exception: N/A

Modification: N/A
SD ARMP Appendix G.1

Fluid Mineral Stipulations G-15 September 2015

Waiver: N/A

Special Status Species: Management Decision 43

Resource: Prairie Dogs

Stipulation: Controlled Surface Use: Oil and gas leasing will be open and surface occupancy and use on prairie dog 

colonies will be allowed provided adequate mitigation and conservation actions are implemented to 

maintain the functionality of the prairie dog habitat. 

Objective: Protection of prairie dog habitat.

Exception: An exception can be granted by the AO if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates that the

proposed action will not affect the prairie dog or its habitat. If the AO determines that the action can

affect the prairie dog or its habitat and has the potential to subsequently affect the black-footed ferret,

consultation with the USFWS will be required prior to final determination on the exception.

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that portions of the

area are no longer essential to the prairie dog.

Waiver: The stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold no longer contains habitat

essential to the prairie dog or the prairie dog is no longer considered a BLM sensitive species.

Special Status Species: Management Decision 46

Resource: Black-footed Ferret

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy: Surface occupancy and use will be prohibited within 1⁄4 mile of occupied black- footed ferret habitat.

Objective: Protection of Black Footed Ferret habitat.

Exception: An exception can be granted by the Authorized Officer (AO) if the operator submits a plan that

demonstrates that the proposed action will not affect the black-footed ferret or its habitat. If the AO

determines that the action can affect the black-footed ferret or its habitat, consultation with the

USFWS will be required prior to final determination on the exception.

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO, in consultation with the USFWS,

determines that portions of the area are no longer essential to the black-footed ferret.

Waiver: The stipulation can be waived if the AO, in consultation with the USFWS, determines that the entire

leasehold no longer contains habitat essential to the black-footed ferret or the black-footed ferret is

declared recovered and no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Special Status Species: Management Decision 49

Resource: Pallid and Shovel-Nosed Sturgeon

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1⁄4 mile of the water’s edge of 

the Missouri River to protect pallid and shovel-nosed sturgeon.

Objective: Protection of Pallid and Shovel-Nosed Sturgeon.

Exception: An exception can be granted by the Authorized Officer (AO) if the operator submits a plan that

demonstrates that the proposed action will not affect the pallid and shovel-nosed sturgeon or its

habitat. If the AO determines that the action can affect the pallid and shovel-nosed sturgeon or its

habitat, consultation with the USFWS will be required prior to final determination on the exception.
Appendix G.1 SD ARMP 

September 2015 G-16 Fluid Mineral Stipulations

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO, in consultation with the USFWS,

determines that portions of the area are no longer essential to the pallid and shovel-nosed 

sturgeon.

Waiver: The stipulation can be waived if the AO, in consultation with the USFWS, determines that the entire

leasehold no longer contains habitat essential to the pallid and shovel-nosed sturgeon or the pallid and 

shovel-nosed sturgeon is declared recovered and no longer protected under the Endangered Species

Act.

Fisheries and Aquatics: Management Decision 4

Resource: Fisheries and Aquatics

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1⁄4 mile of designated 

reservoirs with fisheries.

Objective: Protection of fisheries and aquatics species.

Exception: An exception to this stipulation can be granted by the Authorized Officer (AO) if the operator submits

a plan that demonstrates that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately

mitigated.

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that portions of the area

can be occupied without adversely affecting the fisheries and recreational values of the reservoir.

Waiver: This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold is no longer a fishery, and

it can be occupied without adversely affecting the recreational values of the reservoir.

Visual Resources Management (VRM): Management Decision 2

Resource: Visual Resources

Stipulation: Controlled Surface Use: Semi-permanent or permanent facilities that are not specifically prohibited in

VRM Class II areas may require special design including location, size, and camouflage painting to

blend with the natural surroundings and meet the visual quality objectives for the area (applies to all

activities; CSU for oil and gas).

Surface-disturbing activities in VRM Class III and IV may also require designs to reduce VRM

impacts (applies to all activities; lease notice for oil and gas).

Objective: Protection of the aesthetic and scenic qualities of the landscape.

Exception: The Authorized Officer (AO) may allow temporary projects to exceed VRM standards in Class II-IV

areas if the project will terminate within two years of initiation. Rehabilitation will begin at the end of

the two-year period. During the temporary project, the AO may require phased mitigation to better

conform to the prescribed VRM.

Modification: None.

Waiver: None.

Visual Resources Management (VRM): Management Decision 3

Resource: Visual Resources
SD ARMP Appendix G.1

Fluid Mineral Stipulations G-17 September 2015

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy: Surface occupancy and use will be prohibited in and within 1⁄2 mile of buffer

of the Exemption Area SRMA. Surface occupancy and use will be prohibited within 1⁄2 mile buffer

around the Fort Meade SRMA/ACEC. (Minerals will be withdrawn within the Fort Meade

SRMA/ACEC.)

Objective: Protection of the aesthetic and scenic qualities of the landscape within 1⁄2 mile of designated Special

Recreation Management Areas.

Exception: The Authorized Officer (AO) may allow temporary projects to exceed VRM standards in Class II-IV

areas if the project will terminate within two years of initiation. Rehabilitation will begin at the end of

the two-year period. During the temporary project, the AO may require phased mitigation to better

conform to the prescribed VRM.

Modification: None.

Waiver: None. 

Recreation: Management Decision 12

Resource: Recreation

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy: Surface occupancy and use will be prohibited within 1⁄2 mile of the Special

Recreational Management Areas (SRMAs) including Fort Meade ACEC and Exemption Area.

Objective: Protection of ACEC and recreational values associated with SRMAs.

Exception: The Authorized Officer (AO) may allow temporary projects to exceed VRM standards in Class II-IV

areas if the project will terminate within two years of initiation. Rehabilitation will begin at the end of

the two-year period. During the temporary project, the AO may require phased mitigation to better

conform to the prescribed VRM.

Modification: None.

Waiver: None.

Lands and Realty, ROW Authorizations: Management Decision 2

Resource: Visual Resources and Wildlife

Stipulation: Controlled Surface Use: All fiber optic, telephone and power lines that can be safely buried will be

buried or sited to have least impact on resources. All other utility lines will be evaluated at the project

level.

Objective: Protection of visual and scenic qualities while allowing for flexibility to avoid cultural or mitigate

impacts to cultural sites.

Exception: Areas where damage to cultural resources cannot be mitigated may be excepted by the Authorized

Officer (AO).

Modification: None.

Waiver: None.

Public Safety: Management Decision 1

Resource: Public Safety – Abandoned Minuteman Missile Sites
Appendix G.1 SD ARMP 

September 2015 G-18 Fluid Mineral Stipulations

Stipulation: Controlled Surface Use: Surface-disturbing activity at U.S. Air Force abandoned Minuteman missile

sites will be restricted on the sites and approximately 1/8 mile (approximately 200 meters) beyond the

sites. Subsurface activity will be prohibited under the sites and approximately 1/8 mile

(approximately 200 meters) beyond the sites.

Objective: Protect the public and environment from movement of or contamination by potential residual

hazardous waste.

Exception: This stipulation can be excepted by the Authorized Officer (AO) if it is determined that the disturbance

will not intercept and contribute to the spreading of potential residual wastes by a plan that addresses

the design of the proposal, stockpiling and respreading of soil materials, and sampling and testing.

Modification: None.

Waiver: None.

Public Safety: Management Decision 2

Resource: Public Safety - BHAD

Stipulation: Closed. BHAD will be closed to oil and gas leasing and salable minerals due to public safety concerns.

Objective: Protect the public and environment from movement of or contamination by potential residual hazardous 

waste.

Exception: None.

Modification: None. 

Waiver: None.

Cultural Resources: Management Decision 3

Resource: Standard lease conditions (Appendix G) will be used to protect areas within and around cultural sites, 

Native American traditional use areas/Traditional Cultural Properties, and Archaeological/Historic 

Districts that are eligible or potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. 

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy: Surface-disturbing activities will not be allowed within and for a distance of 300 

feet from the boundaries of cultural properties and archaeological/historic districts determined to be 

eligible or potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Standard lease conditions will

not allow Surface Occupancy and Use within, and for a distance of 1⁄2 mile from the boundaries of cultural 

properties determined to be of importance to Native American Tribal groups, sites determined to be 

Traditional Cultural Properties, and/or designated for traditional use. Such properties include (but are not 

limited to) burial locations, pictograph/petroglyph, vision quest locations, certain stone alignments, buttes 

or other uplift type landforms, plant gathering locations, and areas considered sacred or used for religious 

purposes.

Objective To protect significant cultural properties, archaeological districts, archaeological properties of known 

significance to Native American groups, traditional cultural properties, and all of their settings, and to 

avoid disturbance or inadvertent impacts to these resources. 

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the Authorized Officer (AO) if the lessee or

operator submits a plan which demonstrates that operations will be designed and/or located in such a
SD ARMP Appendix G.1

Fluid Mineral Stipulations G-19 September 2015

manner as to have a minimal impact to the natural setting and characteristics of the immediate area and

that adverse impacts to these traditional cultural properties can be mitigated in consultation with, and to

the satisfaction of, affected Indian Tribes or Native American groups. For cultural properties 

determined to be of importance to Native American Tribal groups, sites determined to be Traditional 

Cultural Properties, and/or designated for traditional use the plan must demonstrate that operations will

be designed and/or located in such a manner as to have a minimal impact to the natural setting and

characteristics of the immediate area and that adverse impacts to these traditional cultural properties

can be mitigated in consultation with, and to the satisfaction of, affected Indian Tribes or Native

American groups.

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the AO determines that portions of the

designated site or district can be occupied without adversely affecting the cultural resource values for

which the site or area was designated eligible. Does not apply to Traditional Cultural Properties. 

Waiver: None.

NOTE: Compliance with Section 106 of NHPA is required for all actions that can affect cultural properties eligible for

the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

Cultural Resources: Management Decision 4

Resource: Cultural Resources and Public Safety

Stipulation: Closed: Black Hills Army Depot (BHAD) National Register Historic District Site is closed to 

leasing.

No Surface Occupancy: Surface occupancy and use will be prohibited within the Igloo town site.

Objective: Protect significant historic properties and resources and prevent the movement of, or contamination by,

potential hazardous materials within the abandoned Igloo town site and the Black Hills Army Depot.

Exception: None.

Modification: None.

Waiver: None.

Cultural Resources: Management Decision 5

Resource: National Historic Trails 

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1⁄2 mile of the National Trail 

Management Corridor of designated National Historic Trails. Designated National Historic Trails include 

the Lewis and Clark Trail. The River Corridor is the designated historic trail for the Lewis and Clark 

Trail. To protect the Lewis and Clark Trail and associated settings, this stipulation will be applied to the 

water portion of the Missouri River and its reservoirs and extend out 1⁄2 mile from the high water mark of 

the River and its reservoirs. 

Objective: To protect the nature and purpose; trail resources, qualities, values, and associated settings; and primary 

use or uses of the historic trail, in accordance with National Trail System Act.

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the lessee or project proponent completes a 

comprehensive trail inventory, as outlined in Manual 6280, and presents a proposal which demonstrates 

resource values are not affected or that adverse impacts can be adequately mitigated to prevent impact to:

The nature and purposes of the National Trail.

National Trail resources, qualities, values, and associated settings. 

National Trail primary use or uses.

The National Trail from the cumulative or trail-wide perspective.
Appendix G.1 SD ARMP 

September 2015 G-20 Fluid Mineral Stipulations

Modification: None

Waiver: None

Cultural Resources: Management Decision 28

Resource: Cultural Resources and Tribal Consultation

Stipulation: Lease Notice: This lease may be found to contain historic properties and/or resources protected under

the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Native

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, E.O. 13007, or other statutes and executive orders.

The BLM will not approve any ground disturbing activities that may affect any such properties or

resources until it completes its obligations under applicable requirements of the NHPA and other

authorities. The BLM may require modification to exploration or development proposals to protect

such properties, or disapprove any activity that is likely to result in adverse effects that cannot be

successfully avoided, minimized or mitigated.

Objective: To protect significant historic properties and cultural resources.

Exception: None.

Modification: None.

Waiver: None.

Cultural Resources: Management Decision 29

Resource: Cultural Resource Survey Requirements

Stipulation: An inventory of those portions of the leased lands subject to proposed disturbance may be required

prior to any surface disturbance to determine if cultural resources are present and to identify needed

mitigation measures. Prior to undertaking any surface-disturbing activities on the lands covered by

this lease, the lessee or operator shall:

1. The lessee or operator shall engage the services of a cultural resource consultant acceptable to the

Surface Management Agency (SMA) to conduct a cultural resource inventory of the area of

proposed surface disturbance. The operator may elect to inventory an area larger than the standard

minimum to cover possible site relocation which may result from environmental or other

considerations. Requirements for inventory methods including the size of standard APD survey 

areas will be followed as described in Inventory Requirements for Proposed Well Sites, APD’s -

Well Pad/Block Inventory in IM MT2015-043, or subsequent updates to this IM. An acceptable

inventory report is to be submitted to the SMA for review and approval no later than that time

when an otherwise complete application for approval of drilling or subsequent surface-disturbing

operation is submitted.

2. Implement mitigation measures required by the SMA. Mitigation may include the relocation of

proposed lease-related activities or other protective measures such as data recovery and extensive

recordation. Where impacts to cultural resources cannot be mitigated to the satisfaction of the

SMA, surface occupancy on that area must be prohibited. The lessee or operator shall

immediately bring to the attention of the SMA any cultural resources discovered as a result of

approved operations under this lease, and shall not disturb such discoveries until directed to

proceed by the SMA.

Objective: Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is required for all actions

which may affect cultural properties eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. Section 6 of
SD ARMP Appendix G.1

Fluid Mineral Stipulations G-21 September 2015

the Oil and Gas Lease Terms (Form 3100-11) requires that operations be conducted in a manner that

minimizes adverse impacts to cultural and other resources.

Exception: None.

Modification: None.

Waiver: None.

Paleontological Resources: Management Decision 1

Resource: Paleontological Resource Inventory

Stipulation: Lease Notice: In areas known to have a high potential (Classes 3, 4 and 5) for containing significant

paleontological resources, the Lessee shall be required to conduct a paleontological inventory prior to

any surface disturbance. The lessee must engage the services of a qualified paleontologist, acceptable

to the Surface Management Agency, to conduct the inventory. An acceptable inventory report is to be

submitted to the BLM for review and approval at the time a surface-disturbing plan of operations is

submitted.

Objective: Preserve and protect scientifically significant vertebrate fossils and paleontological locales.

Exception: An exception may be granted if the area has already been inventoried for paleontological resources.

Modification: None.

Waiver: None.

Paleontological Resources: Management Decision 11

Resource: Paleontological Resources

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within designated

paleontological sites/localities and in significant paleontological sites regardless of designation, 

except in the Fossil Cycad ACEC, which is closed to leasing.

Objective: Preserve and protect significant vertebrate fossils and paleontological resources.

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the Authorized Officer (AO) if the lessee or

operator submits a plan which demonstrates that the adverse impacts to significant paleontological

resources can be mitigated through recovery and extensive recordation. Where impacts to

paleontological resources cannot be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Surface Management Agency,

surface occupancy on that area must be prohibited.

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the AO determines that portions of the

designated paleontological site/locality can be occupied without adversely affecting the resource

values or significance.

Waiver: None.
Appendix G.2 SD ARMP

September 2015 G-22 Fluid Mineral Stipulations

Appendix G.2

Lease Notices

Endangered Species Act Standard Lease Notice 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act Standard Lease Notice 

Sprague’s Pipit Lease Notice

Setback from Human Occupied Residences Requirement

Common lease notices and stipulations are shown in Appendix G.2 through G.4. For a more detailed list refer 

to http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/leasing/stipulations.htm. 

Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Stipulation 

O&G – Lease Notice

The lease area may now or hereafter contain plants, animals, or their habitats determined to be threatened, endangered, 

or other special status species. BLM may recommend modifications to exploration and development proposals to 

further its conservation and management objective to avoid BLM-approved activity that will contribute to a need to list 

such a species or their habitat. BLM may require modifications to or disapprove proposed activity that is likely to 

result in jeopardy to the continued existence of a proposed or listed threatened or endangered species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of a designated or proposed critical habitat. BLM will not approve any grounddisturbing activity that may affect any such species or requirements of the Endangered Species Act as amended, 16 

U.S.C. § et seq., including completion of any required procedure for conference or consultation.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act Lease Notice 

O&G – Lease Notice

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Operator is responsible for compliance with provisions of the Act by implementing one 

of the following measures; a) avoidance by timing; ground disturbing activities will not occur from April 15 to July 15, b) 

habitat manipulation; render proposed project footprints unsuitable for nesting prior to the arrival of migratory birds 

(blading or pre-clearing of vegetation must occur prior to April 15 within the year and area scheduled for activities 

between April 15 and July 15 of that year to deter nesting, or c) survey-buffer-monitor; surveys will be conducted by a 

BLM approved biologist within the area of the proposed action and a 300 foot buffer from the proposed project footprint 

between April 15 to July 15 if activities are proposed within this timeframe. If nesting birds are found, activities will not 

be allowed within 0.1 miles of nests until after the birds have fledged. If active nests are not found, construction 

activities must occur within 7 days of the survey. If this does not occur, new surveys must be conducted. Survey reports 

will be submitted to the appropriate BLM Office.
SD ARMP Appendix G.2

Fluid Mineral Stipulations G-23 September 2015

Sprague’s Pipit Lease Notice 

O&G – Lease Notice

The lease area may contain habitat for the federal candidate Sprague’s pipit. The operator may 

be required to implement specific measures to reduce impacts of oil and gas operations on 

Sprague’s pipits, their habitat and overall population. Such measures will be developed during 

the application for permit to drill and environmental review processes, consistent with lease 

rights. Measures may include limits on exploration and development activities from April 15 to July 15. 

If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lists the Sprague’s pipit as threatened or endangered under 

the Endangered Species Act, the BLM will enter into formal consultation on proposed permits 

that may affect the Sprague’s pipit and its habitat. Restrictions, modifications, or denial of 

permits could result from the consultation process. 

Setback from Human Occupied Residences Requirement

O&G – Lease Notice

The lease area may contain human occupied residences. Under Regulation 43 CFR 3101.1-2 and terms of the lease (BLM 

Form 3100-11), the authorized officer may require reasonable measures to minimize adverse impacts to other resource 

values, land uses, and users not addressed in lease stipulations at the time operations are proposed. Such reasonable 

measures may include, but are not limited to, modification of siting or design of facilities, which may require relocating 

proposed operations up to 200 meters, but not off the leasehold.

The setback requirement of 500 feet from human occupied residences has been established based upon the best 

information available. The following condition of approval may be applied as a result of the Application for Permit to 

Drill (APD) process during the on-site inspection and the environmental review unless an acceptable plan for mitigation 

of impacts is reached between the resident, lessee and BLM:

• Facilities will not be allowed within 500 feet of human occupied residences.

The intent of this Lease Notice is to provide information to the lessee that will help design and locate oil and gas facilities 

to preserve the aesthetic qualities around human occupied residences. 
Appendix G.3 SD ARMP

September 2015 G-24 Fluid Mineral Stipulations

Appendix G.3

Cultural Resources, Tribal Consultation and Paleontological

Resources Standard Lease Stipulations

Cultural Resources 16-1

This lease may be found to contain historic properties and/or resources protected under the National Historic

Preservation Act (NHPA), American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Native American Graves Protection and

Repatriation Act, E.O. 13007, or other statutes and executive orders. The BLM will not approve any ground disturbing

activities that may affect any such properties or resources until it completes its obligations (e.g., State Historic

Preservation Officer (SHPO) and tribal consultation) under applicable requirements of the NHPA and other authorities.

The BLM may require modification to exploration or development proposals to protect such properties, or disapprove

any activity that is likely to result in adverse effects that cannot be successfully avoided, minimized or mitigated.

Stipulation for Cultural Resource Protection

The lease holder is not allowed to collect or give others permission to collect historic or prehistoric artifacts on Public

Lands. An artifact is any human-made object or object used in its natural state by humans, which is at least 50 years old.

The unauthorized collecting of prehistoric and historic artifacts on public lands is punishable under Federal law. If you

observe individuals collecting artifacts, immediately notify the authorized BLM official.

Paleontological Resource Inventory Requirement

LEASE NOTICE 14-12

This lease has been identified as being located within geologic units rated as being moderate to very high potential for

containing significant paleontological resources. The locations meet the criteria for Classes 3, 4 and/or 5 as set forth in

the Potential Fossil Yield Classification System, WO IM 2008-009, Attachment 2-2. The BLM is responsible for

assuring that the leased lands are examined to determine if paleontological resources are present and to specify

mitigation measures. Guidance for application of this requirement can be found in WO IM 2008-009 dated October 15,

2007, and WO IM 2009-011 dated October 10, 2008.

Prior to undertaking any surface-disturbing activities on the lands covered by this lease, the lessee or project proponent

shall contact the BLM to determine if a paleontological resource inventory is required. If an inventory is required, the

lessee or project proponent will complete the inventory subject to the following:

• the project proponent must engage the services of a qualified paleontologist, acceptable to the BLM, to conduct the

inventory.

• the project proponent will, at a minimum, inventory a 10-acre area or larger to incorporate possible project

relocation which may result from environmental or other resource considerations.

• the paleontological inventory may identify resources that may require mitigation to the satisfaction of the BLM as

directed by WO IM 2009-011.
SD ARMP Appendix G.4

Fluid Mineral Stipulations G-25 September 2015

Appendix G.4

Air Resources Lease Notices

Air Resources

The lessee/operator is given notice that prior to project-specific approval, additional air resource analyses may be 

required in order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, Federal Land Policy Management Act, and/or 

other applicable laws and regulations. Analyses may include equipment and operations information, emission inventory 

development, dispersion modeling or photochemical grid modeling for air quality and/or air quality related value 

(AQRV) impact analysis, and/or emission control determinations. These analyses may result in the imposition of 

additional project-specific control measures to protect air resources. 
Appendix G.5 SD ARMP

September 2015 G-26 Fluid Mineral Stipulations

Appendix G.5

Offer to Lease and Lease for Oil and Gas - Form 3100-11

BLM Form 3100-11, Offer to Lease and Lease for Oil and Gas, is available by request from BLM, or

at the following website:

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/noc/business/eforms.Par.71287.File.dat/3100-011.pdf
SD ARMP Appendix G.6

Fluid Mineral Stipulations G-27 September 2015

Appendix G.6

Oil and Gas Supplementary Information

Procedures In Oil and Gas Recovery and Operations (BLM)

Geophysical Operations

Oil and gas reservoirs are discovered by either direct or indirect exploration methods. Direct methods include mapping of

surface geology, observing oil or gas seeps, and gathering information on hydrocarbon shows observed in drilling wells.

Indirect methods include various types of geophysical exploration such as seismic, gravity, and magnetic surveys, which

use remote data gathering techniques to delineate subsurface structures or lithologic changes that are not directly

observable, but that may contain or trap oil and gas. Data is often acquired using equipment mounted on surface vehicles

or aircraft. Information from geophysical exploration can lead oil companies or others to request that lands be offered for

lease, or assist in the selection of drill sites on existing leases. However, a federal oil and gas lease is not required in 

order to conduct geophysical operations. Existing road systems are used where available. Roads may be cleared of

vegetation and loose rocks to improve access for trucks if the permit allows that action.

Blading and road construction for seismic operations are not usually allowed so that environmental impacts are

minimized. In areas with rugged terrain or without access roads, and during certain seasons of the year, seismic work is

conducted by helicopter rather than by ground vehicles. Other geophysical operations that do not cause additional

surface disturbance include remote sensing, and gravity, and aeromagnetic surveying.

Geophysical Permitting Procedures and Regulations

Geophysical operations on and off an oil and gas lease are reviewed by the Federal Surface Management Agency

(SMA), which can include the BLM, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), Corps of Engineers (COE), U.S. Forest Service

(USFS), among others. Close cooperation between the operator and the managing agency during geophysical operations

minimizes surface impacts and protects other resources.

Notification Process

Geophysical operations on public lands are reviewed by the BLM. Geophysical exploration on public lands requires

review and approval following the procedures in 43 CFR Subparts 3150, 3151, and 3154. In the South Dakota Field

Office (SDFO), the Field Manager is authorized to approve geophysical operations. The responsibilities of the

geophysical operator and the Field Manager during geophysical operations are described below.

Geophysical Operator

The operator is required to file a Notice of Intent to Conduct Oil and Gas Exploration Operations (form 3150-4) for

operations on public lands administered by the BLM. Maps (preferably 1:24,000 scale topographic maps) showing the

location of the proposed lines, access routes and ancillary facilities must accompany the Notice of Intent. When the

Notice of Intent is filed, the authorized officer may request a prework conference or field inspection. Special

requirements or procedures that are identified by the authorized officer are included in the Terms and Conditions for

Notice of Intent to Conduct Geophysical Exploration (form 3150-4 and a copy of the state requirements). Any changes in

the original Notice of Intent must be submitted in writing to the authorized officer. Written approval must be secured

before activities proceed.

Bonding of the operator is required. A copy of proof of satisfactory bonding shall accompany the Notice of Intent. 

Proper bonding may include a $5,000 individual, $25,000 statewide, or $50,000 nationwide geophysical exploration

bond. In lieu of an exploration bond, a statewide or nationwide oil and gas bond may be used if it contains a rider for

geophysical exploration. The operator is required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws such as Federal

Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and the Endangered Species

Act of 1973, as amended. Earth-moving equipment shall not be used without prior approval. Operators may be required

to submit an archeological evaluation and the agency provide NEPA documentation for cultural and wildlife resources if
Appendix G.6 SD ARMP

September 2015 G-28 Fluid Mineral Stipulations

dirt work or other surface disturbance is contemplated, or if there is reason to believe that these resources may be

adversely affected. When geophysical operations have been completed including any required reclamation or

rehabilitation, the operator is required to file a Notice of Completion (form 3150-5) including certification that all terms

and conditions of the approved Notice of Intent have been fulfilled. The operator must also submit a map that shows the

actual line location, access route, and other survey details.

BLM Field Manager (authorized officer)

The authorized officer is required to contact the operator within five working days after receiving the Notice of Intent to

explain the terms of the notice, including the “Terms and Conditions for Notice of Intent to Conduct Geophysical

Exploration,” current laws, and BLM administrative requirements. At the time of the prework conference or field

inspection, written instructions or orders are given to the operator. The authorized officer is responsible for the

examination of resource values to determine appropriate surface protection and reclamation measures. Compliance

inspections during the operation ensure that stipulations are followed. The authorized officer is required to make a final

inspection following filing of the Notice of Completion Compliance inspections upon completion of work ensure that

required reclamation is properly completed. When reclamation is approved, obligation against the operator’s bond is

released. The BLM has 30 days after receipt of the Notice of Completion to notify the operator whether the reclamation

is satisfactory or if additional reclamation work is needed. Bonding liability will automatically terminate within 90 days

after receipt of the Notice of Completion unless the authorized officer notifies the operator of the need for additional

reclamation work.

State Standards

Geophysical operations are administered by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. An exploration

permit is not needed for activities which cause very little or no surface disturbance, such as exploration using:

nonexplosive seismic energy sources, airborne surveys and photographs, and the use of instruments or devices which are

hand carried or otherwise transported over the surface to make magnetic, radioactive, or other tests and measurements. 

A permit is required by the state for seismic energy sources using explosives, but not for vibroseis trucks.

For exploration on state owned lands, the South Dakota Department of School and Public Lands will have separate

requirements which only apply to those lands.

Mitigation

When a geophysical Notice of Intent is received, restrictions may be placed on the application to protect resource values

or to mitigate impacts. Many of these requirements may be the same as the oil and gas lease stipulations adopted in the

RMP. Other less restrictive measures may be used when impacts to resource values will be less severe. This is due in

part to the temporary nature of geophysical exploration. Seasonal restrictions may be imposed to reduce conflicts with

wildlife, watershed damage, and hunting activity. The decisions concerning the level of protection required are made on

a case-by-case basis when a Notice of Intent is received.

Leasing Process

Federal oil and gas leasing authority is found in the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act, as amended, for public lands and the

1947 Acquired Lands Leasing Act, as amended, for acquired lands. Leasing of federal oil and gas is affected by other

acts such as National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Wilderness Act of 1964, National Historic Preservation Act

of 1966, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, and the Federal

Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987. Regulations governing federal oil and gas leasing are contained in 43

CFR Part 3100 with additional requirements and clarification found in Onshore Operating Orders and Washington office

manuals, handbooks and instruction memorandums.

The 1920 Mineral Leasing Act provides that all public lands are open to oil and gas leasing unless a specific order has

been issued to close an area. Leasing procedures for oil, conventional gas, and coal bed natural gas are the same.

The lease grants the right to explore, extract, remove, and dispose of oil and gas deposits that may be found in the leased

lands. The lessee may exercise the rights conveyed by the lease subject to the lease terms and attached stipulations, if

any.
SD ARMP Appendix G.6

Fluid Mineral Stipulations G-29 September 2015

Lease rights may be subject to lease stipulations and permit approval requirements. Stipulations and permit requirements

describe how lease rights are modified. Lease constraints or requirements may also be applied to applications for permit

to drill on existing leases provided the constraints or requirements are within the authority reserved by the terms and

conditions of the lease. The stipulations and conditions of approval must be in accordance with laws, regulations, and

lease terms. The lease stipulations and permit conditions of approval allow for management of federal oil and gas

resources in concert with other resources and land uses. The BLM planning process is the mechanism used to evaluate

and determine where and how federal oil and gas resources will be made available for leasing. In areas where oil and gas

development may conflict with other resources, the areas may be closed to leasing. Areas where oil and gas development

could coexist with other land uses or resources will be open to leasing. Leases in these areas will be issued with standard

lease terms or with added stipulations based upon decisions in the land use document. Added stipulations are a part of

the lease only when environmental and planning records demonstrate the necessity for the stipulations (modifications of

the lease).

Currently, leases are issued as either competitive leases or noncompetitive leases with 10-year terms. Competitive leases

will be sold to the highest qualified bidder at oral auctions that are held at least quarterly. Tracts that receive no bid at the

sale are available for the filing of noncompetitive offers for two years following the sale. All offers filed the day after the

sale (referred to as day-after-the-sale filings) are considered simultaneously filed. This means that if there is more than

one offer filed for a specific parcel the day after the sale, a drawing must be held to determine the priority on multiple

offers. Noncompetitive offers filed after that time are on a first-come first-served basis. If there are no offers filed for a

parcel for the two-year period after the sale, the lands must be nominated again for competitive leasing. Rental payments

for these leases will be $1.50 per acre for the first 5 years and $2.00 per acre thereafter until production is established. If

the lessee establishes hydrocarbon production, the leases can be held for as long as oil or gas is produced. The royalty

rate for leases issued following the 1987 Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act is 12-1/2 percent one-half of which is returned

to the State of South Dakota on public domain lands (not acquired lands). Minimum royalty is the same amount as the

rental. Future interest leases are available for entire or fractional mineral estates that have not reverted to federal

ownership. These are minerals that are reserved by the grantor for a specific period of time in warranty deeds to the

United States. Any future interest leases may be obtained only through the competitive bidding process and are made

effective the date of vesting of the minerals with the United States.

Consultation with tribes is sometimes required during the leasing and the permit to drill processes. This depends on

concerns expressed by tribes in relation to Native American traditional and religious values and practices. Refer to the

cultural resources section (2.1.14) in Chapter Two of the Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS) for further

discussion of this topic (BLM 2010).

Lease Form

Oil and gas leases are issued on Form 3100-11, Offer to Lease and Lease for Oil and Gas (Appendix G.5). Stipulations

are attached to this form when resources have been identified for protection or mitigation (Forms MT-3109-2 through 4).

Special Stipulations for Other Surface

Management Agencies: Lands leased for the Bureau of Reclamation, Corps of Engineers, the Department of the Air

Force, or other agencies will use special stipulation forms to identify operating requirements on Lands under their

jurisdiction. (See Appendices G.8 and G.9)

Resource Management Plan Maintenance

New information may lead to changes in existing resource inventories. New use areas and resource locations may be

identified or use areas and resource locations that are no longer valid may be identified. These resources usually cover

small areas requiring the same protection or mitigation as identified in this plan. Identification of new areas or removal

of old areas that no longer have those resource values will result in the use of the same lease stipulation identified in this 

plan. These areas will be added to the existing data inventory without a plan amendment. In cases where the changes

constitute a change in resource allocation outside the scope of this plan, a plan amendment will be required.

Lease Stipulations

Certain resources in the planning area require protection from impacts associated with oil and gas activities. The specific

resource and the method of protection are contained in lease stipulations. Lease stipulations are usually no surface
Appendix G.6 SD ARMP

September 2015 G-30 Fluid Mineral Stipulations

occupancy, controlled surface use, or timing limitation. A notice may also be included with a lease to provide guidance

regarding resources or land uses. While the actual wording of the stipulations may be adjusted at the time of leasing, the

protection standards described will be maintained.

Controlled Surface Use

Use or occupancy is allowed (unless restricted by another stipulation), but identified resource values require special

operational constraints that may modify the lease rights. Controlled surface use is used for operating guidance, not as a

substitute for the no surface occupancy or timing stipulations.

No Surface Occupancy (NSO)

Use or occupancy of the land surface for fluid mineral exploration or development is prohibited in order to protect

identified resource values. The no surface occupancy stipulation includes stipulations which may have been worded as

No Surface Use and Occupancy,” “No Surface Disturbance,” “Conditional No Surface Occupancy,” and “Surface

Disturbance or Occupancy Restriction (by location).”

Timing Limitation (Seasonal Restriction)

Prohibits surface use during specified times to protect identified resource values. This stipulation does not apply to the

operation and maintenance of production facilities unless the findings of analysis demonstrate the continued need for

such mitigation and that less stringent, project-specific mitigation measures will be insufficient.

Waivers, Exceptions, Modifications

Lessees must honor lease stipulations when an Application for Permit to Drill or other surface disturbing operations are

proposed to explore and develop a lease, unless the BLM grants a waiver, exception, or modification to a lease

stipulation. This RMP establishes the guidelines by which future waivers, exceptions, or modifications are granted

within the SDFO. Substantial modification or waiver is subsequent to lease issuance is subject to public review for at

least a 30-day period.

Exception: A case-by case exemption from a lease stipulation. The stipulation continues to apply to all other sites

within the leasehold to which the restrictive criteria apply.

Modification: Fundamental changes to the provisions of a lease stipulation, either temporarily of for the term of the

lease. Therefore, a modification may include an exemption from or alteration to a stipulated requirement. Depending on

the specific modification, the stipulation may or may not apply to all other sites within the leasehold to which the

restrictive criteria apply.

Waiver: Permanent exemption from a lease stipulation. The stipulation no longer applies anywhere within the leasehold.

Sage-Grouse

Priority will be given to leasing and development of fluid mineral resources, including geothermal, outside of PHMA and 

GHMA. When analyzing leasing and authorizing development of fluid mineral resources, including geothermal, in 

PHMA and GHMA, and subject to applicable stipulations for the conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse, priority will be 

given to development in non-habitat areas first and then in the least suitable habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse. The 

implementation of these priorities will be subject to valid existing rights and any applicable law or regulation, including, 

but not limited to, 30 U.S.C. 226(p) and 43 C.F.R. 3162.3-1(h).

Permitting

A federal lessee or operator is governed by procedures set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations at 43 CFR Part 3160,

Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1, “Approval of Operations on Onshore Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Leases,” issued

under 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 3164 and other orders and notices.

The lessee may conduct lease operations after lease issuance. However, proposed drilling and associated activities must

be approved in advance before beginning operations. Therefore, before beginning construction or the drilling of a well,
SD ARMP Appendix G.6

Fluid Mineral Stipulations G-31 September 2015

the lessee or operator must file an Application for Permit to Drill (APD) with the BLM North Dakota Field Office

(NDFO). A copy of the application will be posted in the NDFO and South Dakota Field Office (SDFO) for a minimum

of 30 days for review by the public. After 30 days, the application can be approved in accordance with (a) lease

stipulations, (b) Onshore Oil and Gas Orders, and (c) Onshore Oil and Gas regulations (43 CFR Part 3160) if it is

administratively and technically complete.

Evidence of bond coverage for lease operations must be submitted with the application. Bond amount must not be less

than a $10,000.00 lease bond, a $25,000.00 statewide bond or a $150,000.00 nationwide bond.

Pre-drill on-site inspections will be conducted for all wells. The inspection makes possible selection of the most feasible

well site and access road from environmental, geological, and engineering points of view. The purpose of the field

inspection is to evaluate the operator's plan, assess the situation for possible impacts, and to formulate resource

protection stipulations. Surface use and reclamation requirements are developed during the on-site inspection that is

usually scheduled within 10 days after receipt of the Notice of Staking (NOS) or APD. For operations proposed on

privately-owned surface, if the operator after a good-faith effort is unable to reach an agreement with the private surface

owner, the operator must post a bond to cover loss of crops and damages to tangible improvements prior to approval of

the APD.

Where a proposed fluid mineral development project on an existing lease could adversely affect GRSG populations or 

habitat, the BLM will work with the lessees, operators, or other project proponents to avoid, reduce and mitigate adverse 

impacts to the extent compatible with lessees’ rights to drill and produce fluid mineral resources. The BLM will work 

with the lessee, operator, or project proponent in developing an APD for the lease to avoid and minimize impacts to sagegrouse or its habitat and will ensure that the best information about the GRSG and its habitat informs and helps to guide 

development of such Federal leases. 

Normally, site-specific mitigations in the form of conditions of approval are added to the APD for protection of surface

and subsurface (including groundwater) resource values in the vicinity of the proposed activity. The BLM is responsible

for preparing environmental documentation necessary to satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

requirements and provide any mitigation measures needed to protect the affected resource values.

Conditions of approval implement the lease stipulations and are part of the permit when environmental and field reviews

demonstrate the necessity for operating constraints or requirements. A surface restoration plan is part of an approved

permit, either an APD or Sundry Notice that includes other surface-disturbing activities.

The authorized officer will act on the application in one of two ways:

Within 30 days after the operator has submitted a complete application including incorporating any changes that resulted

from the onsite inspection the BLM will:

(1) approve the application subject to reasonable conditions of approval if the requirements of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), or

other applicable law have been completed and, if on FS lands, FS has approved the Surface Use Plan of Operations;

or

(2) notify the operator that it is deferring action on the permit. The notice of deferral must specify:

a. any action the operator could take that will enable BLM to issue a final decision on the application.

Actions may include but are not limited to; assistance with data gathering or assistance with preparation of

analyses and documents;

b. and if necessary, a list of actions that BLM needs to take, including completing requirements of NEPA or

other applicable law and a schedule for completing these actions.

The operator has 2 years from the date of the notice of deferral to take the action specified in the notice. If all analyses

required by NEPA, NHPA, ESA and other applicable laws have been prepared, BLM and with FS concurrence, if

appropriate, shall make a decision on the permit within 10 days of receiving a report from the operator addressing all of

the issues or actions specified in the deferral notice and certifying that all required actions have been taken. If the

operator has not completed the actions specified in the notice, BLM may deny the permit at any time later than 2 years

from the operator’s receipt of the deferral notice.
Appendix G.6 SD ARMP

September 2015 G-32 Fluid Mineral Stipulations

For drilling operations on lands with state or private mineral ownership, the lessee must meet the requirements of the

mineral owner and the state regulatory agency. The BLM does not have jurisdiction over nonfederal minerals; however,

the BLM has surface management responsibility in situations of BLM surface over nonfederal mineral ownership.

When final approval is given by the BLM, the operator may begin construction and drilling operations. Approval of an

APD is valid for one year. If construction does not begin within one year, the permit must be reviewed prior to approving

another APD.

A Sundry Notice is used to approve other surface and subsurface lease operations. When a well is no longer useful, the

well is plugged and the surface reclaimed. A Sundry Notice is also used to approve well plugging and reclamation

operations, although verbal approval for plugging may be given for a well that was drilled but not completed for

production.

The period of bond liability is terminated after all wells covered by the bond are properly plugged and the surface

reclaimed. The lands may then become available for future leasing.

Application for Permit to Drill

Applications for Permit to Drill are approved for the SDFO by the authorized officer at the NDFO. The approved APD

includes Conditions of Approval, and Informational Notices that cite the regulatory requirements from the Code of

Federal Regulations, Onshore Operating Orders and other guidance.

Conditions of Approval

Conditions of approval are mitigation measures that implement restrictions in light of site-specific conditions. General

guidance for conditions of approval and surface operating standards is found in the BLM and USFS brochure entitled

“Surface Operating Standards for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development” (USDI BLM 2007a) and BLM Manual

9113 entitled “Roads”.

The BLM commonly applies best management practices when approving APDs. The sources of many of these may be

found in Appendix J and on the internet at:

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/best_management_practices.html

http://www.blm.gov/bmp/ (a simpler internet address going to the same place)

http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/operations.html

Description: BMPs for oil and gas demonstrate practical ideas which may eliminate or minimize adverse impacts from

oil and gas development to public health and the environment, landowners, and natural resources; enhance the value of

natural and landowner resources; and reduce conflict.

The following mitigation measures may be applied to approved permits to drill as conditions of approval. The listing is

not all-inclusive, but presents some possible conditions of approval that may be used in the planning area. The wording

of the condition of approval may be modified or additional conditions of approval may be developed to address specific

conditions.

In addition to the best management practices identified in Appendix J, new BMPs will constantly be developed, and the

BLM will also develop site-specific practices on a case-by-case basis as needed.

Surface Conditions

If a tank battery is constructed on this lease, each tank setting, treater, and separator, must be surrounded on all sides by

an impermeable berm or dike of sufficient capacity to adequately contain the contents of the largest vessel within it, plus

one (1) day's production. All load lines must terminate within the berm or dike, unless there is an adequate box with

overflow drain back inside the dike. If a tank battery is constructed for multiple wells, and/or is constructed off of this

location, a separate authorization from the BLM will be necessary.
SD ARMP Appendix G.6

Fluid Mineral Stipulations G-33 September 2015

The operator shall immediately notify BLM if unexpected cultural resources are observed and shall avoid operations that

will result in the destruction of these resources. Disturbance of such discoveries is not allowed until the operator is

directed to proceed by BLM.

All above ground facilities will be painted a flat earthtone color which will blend in with the surrounding environment

within 6 months of well completion, unless otherwise approved by BLM. (Color will be selected for the specific site

from current color charts.)

Sewage will be disposed of according to county and state requirements, which mandate collecting and holding sewage

onsite in portable chemical toilets, with disposal off site, in a municipal facility. Other waste and chemicals may not be

disposed of or burned on location.

Store garbage and trash in a dumpster and dispose of it according to county and state regulations. It may not be disposed

of or burned on location.

Saltwater or testing tanks will be located and/or diked so any spilled fluids will be contained. Saltwater and diesel tanks

will not be placed on topsoil stockpiles.

The operator is responsible for the weed control in the permitted area. A Pesticide Use Proposal must be approved by

BLM before spraying is begun. The landowner should also be consulted prior to spraying.

The operator is responsible for locating and protecting existing pipe lines, power lines, and telephone lines.

Save all of the topsoil from the location, stockpile it near the location in an accessible place, and re-use the topsoil to

reclaim unused portions of the producing wellsite, or the whole abandoned wellsite, as applicable, after drilling and

production testing are completed. Save all the topsoil from the access road, stockpile it along the access road, and re-use

the topsoil to reclaim unused portions of the access road, shoulders and ditches, or the whole abandoned access road, as

applicable, after drilling and production testing are completed.

A reserve pit liner will be required. The liner must have a burst strength of not less than 140 psi. If the reserve pit is

excavated through sand, coal, or rock, the liner must have a burst strength of not less than 200 psi, and the bottom and

sides of the pit must be covered with six inches of clay before the liner is installed. No trash will be disposed of in the

reserve pit.

A fence may be dispensed with, during drilling as a safety measure, but prior to the location being left unattended when

there is liquid in the pit, a fence must be erected around the reserve pit. The reserve pit must remain fenced until closure

of the pit is complete, unless the entire location is fenced.

The location and facilities must be fenced for production, or individual pieces of well equipment may be fenced rather

than the entire well location. Any fences around the entire location require cattle guards and gates where the road goes

through, and must be maintained to keep livestock out until abandonment and reclamation of the well.

If the well is a producer, or permanently abandoned, all site reclamation must be completed within 6 months of the date

drilling ceased, unless otherwise approved by BLM. Normally the reclamation will include major items such as: reserve

pit reclamation, pit backfill settling, well pad recontouring, amendments such as: manure, straw, hay, wood chips and/or

topsoil spreading, and seeding or hydroseeding.

Trenching or breaching of the reserve pit during reclamation is not allowed. In the event of winter freeze-up,

reclamation may be put on hold by BLM. Pit fluids which can be separated from cuttings may not be disposed of on

location. Separable pit fluids must be reused on another well, disposed of in a disposal well, or otherwise according to

state regulations. When the well is abandoned, the operator must contact BLM for development of the final reclamation

plan and for approval of the reclamation work. Only BLM can give approval of downhole plugging.

When the well is permanently abandoned: remove the scoria, gravel, or other surfacing from the location, as well as from

the road, and reuse or dispose of this surfacing elsewhere.

Reshape the location to natural contours and provide needed water controls to prevent erosion, spread the topsoil and

reseed on the contour.
Appendix G.6 SD ARMP

September 2015 G-34 Fluid Mineral Stipulations

If the well is a producer, the part of the location not needed for production or workover operations must be reclaimed to

natural contours and provided with water erosion controls and reseeded.

The following seed mix, is to be used in spring seeding prior to May 30, and fall seeding from Oct. 1 to soil freeze up:

Thickspike Wheatgrass 6 lbs/acre of pure live seed (PLS)

Green Needlegrass 6 lbs/acre of pure live seed (PLS)

Blue Grama 3 lbs/acre of pure live seed (PLS)

Total 15 lbs/acre

If there is a problem with obtaining seed, contact the BLM for a replacement seed mix. Rates of seeding are given in

“pure live seed” (PLS). Seed must be drilled on the contour (1/2 to 3/4 inch deep). Seed may be broadcast at double the

above rates and then dragged to work it into the soil. The operator must furnish a notice of certified weed free seed to

BLM prior to seeding disturbed areas. Fertilize with 30 pounds nitrogen and 40 pounds phosphorus per acre, when

seeding. The reclamation will be considered successful when the reclaimed areas have been stabilized and reclaimed to

the satisfaction of BLM. After final abandonment, when surface reclamation is complete and vegetation reestablished,

any fences shall be removed or the fenced area reduced as required by the BLM. The seed mix and methods used to seed 

or fertilize may be adjusted by BLM as needed to accommodate differences in conditions at each site. BLM may 

require sage-brush or other species to be planted on some sites. 

The permittee shall take precautions to protect all public land survey monuments, private property corners, and BLM

boundary markers. In the event that any such land markers or monuments are destroyed in the exercise of the privileges

authorized by this permit, depending on the type of monument destroyed, the permittee shall reestablish or reference the

same in accordance with the following: (1) procedures outlined in the "Manual of Instructions for the Survey of the

Public Land of the United States," (2) specifications of the county surveyor, or (3) the specifications of the BLM.

Rig stacking will only be allowed with prior approval of the BLM.

Approaches for Development of Oil and Gas Conditions of Approval (COAs) for Concerns not 

Addressed in Lease Stipulations

Certain activities that are not addressed in lease stipulations may result in surface disturbing or disruptive activities or

create impacts to other resources depending on specific conditions at individual well sites. Some examples include

operation and maintenance of wells, restricting the use of reserve pits above shallow water tables, use of diesel fuel when

drilling, continuous travel to and from well sites and noise associated with these activities.

The following approaches address conditions of Approval (COAs) that may be developed to mitigate impacts commonly

associated with oil and gas activities. These examples are not all inclusive; additional COAs will be developed as

needed. These approaches may change as a result of new technology, improved science, changes to Best Management

Practices, changes in status of special status species, and a host of other factors. Site specific conditions on or near the

project site may also result in changes to the COA listed below.

Solutions which may be used to decrease the risk of groundwater pollution from well locations, will be to prevent any

long term storage or any release of chemicals from a drilling system on the well site. This can be done with closed mud

systems (using tanks rather than any excavated pits) with removal of mud fluids and fluid soaked cuttings from the well

site, along with state regulation of the disposal of the materials. If a drying system can be devised with the closed mud

system, dried cuttings and possibly even mud constituents could potentially be left on location in a closed and capped

storage pit.

Another method of decreasing risk of contaminants is to place an impervious engineered cap over a conventional reserve

pit. A slightly domed impermeable cap of the reserve pit, engineered to permit little or no rainwater percolating through

the cover and into the pit, as well as engineered to last a very long time, should greatly decrease or even eliminate

infiltration, and thus the entrainment and the risk of toxic pit constituents leaving the pit and following a pathway to

reach and contaminate groundwater. At this time, current technology will likely necessitate materials like bentonite or

high density polyethylene materials as likely candidates to use to attain a low level of permeability of 10-7 cm/s.

Encouraging reuse of reserve pit fluids can cut the total amount of wastes which need to be disposed. Identifying the

contents of the drilling fluids or formation fracturing fluids and working with oil and gas companies to decrease the
SD ARMP Appendix G.6

Fluid Mineral Stipulations G-35 September 2015

amounts of the more toxic chemicals used will decrease the potential for ground water contamination. Additional

monitoring of the fluids used and the amounts used or left in closed pits, or restrictions in the use of excavated pits may

be necessary to ensure that risks to ground water are minimized.

Geological Review and Engineering Analysis

The Field Office Geologist reviews the proposed casing program to ensure the surface casing will be placed below all

fresh water zones. A Petroleum Engineer reviews the Drilling Plan to ensure the blowout preventer equipment, casing,

cementing, and mud programs will provide equate protection to down hole resources and mitigate any impacts at the

surface.

Most wells drilled in the Williston Basin, or its outliers, as well as other basins containing salt formations, use saltwater or

a combination of saltwater and oil base fluid (invert) as a drilling fluid. The use of saltwater and oil based mud systems

can contaminate fresh water zones or other usable water zones by infiltration or injection. The contamination of fresh

water or other usable water resources by drilling or formation fluids will be prevented through the use of casing and

Conditions of Approval (COA) to drill. A COA requires that the surface hole be drilled with fresh water and that no salt

or materials having toxic effects be used during that part of the operation. After drilling the surface hole, casing (steel

pipe) is placed in the hole and cement is circulated to the surface. This casing and cement protects the fresh and usable

water zones while completing the drilling operations with salt water or oil based mud. The casing and cement also

provide protection during production operations and well control operations.

A COA requires that all reserve pits be lined to prevent or reduce leakage of the pit contents into the surrounding soils or

groundwater. Any hazardous materials or substances with toxic effects added to, or held within, the mud system during

drilling operations, are contained in the well or on location in a reserve pit. These substances could cause contamination

of the surface soils, surface water, and subsurface water resources from spills or in the case of leakage from the reserve

pit.

Upon completion of the drilling program, the fluid is required to be removed from the reserve pit and disposed of in a

state approved disposal well or used at another drilling well. Any remaining drill cuttings and solid drilling mud

constituents, as well as a portion of absorbed fluids are contained within the lined reserve pit. Another COA requires that

the liner used in the reserve pit be left in place upon abandonment and that the pit not be trenched.

Closed mud system use may be required, with the use of tanks rather than pits, and with no chemicals, muds, or rock

cuttings left on location when drilling is done.

Drilling Operations

To ensure that drilling and completion operations are conducted in a safe and environmentally sound manner, the BLM 

reviews, and evaluates, approves and regulates all drilling and completion operations, and related surface disturbance 

associated with Federal and Indian oil and gas mineral development. Operators must submit Applications for Permit to 

Drill (APDs) to the agency in accordance to Onshore Order #1. Prior to approving an APD, the BLM identifies all potential 

subsurface formations that will be penetrated by the wellbore. This includes groundwater aquifers and any zones that will 

present potential safety or health risks that may need special protection measures during drilling, or that may require 

specific protective well construction measures. All well casing and cementing operations that occur on Federal/Indian lands 

will be reviewed and approved by BLM and conducted in accordance with the applicable requirements specified in Onshore 

Oil and Gas Order No. 2 and the American Petroleum Institute (API) standards. 

The majority of oil and gas wells in the planning area have traditionally been drilled vertically. Horizontal wells have been 

drilled for a few years and are increasing. Information on types of wells drilled in South Dakota can be obtained from the 

South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources (SD DENR) oil and gas at: 

http://denr.sd.gov/des/og/oghome.aspx.

Vertical Drilling

The vertical wells producing in the planning area are completed in a variety of formations for both gas and oil. The most 

productive completions have been those of the Red River Formations. Vertical well depths in South Dakota range from a 

depth of fifteen hundred feet in the Butte-Harding county border area to 13,000 feet in northern Harding County. Most 

producing wells are not deeper than 8600 feet. 
Appendix G.6 SD ARMP

September 2015 G-36 Fluid Mineral Stipulations

Directional and Horizontal

Directional drilling may be used where the drill site cannot be located directly over the drilling target. There are limits to 

both the degree that the wellbore can be deviated from the vertical and the horizontal distance the well can be drilled away 

from the well site. Directional drilling can theoretically develop lands near the outer boundary of a lease affected by a NSO 

stipulation. Directional drilling can theoretically develop lands near the outer boundary of a lease affected by a NSO 

stipulation. Gas wells in the planning area are not deviated for technical and economic reasons. 

Some benefits of directional drilling include the avoidance of sensitive or inaccessible surface features (resulting in greater 

protection of sensitive environments), and, when multiple wells are drilled from the same vertical wellbore or from the 

same surface location, a reduction in drilling time and associated waste volumes and emissions. 

Recent technological advances in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, described below, have allowed development 

of unconventional zones (methane-bearing coal zones, oil or gas bearing shale zones, gas hydrates or “tight gas” in low 

porosity or low permeability traditional zones) that were once universally considered as uneconomic. 

Horizontal drilling is commonly defined as deviating a wellbore at least 80 degrees from the vertical so that the borehole 

penetrates a productive formation in a manner parallel to the formation. Most horizontal wells are drilled vertically from 

the surface to several hundred feet above the productive formation. The wellbore is then drilled in a curve ending with well

going sideways through the productive formation. 

The currently producing horizontal wells in the planning area are producing oil from the Ordovician Red River. 

In addition to the benefits listed for directional drilling above, another benefit of horizontal drilling is that it exposes the 

wellbore to a far greater surface area of hydrocarbon-bearing rock when compared to a typical vertical well. Horizontal 

wells tend to produce more than vertical wells since there is more reservoir rock exposed. This technology also eliminates 

the need to drill as many wells, since a horizontal well will be capable of producing the oil and gas from a larger areal 

extent. While this technology may reduce the overall foot print of an oil or gas field, as a result of having multiple wells

(multi-well pad), and possibly production facilities on one well pad, the pad is typically larger in size for drilling and 

production operations. This reduces the acres of surface disturbance per well. Drilling time may be longer for horizontal 

wells than for a vertical well drilled to the same producing formation; however, technology and increased experience of the 

area is decreasing drill time for horizontal wells. The need for more drilling mud volume may also increase water needs, pit

size or number of holding tanks on site compared to a vertical well to the same producing formation.

Drilling and completion costs for directional and horizontal wells are typically significantly higher than for conventional 

vertical boreholes, even when the cost savings associated with reduced need for surface disturbance is considered. Eustes 

(2003) and Fritz, Horn, and Joshi (1991) identified the following specialized requirements and risk factors unique to 

horizontal and directional drilling that can affect drilling and completion costs for these types of wells: 

• specialized equipment (e.g., mud motors, measurement while drilling tools) and specially trained personnel;

• a larger drilling rig and associated equipment;

• casing and drilling string modifications to address problems associated with ovality and bending stresses; 

• increased risk of borehole damage due to unique tectonic stresses; 

• lengthened overall drilling time on location because more hole is drilled in S-shaped boreholes and horizontal 

boreholes compared to vertical wells; 

• increased torque and drag on borehole equipment; and, 

• lengthened overall drilling time on location compared to vertical wells because of slower penetration rates due to 

increased torque and drag in directional and horizontal wellbores (however, increased operator and driller 

experience with horizontal drilling has resulted in decreased drilling times in North Dakota over the past several 

years). 

In addition to increased costs, the risk of losing the well because of geologic or mechanical failures is also greater in 

directional and, particularly, horizontal boreholes than in conventional vertical boreholes. As a result of these increased 

costs and risk, operators tend to prefer vertical over directional or horizontal boreholes unless special circumstances exist

that make such drilling a necessity or economically attractive. For example, the geology of a reservoir may be such that a 

vertical borehole may only contact a few feet of the productive horizon, while a horizontal borehole may be able to contact 

tens to thousands of feet (depending on factors such as how the well is completed and the areal extent of the pool). In a case 

such as this, the operator must make the determination that the increased potential for productivity outweighs the increased 

drilling costs and inherent risks involved in directional and horizontal drilling.
SD ARMP Appendix G.6

Fluid Mineral Stipulations G-37 September 2015

Hydraulic Fracturing

Hydraulic fracturing has been utilized by the oil and gas industry since the late 1940’s. In South Dakota, nearly all 

hydraulic fracturing is used on a small scale in vertical wells. Outside the planning area, hydraulic fracturing, in 

conjunction with horizontal drilling described above, has allowed for development of unconventional zones that were once 

considered uneconomical, like the Bakken and Three Forks Formations in the Williston Basin area of North Dakota and 

Montana. The greatest potential use for hydraulic fracturing, in conjunction with horizontal drilling, is likely to be in the 

Three Forks Formation in South Dakota. However, in time, other formations may be found to be better candidates. 

Hydraulic fracturing is a technique used to create additional space and connecting existing fractures and existing rock pores 

with newly created fractures that are located in deep underground geologic formations. The induced space allows the rock 

to more readily release oil and natural gas so it can flow to the surface via the well bore that will otherwise be uneconomical 

to develop. Wells that undergo hydraulic fracturing may be drilled vertically, horizontally, or directionally and the resultant 

fractures induced by the hydraulic fracturing can be vertical, horizontal, or both. The typical steps of hydraulic fracturing 

can be described as follows:

1. Water, sand and additives are pumped at high pressures down the wellbore.

2. The liquid goes through perforated sections of the wellbore and into the surrounding formation, fracturing the 

rock and injecting sand or other proppants into the cracks to hold them open.

3. Experts continuously monitor and gauge pressures along with the volume of fluids and proppants, while 

studying how the sand reacts when it hits the bottom of the wellbore; slowly increasing the density of sand to 

water as the frac progresses.

4. This process may be repeated multiple times, in “stages” to reach maximum areas of the wellbore. When this 

is done, the wellbore is temporarily plugged between each stage to maintain the highest water pressure 

possible and get maximum fracturing results in the rock.

5. Frac plugs are drilled or removed from the wellbore and the well is tested for results.

6. The water pressure is reduced and fluids are returned up the wellbore for disposal or treatment and re-use, 

leaving the sand in place to prop open the cracks and allow the oil/gas to flow to the well bore.

Fracturing fluid is typically more than 98 percent water and sand, with small amounts of readily available chemical 

additives used to carry the proppant and control the chemical and mechanical properties of the water and sand mixture. 

Proppant, consisting of synthetic or natural silica sand, may be used in quantities of few hundred tons for a vertical well to a 

few thousand tons for a horizontal well. The amount of water needed to fracture a well in the planning area depends on the 

geologic basin, the formation, and depth and type of well (vertical, horizontal, directional), and the proposed completion 

process. 

Several sources of water are available for drilling operations and hydraulic fracturing in the planning area. The use of any 

specific water source on a federally administered well, requires the proposal be reviewed and analyzed through the NEPA 

process for BLM approval during the APD stage to ensure compliance with state water laws and federal regulations. 

Water rights are addressed by the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Any BLM actions will 

adhere to DENR water quality rules. 

Drilling and Completion Costs 

The cost of developing conventional deposits of oil and gas in the Rocky Mountain region is higher than the average for the 

onshore 48 contiguous states (Cleveland 2003). Factors that may contribute to higher costs in the planning area could be:

• changes in rig availability;

• changes in development priority as industry focus on certain plays evolves with new discoveries and changes in oil 

and gas price; 

• harsh environments (particularly cold temperatures); and, 

• labor market conditions.

Expenditures for exploration and development in the United States onshore increased 30 percent from 2005 to 29 billion 

dollars in 2006 (DOE-EIA, 2007b). This was more than three times the average annual expenditure level in the 1990s and 

the highest amount since 1982. Most of the expenditures in 2006 were for development ($26 billion). 
Appendix G.6 SD ARMP

September 2015 G-38 Fluid Mineral Stipulations

The National Petroleum Council (2003) reported drilling and completion costs for vertical wells in the Williston and 

Northern Great Plains region. They reported that the average oil well drilling and completion cost for wells to depths of 

5,000 feet was $280,000. Wells in the 5,000- to 10,000-foot range cost an average of $955,000 to drill and complete. All 

cost components such as permitting, location construction, mobilization, rentals and services, tangible items, and 

stimulations were assumed to be included in these costs. 

For gas wells, the National Petroleum Council (2003) reported an average cost for wells to depths of 5,000 feet was 

$83,000. Wells in the 5,000- to 10,000-foot range cost an average of $571,000 to drill and complete. Gas well drilling and 

completion costs are typically much cheaper than for oil wells in the Williston Basin.

The National Petroleum Council (2003) also reported dry-hole well costs of $100,000 for average wells to depths of 5,000 

feet, and $506,000 for wells between 5,000 and 10,000 feet deep. 

Horizontal well drilling costs are much higher in the Williston Basin. Through June of 2008, EOG Resources, Incorporated 

has reported an average drilling cost for 72 Bakken Formation horizontal wells of $5 million per well (North Dakota 

Bakken Shale Formation News, 2008). Companies are currently using a multi-stage hydraulic fracturing to complete a 

horizontal borehole. This increases the cost of a well up to $8 million or more (International Energy Agency. 2012). 

Operators in the Rocky Mountain region most of the time have been faced with increases in drilling and completion costs. 

Drilling rates have generally increased and service costs have also increased. Rig shortages have affected most areas of the 

region. New planning area wells may be more expensive to equip and operate because of the following factors: 

• remoteness and cold temperatures, which often requires dehydrators and line heaters, more expensive types of steel 

casing, and insulation of surface equipment; 

• workovers and preventive maintenance are more frequent, which minimizes shut-in days in the winter when well 

site access is difficult; and, 

• lack of rig availability due to competition for rigs within the Bakken play. 

Engineering Conditions of Approval

Some examples of typical Engineering Conditions of Approval are as follows:

All Blowout Prevention Equipment (BOPE) must comply with the minimum requirements of Onshore Oil and Gas Order

No. 2 for a 5 M system, including test pressures and frequencies.

Wait-on-cement times must be adequate to achieve a minimum of 500 psi compressive strength. Top-ofcement behind production casing must be above Inyan Kara group.

Gas Flaring: Gas produced from this well may not be vented or flared beyond an initial, authorized test period of 30

days or 50 Mmcf following its completion, whichever first occurs, without the prior, written approval of the authorized

officer. Should gas be vented or flared without approval beyond the test period authorized above, you may be directed to

shut-in the well until the gas can be captured or approval to continue venting or flaring as uneconomic is granted, and you

shall be required to compensate the lessor for that portion of the gas vented or flared without approval which is

determined to have been avoidably lost.

A gas analysis, which includes H2S content, must be made and submitted to this office within three months of

completion of this well.

Any unconfined gas that is produced and exceeds 20 ppm H2S, must be separated and flared. The flare system must

include a method of insuring continuous ignition of the gas.

If the concentration of H2S gas at any point in the facility (i.e.; gas stream, tank vapors, treater, etc.) exceeds 20 ppm, the

facility must have a wind-sock placed on the tank battery so that it is visible from everywhere on the location and H2S

warning signs placed at appropriate facilities.
SD ARMP Appendix G.6

Fluid Mineral Stipulations G-39 September 2015

Issuance of Rights-of-Way

Rights-of-way are required for all facilities, tank batteries, pipelines, truck depots, power lines, and access roads that

occupy federally managed lands outside the lease or unit boundary. When a third party (other than the operator or the

federal government) constructs a facility or installation on or off the lease, a right-of-way is also required.

Informational Notice

The following items comprise the information notice which applies to all federal and Indian minerals wells in North

Dakota and South Dakota:

The enclosed Application for Permit to Drill (APD) is approved, subject to the following special conditions. Please be

advised that all lease operations are also subject to the terms of the lease, all lease stipulations, and any written

instructions or orders of the authorized officer or Surface Management Agency (see attachment to 13 point Surface Use

Plan).

It is the sole responsibility of the operator and/or lessee to ensure that all the requirements of Federal Oil and Gas

regulations (43 CFR 3100), Notice to Lessees (NTLs), and Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Orders No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7

are complied with. Any major deviation from the terms of this APD or Surface Use Plan requires prior approval.

All submitted information not marked "CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION" will be available for public inspection upon

request. (Note: If a submittal is to be held confidential, each page must be so marked.) However, information on Indian

Trust Minerals is also held confidential.

Spills, accidents, fires, injuries, blowout and other undesirable events, as described in NTL MSO-1-92, must be reported

to this office within the timeframes in NTL MSO-1-92. Furthermore, all spills (saltwater or oil) or pipeline breaks

outside the diked area shall be reported within 24 hours to the Surface Management Agency.

Under Environmental Obligations (43 3162.5-1), Disposition of Production (43 CFR 3162.7-1) and Disposal of

Produced Water (Onshore Order No. 7):

You are required to take all necessary steps to prevent any death of a migratory bird in pits or open vessels

associated with the drilling, testing, completion, or production of this well. The death of any migratory bird

found in such a pit or open vessel is a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and is considered a criminal

act. Any deaths of migratory birds attributable to pits or open vessels associated with drilling, testing,

completing, or production operations must be reported to this office and the United States Fish and Wildlife

Service within 24 hours.

We may require that the pit be designed or the open vessel be covered to deter the entry of birds in any facility

associated with drilling, testing, completion, or production of this well. Fencing, screening, and netting of pits

may be required as a means to deter bird entry. These conditions will most likely be imposed to prevent the

entry of migratory birds if oil is left in pits or open vessels after the cessation of drilling or completion of

operations, if water disposal pits consistently receive oil, or if pits or open vessels are used repeatedly for

emergency situations which result in accumulation of oil.

Voluntary pit fencing, screening, and netting, or sealing vessels, is encouraged to avoid potential instances that

may result in the death of a migratory bird. * For the SD Field Office netting of pits is required. 

This APD permit is valid for either two (2) years from the approval date or until lease expiration, whichever occurs first.

You have the right to request a State Director Review of this decision pursuant to 43 CFR 3165.3(b), copy attached. An

SDR request, including all supporting documentation, must be filed with the Montana State Office, State Director

(MT-920) at P.O. Box 36800, Billings, Montana 59107 within 20 business days of your receipt of this decision. If

adversely affected by the State Director's decision, it can be further appealed to the Interior Board of Land Appeals

(IBLA) pursuant to 3165.4, 4.411, and 4.413, a copy of each attached. Should you fail to timely request an SDR, or after

receiving the State Director's decision, fail to timely file an appeal with the IBLA, no further administrative review of 

this decision will be possible.
Appendix G.6 SD ARMP

September 2015 G-40 Fluid Mineral Stipulations

Notification and Report Requirements

A complete copy of the approved (APD), including conditions, stipulations, exhibits, and the H2S contingency plan (if

required) must be on the well site and available for reference during the construction and drilling phases.

The North Dakota Field Office is to be verbally notified of the following actions:

At least 24 hours prior to beginning road and location construction.

Not more than 24 hours after the well is spudded, or on the next regular business day.

At least 24 hours prior to running/cementing surface casing. (This notification may be combined with the spud

notice). At least 24 hours prior to drilling 1000' above the Mission Canyon Formation or any H2S bearing formation,

or on next regular business day.

Prior approval for abandonment must be obtained from the Authorized officer. For verbal plugging orders on

drilling locations, notify prior to plugging.

BLM representatives can be reached Monday through Friday (7:45 AM - 4:30PM) at the office telephone no. (701)

227- 7700. The BLM personnel can be contacted after hours or on weekends for plugging approvals or any other

approvals/change in plans which do not allow for communications during normal office hours by calling the following

personnel:

Asst. Field Office Mgr., Minerals

Supr Petroleum Engineer Tech.

PetroleumEngineer

Environmental Protection Specialist

(Also see Informational Notice)

Plugging Requirements

All formations bearing usable-quality water, oil, gas, or geothermal resources, and/or a prospectively valuable deposit of

minerals shall be protected. Plugging design for an abandonment hole shall include the following:

Open Hole:

i. A cement plug shall be placed to extend at least 50 feet below the bottom (except as limited by total depth (TD) or

plugged back total depth (PBTD)), to 50 feet above the top of:

a. Any zone encountered during which contains fluid or gas with a potential to migrate;

b. Any prospectively valuable deposit of minerals.

ii. All cement plugs, except the surface plug, shall have sufficient slurry volume to fill 100 feet of the hole, plus an

additional 10 percent of slurry for each 1,000 feet of depth.

iii. No plug, except the surface plug, shall be less than 25 sacks without receiving specific approval from the

authorized officer.

iv. Extremely thick sections of single formation may be secured by placing 100-foot plugs across the top and bottom

of the formation, and in accordance with item ii hereof.

v. In the absence of productive zones or prospectively valuable deposits of minerals which otherwise require

placement of cement plugs, long sections of open hole shall be plugged at least every 3,000 feet. Such plugs shall

be placed across in-gauge sections of the hole, unless otherwise approved by the authorized officer.

Cased Hole: A cement plug shall be placed opposite all open perforation and extend to a minimum of 50 feet below

(except as limited by TD or PBTD) to 50 feet above the perforated interval. All cement plugs, except the surface plug, shall

have sufficient slurry volume to fill 100 feet of hole, plus an additional 10 percent of slurry for each 1,000 feet of depth. In

lieu of the cement plug, a bridge plug is acceptable, provided:
SD ARMP Appendix G.6

Fluid Mineral Stipulations G-41 September 2015

i. The bridge plug is set within 50 feet to 100 feet above the open perforations;

ii. The perforations are isolated from any open hole below; and

iii. The bridge plug is capped with 50 feet of cement. If a bailer is used to cap this plug, 35 feet of cement shall be

sufficient.

Silica Sand or Silica Flour: Silica sand or silica flour shall be added to cement exposed to bottom hole static

temperatures above 230 o F to prevent heat degradation of the cement.

Mud: Each of the intervals between plugs shall be filled with mud of sufficient density to exert hydrostatic pressure

exceeding the greatest formation pressure encountered while drilling such interval. In the absence of other information at

the time plugging is approved, a minimum mud weight of 9 pounds per gallon shall be specified.

Wait on cement times must be adequate to achieve a minimum of 500 psi compressive strength. All well pluggings are

witnessed by Petroleum Engineering Technicians.

HazardousMaterials

Plugging and acceptance of abandonment of a well does not absolve a company of liability for hazardous materials.

Paleontological/CulturalStipulations

The operator is responsible for informing all persons in the area who are associated with this project that they will be

subject to prosecution for knowingly disturbing historic or archaeological materials which are uncovered during

construction. The operator is to immediately stop work that might further disturb such materials, and contact the

authorized officer (AO). Within five working days the AO will inform the operator as to:

• whether the materials appear eligible for the National Register of Historic Places;

• the mitigation measures the operator will likely have to undertake before the site can be used (assuming in situ

preservation is not necessary); and,

• a timeframe for the AO to complete an expedited review under 36 CFR 800.11 to confirm, through the State

Historic Preservation Officer, that the findings of the AO are correct and the mitigation is appropriate.

If the operator wishes, at any time, to relocate activities to avoid the expense of mitigation and/or the delays associated

with the process, the AO will assume responsibility for whatever recordation and stabilization of the expose materials

may be required. Otherwise, the operator will be responsible for mitigation costs. The AO will provide technical and 

procedural guidelines for the conduct of mitigation. Upon verification from the AO that the required mitigation has

been completed, the operator will then be allowed to resume construction.

Construction

Construction of the access road and the well site is necessary before drilling operations begin. The extent of surface

disturbance necessary for construction depends on the terrain, depth of the well, drill rig size, circulating system, and

safety standards.

The depth of the drill test determines the size of drill rig needed, and therefore, the size of the work area necessary, the

need for all-weather roads, water requirements, and other needs. The terrain influences the construction problems and the

amount of surface area to be disturbed. Reserve pit size may vary because of well depth, drill rig size, or circulating

system.

Access roads to well sites in the planning area usually consist of running surfaces 14 to 24 feet wide that are ditched on

one or both sides. Many of the roads constructed will follow existing roads or trails. New roads might be necessary

because existing roads are not at an acceptable standard. For example, a road may be too steep so that realignment is

necessary.

Roads can be permanent or temporary, depending on the success of the well. The initial construction can be for a

temporary road; however, it is designed so that it can become permanent if the well produces. Not all temporary roads
Appendix G.6 SD ARMP

September 2015 G-42 Fluid Mineral Stipulations

constructed are immediately rehabilitated when the drilling stops. A temporary road is often used as access to other drill

sites. The main roads and temporary roads require graveling to be maintained as all-weather roads. This is especially

important in the spring. Access roads may be required to cross public lands to a well site located on private or state lands.

The portion of the access road on public land will require a BLM right-of-way.

The amount of level surface required for safely assembling and operating a drilling rig varies with the type of rig, but

averages 300 feet by 400 feet. Approximately 3-1/2 acres will be impacted by well site construction. The area is cleared

of large vegetation, boulders, or debris. Then the topsoil is removed and saved for reclamation. A level area is then

constructed for the well site, which includes the reserve pit. Bulldozers and motor scrapers are typically used to

construct the well pad. The well pad is flat (to accommodate the drill rig and support equipment) and large enough to

store all the equipment and supplies without restricting safe work areas. The drill rig must be placed on “cut” material

rather than on “fill” material to provide a stable foundation for the rig. The degree of cutting and filling depends on

terrain; that is, the flatter the site, the less dirt work is required.

Hillside locations are common, and the amount of dirt work varies with the steepness. A typical well pad will require a

cut 10 feet deep against the hill and a fill 8 feet high on the outside. It is normal to have more cut than fill to allow for

compaction, and any excess material is then stockpiled. Eventually, when the well is plugged and abandoned, excavated

material is put back in its original place.

Reserve pits are normally constructed on the well pad. Usually the reserve pit is excavated in “cut” material on the well

pad. The reserve pit is designed to hold water, drill cuttings, and used drilling fluids. Generally, reserve pits are

rectangular in shape and 8 to 12 feet deep, however, the size and number of pits depends on the depth of the well,

circulating system and anticipated down hole problems, such as excess water flows. The reserve pit can be lined with a

synthetic liner to contain pit contents and reduce pit seepage. BLM normally requires a synthetic liner.

If the well is a producer, casing is set and cemented in place.

Directional drilling may be used where the drill site cannot be located directly over the drilling target. There are limits to

both the degree that the well bore can be deviated from the vertical and the horizontal distance the well can be drilled

away from the well site.

Horizontal wells are drilled similarly to directional wells, except that the bottomhole location of the well is not a single

point, but rather a lateral horizontal section. They are drilled to increase the recovery of oil and gas reserves from

vertically fractured reservoirs, or reservoirs with directional permeability.

Environment and Safety

During drilling and production operations for any well the BLM will enforce the provisions of the regulations, Onshore

Oil and Gas Operating Orders, and Notice to Lessees NTL-MSO-1-92, Report of Undesirable Events, to ensure operations

are carried in a manner that protects the mineral resources, other natural resources, and environmental quality. Regulations

at 43 CFR § 3162.5 require that the operator exercise due care and diligence to assure that leasehold operations do not

result in undue damage to surface or subsurface resources or surface improvements. All produced water must be disposed

of by methods approved by the BLM. Upon completion of operations the operator shall reclaim the surface in a manner

approved of by the BLM. All spills or leakages of oil, gas, produced water, toxic liquids, blowouts, fires, personal injuries,

and fatalities must be reported by the operator. The operator is required to exercise care in taking measures approved by

the BLM to control and remove pollutants and extinguish fires. An operator’s

compliance with the regulations at 43 CFR § 3162.5 does not relieve him of the obligation to comply with any other law

or regulations. Finally, the regulations authorize the BLM to require an operator to file a contingency plan describing

procedures to be implemented to protect life, property, and the environment.

Production and Development

Production

Production begins when a well yields oil or gas in commercial quantities. If formation pressure is sufficient to raise oil to

the surface, the well is completed as a flowing well. A pumping unit is installed if the formation pressure is not sufficient

to bring the oil to the surface. When the well is completed as a free-flowing well, an assembly of valves and special

connections known as a “Christmas tree” (so called because of its many branch like fittings) is installed on top of the
SD ARMP Appendix G.6

Fluid Mineral Stipulations G-43 September 2015

casing to regulate the flow of the well. Later, when the natural pressure declines, the Christmas tree can give way to a

simple wellhead arrangement of valves and a pumping unit to lift the oil artificially. Many pumping units are “beam”

style pumps that are powered by electric motors or gasoline engines. Most gas wells produce by natural flow and do not

require pumping. Surface facilities at a flowing well are usually in a small area containing a gas well Christmas tree, a

dehydrator, a produced water pit, and a meter house. Separators, condensate tanks, and compressors may be included.

Some gas wells require continuous water pumping as water entering the well chokes off the gas flow.

Development

New field development may be analyzed under NEPA by means of an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental

impact statement (EIS). The operator should then have an idea of the extent of drilling and disturbance required to

extract and produce the oil and gas. When an oil or gas discovery is made, a well spacing pattern must be established

before development drilling begins. Development can take years and include from one or two wells to more than a

hundred wells per field. Roads to producing wells are upgraded to all-weather roads as necessary. Pipelines, electrical

transmission lines, separators, dehydrators, sump pits, and compressor stations soon follow. Sometimes oil and gas

processing facilities are built in or adjacent to the field.

Further Seismic Testing

More detailed seismic work can be done to achieve better definition of the petroleum reservoir. Diagonal seismic lines

can be required to tie the previous seismic work to the discovery well. The discovery well can be used to conduct studies

to correct the previous seismic work and provide more accurate subsurface data.

Spacing Requirements

A well spacing pattern must be established before development drilling begins. Information considered in establishment

of a spacing pattern includes data from the discovery well on porosity, permeability, pressure, composition, and depth of

formations in the reservoir; well production rates and type (predominantly oil or gas); and the economic effect of the

proposed spacing on recovery. The state of South Dakota establishes well spacing patterns for both exploratory and

development wells which the BLM generally adopts. The state specifies the minimum distance from lease lines or

government survey lines for the bottom-hole location of the well bore depending upon depth of the well. The spacing

regulations determine the acres assigned to each well. Spacing unit size is established to provide for the most efficient

and economic recovery of oil or gas from a reservoir. Normal well spacing ranges from 40 acres to 1280 acres. Wells 

deeper than 11,000 feet can be no closer than 1,650 feet to other producing wells below 11,000 feet. Only one producing

well per formation is allowed in each 40, 80, 160, 320, 640, and 1280 acre unit.

Drilling of Development Wells

The procedures used in drilling development wells are the same as those used for wildcat wells, but usually with less

subsurface sampling, testing, and evaluation. The rate at which development wells are drilled in a field depends on

factors such as whether the field is developed on a lease basis or unitized basis, the probability of profitable production,

the availability of drilling equipment, lease requirements, and the degree to which limits of the field are known. Some

fields go through several development phases, the first resulting from the original discovery and others from later

discovery. A field can be considered fully developed and produce for several years, and then a well may be drilled to a

deeper or shallower pay zone. Discovery of a new pay zone in an existing field is a “pool” discovery (as distinguished

from a new field discovery). A pool discovery may lead to the drilling of additional wells, often from the same drilling

pad as existing wells.

Inspections

Geophysical operations and lease operations are inspected to determine compliance with approved permits, to resolve

conflicts or correct problems and to determine effectiveness and need of lease stipulations. All inspections are

documented. Operators are required to correct problems or violations.

Surface Requirements

Field development activities that cause surface disturbance include access roads, well sites, production facility sites, flow

line and utility line routes and waste disposal sites. Surface uses in a gas field will be less than in an oil field, because gas

wells are usually drilled on larger spacing units. The spacing pattern of 640 acres per well, which is common in gas
Appendix G.6 SD ARMP

September 2015 G-44 Fluid Mineral Stipulations

fields, will require only one well per section and might require only 1⁄2 mile of access roads and pipelines. Production

facilities include separation and storage equipment. Separation equipment is required when production includes a

combination of oil, gas, or water and storage equipment is required for holding liquids prior to sales.

Flow Lines

Oil and gas are transferred from the well to storage facilities through small diameter (<6 inches) flow lines. Flow lines

can be on the surface, buried or elevated. Produced water, gas, or polymerized liquid is transferred from storage facilities

to injection wells for secondary recovery.

Separating, Treating, and Storage

Any water or gas associated with produced oil is separated from the oil before it is placed in storage tanks. The treating

facilities are located at a storage tank battery. Low-pressure petroleum that must be pumped from the well is treated in a

single separation. High pressure, flowing petroleum can require several stages or separation, with a pressure reduction

accompanying each stage.

Produced gas is sold when there is sufficient volume, necessary transportation, a market, and it is economical. Generally,

if the volume of produced gas is too low for sales, it is used as fuel for well pump engines and heating fuel for the

treaters. If the volume of produced gas exceeds fuel requirements on the lease but gas sales are not possible, the gas can

be flared or vented into the atmosphere when authorized by permit in accordance with state and federal regulations. 

When water is produced with the hydrocarbons, it is separated before the gas is removed. In primary operations, where

natural pressures or gravity causes the petroleum in the reservoir to flow to the wellbores, the degree of mixing is high

enough to require chemical and heat treatment to separate the oil and water. In secondary production, where water

injection or other methods are used to force additional petroleum to the wellbore, the oil and water often are not highly

emulsified. In this case, the oil and water can be separated by gravity in a tall settling tank. Produced water can be

disposed of by injection into the subsurface, surface evaporation or beneficial purposes such as water for livestock or

irrigation.

Produced water from oil and gas operations is normally disposed of by subsurface injection or in surface pits. Regardless

of the method of disposal, it must be acceptable to the BLM, in accordance with the requirements of Onshore Oil and

Gas Order No. 7, titled “Disposal of Produced Water.” Disposal of produced water by injection wells requires permits

from the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources. When produced water is disposed

underground, it is introduced or injected under pressure into a subsurface horizon containing water of equal or poorer

quality. Produced water may be injected into the producing zone from which it originated to stimulate oil production. 

Dry holes or depleted wells are commonly converted for saltwater disposal and occasionally new wells are drilled for this

purpose. The law and regulations require that all injection wells be permitted under the Underground Injection Control

program.

Under the Underground Injection Control approval process, the disposal well must be pressure tested to ensure the

integrity of the casing. The disposal zone must also be isolated by use of tubing and mechanical plug called a packer. The

packer seals off the inside of the casing and only allows the injected water to enter the disposal zone. The tubing and

packer are also pressure tested to ensure their integrity. These pressure tests confirm isolation of the disposal zone from

possible usable water zones. The oil is transported to storage tanks through flow lines after separation from any water or

gas. Storage tanks are usually located on the lease either at the producing well or at a central production facility. The

number and size of tanks are dependent upon the type and amount of production on the lease.

Abandonment

When drilling wells are unsuccessful or production wells are no longer useful, the well is plugged, equipment is removed

from the well site or production facility site, and the site is abandoned. The well bore is secured by placing cement plugs

to isolate hydrocarbon-producing formations from contaminating other mineral or water bearing formations. The site and

roads are then restored as near as possible to original contours. Topsoil is replaced and the recontoured areas are seeded.

Reclamation of access roads and well sites on privately owned surface is completed according to the surface owner’s

requirements.

Rehabilitation requirements generally are made a part of the Application for Permit to Drill. Upon completion of

abandonment and rehabilitation operations, the lessee or operator notifies the SDFO, via the NDFO that the location is
SD ARMP Appendix G.6

Fluid Mineral Stipulations G-45 September 2015

ready for inspection. Final abandonment will not be approved until the required surface reclamation work has been

completed to the satisfaction of the BLM or surface owner. The period of bond liability for the well site is terminated

after approval of final abandonment. Reclamation of the reserve pit is part of the well site reclamation process. Reserve

pit reclamation includes removal of fluids to a disposal well or commercial pit and burial of solids in the pit. Solids

should not be buried until dry and then covered with a minimum of 6 feet of native soil. Any pit liner may be buried in

place. Methods such as solidification or dewatering may be used to help dry the solids.

Regulations, Laws, and Special Procedures

Unit and Communitization Agreements

Unit and communitization agreements can be formed in the interest of conservation and to allow for the orderly

development of oil and gas reserves. A unit agreement provides for the recovery of oil and gas from the lands as a single

consolidated entity without regard to separate lease ownerships. An exploratory unit is used for the discovery and

development of the field in an orderly and efficient manner. Paying and nonpaying well determinations are made for

each well drilled. If the well is nonpaying as defined by the agreement, the production is allocated on a lease basis. If the

well is a paying unit well, a participating area is formed and the production is allocated to all interest owners in the

participating area based on surface area. A secondary unit is formed after the field has been defined and enhanced

recovery techniques are being utilized. Secondary recovery techniques include water injection, natural gas injection, or

carbon dioxide injection. Injection is initiated to maintain the reservoir pressure to maintain oil production. The

agreement provides for the allocation of production among all the interest owners.

A communitization agreement combines two or more leases (federal, state, or fee) that otherwise could not be

independently developed in conformity with established well spacing patterns. The leases within the spacing unit share

in the costs and benefits of the well drilled in the spacing unit. Therefore, unit and communitization agreements can

lessen the amount of damage to the environment and save dollars by eliminating unnecessary wells, roads, pipelines, and

lease equipment.

Split Estate

Part of the area included in the planning area contains lands known as split estate lands. These are lands where the surface

ownership is different from the mineral ownership. Management of federal oil and gas resources on these lands is

somewhat different from management on lands where both surface and mineral ownership is federal. On split estate 

lands where the surface ownership is private, the BLM places necessary restrictions and requirements on its leases and

permit approvals and works in cooperation with the surface owner. BLM has established policies for the management of

federal oil and gas resources in accordance with federal laws and regulations.

The BLM does not have the legal authority to regulate how private surface is managed. BLM does have the statutory

authority to require measures by lessees to avoid or minimize adverse impacts that may result from federally authorized

mineral lease activities. These measures, in the form of lease stipulations or permit conditions of approval, are intended

to protect or preserve the privately owned resources and prevent adverse impacts to adjoining lands, not to dictate

management to the surface owner. The term split estate can also refer to lands where the surface ownership is federal and

the mineral ownership is private. In this situation, BLM is the surface owner, and works in cooperation with the

proponent and the state regulatory agency that approves private mineral applications. BLM has responsibilities in this

situation under the previously mentioned statutes; however, BLM does not have the authority to approve or disapprove

the mineral owner’s actions. The mineral estate owner usually has the right to enter the land and use the surface that is

necessary and reasonable for mineral development through either a reserved or an outstanding right contained in the

deed.
Appendix G.7 SD ARMP

September 2015 G-46 Fluid Mineral Stipulations

Appendix G.7

Guidance and Examples for Oil and Gas

Conditions of Approval (COAs)

Certain activities that are not addressed in lease stipulations may result in surface-disturbing or disruptive activities or

create impacts to other resources depending on specific conditions at individual well sites. Some examples include

operation and maintenance of wells, restricting the use of reserve pits above shallow water tables, use of diesel fuel and

other constituents when drilling, continuous travel to and from well sites and noise associated with these activities.

The following approaches address Conditions of Approval (COAs) that may be developed to mitigate impacts commonly

associated with oil and gas activities. These examples are not all inclusive; additional COAs will be developed as

needed. These approaches may change as a result of new technology, improved science, changes to Best Management

Practices, changes in status of special status species, and a host of other factors. Site-specific conditions on or near the

project site may also result in changes to the COA listed below.

•Restricting the use of reserve pits over shallow water tables

•Reserve pits and use of diesel fuel and other constituents

•Operation and Maintenance activities and wildlife timing limit stipulations

•Noise disturbance to sharp-tails and sage grouse or other wildlife.
SD ARMP Appendix G.8

Fluid Mineral Stipulations G-47 September 2015

Appendix G.8

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations

The following “form”, 3109-2, is not the actual form, but has all the same content as the form. The 

actual form may be obtained from the BLM. 

Form 3109-2

(December 1970)

(formerly 3103-3)

UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

STIPULATION FOR LANDS UNDER JURISDICTION

OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

CORPS OF ENGINEERS

_____________

Serial Number

________________

Name of Project

The lands embraced in this lease issued under the Mineral Leasing Act of February 25, 1920 (41 Stat. 437; 30

U .S.C. 181 et seq.), as amended, or the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of August 7, 1947 (61 Stat.

913; 30 U.S.C. 351 et seq.) being under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, the 

lessee hereby agrees:

(1) That all rights under this lease are subordinate to the rights of the United States to flood and 

submerge the lands, permanently or intermittently, in connection with the operation and maintenance 

of the above named project.

(2) That the United States shall not be responsible for damages to property or injuries to persons which

may arise from or be incident to the use and occupation of the said premises, or for damages to the

property of the lessee, or for injuries to the person of the lessee (if an individual), or for damages

to the property or injuries to the person of the lessee's officers, agents, servants, or employees, or

others who may be on said premises at their invitation or the invitation of any one of them arising 

from or incident to the flooding of the said premises by the Government or flooding from any other

cause, or arising from or incident to any other governmental activities; and the lessee shall hold the

United States harmless from any and all such claims.

(3) That the work performed by the lessee on the lands shall be under the general supervision of the District

Engineer, Corps of Engineers, in direct charge of the project, and subject to such conditions and

regulation as may be prescribed by him, and the plans and location for all structures, appurtenances 

thereto, and work on said lands shall be submitted to the said District Engineer for approval, in advance,

of commencement of any work on said lands. The District Engineer shall have the right to enter on the 

premises, at any time, to inspect both the installation and operational activities of the lessee.

(4) That no structure or appurtenance thereto shall be of a material or construction determined to create floatable 

debris.
Appendix G.8 SD ARMP

September 2015 G-48 Fluid Mineral Stipulations

(5) That the construction and operation of said structures and appurtenances thereto shall be of such a nature as 

not to cause pollution of the soils and the waters of the project.

(6) That the United States reserves the right to use the land jointly with the lessee in connection with the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of the Government project and to place improvements thereon or to 

remove materials therefrom, including sand and gravel and other construction material, as may be necessary 

in connection with such work, and the lessee shall not interfere, in any manner, with such work or do any act 

which may increase the cost of performing such work. If the cost of the work performed by the Government 

at and in connection with the project, including work performed on lands outside the property included in the 

lease, is made more expensive by reason of improvements constructed on the leased property by the lessee, 

the lessee shall pay to the United States money in an amount, as estimated by the Chief of Engineers, 

sufficient to compensate for the additional expense involved.

_____________________________________

Signature of Lessee

Please Note: The following stipulations were developed by the US Corps of Engineers (COE) for use in

oil and gas leases on COE lands along Lake Sakakawea in North Dakota. If any oil and gas parcels

are processed for leasing in South Dakota, these stipulations will be modified by the COE for the

same purpose on COE lands in South Dakota.

Garrison Dam/lake Sakakawea Project, North Dakota

Bureau of Land Management Federal Mineral Lease Stipulations

a. No surface occupancy shall be allowed on those lands below elevation 1855 feet msl (mean sea level) or within

300 feet horizontally from said elevation.

b. All mineral exploration and production infrastructure shall have a minimum setback of twelve-hundred (1,200)

feet from any Tribal, Federal, State, County or private infrastructure. This includes but is not limited to; levees, dams,

intakes and buildings.

c. No surface occupancy shall be allowed on islands located within the flood control pool for Lake Sakakawea,

regardless of their elevation.

d. There are numerous archaeological (cultural and historical) sites on project lands. No surface occupancy will be

allowed within a minimum of one-hundred (100) feet of any identified cultural resource site. However, case by case

review shall be coordinated through the Riverdale Office Staff Archaeologist located at the Corps of Engineers Project

Office in Riverdale, North Dakota, to determine adequate protection.

e. All lease areas shall be cleared for Threatened and Endangered Species Usage. If any such usage has been

documented in the immediate area, mineral exploration activities shall be conditioned in coordination with the Missouri

River Recovery Program coordinator located at the Corps of Engineers Project Office in Riverdale, North Dakota.

f. On those lands, which consist of highly erodible soils, any surface disturbances shall be kept to a minimum. The

use of proper engineering practices shall be used to minimize potential soil erosion.

g. Road construction in association with mineral exploration will be conducted in a manner as primitive as possible,

and will be constructed using best engineering practices to minimize surface disturbance.

h. All fill material required for the exploration or production phase shall be clear of all invasive or noxious weed

seeds. Obtaining fill materials from project lands is prohibited.
SD ARMP Appendix G.8

Fluid Mineral Stipulations G-49 September 2015

i. Any current interior or boundary fence that is located within the lease area shall be maintained, or possibly

replaced, to prevent livestock and/or general public from entering the site for their safety.

j. No surface occupancy will be allowed within twelve-hundred (1,200) feet of any leased or Corps managed

recreation or zoned limited development area.

k. Exploration activities that extend beneath the flood control pool of Lake Sakakawea (1854 feet msl) will require

Regulatory review in accordance with Section 10/404 authorities (Rivers and Harbors Act and Clean Waters Act

respectively).

Required Stipulations in Mineral Leases 

on Army-Controlled Real Property

CORPS OF ENGINEERS STIPULATION

1. The Secretary of the Army or designee reserves the right to require cessation of operations if a national emergency

arises or if the Army needs the leased property for a mission incompatible with lease operations. On approval from

higher authority, the commander will give the lessee written notice or, if time permits, request BLM to give notice of

the required suspension. The lessee agrees to this condition and waives compensation for its exercise.

2. If the commander or the commander's authorized representative discovers an imminent danger to safety or security

which allows no time to consult BLM, that person may order such activities stopped immediately. The state BLM

Director will be notified immediately, will review the order, and will determine the need for further remedial action.

3. If contamination is found in the operating area, the operator will immediately stop work and ask the commander or

commander's representative for help.

4. Lessee liability for damage to improvements shall include improvements of the Department of Defense.

5. Before beginning to drill, the lessee must consult with third parties authorized to use real estate in the leased area and

must consider programs for which third parties have contractual responsibility.

6. A license to conduct geophysical test on the leased area must be obtained separately from the installation commander

or the District Commander.

7. Civil works only: conditions in BLM Form 3109-2, Stipulation for Lands Under Jurisdiction of Department of the

Army Corps of Engineers, or successor form.
Appendix G.9 SD ARMP

September 2015 G-50 Fluid Mineral Stipulations

Appendix G.9

Bureau of Reclamation Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations

Oil and gas lease stipulations for Bureau of Reclamation properties and facilities are shown on the following:

Form 3109-1

(December 1972)

(formerly 3103-1)

United States

Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

LEASE STIPULATIONS

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Serial Number _

The lessee agrees to maintain, if required by the lessor during the

period of this lease, including any extension thereof, an

additional bond with qualified suretiesin such sum asthe lessor, if it

considers that the bond required under Section 2(a) is insufficient,

may at any time require:

(a) to pay for damages sustained by any reclamation

homestead entryman to his crops or improvements caused by

drilling or other operations of the lessee, such damages to include

the reimbursement of the entryman by the lessee, when he uses or

occupies the land of any homestead entryman, for all construction

and operation and maintenance charges becoming due during such

use or occupation upon any portion of the land so used and

occupied;

(b) to pay any damage caused to any reclamation project or

water supply thereof by the lessee's failure to comply fully with the

requirements of this lease; and

(c) to recompense any nonmineral applicant, entryman ,

purchaser under the Act of May 16, 1930 (46 Stat. 367), or patentee for all

damages to crops or to tangible improvements caused by drilling or other

prospecting operation, where any of the lands covered by this lease are

embraced in any nonmineral application, entry, or patent under rights

initiated prior to the date of this lease, with a reservation of the oil deposits,

to the United States pursuant to the Act of July 17, 1914 (38 Stat. 509).

As to any lands covered by this lease within the area of any 

Government reclamation project, or in proximity thereto, the lessee

shall take such precautions as required by the irrigation under such

project or to the water supply thereof; provided that drilling is

prohibited on any constructed works or right-of-way of the Bureau of

Reclamation , and provided , further, that there is reserved to the

lessor, its successors and assigns, the superior and prior right at all

times to construct, operate, and maintain dams, dikes, reservoirs,

canals, wasteways, laterals, ditches, telephone and telegraph lines,

electric transmission lines, roadways, appurtenant irrigation

structures, and reclamation works, in which construction, operation,

and maintenance, the lessor, itssuccessors and assigns, shall have the

right to use any or all of the lands herein described without making

compensation therefor, and shall not be responsible for any 

damage from the presence of water thereon or on account of

ordinary, extraordinary, unexpected, or unprecedented floods. That 

nothing shall be done under this lease to increase the cost of, or

interfere in any manner with, the construction, operation, and

maintenance of such works. It is agreed by the lessee that, if the

construction of any or all of said dams, dikes, reservoirs, canals,

wasteways, laterals, ditches, telephone or telegraph lines, electric

transmission lines, roadways, appurtenant irrigation structures or

reclamation works across, over, or upon said lands should be made

more expensive by reason of the existence of the improvements

and workings of the lessee thereon, said additional expense is to be

estimated by the Secretary of the Interior, whose estimate is to be 

final and binding upon the parties hereto, and that within thirty

(30) days after demand is made upon the lessee for payment of any

such sums, the lessee will make payment thereof to the

United States, or its successors, constructing such dams, 

dikes, reservoirs, canals, wasteways, laterals, ditches, telephone

and telegraph lines, electric transmission lines, 

roadways, appurtenant irrigation structures, or reclamation 

works, across, over, or upon said lands; provided, however,

that subject to advance written approval by the United States,

the location and course of any improvements or works 

and appurtenances may be changed by the lessee; provided 

, further, that the reservations, agreements, and conditions

contained in the within lease shall be and remain applicable

notwithstanding any change in the location or course of said 

improvements or works of lessee. The lessee further agrees

that the United States, its officers, agents, and employees, and

its successors and assigns shall not be held liable for any

damage to the improvements or workings of the lessee

resulting from the construction, operation, and maintenance of

any of the works hereinabove enumerated. Nothing in this

paragraph shall be construed as in any manner limiting other

reservations in favor of the United States contained in this

lease.

THE LESSEE FURTHER AGREES That there is reserved to the

lessor, its successors and assigns, the prior right to use any of

the lands herein leased, to construct, operate, and maintain

dams, dikes, reservoirs, canals, wasteways, laterals, ditches,

telephone and telegraph lines, electric transmission lines,

roadways, or appurtenant irrigation structures, and also the

right to remove construction materials theref rom, without any 

payment made by the lessor or its successors for such right, 

with the agreement on the part of the lessee that if the

construction of any or all of such dams, dikes, reservoirs,

canals, wasteways, laterals, ditches, telephone and telegraph

lines, electric transmission lines, roadways, or appurtenant

irrigation structures across, over, or upon said lands or the

removal of construction materials therefrom, should be made

more expensive by reason of the existence of improvements or

workings of the lessee thereon, such additional expense is to

be estimated by the Secretary of the Interior, whose estimate

is to be final and binding upon the parties hereto, and that

within thirty (30) days after demand is made upon the lessee

for payment of any such sums, the lessee will make payment 

thereof to the United States or its successors constructing such

dams, dikes, reservoirs, canals, wasteways, laterals, ditches,

telephone and telegraph lines, electric transmission lines,

roadways, or appurtenant irrigation structures across, over, or

upon said lands or removing construction materials therefrom.

The lessee further agrees that the lessor, its officers, agents,

and employees and its successors and assigns shall not be held

liable for any damage to the improvements or workings of the

lessee resulting from the construction, operation, and

maintenance of any of the works herein above enumerated.

Nothing contained in this paragraph shall be construed as in

any manner limiting other reservations in favor of the lessor

contained in this lease.
SD ARMP Appendix G.9

Fluid Mineral Stipulations G-51 September 2015
Appendix G.9 SD ARMP

September 2015 G-52 Fluid Mineral Stipulations

GP-135

Revised (03/2010)

SPECIAL STIPULATION - BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

To avoid interference with recreation development and/or impacts to fish and wildlife habitat and to assist in 

preventing damage to any Bureau of Reclamation dams, reservoirs, canals, ditches, laterals, tunnels, and related 

facilities, and contamination of the water supply therein, the lessee agrees that the following conditions shall apply

to all exploration and developmental activities and other operation of the works thereafter on lands covered by this

lease:

1. Prior to commencement of any surface-disturbing work including drilling, access road work, and well 

location construction, a surface use and operations plan will be filed with the appropriate officials. A copy of this

plan will be furnished to the Regional Director, Great Plains Region, Bureau of Reclamation, P.O. Box 36900, 

Billings, MT 59107- 6900, for review and consent prior to approval of the plan. Such approval will be conditioned on 

reasonable requirements needed to prevent soil erosion, water pollution, and unnecessary damages to the surface 

vegetation and other resources, including cultural resources, of the United States, its lessees, permittees, or 

licensees, and to provide for the restoration of the land surface and vegetation. The plan shall contain provisions as

the Bureau of Reclamation may deem necessary to maintain proper management of the water, recreation, lands

structures, and resources, including cultural resources, within the prospecting, drilling, or construction area.

Drilling sites for all wells and associated investigations such as seismograph work shall be 

included in the above-mentioned surface use and operation plan.

If later explorations require departure from or additions to the approved plan, these revisions or 

amendments, together with a justification statement for proposed revisions, will be submitted for approval to the 

Regional Director, Great Plains Region, Bureau of Reclamation, or his/her authorized representative.

Any operations conducted in advance of approval of an original, revised, or amended prospecting

plan, or which are not in accordance with an approved plan constitute a violation of the terms of this lease. The 

Bureau of Reclamation reserves the right to close down operations until such corrective action, as is deemed 

necessary, is taken by the lessee.

2. No occupancy of the surface of the following excluded areas is authorized by this lease. It is

understood and agreed that the use of these areas for Bureau of Reclamation purposes is superior to any other 

use. The following restrictions apply only to mineral tracts located within the boundary of a Bureau of Reclamation 

project, where the United States owns 100 percent of the fee mineral interest in said tract, or tracts.

a. Within 500 feet on either side of the centerline of any and all roads or highways within the leased

area.

b. Within 200 feet on either side of the centerline of any and all trails within the leased area.

c. Within 500 feet of the normal high-water line of any and all live streams in the leased area.

d. Within 400 feet of any and all recreation developments within the leased area.

e. Within 400 feet of any improvements either owned, permitted, leased, or otherwise 

authorized by the Bureau of Reclamation within the leased area.

f. Within 200 feet of established crop fields, food plots, and tree/shrub plantings within the leased area.

g. Within 200 feet of slopes steeper than a 2:1 gradient within the leased area.

h. Within established rights-of-way of canals, laterals, and drainage ditches within the leased area.

i. Within a minimum of 500 feet horizontal from the centerline of the facility or 50 feet from the 

outside toe of the canal, lateral, or drain embankment, whichever distance is greater, for irrigation

facilities without clearly marked rights- of-way within the leased area.
SD ARMP Appendix G.9

Fluid Mineral Stipulations G-53 September 2015

3. No occupancy of the surface or surface drilling will be allowed in the following areas. In addition, no 

directional drilling will be allowed that will intersect the subsurface zones delineated by a vertical plane in these 

areas. The following restrictions apply only to mineral tracts, located within the boundary of a Bureau of

Reclamation project, where the United States owns 100 percent of the fee mineral interest in said tract, or tracts.

a. Within 1,000 feet of the maximum water surface, as defined in the Standard Operating

Procedures (SOP), of any reservoirs and related facilities located within the leased area.

b. Within 2,000 feet of dam embankments and appurtenance structures such as spillway structures,

outlet

c. Within one-half (1/2) mile horizontal from the centerline of any tunnel within the leased area.

4. The distances stated in items 2 and 3 above are intended to be general indicators only. The 

Bureau of Reclamation reserves the right to revise the distances as needed to protect Bureau of Reclamation 

facilities.

5. The use of explosives in any manner shall be so controlled that the works and facilities of the United 

States, its successors and assigns, will in no way be endangered or damaged. In this connection, an explosives use 

plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Regional Director, Great Plains Region, Bureau of Reclamation, or 

his/her authorized representative.

6. The lessee shall be liable for all damage to the property of the United States, its successors or

assigns, resulting from the exploration, development, or operation of the works contemplated by this lease, and

shall further hold the United States, its successors or assigns, and its officers, agents, and employees, harmless

from all claims of third parties for injury or damage sustained or in any way resulting from the exercise of the

rights and privileges conferred by the lease.

7. The lessee shall be liable for all damages to crops or improvements of any entryman, non-mineral 

applicant, or patentee, their successors or assigns, caused by or resulting from the drilling or other operations of the

lessee, including reimbursement of any entryman or patentee, their successors or assigns, for all construction, 

operation, and maintenance charges becoming due on any portion of their said lands damaged as a result of the

drilling or other operation of the lessee.

8. In addition to any other bond required under the provisions of this lease, the lessee shall provide

such bond as the United States may at any time require for damages which may arise under the liability provisions

of Section six (6) and seven (7) above.
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX H

BIOLOGICAL OPINION

SD ARMP Appendix H

Biological Opinion H-1 September 2015

Appendix H

Biological Opinion
Appendix H SD ARMP

September 2015 H-2 Biological Opinion
APPENDIX I

GREATER SAGE-GROUSE EFFECTS ANALYSIS PROCESS

SD ARMP Appendix I

Greater Sage-Grouse Effects Analysis Process I-1 September 2015

Appendix I

Greater Sage-Grouse Effects Analysis Process

The BLM will ensure that any activities or projects in Greater Sage-Grouse habitats would: 1) only occur 

in compliance with the Proposed Final SD RMP and EIS Greater Sage-Grouse goals and objectives for 

priority and general habitat management areas; and 2) maintain neutral or positive Greater Sage-Grouse 

population trends and habitat by avoiding, minimizing, and offsetting unavoidable impacts to assure a

conservation gain at the scale of this land use plan and within Greater Sage-Grouse population areas, 

State boundaries, and WAFWA Management Zones through the application of mitigation for 

implementation-level decisions. The mitigation process will follow the regulations from the White House 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR 1508.20; e.g., avoid, minimize, and compensate), 

hereafter referred to as the mitigation hierarchy, while also following Secretary of the Interior Order 3330 

and consulting BLM, FWS, and other current and appropriate mitigation guidance. If it is determined that 

residual impacts on Greater Sage-Grouse from implementation-level actions would remain after applying 

avoidance and minimization measures to the extent possible, then compensatory mitigation projects will 

be used to offset residual impacts, or the project may be deferred or denied if necessary to achieve the 

goals and objectives for priority and general habitat management areas in the Final SD RMP and EIS. 

To ensure that impacts from activities proposed in sage-grouse priority and general habitat management 

areas (PHMA and GHMA) are appropriately mitigated, the BLM will apply mitigation measures and 

conservation actions and potentially modify the location, design, construction, and/or operation of 

proposed land uses or activities to comply with statutory requirements for environmental protection. The 

mitigation measures and conservation actions (Appendix F and C) for proposed projects or activities in 

these areas will be identified as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental 

review process, through interdisciplinary analysis involving resource specialists, project proponents, 

government entities, landowners or other Surface Management Agencies. Those measures selected for 

implementation will be identified in the Record of Decision (ROD) or Decision Record (DR) for those 

authorizations and will inform a potential lessee, permittee, or operator of the requirements that must be 

met when using BLM-administered public lands and minerals to mitigate, per the mitigation hierarchy 

referenced above, impacts from the activity or project such that sage-grouse goals and objectives are met. 

Because these actions create a clear obligation for the BLM to ensure any proposed mitigation action 

adopted in the environmental review process is performed, there is assurance that mitigation will lead to a 

reduction of environmental impacts in the implementation stage and include binding mechanisms for 

enforcement (CEQ Memorandum for Heads of Federal Departments and Agencies 2011).

To achieve the goals and objectives for PHMA and GHMA in the Proposed Final SD RMP and EIS, the 

BLM will assess all proposed land uses or activities such as road, pipeline, communication tower, or 

powerline construction, fluid and solid mineral development, range improvements, and recreational 

activities proposed for location in sage-grouse PHMA and GHMA in a step-wise manner. The following 

steps identify a screening process for review of proposed activities or projects in these areas. This process 

will provide a consistent approach and ensure that authorization of these projects, if granted, will 

appropriately mitigate impacts and be consistent with the LUP goals and objectives for sage-grouse. The 

following steps provide for a sequential screening of proposals. However, Steps 2-6 can be done 

concurrently.
Appendix I SD ARMP

September 2015 I-2 Greater Sage-Grouse Effects Analysis Process

Step 1 – Determine Proposal Adequacy

This screening process is initiated upon formal submittal of a proposal for authorization for use of BLM 

lands. The actual documentation of the proposal would include at a minimum a description of the 

location, scale of the project and timing of the disturbance. The acceptance of the proposal(s) for review 

would be consistent with existing protocol and procedures for each type of use. 

Step 2 – Evaluate Proposal Consistency with LUP 

This initial review should evaluate whether the proposal would be allowed as prescribed in the Land Use 

Plan. For example, some activities or types of development are prohibited in PHMA or GHMA. 

Evaluation of projects will also include an assessment of the current state of the Adaptive Management 

hard and soft triggers. If the proposal is for an activity that is specifically prohibited, the applicant should 

be informed that the application is being rejected since it would not be allowed, regardless of the design 

of the project. 

Step 3 – Determine Proposal Consistency with Density and Disturbance Limitations

If the proposed activity occurs within a PHMA, evaluate whether the disturbance from the activity 

exceeds the limit on the amount of disturbance allowed within the activity or project area (DDCT 

process). If current disturbance within the activity area or the anticipated disturbance from the proposed 

activity exceeds this threshold, the project would be deferred until such time as the amount of disturbance 

within the area has been reduced below the threshold, redesigned so as to not result in any additional 

surface disturbance (collocation) or redesigned to move it outside of PHMA. 

Step 4 – Determine Projected Sage-Grouse Population and Habitat Impacts

Determine if the project will have a direct or indirect impact on sage-grouse populations or habitat within 

PHMA or GHMA. This will include: 

• Reviewing Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat delineation maps to initially assess potential impacts to 

sage-grouse.

Use of the USGS report Conservation Buffer Distance Estimates for Greater Sage-Grouse—A 

Review to assess potential project impacts based upon the distance to the nearest lek, using the 

most recent active lek data available from the state wildlife agency. This assessment will be based 

upon the direction in Appendix B:

• Review and application of current science recommendations.

• Reviewing the ‘Base Line Environment Report’ (USGS) which identifies areas of direct and 

indirect effect for various anthropogenic activities.

• Consultation with agency or State Wildlife Agency biologist.

• Evaluating consistency with (at a minimum) State sage-grouse regulations 

• Or other methods needed to provide an accurate assessment of impacts.
SD ARMP Appendix I

Greater Sage-Grouse Effects Analysis Process I-3 September 2015

If the proposal will not have a direct or indirect impact on either the habitat or population, document the 

findings in the NEPA and proceed with the appropriate process for review, decision and implementation 

of the project.

Step 5 –Apply Avoidance and Minimization Measures to Comply with Sage-Grouse Goals and 

Objectives

If the project can be relocated so as to not have an impact on sage-grouse and still achieve objectives of 

the proposal and the disturbance limitations, relocate the proposed activity and proceed with the 

appropriate process for review, decision and implementation (NEPA and Decision Record). This Step 

does not consider redesign of the project to reduce or eliminate direct and indirect impacts, but rather 

authorization of the project in a physical location that will not impact Greater Sage-Grouse. If the 

preliminary review of the proposal concludes that there may be adverse impacts to sage-grouse habitat or 

populations in Step 4 and the project cannot be effectively relocated to avoid these impacts, proceed with 

the appropriate process for review, decision and implementation (NEPA and Decision Record) with the 

inclusion of appropriate mitigation requirements to further reduce or eliminate impacts to sage-grouse 

habitat and populations and achieve compliance with sage-grouse objectives. Mitigation measures could 

include disturbance buffer limits, timing of disturbance limits, noise restrictions, design modifications of 

the proposal, site disturbance restoration, post project reclamation, etc. (see BMPs, Guidelines, Standard 

Operating Procedures (Appendix J), Soil and Reclamation Guidelines (Appendix O and L), and Required 

Design Features (Appendix C) for a more complete list of measures). Compensatory or offsite mitigation 

may be required (Step 6) in situations where residual impacts remain after application of all avoidance 

and minimization measures. 

Step 6 – Apply Compensatory Mitigation or Reject / Defer Proposal

If screening of the proposal (Steps 1-5) has determined that direct and indirect impacts cannot be 

eliminated through avoidance or minimization, evaluate the proposal to determine if compensatory 

mitigation can be used to offset the remaining adverse impacts and achieve sage-grouse goals and 

objectives. If the impacts cannot be effectively mitigated, reject or defer the proposal. The criteria for 

determining this situation could include but are not limited to:

• The current trend within the PHMA is down and additional impacts, whether mitigated or not, 

could lead to further decline of the species or habitat.

• The proposed mitigation is inadequate in scope or duration, has proven to be ineffective or is 

unproven is terms of science based approach. 

• The project would impact habitat that has been determined to be a limiting factor for species 

sustainability.

• Other site specific information and analysis that determined the project would lead to a downward 

change of the current species population or habitat and not comply with sage-grouse goals and 

objectives.

If, following application of available impact avoidance and minimization measures, the project can be 

mitigated to fully offset impacts and assure conservation gain to the species and comply with sage-grouse 

goals and objectives, proceed with the appropriate process for review, decision and implementation 

(NEPA and Decision Record). 
Appendix I SD ARMP

September 2015 I-4 Greater Sage-Grouse Effects Analysis Process

The BLM, via the WAFWA Management Zone Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Team, will develop a 

WAFWA Management Zone Regional Mitigation Strategy to guide the application of the mitigation 

hierarchy to address greater sage-grouse impacts within that Zone. The WAFWA Management Zone 

Regional Mitigation Strategy will be applicable to the States/Field Offices/Forests within the Zone’s 

boundaries. Subsequently, the BLM South Dakota Field Office NEPA analyses for implementation-level 

decisions, which have the potential to impact greater sage-grouse, will include analysis of mitigation 

recommendations from the relevant WAFWA Management Zone Regional Mitigation Strategy(ies). 

Implementation of the Regional Mitigation Strategy may involve managing compensatory mitigation 

funds, implementing compensatory mitigation projects, certifying mitigation/conservation banks, and 

reporting on the effectiveness of those projects. These types of mitigation implementation actions may be 

most effectively managed at the State-level, in collaboration with partners. The BLM State Office may 

find it most effective to enter into an agreement with a State-level program administrator (e.g., NonGovernmental Organization or State-level entity) to help manage these aspects of mitigation. The BLM 

will remain responsible for making decisions that affect Federal lands. 

The BLM’s Regional Mitigation Manual MS-1794 serves as a framework for developing and 

implementing a Regional Mitigation Strategy. Chapter 2 provides additional guidance specific to the 

development and implementation of a WAFWA Management Zone Regional Mitigation Strategy. 
APPENDIX J

SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES, BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS), 

STANDARDS, GUIDELINES, AND STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES (SOPS)

SD ARMP Appendix J

Summary of BMPs, Mitigation, BMPs, J-1 September 2015

Guidelines, Standards and SOPs

Appendix J

Summary of Mitigation Measures,

Best Management Practices (BMPs), Standards, Guidelines, 

and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)

INTRODUCTION

The following Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions are a compilation of Best Management Practices (BMPs), 

Standards, and/or operating procedures used by the BLM to meet statutory requirements for environmental protection 

and comply with resource specific Goals and Objectives set forward in this land use plan. The BLM will apply 

mitigation measures and conservation actions to modify the operations of authorized lands uses or activities to meet 

these obligations. Additional direction regarding mitigation can be found in the Interim Policy, Draft - Regional 

Mitigation Manual Section - 1794 (IM 2013-142) or subsequent decision documents. Required Design Features for 

sage-grouse are detailed in a separate Appendix (Appendix C). 

These measures and actions will be applied to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, and compensate for impacts if an 

evaluation of the authorization area indicates the presence of resources of concern which include, but are not limited to 

air, water, soils, cultural resources, national historic trails, recreation values and important wildlife habitat in order to 

reduce impacts associated with authorized land uses or activities such as road, pipeline, or power line construction, fluid 

and solid mineral development, range improvements, and recreational activities. The mitigation measures and 

conservation actions for authorizations will be identified as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

process, through interdisciplinary analysis involving resource specialists, project proponents, government entities, 

landowners or other Surface Management Agencies. Those measures selected for implementation will be identified in 

the Record of Decision (ROD) or Decision Record (DR) for those authorizations and will inform a potential lessee, 

permittee, or operator of the requirements that must be met when using BLM-administered public lands and minerals to 

mitigate impacts from those authorizations. Because these actions create a clear obligation for the BLM to ensure any 

proposed mitigation action adopted in the environmental review process is performed, there is assurance that mitigation 

will lead to a reduction of environmental impacts in the implementation stage and include binding mechanisms for 

enforcement (CEQ Memorandum for Heads of Federal Departments and Agencies 2011).

Because of site-specific circumstances and localized resource conditions, some mitigation measures and conservation 

actions may not apply to some or all activities (e.g., a resource or conflict is not present on a given site) and/or may 

require slight variations from what is described in this appendix. The BLM may add additional measures as deemed 

necessary through the environmental analysis and as developed through coordination with other federal, state, and local 

regulatory and resource agencies. Application of mitigation measures and conservation actions is subject to valid existing 

rights, technical and economic feasibility. 

Implementation and effectiveness of mitigation measures and conservation actions would be monitored to determine 

whether the practices are achieving resource objectives and accomplishing desired goals. Timely adjustments would be 

made as necessary to meet the resource goals and objectives.

The list included in this appendix is not limiting, but references the most frequently used sources. The BLM may add 

additional site-specific restrictions as deemed necessary by further environmental analysis and as developed through 

coordination with other federal, state, and local regulatory and resource agencies. Because mitigation measures and 

conservation actions change or are modified, based on new information, the guidelines will be updated periodically. As 

new publications are developed; the BLM may use updated BMPs. In addition, many BLM handbooks (such as BLM 

Manual 9113-Roads and 9213-Interagency Standards for Fire and Aviation Operation) also contain BMP-type measures 

for minimizing impacts. These BLM-specific guidance and direction documents are not referenced in this appendix. The 

EIS for this RMP does not decide or dictate the exact wording or inclusion of these mitigation measures and 

conservation actions. Rather, they are used in the RMP and EIS process as a tool to help demonstrate at the Land Use 

Plan scale how they will be applied in considering subsequent activity plans and site-specific authorizations. These 
Appendix J SD ARMP

September 2015 J-2 Summary of BMPs, Mitigation, BMPs,

Guidelines, Standards and SOPs

mitigation measures and conservation actions and their wording are matters of policy. As such, specific wording is 

subject to change, primarily through administrative review, not through the RMP and EIS process. Any further changes 

that may be made in the continuing refinement of these mitigation measures and conservation actions and any 

development of program-specific standard procedures will be handled in another forum, including appropriate public 

involvement and input.

Within the limits of BLM’s authority, specific BMPs or guidelines may be required as a condition of an authorization at 

the project level (implementation level) to address site- specific circumstances. The use of other BMPs and guidelines 

would be analyzed on a case-by-case basis during environmental review associated with projects on the BLM land.

Required design features (RDF) to limit impacts to sage-grouse are addressed in Appendix C. 

Within the limits of BLM’s authority, specific BMPs or guidelines may be required as a condition of an authorization 

at the project level (implementation level) to address site- specific circumstances. The use of other BMPs and

guidelines would be analyzed on a case-by-case basis during environmental review associated with projects on the

BLM land. BMPs and guidelines are not a “one size fits all approach” that address all specific circumstances that may

occur. 

The following practices would be applied as relevant. Note that additional details about Mitigation, Reclamation, and

Soil Guidelines can be found in Appendix K (SD Mitigation Guidelines), Appendix L (SD Reclamation Guidelines)

and in Appendix O (Soil Monitoring) and Appendix C (RDF for Sage Grouse).

Air Resources BMPs

I. Climate Change BMPs

II. Other BMPs, Guidelines, Standards, and SOPs

• Air Quality Guidelines for Open Burning

• Air Resources BMPs for Fluid Minerals

• Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Management Plan, South Dakota

• Bats and Wind Energy

• Communication Towers: Service Guidance on Siting, Construction, Operation and Decommissioning

• Core Terrestrial Indicators and Methods, BLM

• Field Office Technical Guides, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

• Fluid Minerals Operations – Reducing Preventable Causes of Direct Wildlife Mortality 

• Forestry Best Management Practices for South Dakota

• Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management, Montana/Dakotas (Dakotas Portion)

• Integrated Vegetation Management Handbook

• Interagency Burned Area Rehabilitation Guidebook

• Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations

• Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health

• Invasive Species National Management Plan 2008-2012

• Keep Aquatic Nuisance Species out of South Dakota Waters

• Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• Management of Land Boundary Plans

• Mitigation Guidelines, South Dakota Field Office

• Monitoring Guidelines for Soils

• National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Agriculture

• National Range and Pasture Handbook

• Reclamation Guidelines, South Dakota

• Renewable Energy Facilities on BLM-Administered Lands: Best Management Practices for 

Reducing Visual Impact

• Riparian Area Management: Grazing Management Processes and Strategies for Riparian-Wetland 

Areas 

• Selected Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines

• Siting Guidelines for Wind Power Projects in South Dakota

• Standards for Federal Lands Boundary Evidence, 600 DM 5

• Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management
SD ARMP Appendix J

Summary of BMPs, Mitigation, BMPs, J-3 September 2015

Guidelines, Standards and SOPs

• Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development

• Upland Soil Erosion Monitoring and Assessment: An Overview

• Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States

• Wind Energy Development Programmatic EIS

I. Air Resources BMPs

Developed by: Bureau of Land Management

Year developed or last updated: 2012

Impacts to air resources and air quality related values (AQRVs) can be reduced using the following BMPs:

A. Fugitive dust emissions can be reduced by:

1. using two-track primitive roads whenever possible rather than developing a dirt road;

2. applying water or chemical suppressants (e.g., magnesium chloride, calcium chloride, lignin, sulfonate,

or asphalt emulsion) to non-primitive unpaved roads or surfacing non-primitive unpaved roads with

gravel, chip-seal, or asphalt;

3. imposing vehicle speed limits on unpaved roads;

4. restricting the extent of surface impacts during construction activities and ongoing operations by

using directional drilling to reduce the number of oil and gas well pads when feasible;

5. using dust abatement techniques before, during, and after surface clearing and excavation activities;

6. covering construction materials and stockpiled soils if they are a source of fugitive dust;

7. suspending construction activities during high winds;

8. adding gravel to non-reclaimed well pad areas;

9. revegetating areas when construction is complete;

10. locating linear facilities in the same or parallel trenches and constructing them at the same time; and

11. mowing rather than removing vegetation.

B. Fugitive dust and vehicle exhaust emissions related to oil and gas activity can be reduced by restricting

vehicle trips by:

1. consolidating facilities by using directional drilling and multiwell oil and gas pads;

2. developing centralized liquid collection (water, produced water, and fracturing liquid) facilities and

production (treatment and product storage) facilities to reduce the number and average distance of

vehicle trips;

3. using shuttles or vanpools for employee commuting;

4. using automated equipment and remote telemetry; and

5. using solar power to add automated equipment in areas without access to electricity.

C. Non-vehicular engine exhaust emissions can be reduced by:

1. electrifying equipment when feasible;

2. using natural gas or electric engines rather than diesel engines;

3. using alternative energy (solar power, wind power, or both) to power new water source developments; and

4. converting power sources at existing water well developments to alternative energy sources.

D. Fugitive volatile organic compound (VOC), hazardous air pollutant (HAP), and/or methane (a greenhouse

gas [GHG]) emissions from oil and gas activities can be reduced by the following BMPs when feasible:

1. using green completion technology to capture methane (and some VOC and HAP) emissions

during completion and place the gas in sales pipelines;

2. using flaring rather than venting during completion activities, but only in cases where product capture is
Appendix J SD ARMP

September 2015 J-4 Summary of BMPs, Mitigation, BMPs,

Guidelines, Standards and SOPs

not feasible;

3. using closed tanks rather than open tanks or pits;

4. installing vapor recovery units on condensate, produced water, and oil storage tanks;

5. using vapor balancing during condensate and oil tanker truck loading;

6. using closed-loop drilling;

7. replacing pneumatic (natural gas) pumps with electric or solar pumps;

8. optimizing glycol circulation rates on glycol dehydrators;

9. replacing wet seals with dry seals in centrifugal compressors;

10. replacing worn rod packing in reciprocating compressors;

11. installing automated plunger lift systems in natural gas wells; and

12. monitoring equipment leaks and repairing equipment leaks.

E. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions would be reduced by:

1. using ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel in diesel vehicle and stationary engines.

II. Climate Change BMPs

Impacts to climate change can be reduced using the following BMPs:

A. Reduce CO2 emissions by reducing vehicle miles traveled and using fuel-efficient vehicles.

B. Reduce CO2 emissions by using renewable energy to power equipment.

C. Reduce CO2 emissions by using energy saving techniques.

D. Identify and implement methods to sequester CO2.

E. Reduce methane emissions from oil and gas activities by:

1. capturing methane using green completion, when feasible, and beneficially using the gas by placing it

in sales pipeline;

2. flaring methane during well completion activities for which green completion is infeasible;

3. replacing natural gas driven pneumatic equipment with solar or electrically powered equipment;

4. optimizing glycol recirculation rates for glycol dehydrators;

5. operating flash tank separators on glycol dehydrators; identifying fugitive emissions from equipment

leaks and repairing or replacing seals, valves, compressor rod packing systems, and pneumatic devices;

and

6. implementing additional GHG emission reduction strategies identified in the oil and gas BMPs located

at EPA Natural Gas STAR Program, http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/tools/recommended.html

III. Other BMPs, Guidelines, Standards, and SOPs

The following BMPs are described in detail elsewhere in this document or published separately. A summary and 

description of each is provided here:

• Air Quality Guidelines for Open Burning

Source: State of South Dakota 

Online at: http://denr.sd.gov/des/aq/openburn.aspx

Developed/Updated: 2010

Activities Affected: Air Quality, Recreation, prescribed fire. 

Description: Provides guidelines to follow when open burning. Guidelines address visibility and smoke

dispersion, hazardous waste issues, notification of other parties.

• Air Resources BMPs for Fluid Minerals

Source: BLM

Online at: 
SD ARMP Appendix J

Summary of BMPs, Mitigation, BMPs, J-5 September 2015

Guidelines, Standards and SOPs

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTI

ON_/bmps.Par.60203.File.dat/WO1_Air%20Resource_BMP_Slideshow%2005-09-2011.pdf

Developed/Updated: 2011

Activities Affected: Air Quality, Oil and Gas exploration and development.

Description: This summary of various Air Resource BMPs outline common problems associated with fluid

mineral production that can impact air quality and describes practices that reduce emissions. Examples of

topics addressed include centralized water storage and delivery, centralizing of production, dust control,

vehicle traffic, venting/ flaring, vapor recovery units, hatches, seals and valves. This summary also describes

maintenance and monitoring practices.

Additional information about Air Resource BMPs can be found at:

- EPA Natural Gas STAR Program: online at http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/tools.recommended.html

- California Air Resources Board’s Clearinghouse: online at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/non-co2-

clearinghouse/non-co2-clearinghouse.htm

- Four Corners Air Quality Group: online at http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/4C/

• Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Management Plan, South Dakota

Source: South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks 

Online at: http://gfp.sd.gov/wildlife/nuisance/aquatic/SDANS-management-plan.aspx

Developed/Updated: 2008

Activities Affected: Recreation, invasive species control.

Description: The development of a state ANS management plan, as called for in Section 1204 of the

Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (NANPCA) of 1990, provides an opportunity for

federal cost-share support for implementation of the plan. This management plan was developed to address the

prevention, control, and effects of aquatic nuisance species that have invaded or may invade South Dakota’s

waters.

• Bats and Wind Energy

Source: Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative in partnership with other organizations and agencies

Online at: http://www.batsandwind.org/

Developed/Updated: 2011

Activities Affected: Renewable resources, wildlife

Description: Provides research, mitigation and operating deterrents to reduce the impacts of wind farms on bats. 

Currently, there are three areas of research BWEC is focusing on. These themes are designed to encompass a 

variety of approaches to resolve the issue of bat fatalities at wind facilities:

- Pre-construction monitoring to assess bat activity levels and use at proposed wind turbine sites.

- Post-construction fatality searches to determine estimates of fatality, compare fatality estimates among 

facilities, and determine patterns of fatality in relation to weather and habitat variables.

- Operational Mitigation and Deterrents will focus on testing the effectiveness of seasonal low wind 

shutdowns and deterring devices on reducing fatality of bats.

• Communication Towers: Service Guidance on Siting, Construction, Operation and Decommissioning

Source: BLM 

Online at: http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/com_tow_guidelines.pdf

Developed/Updated: 2014

Activities Affected: Air Quality, recreation, renewable resources 

Description: These guidelines were developed by Service personnel from research conducted in several 

eastern, midwestern, and southern States, and have been refined through Regional review. They are based 

on the best information available at this time, and are the most prudent and effective measures for avoiding 

bird strikes at towers. These guidelines promote collocation and reduction of the number of towers. They 

also address the height of towers, use of guy wires markers, minimizing the footprint of sites, relocation of 

sites away from important habitat and removal of obsolete towers and other impacts of communication sites 

on wildlife. 
Appendix J SD ARMP

September 2015 J-6 Summary of BMPs, Mitigation, BMPs,

Guidelines, Standards and SOPs

• Core Terrestrial Indicators and Methods, BLM

Source: BLM

Reference: Technical Reference 440

Online at: http://www.blm.gov/nstc/library/pdf/TN440.pdf

Developed/Updated: 2011

Activities Affected: Range, vegetation and soil monitoring

Description: The BLM Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) Strategy was initiated, in part, to evaluate 

current monitoring activities and recommend procedures to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of these 

activities. To this end, the AIM Strategy supports an integrated approach to: (1) document the location and 

abundance of natural resources on public lands; (2) facilitate the description of resource conditions; and (3) 

identify natural resource trends or changes. This recommendation will be accomplished through the integration 

of fundamental processes including: (a) development and application of a consistent set of ecosystem indicators 

(i.e., quantitative core indicators) and consistent measurement methods; (b) development and implementation of 

a statistically valid sampling framework; (c) application and integration of remote sensing technologies; and (d) 

implementation of related data acquisition and management plans. The purpose/intent of this report is to provide 

an introduction to, and describe, the Core Indicators and Methods component of the AIM Strategy. Further, this 

report provides guidance on how to maintain consistency of effort and resources (i.e., cited materials) for 

further details on established protocols. This Core Indicators and Methods component identifies a small set of 

core indicators (i.e., measurements) that, when collected, can be used for many purposes across ecosystem types 

including rangeland, forest, and riparian areas. This set of core indicators, based on quantitative land cover and 

vegetation data using standardized measurements, will allow data to be integrated across field, district, and state 

office boundaries.

• Field Office Technical Guides, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

Source: NRCS 

Online at: http://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/toc.aspx?CatID=13668

Developed/Updated: Various dates; guides are updated periodically

Activities Affected: Range, riparian, soils, reclamation, wildlife, recreation, weed control.

Description: The practices and standards developed by NRCS address water quality, sediment, erosion 

control, streambank and shoreline protection, weed control, livestock grazing, habitat restoration and other 

aspects of natural resource management. With the exception of the farming practices, many of the standards 

and practices have applicability to BLM management and may be applied as needed to protect resources, 

reduce conflicts, and limit impacts associated with resource use.

• Fluid Minerals Operations – Reducing Preventable Causes of Direct Wildlife Mortality

Source: BLM

Reference: Instruction Memorandum No. 2013-033

Online at:

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/national_instruction/2013/IM

_2013-033.html 

Developed/Updated: 2012

Activities Affected: Oil and gas, wildlife

Description: This Instruction Memorandum (IM) establishes policy for reducing preventable causes of direct 

wildlife mortality associated with fluid mineral facilities authorized by the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM). This policy also provides for increased protection of livestock and human health and safety around fluid 

mineral facilities. Fluid mineral facilities include oil, gas, and geothermal facilities and associated structures 

authorized by the BLM through Applications for Permit to Drill (APD), Geothermal Drilling Permits (GDP), 

Sundry Notices, or fluid mineral associated rights-of-way.

This IM addresses Best Management Practices (BMP) for reducing the risk of direct wildlife mortality from the 

following five fluid mineral practices: 

- Open Pits and Tanks Containing Freestanding Liquids;

- Chemical Tank Secondary Containment; 

- Pit, Tank, and Trench Entrapment Hazards; 

- Exhaust Stacks; and 

- Wire Exclosure Fences for Well Pads or Production Facilities and Associated Rights-of-way. 
SD ARMP Appendix J

Summary of BMPs, Mitigation, BMPs, J-7 September 2015

Guidelines, Standards and SOPs

• Forestry Best Management Practices for South Dakota

Source: South Dakota Department of Agriculture 

Online at: https://sdda.sd.gov/legacydocs/Forestry/publications/PDF/Forestry-BMP.pdf

Developed/Updated: 2003

Activities Affected: Forestry, soils, water quality, weed control. 

Description: Describes management practices to reduce impacts from logging and other harvest

practices. The BMPs address:

- Forest watersheds and non-point source pollution

- Road maintenance and construction

- Timber harvest design

- Streamside management

- Stream crossings

- Winter logging

- Hazardoussubstances

• Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management, Montana/Dakotas (Dakotas Portion)

Source: BLM

Reference: BLM/MT/PL-019+1020

Online at: 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/mt/blm_programs/grazing.Par.70770.File.dat/DakotasSG.pdf

Developed/Updated: 1997

Activities Affected: Range, vegetation, soils wildlife, water quality. 

Description: Guidelines for grazing management are preferred or advisable approaches to grazing management

practices determined to be appropriate to ensure that standards can be met or that significant progress can be

made toward meeting the standard(s).

Guidelines are provided to maintain or improve resource conditions in upland and riparian habitats available for

livestock grazing. In both riparian and upland habitats, these guidelines focus on establishment and maintenance

of proper functioning condition and healthy rangelands. The application of these guidelines is dependent on

individual management objectives.

• Integrated Vegetation Management Handbook

Source: BLM

Reference: H-1740-2

Online at: 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_handbook.Par.59

510.File.dat/H-1740-2.pdf

Developed/Updated: 2008

Activities Affected: Range, weeds, reclamation

Description: The BMPs describe practices to limit impacts of vegetation treatment to:

- Invasive plant species

- Soil resources

- Native plant conservation and revegetation

- Using pesticide and biological controls

- Air quality

- Wildlife habitat

- Cultural and historic resources

- Water quality and wetlands

- Recreation, visual, and wilderness resources

• Interagency Burned Area Rehabilitation Guidebook

Source: BLM, NPS, FWS, BIA

Reference: 

Online at: http://www.fws.gov/fire/ifcc/Esr/Policy/BAR_Guidebook11-06.pdf

Developed/Updated: 2006

Activities Affected: Fire, reclamation, wildlife soils and vegetation
Appendix J SD ARMP

September 2015 J-8 Summary of BMPs, Mitigation, BMPs,

Guidelines, Standards and SOPs

Description: The purpose of the Interagency Burned Area Rehabilitation Guidebook (Guidebook) is to provide

general operational guidance for the Department of the Interior Burned Area Rehabilitation (BAR) activities

after a wildfire. In conjunction with Departmental and agency policy, it is designed to provide agency

administrators and BAR specialists with sufficient information to:

- Understand BAR policy, standards, and procedures.

- Assess wildfire damage and develop a cost effective plan or report.

- Assess and report accomplishments.

It consolidates and provides an interagency interpretation of BAR policies, procedures, objectives, and

standards where there is Departmental and agency agreement.

• Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations

Source: BLM, NPS, USFWS, and USFS 

Reference: NFES 2724

Online at: http://www.nifc.gov/PUBLICATIONS/redbook/2014/RedBookAll.pdf

Developed/Updated: 2012

Activities Affected: Fire, aviation, and safety

Description: This is an interagency publication that provides guidance and policy direction for the federal fire

program. Includes standards for firefighting, identifies roles of agencies, clarifies administration process, safety

procedures, incident management, fire suppression, training, equipment, communications, aviation

operations/resources, prescribed fire, and reviews and investigations.

• Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health

Source: BLM

Reference: Technical Reference 1734-6

Online at: http://www.blm.gov/nstc/library/pdf/1734-6rev05.pdf

Developed/Updated: 2005

Activities Affected: Range, soils, wildlife, and water quality. 

Description: This book describes a protocol for using 17 qualitative soil and vegetation indicators to evaluate 

the status of three ecosystem attributes: soil and site stability, hydrologic function, and biotic integrity. 

Qualitative assessments of rangeland health provide land managers and technical assistance specialists with a 

good communication tool for use with the public. Many of these tools have been used successfully for this 

purpose over the past 100 years. The technique described in this book can be used to provide early warnings of 

resource problems on upland rangelands. It can also be used to help identify specific resource issues (e.g., 

erosion or invasive species) that must be addressed and to prioritize land for management resources. Version 4 

is the second published edition of this technique. The changes in Version 4 are designed to improve the 

consistency in the application of the process. The most significant modification was the replacement of the 

Ecological Reference Area Worksheet with the Reference Sheet. The Reference Sheet facilitates consistent 

application of the process throughout an ecological site by integrating all available sources of data and 

knowledge to generate a single range of reference conditions for each indicator.

• Invasive Species National Management Plan 2008-2012

Source: National Invasive Species Management Council (NISC)

Online at: http://www.invasivespecies.gov

Developed/Updated: 2008

Activities Affected: All activities

Description: Directs federal efforts (including overall strategy and objectives) to prevent, control and

minimize invasive species and their impacts for fiscal years 2008 through 2012.

• Keep Aquatic Nuisance Species out of South Dakota Waters

Source: South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks 

Online at: http://gfp.sd.gov/wildlife/nuisance/aquatic/default.aspx

Developed/Updated: 2008

Activities Affected: Invasive species control, recreation

Description: Provides practices and guidelines to reduce the threat of the introduction and spread aquatic

nuisance species.
SD ARMP Appendix J

Summary of BMPs, Mitigation, BMPs, J-9 September 2015

Guidelines, Standards and SOPs

• Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Source: USFWS

Reference: OMB Control No, 1018-0148 

Online at: http://www.fws.gov/ecological-services/es-library/pdfs/WEG_final.pdf

Developed/Updated: 2012

Activities Affected: Renewable energy and wildlife.

Description: The Guidelines discuss various risks to “species of concern” from wind energy projects, 

including collisions with wind turbines and associated infrastructure; loss and degradation of habitat from 

turbines and infrastructure; fragmentation of large habitat blocks into smaller segments that may not support 

sensitive species; displacement and behavioral changes; and indirect effects such as increased predator 

populations or introduction of invasive plants. The Guidelines assist developers in identifying species of 

concern that may potentially be affected by their proposed project, including migratory birds; bats; bald and 

golden eagles and other birds of prey; prairie and sage grouse; and listed, proposed, or candidate endangered 

and threatened species. Wind energy development in some areas may be precluded by federal law; other areas 

may be inappropriate for development because they have been recognized as having high wildlife value based 

on their ecological rarity and intactness.

The Guidelines use a “tiered approach” for assessing potential adverse effects to species of concern and their 

habitats. The tiered approach is an iterative decision-making process for collecting information in increasing 

detail; quantifying the possible risks of proposed wind energy projects to species of concern and their habitats; 

and evaluating those risks to make siting, construction, and operation decisions. During the pre-construction 

tiers (Tiers 1, 2, and 3), developers are working to identify, avoid and minimize risks to species of concern. 

During post construction tiers (Tiers 4 and 5), developers are assessing whether actions taken in earlier tiers to 

avoid and minimize impacts are successfully achieving the goals and, when necessary, taking additional steps to 

compensate for impacts. Subsequent tiers refine and build upon issues raised and efforts undertaken in previous 

tiers. Each tier offers a set of questions to help the developer evaluate the potential risk associated with 

developing a project at the given location. Briefly, the tiers address:

- Tier 1 – Preliminary site evaluation (landscape-scale screening of possible project sites)

- Tier 2 – Site characterization (broad characterization of one or more potential project sites)

- Tier 3 – Field studies to document site wildlife and habitat and predict project impacts

- Tier 4 – Post-construction studies to estimate impacts

- Tier 5 – Other post construction studies and research

The tiered approach provides the opportunity for evaluation and decision-making at each stage, enabling a 

developer to abandon or proceed with project development, or to collect additional information if required. This 

approach does not require that every tier, or every element within each tier, be implemented for every project. 

The Service anticipates that many distributed or community facilities will not need to follow the Guidelines 

beyond Tiers 1 and 2. Instead, the tiered approach allows efficient use of developer and wildlife agency 

resources with increasing levels of effort.

• Management of Land Boundary Plans – BLM

Source: BLM

Description: Provides information about the BLM cadastral survey program, it support of BLM programs. The 

cadastral survey program assists federal, tribal, and Alaska Native land management agencies by interpreting and 

analyzing survey plats, locating boundary markers in the field, and performing new and retracement cadastral 

surveys when necessary evidence can be done by the standards for boundary evidence certificate process, instead 

of having a full survey. Other services involve surveys to assist in: the resolution of trespass upon public lands, 

defining the boundaries of timber sales, rights-of-way, leasing lands to local communities under the Recreation and 

Public Purposes Act, identifying boundaries of lands to be exchanged and other services. 

Online 

at: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTIO

N_/lands_and_realty.Par.31679.File.dat/Mgmt%20of%20Land%20Boundaries.pdf
Appendix J SD ARMP

September 2015 J-10 Summary of BMPs, Mitigation, BMPs,

Guidelines, Standards and SOPs

• Mitigation Guidelines, South Dakota Field Office

Source: BLM, SDFO

Reference: SD RMP and EIS. See Appendix K for full details.

Online at: http://blm.gov/m1kd. Refer to Appendix K

Developed/Updated: 

Activities Affected: Surface disturbing activities

Description: South Dakota Field Office (SDFO) Mitigation Guidelines are a compilation of practices

employed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to mitigate impacts from surface disturbance. They apply

to activities such as road or pipeline construction, range improvements, and permitted recreation activities.

These guidelines are designed primarily to address soil and water concerns but they also address air, vegetation,

wildlife habitat, and cultural or historic properties.

The guidelines are presented as an appendix of the Resource Management Plan (RMP) for easy reference, as

they apply to many resources and derive from many laws. This list included in the appendix is not

comprehensive and is intended to be used as a guide for appropriate project planning, design, and

implementation within the SDFO. Because mitigation measures change or are modified, based on new

information, the guidelines are updated periodically for SDFO.

Specific conservation actions and mitigation measures for sage-grouse management can be found in the

mitigation section of the Chapter 2 summary and in Appendix F.

The purpose of the SDFO Mitigation Guidelines is (1) to reserve, for BLM, the right to modify the operations

of all surface and other human presence disturbance activities as part of the statutory requirements for

environmental protection, and (2) to inform a potential lessee, permittee, or operator of the requirements that

must be met when using BLM-administered public lands.

Application of the mitigation guidelines to all surface and other human presence disturbance activities

concerning BLM- administered public lands and resources will also provide more uniformity in mitigation than

has occurred in the past. These guidelines are primarily intended for the purpose of consistency in the ways

requirements are determined for avoiding and mitigating environmental impacts and resource and land use

conflicts. Consistency in this sense does not mean that identical requirements would be applied for all similar

types of land use activities that may cause similar types of impacts. It also does not mean that the requirements

or guidelines for a single land use activity would be identical in all areas. Individual measures may not be

appropriate for every situation and would be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

Those resource activities or programs currently without a standardized set of permit or operation stipulations

can use the mitigation guidelines as stipulations or as conditions of approval, or as a baseline for developing

specific stipulations for a given activity or program.

Mitigation employs measures that have been developed to reduce environmental impacts associated with

certain types of activities. Best Management Practices (BMPs) are mitigation measures designed to reduce

undesirable impacts to the environment. Incorporation of mitigation can typically result in a more efficient

environmental review process, increased operating efficiency, reduced reclamation, and less environmental

impacts (The Gold Book 2007).

Objectives: 

- Use avoidance or relocation as the preferred strategy for reducing potential adverse effects.

- Employ as much mitigation as possible during planning.

- Minimize surface disturbance effects of operations and maintain the reclamation potential of the site 

through design, construction, and other practices/techniques.

- Reduce impacts to soil and water resources. Eliminate sources of ground water and surface water 

contamination.

- Manage Invasive Species

- Reduce impacts to air resources

- Develop and implement a mitigation monitoring and reporting strategy
SD ARMP Appendix J

Summary of BMPs, Mitigation, BMPs, J-11 September 2015

Guidelines, Standards and SOPs

Guidelines for installation of culverts and waterbody crossings are included to address erosion, scour, seepage, 

impedance of flow, fish passage and blockage of drainages. 

• Monitoring Guidelines for Soils

Source: BLM

Reference: RMP and EIS, Appendix O

Online at: http://blm.gov/m1kd. Refer to Appendix O

Developed/Updated: 2009

Activities Affected: Surface disturbing activities, reclamation, soils and vegetation.

Description: Provides monitoring direction and monitoring criteria for soils. Considers erosion,

streambanks, floodplains, riparian areas, soil salinization, sodification, compaction, rutting, productivity, fill

material and subsidence. Lists techniques, unit of measures, frequency and duration of monitoring, remedial

action triggers, and management option.

• National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Agriculture

Source: EPA

Reference: EPA 841-B-03-004 

Online at: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/agriculture/agmm_index.cfm

Developed/Updated: 2003

Activities Affected: Wide variety of activities including livestock grazing

Description: A technical guidance and reference document for use by State, local, and tribal managers in the 

implementation of nonpoint source pollution management programs. It contains information on the best 

available, economically achievable means of reducing pollution of surface and ground water from agriculture. 

Note that Chapter 4e specifically relates to grazing management.

• National Range and Pasture Handbook

Source: NRCS 

Reference: 190vi-NRPH

Online at: http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/viewerFS.aspx?hid=18937

Developed/Updated: 2003

Activities Affected: Livestock grazing, soil, vegetation and water quality. 

Description: The National Range and Pasture Handbook provide procedures in support of NRCS policy for 

the inventory, analysis, treatment, and management of grazing land resources. Revision 1 of the handbook 

contains revisions to incorporate current concepts and format for developing rangeland ecological site 

descriptions and forage suitability group descriptions. Information was added regarding the effects of 

vegetation, grazing, and management on rangeland and pastureland hydrology and erosion.

• Reclamation Guidelines, South Dakota

Source: BLM, SDFO

Reference: SD RMP and EIS. Refer to Appendix L.

Online at: http://blm.gov/m1kd. Refer to Appendix L for full details.

Developed/Updated:

Activities Affected: Surface disturbing activities, reclamation, minerals

Description: Reclamation would be required for surface disturbing activities (BLM surface only) that disturb

vegetation and/or mineral/soil resources. The reclamation of a site aims to set the perpetual course for the

planned future condition of a site, including eventual ecosystem restoration by natural processes. Prior to a

surface disturbing activity the site would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, including an on-site assessment

if necessary, and mitigation measures would be enacted where appropriate. Reclamation plans would be sitespecific, project-specific, and incorporate the project’s complexity, environmental concerns, and reclamation

potential. This appendix gives guidance for appropriate reclamation planning prior to authorization and

following surface disturbance.

These reclamation guidelines apply to all surface disturbing activities, including BLM initiated activities, and

must be addressed in each reclamation plan. These guidelines must be met prior to release of the bond and/or

reclamation liability. Where these reclamation guidelines differ from more stringent, applicable, laws, rules,

and regulations, those standards replace this policy.
Appendix J SD ARMP

September 2015 J-12 Summary of BMPs, Mitigation, BMPs,

Guidelines, Standards and SOPs

Objectives include: 

- Manage all waste materials

- Ensure subsurface integrity and eliminate sources of ground and surface water contamination

- Re-establish slope stability, surface stability, and desired topographic diversity.

- Reconstruct and stabilize water courses and drainage features.

- Maintain the biological, chemical, and physical integrity of the soil resource.

- Prepare site for revegetation.

- Establish a desired, self-perpetuating, native plant community.

- Re-establish complementary visual composition.

- Manage Invasive Species

- Develop and implement a reclamation monitoring and reporting strategy.

• Renewable Energy Facilities on BLM-Administered Lands: Best Management Practices for Reducing 

Visual Impact

Source: BLM

Reference: BLM/WY/PL-13/013+1340

Online at: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/renewable_energy.html

Developed/Updated: 2013

Activities Affected: Renewable energy, including wind, solar, and geothermal

Description: This BMP presents information about the visual characteristics of renewable energy facilities and 

BMPs for avoiding or reducing visual impacts from the facilities. It presents the visual characteristics and BMPs 

for wind energy facilities, solar energy facilities, and geothermal facilities. It also provides BMPs for “common 

elements,” which include ancillary facilities common to utility-scale energy facilities as well as the design, 

construction, operation, and decommissioning activities common to large-scale energy development projects. The 

common element BMPs presented ancillary facilities include BMPs for electric transmission systems, roads and 

other surfaces, structures, and signs. The common element BMPs for design, construction, operation, and 

decommissioning activities include the following:

- Visual impact analysis and mitigation planning;

- Facility siting and design;

- Structure design and materials selection;

- Materials surface treatments;

- Lighting design and operation;

- Avoiding unnecessary disturbance;

- Soil management and erosion control;

- Vegetation management;

- Interim and long-term reclamation; and

- “Good housekeeping” practices.

• Riparian Area Management: Grazing Management Processes and Strategies for Riparian-Wetland Areas

Source: BLM

Reference: Technical Reference 1737-20

Online at: http://www.blm.gov/or/programs/nrst/files/Final%20TR%201737-20.pdf

Developed/Updated: 2006

Activities Affected: Livestock grazing, wildlife, riparian, vegetation and soils. 

Description: This technical reference provides the most current information to further assist livestock operators 

and land managers in developing successful riparian-wetland grazing management strategies across a wide 

array of land types. It is also the core document for the Grazing Management for Riparian-Wetlands training 

course. This technical reference does not set forth a specific formula for identifying the type of grazing strategy 

best suited for an area. Rather, it provides information to help design appropriate grazing strategies so that soil 

and vegetation aspects, water issues, and wildlife and livestock needs are addressed in a collaborative manner.
SD ARMP Appendix J

Summary of BMPs, Mitigation, BMPs, J-13 September 2015

Guidelines, Standards and SOPs

• Selected Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines

Source: Avian Power Line Interaction Committee

Online at: http://www.aplic.org

Developed/Updated: 2012

Activities Affected: Power line ROWs and wildlife.

Description: Provides practices and guidelines to limit power line hazards to birds. Provides engineers,

biologists, utility planners and the public with a comprehensive resource for eliminating or reducing avian

electrocutions and collisions, and highlights management options and cooperative partnerships.

• Siting Guidelines for Wind Power Projects in South Dakota

Source: The South Dakota Bat Working Group in cooperation with the South Dakota Department of Game,

Fish and Parks.

Online at: http://gfp.sd.gov/wildlife/docs/wind-power-siting-guidelines.pdf

Developed/Updated: 

Activities Affected: Renewable energy and wildlife.

Description: Siting guidelines for wind power developers and other stakeholders to utilize as they

consider potential wind power sites in South Dakota. These guidelines address issues/concerns associated

with the preconstruction, construction or post-construction of wind turbines and have been divided into

eleven general categories:

- Natural and Biological Resources

- Noise

- Visual Resources

- Public Interaction

- Soil Erosion and/or Water Quality

- Health and Safety

- Cultural, Archaeological, and Paleontological Resources

- Socioeconomic, Public Services, and Infrastructure

- Solid and Hazardous Wastes

- Air Quality and Climate

• Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development

Source: BLM

Reference: BLM/WO/ST-06/021+3071

Online at: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/best_management_practices/gold_book.html

Developed/Updated: 2007

Activities Affected: Oil and Gas and resources impacted by oil and gas development. 

Description: BMPs for oil and gas demonstrate practical ideas which may eliminate or minimize adverse 

impacts from oil and gas development to public health and the environment, landowners, and natural 

resources; enhance the value of natural and landowner resources; and reduce conflict.

• Standards for Boundary Evidence - Cadastral Survey

Source: BLM

Description: Details the Bureau's plan to ensure Cadastral Survey review of boundary evidence prior to the 

approval of significant land and resource transactions and commercial 

projects. http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/cadastralsurvey/cadastral_review_of.html

• Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Montana and the 

Dakotas.

Source: BLM

Description: Provides standards for rangeland health for uplands, riparian areas, water quality, air quality, and 

habitat. Includes guidelines for proper management of livestock on public lands. 

http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/prog/grazing.html
Appendix J SD ARMP

September 2015 J-14 Summary of BMPs, Mitigation, BMPs,

Guidelines, Standards and SOPs

• Upland Soil Erosion Monitoring and Assessment: An Overview

Source: BLM

Reference: Technical Note 438

Online at: http://www.blm.gov/nstc/library/pdf/TN438.pdf

Developed/Updated: 2011

Activities Affected: Livestock grazing, soils, vegetation and reclamation

Description: This technical note is intended to aid resource specialists in evaluating techniques for monitoring 

and assessing upland soil surface erosion, other than gully erosion. A brief discussion of erosion processes is 

incorporated in this document. Highlighted monitoring techniques include visual indicators of erosion, 

watershed cover, remote sensing cover, silt fence catchments, erosion bridge, erosion plots, close-range 

photogrammetry, and cesium-137. An overview, brief discussion on procedure, advantages and disadvantages, 

and data analysis considerations are summarized for each monitoring technique.

• Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States

Source: BLM

Reference: ROD 11-29-2007

Online at: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/veg_eis.html

Developed/Updated: 2007

Activities Affected: Weeds, reclamation

Description: This document outlines the specific decisions, standard operating procedures, and mitigation

measures based on the Final Programmatic EIS concerning the use of herbicides in the Bureau of Land

Management integrated pest management program.

• Wind Energy Development Programmatic EIS

Source: BLM

Reference: FEIS Chapter 2 (Section 2.2.3.2) 

Online at: http://windeis.anl.gov

Developed/Updated: 2010

Activities Affected: Renewable energy and resources impacts by development of wind energy. 

Description: As part of the proposed action, BLM developed BMPs for each major step of the wind energy 

development process, including site monitoring and testing, plan of development preparation, construction,

operation, and decommissioning. General BMPs are available for each step, and certain steps also include 

specific BMPs to address the following resource issues: wildlife and other ecological resources, visual 

resources, roads, transportation, noise, noxious weeds and pesticides, cultural/historic resources, paleontological 

resources, hazardous materials and waste management, storm water, human health and safety, monitoring 

program, air emissions and excavation and blasting activities.

Note: Although the Wind Energy Development Programmatic EIS addressed only the 11 western states and

did not include South Dakota, the BMPs, Guidelines and Standard Operating Procedures described in this

EIS may be utilized as projects are proposed and implemented.
APPENDIX K

SOUTH DAKOTA FIELD OFFICE SOIL, WATER AND RECLAMATION MITIGATION GUIDELINES

SD ARMP Appendix K

Mitigation Guidelines K-1 September 2015

Appendix K

South Dakota Field Office Soil, Water and Reclamation 

Mitigation Guidelines

Introduction

South Dakota Field Office (SDFO) Mitigation Guidelines are a compilation of practices employed by the Bureau of Land

Management (BLM) to mitigate impacts from surface disturbance. They apply to activities such as road or pipeline

construction, range improvements, permitted recreation activities and other activities that result in surface disturbance.

The guidelines are designed to protect resources such as soil, water, air, vegetation, wildlife habitat, and cultural or

historic properties. The guidelines are not land use decisions; rather they are examples of mitigation measures that could

be applied, as appropriate, based on site-specific National Environmental Policy Act (of 1969) (NEPA) analysis for

individual proposals. Refer also to Reclamation Guidelines in Appendix L. 

The guidelines are presented as an appendix of the Resource Management Plan (RMP) for easy reference, as they apply

to many resources and derive from many laws. This list included in the appendix is not comprehensive and is intended to

be used as a guide for appropriate project planning, design, and implementation within the SDFO. Because mitigation

measures change or are modified, based on new information, the guidelines are updated periodically for SDFO.

Specific conservation actions and mitigation measures for sage grouse management can be found in the mitigation section

of the Chapter 2 summary and in Appendix F. In addition to the practices described in this Appendix, Appendix J

provides Best Management Practices, Guidelines and Standard Operating Procedures to avoid or reduce the impacts of

various actions or activities.

Purpose

The purpose of the SDFO Mitigation Guidelines is (1) to reserve, for BLM, the right to modify the operations of all

surface and other human presence disturbance activities as part of the statutory requirements for environmental

protection, and (2) to inform a potential lessee, permittee, or operator of the requirements that must be met when using

BLM-administered public lands.

Application of the mitigation guidelines to all surface and other human presence disturbance activities concerning BLMadministered public lands and resources will also provide more uniformity in mitigation than has occurred in the past.

These guidelines are primarily intended for the purpose of consistency in the ways requirements are determined for

avoiding and mitigating environmental impacts and resource and land use conflicts. Consistency in this sense does not

mean that identical requirements would be applied for all similar types of land use activities that may cause similar types

of impacts. It also does not mean that the requirements or guidelines for a single land use activity would be identical in

all areas. Individual measures may not be appropriate for every situation and would be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

Those resource activities or programs currently without a standardized set of permit or operation stipulations can use the

mitigation guidelines as stipulations or as conditions of approval, or as a baseline for developing specific stipulations for

a given activity or program.

Mitigation Goals

Mitigation employs measures that have been developed to reduce environmental impacts associated with certain types of

activities. Best Management Practices (BMPs) are mitigation measures designed to reduce undesirable impacts to the

environment. Incorporation of mitigation can typically result in a more efficient environmental review process, increased

operating efficiency, reduced reclamation, and less environmental impacts (The Gold Book 2007).
Appendix K SD ARMP

September 2015 K-2 Mitigation Guidelines

Mitigation Objectives

1. Use avoidance or relocation as the preferred strategy for reducing potential adverse effects.

2. Employ as much mitigation as possible during planning.

3. Minimize surface disturbance effects of operations and maintain the reclamation potential of the site through

design, construction, and other practices/techniques.

a. The total disturbance area would be kept to a minimum and located in an area that would reduce environmental

impacts as much as possible. Surface disturbance would be co-located where feasible; locate sites using

existing roads and previously disturbed sites unless it would cause or aggravate an erosion problem. Locate all

linear facilities in the same trenches (or immediately parallel to), and at the same time.

b. Use two-track (primitive) roads whenever possible.

c. Access roads would be no wider than 18 feet and located in an area suitable for year-round use. The Surface

Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development: The Gold Book has further

guidance for the design of roads, utilities, and oil and gas operations Best Management Practices.

d. Interim and final reclamation would occur as soon as possible following disturbance. Interim reclamation

would be completed to within a few feet of facilities.

e. Whenever practical, bury utilities. Use ditch witches or wheel trenchers (versus back hoes) wherever practical

for installation of buried lines to minimize disturbance area.

f. Vegetation would be removed only when necessary. Mowing vegetation is preferred.

g. The use of alternative techniques, for example, directional drilling, drilling multiple wells from the same pad,

co-mingling, recompletion, using existing well pads, is encouraged to minimize surface impacts from oil and

gas development.

h. Mechanized equipment use causing rutting to a depth greater than 4 inches would not be allowed.

4. Reduce impacts to soil and water resources. Eliminate sources of ground water and surface water

contamination.

a. Operations would avoid sensitive resources including riparian areas, floodplains, waterbodies, and areas subject

to erosion and soil degradation. Vehicle movement in sensitive areas would be confined to the smallest

reasonable area. Off-road vehicle travel may be restricted.

b. Reduce erosion, soil loss, and impacts to water quality by diverting storm water and trapping sediment during

activity with erosion/sedimentation control measures.

c. There would be no adverse impacts from well water discharge to soils; discharge water may need to be

impounded, re-injected, or applied as beneficial use (if it contains less than 10,000 ppm TDS).

d. Produced water, reserve pits, and mud pits would be lined with an impermeable liner if site material is porous

and not placed in fill material or in natural watercourses; pits may not be cut or trenched. Plastic liners must

have a minimum 140 lb/in2 burst strength, 30 lb tear strength, and be installed over material that won’t tear or

puncture the liner. Pits would be at least 50 % below ground level and designed to contain all material with a

minimum of 2 feet freeboard.

e. Use pitless or closed-loop drilling technology. Dispose of drilling fluids, mud, and cuttings in approved

disposal areas.

f. The pipeline must be tested for leaks prior to backfilling the trench. Pre-clean pipelines prior to hydrostatic

testing.

g. Avoid well pad designs with cut or fill material in excess of 10 vertical feet.

h. Diesel fuel would not be used in fracking fluids that have the potential for drinking water contamination.

i. Activity may be restricted during wet or frozen conditions.

j. Surface casing would be installed through the Fox Hills Formation to protect domestic ground water sources

fromcontamination.

k. No adverse changes in quality of receiving surface or ground waters would occur. Control sources of

contamination to protect surface and ground water quality. See the Monitoring Appendix for specific

guidelines (O and K).

l. Properly design (grade, sloped, drainage structures, placement, etc.), grade (only when necessary to correct

erosion, rutting, comfort, and/or safety), and maintain roads and trails. Design roads to use sites with stable

geology, well-drained soils, and natural benches; avoid erodible and low bearing strength soils. Roads would

follow the contours of the terrain; avoid long, steep road grades. Road ditches would have flat bottoms and

water turn-outs to prevent ditch erosion.
SD ARMP Appendix K

Mitigation Guidelines K-3 September 2015

5. Manage Invasive Species

a. The project area would be inventoried for invasive plants on/or adjacent to the site before initial activities.

b. Develop an invasive species management plan or address invasive species in project level (implementation)

environmentalreview.

c. Control invasive species utilizing an integrated pest management approach.

d. Do not allow invasive species to be transported offsite without appropriate disposal measures.

e. Revegetate disturbed areas through seeding as needed to control erosion and reduce spread of weeds.

f. Insure that soil stabilization material such as straw comes from weed free sources.

6. Reduce impacts to air resources

a. Use alternative energy sources (e.g., solar and [or] wind power) on new water resource developments and

convert power sources for existing water-well developments currently using generators on all BLMadministered lands where economically and physically feasible.

b. Consider road surfacing to minimize erosion and impacts to air quality (e.g. pit-run gravel over scoria).

7. Develop and implement a mitigation monitoring and reporting strategy

a. Conduct compliance and effectiveness monitoring in accordance with a BLM approved monitoring protocol.

An on-site inspection by the BLM is required within one year of the disturbance. See Soil Monitoring

Appendix O for specific guidelines.

b. Evaluate monitoring data for compliance with the mitigation appendix.

c. Document and report monitoring data. Recommend revised mitigation strategies where appropriate.

d. Implement revised mitigation strategies where appropriate.

e. Continue the process of monitoring, evaluating, documenting/reporting, and implementing, until mitigation

goals are achieved.

Guidelines for Specific Activities

1. Waterbody Crossing Guidelines

a. Stream crossings would be designed to minimize current and future impacts, including impedance of flow, and

would not block, dam, or change any natural drainage.

b. Multiple crossings would be avoided where possible.

c. Site reclamation measures will be initiated as soon as a particular area is no longer needed for construction.

d. Erodible material would not be placed in stream channel. Soil stockpiles would be located above the high water

mark.

e. Crossings would be designed at a right angle to the main channel.

f. Design for adequate aquatic species passage.

g. Timing of construction and adjustment of flow conditions may be required to accommodate aquatic species.

h. Linear Facilities:

i. Perennial streams would be crossed using bore crossing (directional drill) or other methods as technology

allows which would reduce erosion, sedimentation, and impacts to streambanks and riparian areas.

ii. Any water body with flowing water at the time of construction (including intermittent and ephemeral

streams) would require an isolated crossing method such as bore crossing (directional drill) or open-cut dry

crossing methods (e.g. dam-and-pump or flume methods) to reduce erosion and sedimentation. Diversion

of stream flow would be required prior to and during trenching, backfilling, and compaction for open-cut

crossing construction using an impermeable diversion and techniques to avoid erosion and sedimentation.

iii. Open-cut non-isolated (wet) crossings would not be allowed if the intermittent or ephemeral stream has any

surface flow at any time during construction activities which includes trenching, backfilling, compaction,

and re-stabilization.
Appendix K SD ARMP

September 2015 K-4 Mitigation Guidelines

2. Culverts (refer to The Gold Book for installation details)

a. Install culverts to prevent erosion, scour, seepage, and failure.

b. Install culverts to conform to the natural streambed and slope. Install culverts slightly below normal stream

grade.

c. Use drop structures, rock armor, downspouts, and energy dissipaters to reduce erosion, as long as this does not

impede aquatic wildlife passage.

d. Install culverts to ensure fish and aquatic wildlife passage in all fish-bearing streams. Culverts would follow

any additional guidelines and requirements provided by the Field Office Biologist and/or BLM and in

coordination and cooperation with the. Flat bottom or bottomless culverts are preferred for fish passage as they

reduce velocity and can be bedded with the natural substrate so that it functions like a streambed.

e. Culverts would extend at least 1-foot beyond the toe of slope.

f. Perform work at low flow and divert flow to minimize erosion and turbidity.

g. Maintain culverts and fill; protect inflow from plugging.
APPENDIX L

SOUTH DAKOTA FIELD OFFICE RECLAMATION GUIDELINES AND 

ABANDONED MINE ACTIONS

SD ARMP Appendix L

Reclamation Guidelines and Abandoned Mine Actions L-1 September 2015

Appendix L

South Dakota Field Office Reclamation Guidelines and 

Abandoned Mine Actions

Introduction

Reclamation would be required for surface disturbing activities (BLM surface only) that disturb vegetation

and/or mineral/soil resources. The reclamation of a site aims to set the perpetual course for the planned future

condition of a site, including eventual ecosystem restoration by natural processes. Prior to a surface

disturbing activity the site would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, including an on-site assessment if

necessary, and mitigation measures would be enacted where appropriate. Reclamation plans would be sitespecific, project-specific, and incorporate the project’s complexity, environmental concerns, and reclamation

potential. This appendix gives guidance for appropriate reclamation planning prior to authorization and

following surface disturbance. Refer also to the Soil and Water Mitigation Guidelines in Appendix K.

The reclamation plan would serve as a binding agreement between the BLM and project proponent(s); it

would be included in the proposed action of the NEPA document. Plans would incorporate program or

regulatory specific requirements for reclamation. Preparation and review of plans would be based on

available information and techniques. Goals and objectives within the reclamation plan would be consistent

with the land use plan and be reasonable, ecologically achievable, and measurable. The plan is considered

complete when all the requirements described below have been addressed, the techniques to meet the

requirements are described in detail, and the BLM approves the plan. This agreement must be periodically

reviewed (including monitoring and reporting) and adapted as needed as conditions change or new

information or technology becomes available. Reclamation is considered successful when all the

requirements described below have been addressed on-site and the BLM approves the site following an onsite inspection.

Most landscapes can be reclaimed using established conventional reclamation methods. However, some areas

have unique characteristics that make achieving all the reclamation requirements described in this appendix

unrealistic, for example: sensitive soils, sensitive vegetation types, soils with severe physical or chemical

limitations, steep slopes, etc. These limited reclamation potential areas may require site-specific reclamation

measures not addressed in this appendix. Each project would develop a unique set of reclamation success

requirements for those areas within the framework of this appendix. During the NEPA process, alternatives

to approving development activities in such areas would be carefully analyzed. Alternatives considered

would include: avoidance and/or unconventional site specific reclamation requirements. Resource

development activities approved in these areas may require additional bonding.

Reclamation Goals

The short-term goal of the reclamation plan would include immediate stabilization of the disturbed area and to

create the conditions needed for the long-term goal. Interim reclamation will be done if a site is to be left in a

changed state for more than six months. The long-term goal of the reclamation plan is eventual ecosystem

restoration by natural processes, this includes: a safe and stable landscape, while meeting desired conditions

described in the land use plan.

Reclamation Objectives

The following reclamation guidelines apply to all surface disturbing activities, including BLM initiated

activities, and must be addressed in each reclamation plan. These guidelines must be met prior to release of

the bond and/or reclamation liability. Where these reclamation guidelines differ from more stringent,
Appendix L SD ARMP

September 2015 L-2 Reclamation Guidelines and Abandoned Mine Actions

applicable, laws, rules, and regulations, those standards replace this policy.

1. Manage all waste materials.

a. The site would be cleaned of all equipment, structures, material, and debris.

b. Surface pipelines/utility lines would be removed during final reclamation; deep lines (typically 3 feet

or deeper) would be removed only if required by authorized officer.

c. Segregate, treat, and/or bioremediate contaminated material. Free fluids must be removed. Waste

material must be disposed of at a state approved facility.

d. Bury only authorized (by BLM or state) waste materials on site. Buried material would be covered

with a minimum of 5 feet of suitable material or meet other program standards. Buried material

must meet the following criteria: range of pH 6-9, moisture content <50% by weight, oil and grease

content <3% by weight, EC <12 mmhos/cm, unconfined compressive strength >20 lb/in2

, and the

total metals content must not exceed EPA limits.

2. Ensure subsurface integrity and eliminate sources of ground and surface water contamination.

a. Properly plug all drill holes and other subsurface openings and seal from the bottom to the top of

water-bearing formations.

b. Stabilize, properly back fill, cap, and/or restrict from entry all open shafts, underground

workings, pits, and other openings.

c. No adverse changes in quality of receiving surface or ground waters would occur. Control

sources of contamination to protect surface and ground water quality. See the Monitoring

Appendix for specific guidelines (O and K).

d. Maintain all erosion or sedimentation control devices until vegetation is reestablished, site is

stabilized, or are no longer needed.

Water Bar Guidelines

1) Water bars are required on 25% slopes or greater and will be used as necessary on gentler

slopes. Vary water bar spacing to:

a) Fit site conditions

b) Promptly intercept surface water before the volume of water and velocity increase enough

to generate erosion

c) Facilitate drainage toward natural dips, rocky ground, or vegetation to intercept sediment

2) Suggested spacing between water bars:

Slope (%) Spacing at Least Every (Feet)

<10 100-400

10-19 75-200

20-39 50

>39 25

3) Water bars would:

a) Be 4-6 inches high but can be deeper depending on site conditions.

b) Be at a 20° angle to the slope and channel water to the downhill side.

c) Avoid pushing sediment into streams, draws, or coulees.

d) Be placed to intercept runoff before channelization can occur (specifically the first water

bar at the top of the slope).

4) The Gold Book (Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and

Development, 4th edition, 2007) has further guidance and cross-sectional diagrams, including

standards for water dips that are drivable.

5) Fertilizer and soil additives would not be applied where they could adversely impact water quality.
SD ARMP Appendix L

Reclamation Guidelines and Abandoned Mine Actions L-3 September 2015

3. Re-establish slope stability, surface stability, and desired topographic diversity.

a. Reconstruct the landscape to the approximate original contour and to blend with adjacent contours.

However, if the site has stabilized and recontouring would cause additional disturbance, this step may

not be necessary and could be waived by the authorized officer.

b. Maximize geomorphic stability and topographic diversity of the reclaimed topography.

c. Disturbed areas would be recontoured to provide proper drainage.

d. Eliminate highwalls, cut slopes, and/or topographic depressions on site; unless otherwise approved.

e. Backfill to prevent surface subsidence. No downward movement of surface material would

be evident, maintain to correct settling. See the Monitoring Appendix for specific

guidelines (O and K).

f. There would be no evidence of slope instability on/or adjacent to the site other than minimal sheet or

rill erosion. Minimize accelerated erosion/sedimentation on/or adjacent to the reclaimed area with

appropriate erosion/sedimentation control measures immediately following disturbance. See the

Monitoring Appendix for specific guidelines (O and K).

g. Reclaim all roads and trails unless they meet public demand.

h. The Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Handbook (BLM handbook H1742-1 2007) has further guidance on erosion/sedimentation control Best Management

Practices.

4. Reconstruct and stabilize water courses and drainage features.

a. Reconstruct drainage basins and reclaim impoundments to maintain the drainage pattern, profile, and

dimension to approximate the natural features found in the sites naturally functioning basin or nearby,

similar reference basins if appropriate.

b. Reconstruct and stabilize stream channels, drainages, and impoundments to exhibit similar

hydrologic characteristics found in the sites naturally functioning system or nearby, similar

reference systems if appropriate.

c. Upland erosion from surface disturbing activities must be controlled effectively and not be

allowed to be transported to stream systems.

5. Maintain the biological, chemical, and physical integrity of the soil resource.

a. Identify, delineate, and segregate all salvaged topsoil and subsoil based on a site-specific and

project-specific soil evaluation.

b. Soil would be direct hauled to similar sites in the process of reclamation whenever possible. If

that’s not possible, topsoil would be stockpiled separately from subsoil. Identify stockpiles with

appropriate signage.

c. Protect all stored soil material from erosion, degradation, and contamination. Stockpiles would be no

more than 8-feet deep and of a stable configuration. Stockpiles would be located away from riparian

areas, floodplains, wetlands, and other sensitive areas. Erosion control and seeding would be applied

to the stockpile within 30 days of storage. ROW and road stockpiles for oil and gas pads would be 

stored near the cut/fill site.

d. Incorporate stored soil material into the disturbed landscape.

e. Displaced farmland, in production or not, would be reclaimed to original productivity. See the

Monitoring Appendix for specific guidelines (O and K).

f. Soils which were naturally barren before disturbances would be evaluated for reclamation by

recontouring the surface to blend in with the topography and then compacting the reconstructed

surface to 100% bulk density, rather than using trying to seed and vegetate the site.

6. Prepare site for revegetation.

a. Redistribute soil resources in a manner similar to the original vertical profile.

b. Reduce subsoil compaction to a minimum of 4 inches below the compacted root zone prior to

redistribution of topsoil to accommodate desired plant species.
Appendix L SD ARMP

September 2015 L-4 Reclamation Guidelines and Abandoned Mine Actions

c. Provide suitable surface and subsurface physical, chemical, and biological properties to support the

long-term establishment and viability of the desired plant community as soon as possible following

disturbance.

d. Remedial reclamation techniques would be evaluated and used to reclaim sites which were originally

vegetated, but were badly impacted by poor techniques and practices used in disturbing the soil to

develop a project. In such cases this can result in inadequate topsoil quantity, degraded topsoil, and

increased problems with high erodibility, low water holding capacity, sodicity in soils, and salinity in 

soils. These remedial efforts would be made so that the site again supports ecosystem values, as well 

as the potential for economic use.

e. Soil amendments would be evaluated for use including forms of organic matter, such as wood chips,

manure, sawmill waste, etc. Methods such as hydroseeding, the use of matting, etc., would be

evaluated for use. Chemical amendments would be evaluated for use such as iron sulfide, calcium

chloride, magnesium chloride, calcium sulfate, etc., to physically change soil properties, which

would result in the ability to support adequate vegetation.

7. Establish a desired, self-perpetuating, native plant community.

a. Establish species composition, diversity, structure, and total ground cover appropriate for the

desired plant community as soon as possible following disturbance. Within 5 years of disturbance,

the site would contain a minimum of 80% of the vegetative cover as compared to the reference site

or NRCS Ecological Site Description (http://www.mt.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ecs/range/ecolsites/),

whichever is appropriate. Within 5 years of the disturbance, 90% of the vegetative cover would

consist of desirable species. Multiple treatments may be required before success is achieved.

Monocultures would not be allowed. See the Monitoring Appendix for specific guidelines (O and 

K).

b. Select genetically appropriate and locally adapted native plant materials based on the site

characteristics and ecological setting whenever possible, using NRCS ecological sites and soil

surveys. If local seed is required it must be collected in the wild. Stream banks would be replanted

with riparian vegetation following current ecological restoration practices.

c. Native species are preferred; select non-native plants only as an approved short-term, non-persistent,

alternative to native plant materials (BLM handbook 1740-2 and Executive Order 13112). Ensure the

non-native species will not hybridize, displace, or offer long-term competition to the endemic plants,

and are designed to aid in the re-establishment of native plant communities. Native species are

required for projects with the subactivities 1110 (wildlife management), 1120 (fisheries), or 1150

(threatened and endangered species).

d. Seed sites as soon as possible following re-contouring and seed-bed preparation and when

environmental conditions are appropriate. Approved seed rates would be specified in pounds of pure 

live seed (PLS) per acre and be designed to adequately cover the soil upon germination. Seed must be 

tested to ensure viability and purity (germination or TZ tested by a registered seed analyst within 1 

year of receipt). Seed must be certified weed-free (WO IM No. 2006-073 and BLM handbook H-1742-

1 and BLM handbook H-1740-2). Commercial seed must have documentation (not seed bag tags) 

easily accessible, including sources.

e. Drill or broadcast seed along contours. Drill seed with a 6 inch row spacing, 1⁄2 to 3⁄4 inches deep.

f. The recommended drill seeding rate for large seeded species is 20 PLS/ ft

2

. The recommended drill

seeding rate for small seeded species (most BLM seed mixes) is 30-40 PLS/ ft

2

. Broadcast or aerial

seedings are recommended at the rate of 60-80 PLS/ ft

2 (approx. double the drilled rate); not to

exceed 80 PLS/ ft

2

.

g. Seed additives are allowed (e.g. rhizobium, mycorrhiza, fungicide, pilling).

h. Protect seed and seedling establishment with appropriate measures. Erosion control matting and

mulch must be certified weed/insect-free in accordance with the State’s Department of Agriculture

laws and requirements, the Federal Seed Act, and specification JJJ-181. Fencing to prohibit cattle

and/or wildlife may be necessary.

i. The Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Handbook (BLM handbook H1742-1), the Integrated Vegetation Management handbook (H-1740-2)
SD ARMP Appendix L

Reclamation Guidelines and Abandoned Mine Actions L-5 September 2015

and www.nativeseednetwork.org have further guidance on revegetation Best Management

Practices.

8. Reestablish complementary visual composition.

a. Ensure the reclaimed landscape features blend into the adjacent area and conform to land use plan

decisions (BLM Handbook H-8431).

b. Ensure the reclaimed landscape does not result in a long-term change to the scenic quality of the

area; therefore the Scenic Quality Rating would not change (BLM Handbook H-840).

9. Manage Invasive Species

a. Develop an invasive species management plan if appropriate.

b. Control invasive species utilizing an integrated pest management approach.

c. Do not allow invasive species to be transported offsite without appropriate disposal measures.

10. Develop and implement a reclamation monitoring and reporting strategy.

a. Conduct compliance and effectiveness monitoring in accordance with a BLM approved monitoring

protocol. Observations must include erosion/sedimentation, revegetation, and invasive species. An onsite inspection by the BLM is required within one year of the interim and final reclamation. See the 

Monitoring Appendix for specific guidelines (O and K).

b. Evaluate monitoring data for compliance with the reclamation plan.

c. Document and report monitoring data. Recommend revised reclamation strategies where appropriate.

d. Implement revised reclamation strategies where appropriate.

e. Continue the process of monitoring, evaluating, documenting/reporting, and implementing, until

reclamation goals are achieved.

Abandoned Mine Lands (AML): Management Actions to the Public 

Safety Program

To the extent possible on SDFO public lands, the BLM will:

a. Reclaim AML sites to improve water quality, plant communities, and diverse fish and wildlife 

habitat;

b. Reduce and/or eliminate risks to human health from hazardous mine openings, with consideration 

for preservation as bat habitat; and

c. Protect historic resources and wildlife habitat commonly associated with AML sites.

d. Strive to meet state and federal water quality standards in watersheds impacted by historic 

mining.

e. Assess the level of risks at AML sites and prioritize for reclamation based on standardized risk 

assessment. Reclamation would be implemented at the highest risk sites first.

f. Restore severely impacted soils and watersheds that support productive plant communities as 

closely as possible to pre-disturbed conditions and ensure properly functioning watersheds (where 

deemed appropriate by BLM personnel).

g. Design closures of dangerous inactive and abandoned mine sites to reduce the risks to human 

health and safety, restore the environment, and protect geological and cultural resources and meet 

or move toward meeting Land Health Standards.

h. Monitor restoration and reclamation activities and repositories to determine effectiveness of 

reclamation practices. Repositories would be maintained to assure cap integrity, including 

maintaining vegetation for stability, yet preventing tree growth to forestall root penetration of the 

cap.

i. Conduct operation, maintenance, and evaluation activities to ensure the effectiveness of the 

selected remediation.

j. Strive to meet state and federal air quality standards in the interest of protecting human health 
Appendix L SD ARMP

September 2015 L-6 Reclamation Guidelines and Abandoned Mine Actions

potentially impacted by fugitive dust emissions.

k. Require all resource activities to reclaim and restore AML or hazard reduction sites to the extent 

necessary to protect work performed on the site.
APPENDIX M

SOUTH DAKOTA FIELD OFFICE GRAZING ALLOTMENT ALLOCATIONS

SD ARMP Appendix M

Grazing Allotment Allocations M-1 September 2015

Appendix M

South Dakota Field Office Grazing Allotment Allocations

Livestock would be allocated between approximately 73,400 animal unit months (AUMs) and 77,300 AUMs of forage

each year from BLM land in the planning area. The current livestock allocations for the planning area are shown in the

table below. All of the leases listed are Section 15 grazing leases except for certain leases with Allotments that span

across state boundaries from South Dakota into Montana or Wyoming.

Allotment

Number Allotment Name

Allotment

Category

Public

Acres

Public

AUMs

Livestock

Class County

01221 RIDGE I 101 27 CATTLE HARDING

02206 PINE CREEK I 4374 1177 CATTLE MEADE

02214 WHIMMERWHAMMER I 4846 1470 CATTLE MEADE

02215 PEDRO I 2097 699 CATTLE PENNINGTON

02223 BULL CREEK I 1125 236 CATTLE MEADE

02308 WILLOW CR. LATERIAL I 400 126 CATTLE BUTTE

02401 FLAT TOP I 4440 1246

CATTLE &

SHEEP BUTTE

02402 BEAN BLOSSOM CREEK I 1382 328 SHEEP BUTTE

02403 SEIM RANCH EAST I 2424 668 SHEEP BUTTE

02409 OPOSSIUM HOLLOW I 2935 790

CATTLE &

SHEEP BUTTE

02413 E. CROOKED CREEK I 737 181 SHEEP BUTTE

02419 UPPER ALKALI I 720 178 SHEEP HARDING

02432 SHORT CREEK I 1931 449 CATTLE BUTTE

02438 FOWLER I 940 194 CATTLE BUTTE

02443 JEEP TRAIL I 1669 355 CATTLE BUTTE

02457 BIRD I 120 24 CATTLE PERKINS

02473 SEIM RANCH WEST I 2094 618 CATTLE BUTTE

03221 WHITEWOOD CREEK I 258 60 CATTLE LAWRENCE

07213 TOWN SITE I 665 84 CATTLE FALL RIVER

07235 WATTAWA-EAST I 1181 380 CATTLE BUTTE

07268 BADLANDS I 2779 499 CATTLE

PENNINGTON,

MEADE

01740 SPUR CREEK M 1215 361

CATTLE &

SHEEP BUTTE

01756 CROCKETTMOUNTAINS M 2459 796 CATTLE STANLEY

01759 FOSTER CREEK M 1252 439 CATTLE STANLEY

01794 BUFFALO CREEK M 1200 311 SHEEP HARDING

02205 E. BADLANDS M 1200 206 CATTLE MEADE

02213 HILL TOP M 482 168 CATTLE PENNINGTON

02220 BOURNE DRAW M 1608 546 CATTLE PENNINGTON

02224 DEEP CREEK M 487 179 CATTLE PENNINGTON

02225 DEEP CREEK M 480 172 CATTLE PENNINGTON

02226 WHEAT DRAW M 720 234 CATTLE PENNINGTON

02228 FOURMILE M 2020 505 CATTLE BUTTE

02301 B. FOURCHE RIVER M 1222 379 CATTLE BUTTE,
Appendix M SD ARMP

September 2015 M-2 Grazing Allotment Allocations

Allotment

Number Allotment Name

Allotment

Category

Public

Acres

Public

AUMs

Livestock

Class County

MEADE

02302 TOWER M 4836 1458 CATTLE BUTTE

02304 BUTTE CREEK M 1000 302 CATTLE BUTTE

02309 WILLOW M 680 210 CATTLE BUTTE

02310 FOUR MILE CREEK M 2241 698

CATTLE &

SHEEP BUTTE

02311 WATTAWA-WEST M 880 188 CATTLE BUTTE

02404 FROZEN HORSE M 4603 1105 SHEEP BUTTE

02407 CRAGO M 10392 3216 CATTLE BUTTE

02408 WATSON DRAW M 387 117 CATTLE BUTTE

02410 ROCKY BUTTE M 748 205 CATTLE BUTTE

02411 HOEYE M 1640 516 CATTLE BUTTE

02417 PORCUPINE CR. M 9781 2465

CATTLE &

SHEEP BUTTE

02420 HITZEL M 981 237 CATTLE BUTTE

02421 TWO TOP M 1284 272 CATTLE BUTTE

02424 JONES/MUD BUTTE M 981 306 CATTLE BUTTE

02425 S.F. MOREAU M 1240 351

CATTLE &

SHEEP HARDING

02430 T.T. BUTTE M 4154 1018 CATTLE BUTTE

02433 WATSON DRAW M 2431 505 CATTLE BUTTE

02435 MOREAU M 19710 4768

CATTLE &

SHEEP

BUTTE,

HARDING

02439 2-TOP M 845 143 CATTLE BUTTE

02440 REID M 755 163

CATTLE &

HORSES BUTTE

02444 BATTLE CREEK M 1749 478 CATTLE BUTTE

02446 GREASEWOOD M 1347 370 SHEEP BUTTE

02447 SOUTH INDIAN M 720 163

CATTLE &

SHEEP BUTTE

02448 NORTH BUTTE M 7978 1969

CATTLE,

SHEEP &

HORSES BUTTE

02450 PERSCHE M 723 225 CATTLE BUTTE

02460 ANTELOPECREEK M 5534 1541 CATTLE BUTTE

02470 CUT BLADE M 1960 404 CATTLE BUTTE

02491 ALKALI M 996 252 SHEEP HARDING

02495 TRUSSMAN M 320 100 CATTLE MEADE

02496 LOWER ELM CREEK M 1360 402 CATTLE BUTTE

02501 FT MEADE M 2790 562 CATTLE MEADE

02502 BEAR BUTTE M 2990 1261 CATTLE MEADE

02703 HUDDLESTON CREEK M 501 131 CATTLE MEADE

02723 ELM CREEK M 2702 851 CATTLE MEADE

02763 ORTON FLAT M 719 90 CATTLE STANLEY

02771 PLEASANT VALLEY M 1977 229 CATTLE HARDING

02780 JUMP OFF M 1951 462

CATTLE &

SHEEP HARDING
SD ARMP Appendix M

Grazing Allotment Allocations M-3 September 2015

Allotment

Number Allotment Name

Allotment

Category

Public

Acres

Public

AUMs

Livestock

Class County

03222 HILDERBRAND M 1760 407 CATTLE BUTTE

07222 IRON POST BUTTES M 800 266 CATTLE STANLEY

07252 T.Y. M 520 82 CATTLE FALL RIVER

07253 S. WILLOW CREEK M 960 190

CATTLE &

BISON BUTTE

07332 RAMEY M 1442 329 CATTLE BUTTE

10234 INDIAN CREEK M 136 60 CATTLE BUTTE

00816 L/E FOX C 160 44

CATTLE &

SHEEP HARDING

00825 FOX RANCH C 160 48 CATTLE HARDING

00924 FERGUSON C 1440 384 CATTLE HAAKON

00929 BUCK C 40 14 CATTLE BUTTE

00931 HAYSTACK BUTTE C 996 302 CATTLE BUTTE

00932 CLOUD C 160 43 CATTLE HARDING

00949 BERDAN C 200 70 CATTLE PENNINGTON

00954 PAINTED HORSE C 200 59 CATTLE STANLEY

00971 COOK C 600 171 CATTLE BUTTE

00996 LINER C 240 81 CATTLE PENNINGTON

00997 GOVERNMENT DRAW C 80 26 CATTLE STANLEY

01701 HERD CAMP C 280 87 CATTLE STANLEY

01702 BEAVER DAM C 1413 230

CATTLE &

SHEEP HARDING

01703 OWL BUTTE C 608 203 CATTLE BUTTE

01704 WOLF SPRING CREEK C 916 230 CATTLE PERKINS

01705 LODGEPOLE C 40 14 CATTLE HARDING

01706 MAGPIE C 160 44 CATTLE BUTTE

01707 CAMPBELLCREEK C 76 19 CATTLE HARDING

01708 MOREAU RIVER RANCH C 40 12 CATTLE BUTTE

01709 DOUBLE R C 443 157 CATTLE BUTTE

01710 HAY CREEK C 80 22

CATTLE &

SHEEP BUTTE

01711 MCKENZIEBUTTE C 240 72

CATTLE &

SHEEP HARDING

01712 COTTONWOOD C 80 22 CATTLE HARDING

01713 BRUSH CREEK WEST C 240 56

CATTLE &

SHEEP HARDING

01714 DEER RUN C 480 160 CATTLE

01715 BLUE SKY C 160 44 CATTLE BUTTE

01716 L. MISSOURI RIVER C 200 50 CATTLE HARDING

01717 JOHNNY CREEK C 40 12 CATTLE MEADE

01718 MAVERICK JUNCTION C 80 10 CATTLE FALL RIVER

01719 BRIDGERCREEK C 80 27 CATTLE HARDING

01720 SE OWL CREEK C 196 74 CATTLE BUTTE

01721 SADDLE BUTTE C 120 41 CATTLE HARDING

01722 HAWK CREEK C 440 152 SHEEP HARDING

01723 CLARKS FORK C 148 34 CATTLE HARDING

01725 JONES CREEK C 560 178 CATTLE HARDING
Appendix M SD ARMP

September 2015 M-4 Grazing Allotment Allocations

Allotment

Number Allotment Name

Allotment

Category

Public

Acres

Public

AUMs

Livestock

Class County

01726 TABLE TOP C 23 8 CATTLE BUTTE

01727 SF JUMPOFF C 40 12 CATTLE HARDING

01728 LITTLE MISSOURI C 222 47 CATTLE HARDING

01729 FOOTHILLS C 232 73 CATTLE CUSTER

01730 HATCHET RANCH C 40 11

CATTLE &

HORSES CUSTER

01731 LARIAT C 787 247 BISON STANLEY

01732 TWIN FLOWER C 279 83 CATTLE PERKINS

01733 BUNCHGRASS C 40 14 CATTLE MEADE

01734 ARNETT CREEK C 335 83 CATTLE HARDING

01735 BOYDSON DRAW C 640 230 CATTLE MEADE

01736 HERFORD C 600 191 CATTLE MEADE

01737 FAIRPOINT C 40 12 CATTLE MEADE

01738 NORTH CANAL C 40 13 SHEEP BUTTE

01739 SOUTH TABLE TOP C 329 115 CATTLE BUTTE

01741 BLUEBIRD C 280 73

CATTLE &

SHEEP PERKINS

01742 DOGIE CREEK C 518 126 BISON HARDING

01743 PETES CREEK C 80 25 CATTLE HARDING

01744 ARROWHEAD BUTTE C 160 39 CATTLE PERKINS

01745 WOLF SPRINGS CREEK C 80 16 CATTLE PERKINS

01746 LAUZON C 234 42 CATTLE CUSTER

01747 COTTONWOOD C 160 25 CATTLE FALL RIVER

01748 ELM SPRINGS C 120 29 CATTLE MEADE

01749 LITTLE CANYON C 133 42 CATTLE PENNINGTON

01750 STANDING BUTTE C 320 85 CATTLE STANLEY

01751 HAWK CREEK C 160 12

CATTLE &

SHEEP HARDING

01752 TRIPLE TWO C 120 33

CATTLE &

SHEEP MEADE

01753 WHITEWOOD C 40 7 CATTLE LAWRENCE

01754 SKULL CREEK C 80 27 CATTLE HARDING

01755 SHEEP MOUNTAIN C 440 143

CATTLE &

SHEEP HARDING

01757 WHEAT FARM C 120 35 CATTLE BUTTE

01758 HAYSACK BUTTES C 360 112 CATTLE BUTTE

01760 OAHE C 240 82 CATTLE STANLEY

01761 ELM TREE DRAW C 40 13 CATTLE HAAKON

01762 FOUR CORNERS C 40 14 CATTLE MEADE

01763 HOOVER C 720 188

CATTLE &

SHEEP

HARDING,

BUTTE

01764 CHIMNEY BUTTE C 360 95 CATTLE HARDING

01765 CROOKED CREEK C 80 24 SHEEP HARDING

01766 NORTH MACY C 401 95

CATTLE &

SHEEP BUTTE

01767 STATION ELM C 654 189 CATTLE BUTTE

01768 BIG NASTY CREEK C 40 13 CATTLE HARDING
SD ARMP Appendix M

Grazing Allotment Allocations M-5 September 2015

Allotment

Number Allotment Name

Allotment

Category

Public

Acres

Public

AUMs

Livestock

Class County

01769 MUD ELM C 185 58 CATTLE BUTTE

01770 HARDING CREEK C 40 14 CATTLE HAAKON

01771 C. RIVER C 52 17 CATTLE PENNINGTON

01772 HUGHES C 120 38 CATTLE MEADE

01773 DODGE DRAW C 120 38

CATTLE &

SHEEP HARDING

01774 WILLOW CREEK C 194 53 CATTLE STANLEY

01775 DRY FOUR MILE C 40 3 CATTLE MEADE

01776 BURDOCK C 280 48 CATTLE FALL RIVER

01777 BIG CANYON C 280 70 CATTLE PENNINGTON

01779 ALKALI ROAD C 320 114 CATTLE MEADE

01780 SOUTH HWY C 280 81 CATTLE HARDING

01781 LANCE CREEK C 80 26 CATTLE STANLEY

01782 THREE TREE DRAW C 80 20 CATTLE PENNINGTON

01783 BENTON STRIP C 80 6 CATTLE BUTTE

01784 WEST BRANCH C 40 12 CATTLE MEADE

01785 FAULKNER C 40 12 CATTLE HARDING

01786 WILLOW CREEK C 160 48 CATTLE BUTTE

01787 RED OWL CREEK C 104 34 CATTLE MEADE

01788 OWL CREEK C 240 38 CATTLE BUTTE

01789 EDGEMONT C 120 19 CATTLE FALL RIVER

01790 FOSSIL CYCAD C 320 97 CATTLE FALL RIVER

01791 SECTION 24 C 120 14 CATTLE CUSTER

01792 CLARKS FORK C 400 115 CATTLE HARDING

01795 RIDGE C 80 22 CATTLE BUTTE

01796 DEADHORSECANYON C 280 81 CATTLE FALL RIVER

01797 DANBURY C 80 20 CATTLE PENNINGTON

01798 CEDAR CANYON C 520 124 CATTLE PERKINS

01799 PONY C 494 166 CATTLE MEADE

01800 BOG CREEK C 40 10 CATTLE HARDING

02200 AGENCY CREEK C 280 112 CATTLE STANLEY

02201 HALFMOON C 918 247 CATTLE PENNINGTON

02203 HILL C 640 215 SHEEP BUTTE

02204 POVERTY POINT C 137 43 CATTLE MEADE

02207 SAGE C 720 203 CATTLE MEADE

02208 HAMMANN LAKE C 40 13 CATTLE PENNINGTON

02209 BOURNE DRAW C 520 171 CATTLE PENNINGTON

02211 GUNSMOKE C 680 222 CATTLE PENNINGTON

02212 MUD BUTTE C 120 32 CATTLE MEADE

02216 MIXES FOOD CREEK C 1040 377 CATTLE PENNINGTON

02217 EAST KILLDEER C 560 173 CATTLE MEADE

02218 POISON WEED C 3557 1148 CATTLE PENNINGTON

02219 RIVER FLAT C 280 73 CATTLE MEADE

02221 WEST TEPEE CREEK C 80 49 CATTLE MEADE

02227 BATTLE MTN C 80 16 CATTLE FALL RIVER

02303 COOK C 520 179 SHEEP BUTTE
Appendix M SD ARMP

September 2015 M-6 Grazing Allotment Allocations

Allotment

Number Allotment Name

Allotment

Category

Public

Acres

Public

AUMs

Livestock

Class County

02305 JUG CREEK C 200 70

CATTLE &

SHEEP BUTTE

02306 EIGHTMILE C 150 50 CATTLE BUTTE

02307 TIMM-NORTH C 402 139 CATTLE BUTTE

02405 SHORT PINE C 840 209

CATTLE &

SHEEP HARDING

02406 COLLINS PLACE C 480 120 CATTLE HARDING

02412 ARPAN ROAD C 40 7 CATTLE BUTTE

02414 FOX C 1159 396

CATTLE &

SHEEP

BUTTE,

HARDING

02415 STATELINE C 75 20 CATTLE BUTTE

02418 INDIAN CREEK C 470 116 CATTLE BUTTE

02422 HT C 650 186 SHEEP BUTTE

02423 FLAT ROCK C 80 24 CATTLE BUTTE

02426 MACY C 920 276

CATTLE &

SHEEP BUTTE

02428 OWL CREEK C 580 107 CATTLE BUTTE

02429 DUNN-BURKE C 591 144

CATTLE &

SHEEP BUTTE

02431 N. INDIAN CR. C 97 26 CATTLE BUTTE

02434 GUIDINGER C 960 140 CATTLE BUTTE

02436 HORSE CREEK EAST C 405 120 CATTLE BUTTE

02441 WELFRING C 120 36 CATTLE BUTTE

02442 RONNING DRAW C 916 205

CATTLE &

SHEEP BUTTE

02445 SPOKE C 621 172

CATTLE &

SHEEP BUTTE

02449 WILLOW CREEK C 160 44 CATTLE BUTTE

02451 LONETREE CR. C 40 15 CATTLE BUTTE

02452 MIDDLE CREEK C 80 20 CATTLE BUTTE

02453 TIMBER CREEK C 800 240 CATTLE MEADE

02454 HORSE CR. C 156 54 CATTLE BUTTE

02456 BREAKNECK HILL C 40 8 CATTLE FALL RIVER

02471 HOVERMALE C 40 5 CATTLE CUSTER

02472 TWIN EIGHTY C 160 53 CATTLE MEADE

02478 HOME RANCH EAST C 200 50 SHEEP BUTTE

02492 TWENTYONE DIVIDE C 80 20 CATTLE FALL RIVER

02493 WOLF SPRING CREEK C 120 34 CATTLE PERKINS

02494 RADIO TOWER C 40 11 CATTLE HARDING

02497 RANCHSIDE C 280 79 CATTLE MEADE

02498 DUCK CREEK C 144 59 CATTLE HARDING

02499 FROG CREEK C 480 150 SHEEP BUTTE

02604

TORNADO (RIFLE

RANGE) C 275 92 CATTLE LAWRENCE

02610 LEXINGTON HILL C 357 40 CATTLE LAWRENCE

02625 SHEEPTAILGULCH C 8 32 HORSES LAWRENCE

02700 ELM CREEK C 80 26 CATTLE BUTTE
SD ARMP Appendix M

Grazing Allotment Allocations M-7 September 2015

Allotment

Number Allotment Name

Allotment

Category

Public

Acres

Public

AUMs

Livestock

Class County

02701 EIGHTMILECREEK C 80 28

CATTLE &

SHEEP BUTTE

02702 DRAW CREEK C 40 8 CATTLE BUTTE

02704 SOUTH SULPHUR CREEK C 720 247 SHEEP BUTTE

02705 COW CREEK C 320 63 CATTLE PENNINGTON

02706 BAD RIVER C 615 195 BISON STANLEY

02707 MADISON CREEK C 101 28 CATTLE PENNINGTON

02708 RABBIT BUTTE C 40 13 CATTLE PERKINS

02709 HACKAMORE C 400 120 CATTLE HARDING

02710 BRUSH CREEK C 350 99 CATTLE HARDING

02711 RED CANYON C 79 24 CATTLE FALL RIVER

02712 ROCK CREEK C 80 27 CATTLE MEADE

02713 SPOKE C 21 7 CATTLE HARDING

02714 PALMER DRAW C 320 88 CATTLE BUTTE

02715 RECEPTION C 200 63 CATTLE

MEADE,

PENNINGTON

02716 SULPHURCREEK C 120 36 CATTLE MEADE

02717 BUCK PASTURE C 654 197 CATTLE BUTTE

02718 BONEITA SPRINGS C 719 215 CATTLE MEADE

02719 FLINT ROCK C 240 79 CATTLE PERKINS

02720 OFF CENTER C 1128 343 CATTLE BUTTE

02721 POLE C 880 150 CATTLE BUTTE

02722 OWANKA C 40 12 CATTLE PENNINGTON

02724 W. ELM CREEK C 240 58 CATTLE

BUTTE,

MEADE

02725 BROKEN BOOT C 160 48 CATTLE PENNINGTON

02726 DALZELLCANYON C 583 196 CATTLE PENNINGTON

02727 SOFT WATER C 120 40 CATTLE MEADE

02728 SOFT WATER C 40 12

CATTLE &

SHEEP HARDING

02729 BRUSHY C 80 18 CATTLE PERKINS

02730 MISSION RIDGE C 734 247 CATTLE STANLEY

02731 BADLANDS C 160 8 CATTLE PERKINS

02732 FROZEN MAN C 40 12 CATTLE MEADE

02733 ELM CREEK C 1008 181

CATTLE &

HORSES FALL RIVER

02735 BREAKS C 70 20 CATTLE STANLEY

02736 BRANDING IRON C 1040 335 BISON STANLEY

02737 ALKALI ROAD C 440 146 CATTLE MEADE

02738 LITTLE MISSOURI C 40 13

CATTLE &

SHEEP HARDING

02739 SORGHUM FLAT C 110 18 HORSES FALL RIVER

02740 BIG BUCK C 40 7 CATTLE LAWRENCE

02741 MNSD C 440 100 SHEEP HARDING

02742 CROW CREEK C 177 49 CATTLE BUTTE

02743 HOME PLACE C 40 11 SHEEP HARDING
Appendix M SD ARMP

September 2015 M-8 Grazing Allotment Allocations

Allotment

Number Allotment Name

Allotment

Category

Public

Acres

Public

AUMs

Livestock

Class County

02744 ROUND-UP C 240 70

CATTLE &

SHEEP BUTTE

02745

SOUTH HAYSTACK

BUTTE C 320 82 CATTLE BUTTE

02746 NORTH COWBOY C 40 10 CATTLE HARDING

02747 ANDERSON DRAW C 77 23 CATTLE PENNINGTON

02748 WILLOW CREEK C 360 90 CATTLE BUTTE

02749 MISSION CREEK C 1160 355 CATTLE STANLEY

02750 BIXBY CAMP C 360 105 CATTLE PERKINS

02751 DUNN C 40 12

CATTLE &

SHEEP

BUTTE,

HARDING

02752 JACK RABBIT C 240 78 CATTLE MEADE

02753 CROW CREEK C 530 177 CATTLE BUTTE

02754 GEIGLE C 491 168 CATTLE PENNINGTON

02755 SULPHURBUTTE C 600 166

CATTLE &

SHEEP BUTTE

02756 WAGON CREEK C 133 38 CATTLE HARDING

02757 WAGON CREEK NORTH C 77 20 CATTLE HARDING

02758 SHANTY BREAKS C 160 53 CATTLE HAAKON

02759 SOUTH CREEK C 160 53 CATTLE HAAKON

02760 SHARPTAIL C 200 69 CATTLE MEADE

02761 STARVE OUT CREEK C 80 17 CATTLE PERKINS

02762 TRIBUTARY C 521 104 CATTLE BUTTE

02764 FINGERRIDGES C 160 54 CATTLE MEADE

02765 NASTY CREEK C 40 11 SHEEP HARDING

02766 FLINT ROCK C 80 27 CATTLE PERKINS

02767 FAULKNERCREEK C 320 72 CATTLE HARDING

02768 ELM CREEK C 982 290 CATTLE BUTTE

02769 HANS CREEK C 440 140 CATTLE BUTTE

02772 SOUTH SULFUR CREEK C 600 209 CATTLE BUTTE

02773 HAWK CANYON C 80 28 CATTLE PENNINGTON

02774 JACK CREEK C 80 24 SHEEP HARDING

02775 FALL RIVER C 40 6 CATTLE FALL RIVER

02776 SLY FOX C 660 186 CATTLE PERKINS

02777 PLUM C 160 48 CATTLE STANLEY

02778 RED BUTTE C 280 84 BISON HARDING

02779 WILDCAT C 438 124 CATTLE BUTTE

02781 LUIS CREEK C 209 74 CATTLE HAAKON

02782 SECTION 34 C 80 29 CATTLE BUTTE

02783 COUNTY LINE C 240 48 CATTLE FALL RIVER

02784 SAND DRAW C 301 72 CATTLE

MEADE,

PENNINGTON

02785 S. GRAND RIVER C 359 76

CATTLE &

BISON HARDING

02787 MILESVILLE C 80 26 CATTLE HAAKON

02788 N. SLICK CREEK C 40 9 CATTLE HARDING
SD ARMP Appendix M

Grazing Allotment Allocations M-9 September 2015

Allotment

Number Allotment Name

Allotment

Category

Public

Acres

Public

AUMs

Livestock

Class County

02789 SWAN DRAW C 473 139

CATTLE &

HORSES PERKINS

02790 CLARKS FORK C 160 49

CATTLE &

SHEEP HARDING

02791 RIVER C 480 84 HORSES FALL RIVER

02792 SF GRAND RIVER C 160 43 CATTLE HARDING

02794 GRIZZ C 80 24 CATTLE HARDING

02795 PROFILE BUTTE C 234 57 CATTLE HARDING

02796 LITTLE COWBOY CREEK C 360 121 CATTLE HARDING

02797 SF GRAND C 120 41

CATTLE &

HORSES HARDING

02798 ROUNDTOP C 400 130 CATTLE STANLEY

02799 WRANGLER C 309 44 CATTLE HARDING

02804 MISSOURI C 280 69 CATTLE BRULE

02805 BIJOU C 200 50 CATTLE BRULE

02806 BENCHMARK C 80 25 CATTLE MEADE

03089 FORK DAM C 280 78 CATTLE BUTTE

03119 RUMFORD C 80 8 CATTLE FALL RIVER

03134 BREAKS C 396 132 CATTLE HAAKON

03175 BC C 160 38 CATTLE BUTTE

03183 COUNTY CORNER C 80 26 CATTLE BUTTE

03200 LINDSAY BUTTE C 753 252 CATTLE STANLEY

03201 BRUSH CREEK C 520 157 CATTLE STANLEY

03202 SCHOEPP FLAT C 280 93 CATTLE BUTTE

03215 ARGENTINE C 80 12 CATTLE FALL RIVER

03218 HOME RANCH WEST C 40 10 CATTLE BUTTE

03226 WEST RIVER C 480 98 CATTLE FALL RIVER

03227 THREE PARCEL C 480 440 CATTLE MEADE

03330 NORTH HWY C 40 14 CATTLE HARDING

07200 MAMOTH C 40 5 CATTLE FALL RIVER

07201 LOST C 920 298 SHEEP BUTTE

07202 BAMS BUTTE C 160 47 CATTLE HARDING

07203 BLACKROOT C 160 53 CATTLE HAAKON

07204 LONETREE C 240 71

CATTLE &

SHEEP BUTTE

07205 SOUTH DOUBLE R C 472 156 CATTLE BUTTE

07206 PATS DRAW C 592 151 CATTLE PENNINGTON

07207 CLARKS FORK CREEK C 40 10 CATTLE HARDING

07208 PD C 160 33 CATTLE FALL RIVER

07209 BULL CREEK C 37 11 CATTLE HARDING

07210 F. ROCK CREEK C 635 172 CATTLE PERKINS

07211 HIGHWAY 73 C 40 14 CATTLE JACKSON

07212 BIG CEDAR C 521 163 CATTLE PERKINS

07214 BEAVER CREEK C 120 11 CATTLE FALL RIVER

07215 LITTLE CEDAR C 600 129 CATTLE PERKINS

07216 RIVERSIDE C 87 21 CATTLE HARDING

07217 SPRING C 39 13 CATTLE HARDING
Appendix M SD ARMP

September 2015 M-10 Grazing Allotment Allocations

Allotment

Number Allotment Name

Allotment

Category

Public

Acres

Public

AUMs

Livestock

Class County

07218 SEAL DRAW C 904 234

CATTLE &

SHEEP HARDING

07219 GRAVEL C 40 14 CATTLE BUTTE

07220 SNAKE CREEK C 120 43 CATTLE STANLEY

07223 QUINN TABLE C 319 100 CATTLE PENNINGTON

07224 LITTLE ARROW C 120 39 CATTLE PENNINGTON

07225 TELEGRAPH DRAW C 921 227 CATTLE MEADE

07226 BIG SKY C 75 25 CATTLE HARDING

07227 HELL CANYON C 2335 503

CATTLE &

BISON CUSTER

07228 SECTION 8 C 80 20 CATTLE FALL RIVER

07229 MINNECONJOU C 680 206 CATTLE STANLEY

07230 WARREN CREEK C 120 31 CATTLE BUTTE

07231 HANSON C 120 36 CATTLE HARDING

07232 BOX ELDER C 240 78 CATTLE BUTTE

07233 ORTON FLAT C 303 100 CATTLE STANLEY

07234 GRAND RIVER C 200 51 CATTLE HARDING

07236 RC C 80 25 CATTLE BUTTE

07237 TRIPLE THREE C 200 60 CATTLE MEADE

07238 BARKER C 398 142 SHEEP BUTTE

07239 SUNNYSIDE C 120 36 CATTLE PENNINGTON

07241 BEAVER CREEK C 73 18 CATTLE FALL RIVER

07242 SLICK CREEK C 40 10 CATTLE HARDING

07243 RED OWL CREEK C 520 158 CATTLE MEADE

07244 LAKE CREEK C 240 23 CATTLE PENNINGTON

07245 COWBOY CREEK C 840 228 CATTLE HARDING

07246 RABBIT CREEK C 120 38

CATTLE &

BISON PERKINS

07247 LITTLE DRAW C 80 24 CATTLE PENNINGTON

07248 POVERTY POINT C 70 22 CATTLE MEADE

07249 RIVER C 60 9 CATTLE FALL RIVER

07250 GRAND RIVER C 118 31 CATTLE HARDING

07251 ELK CREEK C 80 27 CATTLE MEADE

07255 STAGE HILL C 240 40 CATTLE FALL RIVER

07257 WILLUWEIT C 40 12 CATTLE PENNINGTON

07258 ANGUSTORA C 15 3 CATTLE FALL RIVER

07259 S. CAVE HILLS C 280 88 CATTLE HARDING

07260 SHOULDERCREEK C 80 24 CATTLE STANLEY

07261 BUCK SKIN C 160 50 CATTLE MEADE

07262 HOLLOW C 37 13 CATTLE BUTTE

07263 CHANTIER C 882 232 CATTLE STANLEY

07264 SANSARC C 440 147 CATTLE STANLEY

07265 SAGE CREEK C 119 20 CATTLE PENNINGTON

07266 RAPID CREEK C 128 20 CATTLE PENNINGTON

07267 LUCKY 7 C 20 7 CATTLE HARDING

07269 WHITE DRAW C 40 10 CATTLE FALL RIVER
SD ARMP Appendix M

Grazing Allotment Allocations M-11 September 2015

Allotment

Number Allotment Name

Allotment

Category

Public

Acres

Public

AUMs

Livestock

Class County

07270 WHITE DRAW C 40 10 CATTLE FALL RIVER

07271 CHEYENNE C 20 3 CATTLE FALL RIVER

07272 BUFFALO GAP C 120 12 CATTLE CUSTER

07273 PLAINS VALLEY C 40 5 CATTLE FALL RIVER

07274 PASS CREEK C 80 16 CATTLE FALL RIVER

07275 HEIKKILA C 40 10 SHEEP HARDING

07276 CROSSING C 40 9 CATTLE HARDING

07277 DRY CREEK C 80 14 CATTLE FALL RIVER

07278 FROZENMANSCREEK C 80 16 CATTLE STANLEY

07279 PLUM CANYON C 40 8 CATTLE CUSTER

07280 WIND CAVE C 40 10 BISON CUSTER

07281 CHEYENNE C 320 36 CATTLE FALL RIVER

07282 GOBBLERCANYON C 37 12 CATTLE FALL RIVER

07283 CAVE HILLS C 273 80 CATTLE HARDING

07284 WAPITI CREEK C 40 14 CATTLE MEADE

07285 PRAIRIE CREEK C 80 20 CATTLE STANLEY

07286 KADOKA JUNCTION C 40 13 CATTLE JACKSON

07287 PLUM CREEK C 40 10 CATTLE STANLEY

07288 ELKHORN PEAK C 160 19 CATTLE CUSTER

07290 HAWKWRITE C 40 10 CATTLE CUSTER

07292 SAND CREEK C 360 100 CATTLE BUTTE

07293 CAR BODY C 240 58 CATTLE BUTTE

07294 COUNTY LINE C 40 12 CATTLE HARDING

07295 SHEEP MOUNTAIN C 160 30 SHEEP HARDING

07296 DRY CREEK C 80 9 CATTLE HARDING

07297 MATSON-FOWLER C 144 59 SHEEP HARDING

07298 GREY ROCK C 40 14 CATTLE HARDING

07299 L. MISSOURI C 63 17 CATTLE HARDING

07300 PLUM CR. C 40 7 CATTLE HARDING

07302 LITTLE WILLOW C 80 22 SHEEP BUTTE

07303 TRAIL CREEK C 22 6 CATTLE BUTTE

07304 GRANDVIEW C 128 32 CATTLE HARDING

07305 BIG NASTY CREEK C 40 13 CATTLE HARDING

07306 TURTLE CREEK C 40 12 CATTLE MEADE

07307 EAST BRANCH C 40 12 CATTLE MEADE

07308 PLAINVIEW C 24 7 CATTLE MEADE

07309 BUTTE LINE C 40 7 CATTLE BUTTE

07310 MUD BUTTE C 40 12 CATTLE MEADE

07311 TRAIL CREEK C 40 13 CATTLE MEADE

07312 WASTA C 163 38 CATTLE PENNINGTON

07313 NE MUD BUTTE C 40 12 CATTLE BUTTE

07314 RANCHSIDE C 40 8 CATTLE FALL RIVER

07315 LEGER DAM C 80 20 SHEEP HARDING

07316 LONE FORTY C 40 11 CATTLE MEADE

07317 LONE DRAW C 40 10 CATTLE HARDING

07318 STONEY BUTTE C 40 12 CATTLE HARDING
Appendix M SD ARMP

September 2015 M-12 Grazing Allotment Allocations

Allotment

Number Allotment Name

Allotment

Category

Public

Acres

Public

AUMs

Livestock

Class County

07319 BEAR CREEK C 130 40 CATTLE PENNINGTON

07320 SHIRT TAIL C 160 50 CATTLE MEADE

07321 NORTH C 120 36 CATTLE

PERKINS,

MEADE

07322 MUD CREEK C 80 20 CATTLE PERKINS

07323 FLINT ROCK CREEK C 40 12 CATTLE PERKINS

07324 DRY RUN CREEK C 44 12 CATTLE STANLEY

07325 LONE TREE C 60 18 CATTLE HARDING

07326 BIXBY ROAD C 200 43 CATTLE PERKINS

07327 HIGHLAND C 40 8 CATTLE PERKINS

07328 BIXBY C 320 101 CATTLE PERKINS

07329 MOSIER C 320 42 CATTLE FALL RIVER

07330 SIGNAL BUTTE C 80 36 CATTLE PERKINS

07331 SCHOOL SECTION C 40 13 CATTLE BUTTE

07333 MIDDLE CREEK BUTTE C 562 84 CATTLE BUTTE

07334 PORCUPINECREEK C 40 8 CATTLE PERKINS

07335 S. BULL CREEK C 80 20

CATTLE &

SHEEP HARDING

07336 DUHAMEL FLAT C 160 54 CATTLE PENNINGTON

07337 CLAY PIT C 333 30 CATTLE BUTTE

07338 LITTLE FLINT C 40 13 CATTLE PERKINS

07339 KIMBLE CREEK C 71 24 CATTLE HARDING

07340 DRIFT WOOD C 43 10 CATTLE FALL RIVER

07341 BENCH C 40 12 CATTLE MEADE

07342 M. BUTTE C 54 15 CATTLE MEADE

07343

WHITE THUNDER

BOTTOM C 40 15 CATTLE HAAKON

07344 HORSE CREEK C 160 45 CATTLE BUTTE

07345 RAILROAD C 40 7 CATTLE HAAKON

07346 SPOTTED BEAR CREEK C 40 10 CATTLE HAAKON

07347 SOUTH C 40 11 CATTLE

MEADE,

PERKINS

07348 HAT CREEK C 40 5 CATTLE FALL RIVER

07349 SUNRISE BUTTE C 200 47 CATTLE PERKINS

07350 LAHTI BUTTE C 280 92 CATTLE HARDING

07351 LOCATE CREEK C 91 46 CATTLE PERKINS

07352 WEST BULL C 40 8 CATTLE MEADE

07354 BERRY CREEK C 80 27 CATTLE PERKINS

07355 PINE CREEK C 40 12 CATTLE MEADE

07356 SUNDING C 49 14 SHEEP HARDING

07357 MUELLER C 80 17 CATTLE CUSTER

07358 DOTY RIDGE C 40 13 CATTLE STANLEY

07359 PINEY CREEK C 80 12 CATTLE FALL RIVER

07360 SECTION 28 C 40 10 CATTLE PERKINS

07361 ASH CREEK C 40 11 CATTLE HAAKON

07362 INDIAN SPRINGS C 40 13 CATTLE HAAKON

07363 WHITE RIVER C 160 53 CATTLE JACKSON
SD ARMP Appendix M

Grazing Allotment Allocations M-13 September 2015

Allotment

Number Allotment Name

Allotment

Category

Public

Acres

Public

AUMs

Livestock

Class County

07364 FOX RIDGE C 40 12 CATTLE MEADE

07365 HAXBY DRAW C 40 13 CATTLE HAAKON

07366 MEADOW LARK C 40 10

CATTLE &

SHEEP PERKINS

07367 HILLSIDE C 40 3 CATTLE CUSTER

07368 ANTLER C 40 10 CATTLE PENNINGTON

07369 NASTY CREEK C 28 9 CATTLE PERKINS

07370 SORUM C 40 10 CATTLE HARDING

07372 LEMMON BUTTE C 40 5 CATTLE MEADE

07374 BUR OAK C 40 6 CATTLE LAWRENCE

07376 HWY 71 C 40 10 CATTLE FALL RIVER

07377 CROW EAGLE CREEK C 80 25 CATTLE STANLEY

07378 LITTLE MO C 55 18 CATTLE HARDING

07379 BAMS C 40 10 CATTLE HARDING

20699 SECTION 19 C 40 11 CATTLE BRULE
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX N

LAND OWNERSHIP ADJUSTMENT CRITERIA

SD ARMP Appendix N

Land Ownership Adjustment Criteria N-1 September 2015

Appendix N

Land Ownership Adjustment Criteria

Retention Criteria

• Congressionally designated and other special management areas (i.e. ACECs, National or Historic

Trails, etc.)

• Lands acquired using Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF)

Disposal Criteria

• Tracts of land that because of its location or other characteristics is difficult and uneconomic to

manage or is not suitable for management by another Federal department or agency as part of the

public lands.

• Tracts of land that were acquired for a specific purpose and the tract is no longer required for

that or any other Federal purpose.

• Disposal of tract of land that will serve important public objectives, including but not limited to,

expansion of communities and economic development, which cannot be achieved prudently or

feasibly on land other than public land and which outweigh other public objectives and values,

including, but not limited to, recreation and scenic values, which would be served by maintaining

such tract in Federal ownership.

• Surrounded by private land

• No improved public access

• No significant resource values

• Selected for management issues

• Lands with unauthorized occupancy use where permanent structures are involved. 

Acquisition Criteria

• Facilitate access to BLM land and resources

• Enhance the manageability of BLM land and resources

• Enhance important public values and uses, especially

− Special Status Species plant, animal, and fish habitats

− Significant historic, cultural resources or properties important to Native Americans

− Significantrecreational opportunities

− Significant scenic values

• Facilitate implementation of other goals and objectives

• Avoid acquiring lands or interests in lands with management problems that outweigh the expected 

benefits of acquisition, including but not limited to:

− Presence of hazardous materials
Appendix N SD ARMP

September 2015 N-2 Land Ownership Adjustment Criteria

− Abundance of invasive, non-native species

− Inadequate access for managing the property for the purpose for which it would be acquired

− Cultivated lands, buildings and other improvements

Land Retention and Disposal Classifications for Alternatives B, C and D: 

Acres in each category varies by Alternative as shown in the Land Tenure section of Table 2-1 and 2-2. 

Category 1 – Retention area with no disposal : Lands managed in Category I – Retention would include all 

ACECs and lands acquired through LWCF. Category I lands would not be transferred from BLM 

management by any method for the life of the plan.

Category 2 - Retention with Limited disposal potential based on specialist review: Public lands within 

Category II would be considered for limited land ownership adjustments; however, lands in Category II 

would not be available for sale under section 203 of FLPMA. Some public lands in Category II may contain 

resource values protected by law or policy. If actions cannot be taken to adequately mitigate impacts from 

disposal of those lands, those parcels would be retained.

Category 3 – Disposal contingent on specialist review: These lands generally are isolated or fragmented 

from other public land ownerships making them difficult to manage. Public land parcels in this category are 

relatively smaller in size (typically 160 acres or less). A map of these disposal parcels can be found by 

alternative in Map 2-2. These parcels have been found to potentially meet the sale criteria of section 

203(a)(1) of FLPMA and could be made available for sale or disposal through any method.

Access Criteria

• The BLM shall endeavor to maintain existing access, provide future access, and manage public access 

to BLM administered lands in coordination with other Federal agencies, state and local governments, 

and private landowners. 

• Obtain access to BLM administered lands in retention areas. (Acquisition of access outside of retention 

areas may be considered if the action leads to and/or facilitates long term needs or program objectives). 

• Protect, maintain, and manage existing access to BLM administered lands. 

• Manage access to BLM administered lands within BLM's multiple-use mandate. 

• Acquire access on the basis of the following considerations: 

o Where there are moderate to high resource values on existing BLM administered land. 

o Where there is public demand which is closely tied to resource values. Access to larger 

blocks or parcels of BLM administered land have priority. The presence of important 

resource values may justify acquiring access to smaller tracts. 

o For those projects on BLM administered lands in which substantial public monies have 

been spent, and in which continuing diverse public use is expected, permanent exclusive 

access for the general public should be obtained. For lesser investment projects and/or 

those to which general public use will need to be limited, nonexclusive easements should 

be obtained. 

o Although the Bureau is not required to provide access to mineral resources, the acquisition 

of such access could be useful in controlling the construction of multiple and unnecessary 

access routes within the same general area.

o Priority would be placed on acquiring easements on roads where landowners are willing to 

allow public access through their lands.
APPENDIX O

SOIL MONITORING

SD ARMP Appendix O

Soils Monitoring O-1 September 2015

Appendix O

Soils Monitoring

Item Location Technique Unit of

Measure Frequency and 

Duration

Remedial Action 

Trigger

Management 

Options

Soil

erosion,

uplands

Area-wide where 

management 

activities are 

occurring or 

expected to occur.

Visual observation, 

rangeland health or

proper functioning 

condition 

assessments, surface

aggregate stability

test, and surveyed

erosion pins.

Soil loss in

tons per

acre.

Site will be visually

examined quarterly.

Where erosion is

deemed excessive, 

measurements of site

characteristics will be

taken to determine rate

of soil loss.

Visual evidence of 

pedestal, terracete, 

wind scour, rill, 

gully, or sheet 

erosion. Change in 

surface aggregate

stability class. Loss 

of soil exceeding 10 

T/ac/yr.

Report exceedance 

to BLM, State or 

EPA. Enforcement 

action will be 

taken.

Soil erosion, 

streambanks, 

riparian

areas, and 

floodplains

Area-wide along 

rivers and 

tributaries where 

management 

activities are 

occurring or 

expected to occur.

Visual observation, 

rangeland health or

proper functioning 

condition 

assessments, and 

surveyed erosion 

pins.

Area

affected

in square

feet or 

acres.

Site will be visually

examined quarterly.

Where streambank 

erosion is deemed 

excessive, 

measurements of site

characteristics will be

taken to determine soil 

loss.

Visual evidence of 

headcut or bank 

slump. A 10% 

increase in 

streambank loss.

Report exceedance 

to BLM, State or 

EPA.

Enforcement

action will be 

taken.

Soil

salinization 

and

sodification

Area-wide where 

management 

activities are 

occurring or 

expected to occur.

Visual observation, 

measurement of soil

characteristics such

as EC, SAR, ESP,

pH.

Area

affected in 

square feet

or acres.

Site will be visually

examined quarterly.

Where salinity levels 

show an increase 

because of vegetation or

soil effects, 

measurements of site

characteristics will be

taken to determine

salinity and sodicity 

levels.

A 20% increase in 

levels. EC greater 

than 8, SAR

greater than 8, ESP

greater than 10, or

pH greater than 8.5

Report exceedance 

to BLM, State or 

EPA. Enforcement 

action will be 

taken.

Compaction Area-wide where 

management 

activities are 

occurring or 

expected to occur.

Visual inspection, 

penetrometer, or ratio

of penetration 

resistance or bulk 

density to that of the

reference area.

Pounds per

square 

inch, mass

per volume.

Site will be visually

examined 1 to 2 times 

yearly. Where 

compaction is deemed

excessive, 

measurements would be

taken.

10% increase in 

density. Ratio of 

penetration 

resistance or bulk 

density to that of the

reference area 

greater than 1.

Limit or block 

access to 

compacted sites.

Rutting Area-wide where 

management 

activities are 

occurring or 

expected to occur.

Visual observation 

and measured depth

of rut.

Inches. Site will be visually

examined 1 to 2 times 

yearly. Where rutting is

deemed excessive, 

measurements would be

taken.

Ruts exceed 4 inch 

depth.

Limit or block 

access to rutted 

sites.

Productivity Areas where 

reclamation or 

restoration is 

occurring or 

expected to occur.

Visual observation,

line- point intercept, 

gap intercept, and 

aggregate stability 

test, Total dry- weight

production of

vegetation.

Proportion of

area, time to

percent 

dissolved, dry 

weight per

area.

Site will be visually

examined 1 to 2 times 

yearly. Where fertility

is deemed poor, 

measurements would be

taken.

10% increase in 

percent of bare 

ground. Change in 

surface or subsurface 

aggregate stability 

class. 10% decline in

total dry weight.

Subsidence

of fill 

material

Areas where 

management 

activities require fill

material.

Visual observation 

and measured depth

of subsidence.

Feet. Site will be visually

examined 1 to 2 times 

yearly. Where 

slumping/piping is 

deemed excessive, 

measurements would be

taken.

10% increase in 

slumping or piping 

depth.

Limit or block 

access to affected 

sites until area is 

reclaimed.
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX P

CULTURAL RESOURCE STIPULATION FOR GRAZING LEASES

SD ARMP Appendix P

Cultural Resources Standard Lease P-1 September 2015

Stipulations for Grazing Leases

Appendix P

Cultural Resources Standard Lease Stipulations for Grazing Leases

Cultural Resources

This lease may be found to contain historic properties and/or resources protected under the National Historic

Preservation Act (NHPA), American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Native American Graves Protection and

Repatriation Act, E.O. 13007, or other statutes and executive orders. The BLM will not approve any ground disturbing

activities that may affect any such properties or resources until it completes its obligations (e.g., State Historic

Preservation Officer (SHPO) and tribal consultation) under applicable requirements of the NHPA and other authorities.

The BLM may require modification to exploration or development proposals to protect such properties, or disapprove

any activity that is likely to result in adverse effects that cannot be successfully avoided, minimized or mitigated.

Stipulation for Cultural Resource Protection

“The lease holder is not allowed to collect or give others permission to collect historic or prehistoric artifacts on Public

Lands. An artifact is any human-made object or object used in its natural state by humans, which is at least 50 years old.

The unauthorized collecting of prehistoric and historic artifacts on public lands is punishable under Federal law. If you

observe individuals collecting artifacts, immediately notify the authorized BLM official.”
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX Q

SOUTH DAKOTA FIELD OFFICE AIR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN: 

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR OIL AND GAS RESOURCES

SD ARMP Appendix Q

Air Resource Management Plan Q-i September 2015

Appendix Q 

South Dakota Field Office Air Resource Management Plan:

Adaptive Management Strategy for Oil and Gas Resources

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................................Q-1

1.1 Purpose of the Air Management Plan ........................................................................................................Q-1

1.2 Revision of the Air Resource Management Plan .......................................................................................Q-2

1.3 Current Air Quality ...................................................................................................................................Q-2

1.4 Background of the AQTW and the MOU Regarding Air Quality Analyses and

Mitigation for Federal Oil and Gas Decisions through the NEPA Process ...............................................Q-2

1.5 BLM’s Role With Regard to Air Resources..............................................................................................Q-2

2.0 Oil and Gas Activity Assessment ......................................................................................................................Q-3

3.0 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Support ..........................................................................................................Q-3

4.0 Air Quality and AQRV Assessment ....................................................................................................................Q-4

4.1 Annual NAAQS Assessment ......................................................................................................................Q-4

4.2 Preliminary Ozone Assessment ..................................................................................................................Q-5

4.3 Annual AQRV Assessment ........................................................................................................................Q-5

5.0 Future Modeling ..................................................................................................................................................Q-6

5.1 Photochemical Grid Modeling ....................................................................................................................Q-6

5.1.1 Data Acquisition ..............................................................................................................................Q-6

5.1.2 PGM Schedule .................................................................................................................................Q-6

5.1.3 SD DENR and AQTW Review and Input to PGM ..........................................................................Q-7

5.1.4 Availability of PGM Results ............................................................................................................Q-7

5.2 Post-PGM Modeling ...................................................................................................................................Q-8

6.0Mitigation .............................................................................................................................................................Q-8

6.1 Initial Mitigation Actions ............................................................................................................................Q-8

6.2 Monitoring-BasedMitigation .....................................................................................................................Q-9

6.2.1 Monitoring-Based Thresholds before PGM Completion ..................................................................Q-9

6.2.2 Determination of Enhanced Mitigation Measures Before PGM Completion .................................Q-10

6.2.3 Monitoring-Based Thresholds after PGM Completion ...................................................................Q-11

6.2.4 Determination of Enhanced Mitigation Measures After PGM Completion ....................................Q-11

6.3 Modeling-BasedMitigation ......................................................................................................................Q-11

6.3.1 Modeling-BasedThresholds ..........................................................................................................Q-11

6.3.2 Modeling-Based Enhanced Mitigation Measures ...........................................................................Q-11

7.0 Bibliography ...................................................................................................................................................Q-12

List of Tables

Table 1. Representative Air Quality Monitoring Stations within the Planning Area ................................................Q-4

Table 2. NAAQS for Pollutants Monitored in the Planning Area .............................................................................Q-4

Table 3. Data Acquisition and PGM Schedule .........................................................................................................Q-7
Appendix Q-1 SD ARMP

September 2015 Q-ii Air Resource Management Plan

Acronyms

APD Application for Permits to Drill

AQRV Air quality related value

AQS Air Quality System

AQTW Air Quality Technical Workgroup

ARTSD Air Resource Technical Support Document

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CAMx Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CO Carbon monoxide

FLIR Forward looking infrared

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act

hp Horsepower

μg/m3 Micrograms per cubic meter

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NO Nitric oxide

NO2 Nitrogen dioxide

NOx Nitrogen oxides

NPS National Park Service

O3 Ozone

Pb Lead

PGM Photochemical grid modeling

PM10 Particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 10 microns

PM2.5 Particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns

POD Plan of Development

ppb Parts per billion

ppm Parts per million

REC Reduced emissions completion

ROD Record of Decision

RMP Resource Management Plan

SDAAQS South Dakota Ambient Air Quality Standards

SD DENR South Dakota Department of Environment & Natural Resources

SLAMS State or Local Air Monitoring Station

SO2 Sulfur dioxide

tpy Tons per year

USDI U.S. Department of Interior

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USFS U.S. Forest Service

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

VOC Volatile organic compound

WRAP Western Regional Air Partnership

WRF Weather and Research Forecasting
SD ARMP Appendix Q

Air Resource Management Plan Q-1 September 2015

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the Air Resource Management Plan

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) South Dakota Field Office (SDFO) Air Resource Management Plan 

(ARMP) for oil and gas activities describes the air quality adaptive management strategy that would be used to 

assess future air quality and Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs) and identify mitigation measures to address 

unacceptable impacts that could potentially be associated with future oil and gas development. The adaptive 

management strategy focuses on oil and gas activity because aggregated emissions from multiple small sources at 

well sites can potentially cause significant air quality and AQRV impacts under certain circumstances. Many of 

these small oil and gas emission sources are not required to obtain air quality permits from the South Dakota 

Department of Environment & Natural Resources (SD DENR). 

The oil and gas adaptive management strategy was prepared in collaboration with or with the review of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and three federal land management agencies under the Understanding 

Among the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of the Interior, and U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Regarding Air Quality Analyses and Mitigation for Federal Oil and Gas Decisions Through the National 

Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] Process (USDI 2011). This agreement is described in more detail in Section 1.4. 

Although not a signatory to the MOU, the SD DENR participates in the Air Quality Technical Workgroup (AQTW) 

that was established to implement the MOU process for the Proposed Resource Management Plan (PRMP) and 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Air Resource Management Plan provides a means for the BLM to 

satisfy its statutory responsibility under NEPA and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) to 

protect air quality and other natural resources. Under the Air Resource Management Plan, the BLM will take 

appropriate management action if monitoring data for local areas with BLM-authorized oil and gas activity indicate 

that additional emission reductions may be needed to maintain good air quality. Due to the fragmentation of 

surface and mineral estate within the planning area, the BLM would work with the SD DENR to identify a

consistent emission control approach throughout an area of concern.

The Air Resource Management Plan includes both near-term actions and long-term actions. In the near-term, the Air 

Resource Management Plan sets forth initial actions to maintain good air quality until regional modeling can be

performed to further assess potential impacts to air quality and AQRVs. In the long-term, the Air Resource 

Management Plan provides ongoing management strategies to assess and adapt to new air quality and AQRV ambient

monitoring and modeling data during the life of this Resource Management Plan (RMP).

The Air Resource Management Plan includes a multifaceted approach involving the following activities.

• Oil and gas activity assessment

• Ambient air quality monitoring support

• Air quality and AQRV assessment

• Future air quality and AQRV modeling

• Mitigation

Pollutant emissions addressed by the Air Resource Management Plan include the criteria air pollutants listed below.

• Carbon monoxide (CO)

• Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)

• Ozone (O3)

• Particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 10 microns (PM10)

• Particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns (PM2.5)

• Sulfur dioxide (SO2)

Two criteria air pollutants, CO and lead, are not monitored within the planning area because high concentrations of these

pollutants are unlikely. Elevated concentrations of CO are associated with vehicle traffic in very large urban areas, while

high concentrations of lead are typically found near industrial facilities that emit large quantities of lead compounds.

These situations do not occur in the planning area, as described in Chapter 3 of the Draft RMP. CO emissions would be

modeled to demonstrate compliance with the NAAQS. Due to the lack of lead emissions from oil and gas activities, lead

emissions would not be modeled as part of the air quality analysis.
Appendix Q-1 SD ARMP

September 2015 Q-2 Air Resource Management Plan

The Air Resource Management Plan also addresses modeling and mitigation for the following AQRV assessments.

• Deposition of sulfur and nitrogen

• Lake acid neutralizing capacity

• Visibility

The adaptive management strategy for oil and gas resources provides the flexibility to respond to changing conditions

that could not be predicted during RMP development. This strategy also allows for the use of new technology and

methods that may minimize or reduce impacts.

1.2 Revision of the Air Resource Management Plan

This Air Resource Management Plan may be modified as necessary to comply with law, regulation, and policy and to

address new information and changing circumstances. Changes to the goals or objectives set forth in the SDFO

RMP/EIS would require maintenance or amendment of the RMP while changes to implementation, including

modifying this Air Resource Management Plan, may be made without amending the RMP.

1.3 Current Air Quality

Areas within the planning area are designated as areas that attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

and state-based standards known as the South Dakota Ambient Air Quality Standards (SDAAQS), which are identical to

the NAAQS. Throughout this document references to the NAAQS will also be understood to include the SDAAQS.

1.4 Background of the AQTW and the MOU Regarding Air Quality Analyses and 

Mitigation for Federal Oil and Gas Decisions through the NEPA Process

The Air Quality Technical Workgroup (AQTW) includes representatives from the following agencies: the BLM, USEPA,

U.S. Forest Service (USFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the National Park Service (NPS). Each of

these agencies is a party to the Memorandum of Understanding Among the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S.

Department of the Interior, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regarding Air Quality Analyses and Mitigation

for Federal Oil and Gas Decisions Through the National Environmental Policy Act Process (USDI 2011) (herein

referred to as the MOU). This agreement is designed to “. . . facilitate the completion of NEPA environmental analyses

for Federal land use planning and oil and gas development decisions [USDI 2011].”

The MOU sets forth collaborative procedures that the AQTW agencies use to analyze potential air quality and AQRV

impacts. The agencies also work together to identify potential mitigation measures that may be needed to reduce impacts

to air quality and AQRVs. The lead agency (the BLM in this case), in collaboration with the other agencies, has the

responsibility to identify reasonable mitigation and control measures to address adverse impacts to air quality.

Mitigation measures may also address impacts to AQRVs at Class I areas and at sensitive Class II areas that have been

identified by the BLM, USFS, USFWS, and NPS.

The AQTW provided input to this Air Resource Management Plan and will continue to work collaboratively on future

modeling efforts associated with this RMP. Provisions of the MOU continue to apply to future oil and gas activities in

the planning area. In some cases, air quality and AQRV modeling performed under this Air Resource Management Plan

may be sufficient to address modeling needs for future oil and gas projects that would otherwise require additional

modeling under the MOU. However, the Air Resource Management Plan in no way replaces provisions of the MOU.

Determinations of existing modeling adequacy for future oil and gas activities that trigger the MOU would be made

collaboratively by the AQTW using the procedures included in the MOU.

The SD DENR has the primary authority to protect air quality within the state. Although the SD DENR is not a 

signatory to the national MOU, successful air quality management of BLM-authorized oil and gas activities depends on a

close working relationship between the BLM and the SD DENR. The two agencies have worked together to improve air

quality monitoring and will continue to cooperate by sharing data, planning modeling efforts, and working together to

identify emission reduction measures needed to maintain good air quality.

1.5 BLM’s Role With Regard to Air Resources

Primary air quality management authority and responsibility for the planning area rest with the SD DENR (for nontribal areas of the planning area) and the USEPA for tribal areas. The BLM’s authority to address air resources 
SD ARMP Appendix Q

Air Resource Management Plan Q-3 September 2015

derives primarily from FLPMA and NEPA. Under FLPMA, the BLM must “provide for compliance with applicable 

pollution control laws, including State and Federal air, water, noise, or other pollution standards or implementation 

plans” in the development and revision of land use plans (Section 202 (c)(8)). FLPMA also authorizes the BLM to 

manage public lands “in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, 

environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values” (Section 102 (8)).

Under NEPA, the BLM ensures that information on potential environmental and human impacts of Federal actions is 

available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken. One of the purposes 

of the Act is to “promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere,” and to 

promote human health and welfare (Section 2). NEPA requires that BLM and other federal agencies prepare a 

detailed statement on the environmental impact of the proposed action for major Federal actions expected to 

significantly affect the quality of the human environment (Section 102 (C)).

The BLM’s authority under the Clean Air Act primarily derives from the requirement that BLM-authorized activities 

comply with the Clean Air Act. BLM-authorized activities may not violate the Clean Air Act or federal and state 

regulations and State Implementation Plans issued to implement the Act. When air quality or AQRV modeling 

performed during NEPA analysis predicts potential violations of the Clean Air Act or unacceptable AQRV impacts, 

the BLM evaluates the data and determines whether mitigation measures are needed. For example, the initial 

mitigation measure requiring drill rig engines to meet Tier 4 emission standards reduces NO2 emissions and was 

demonstrated via modeling to prevent NAAQS violations from multiple large drill rig engines that may operate on 

one well pad. The mitigation measure includes an exception that allows use of drill rig engines meeting Tier 1, 2, or 

3 emission standards if future modeling or near-field monitoring demonstrates compliance with the NAAQS.

When determining whether mitigation measures are needed, the BLM reviews current and proposed federal, state, 

and local regulations to determine whether mitigation will occur due to other agency actions. If the BLM determines 

that additional mitigation is needed while implementing this Air Resource Management Plan, the BLM will work 

closely with the SD DENR to coordinate future mitigation measures for BLM-authorized activities.

2.0 Oil and Gas Activity Assessment

Each year, the BLM would track the number and locations of new oil and gas wells drilled on federal mineral estate and

the number of new and abandoned producing wells on federal mineral estate. These numbers would be compared to the

planning area RFD and to the level of oil and gas development identified in the Approved RMP. 

In addition, the BLM would estimate oil and gas emissions from federal mineral estate every three years for oil and gas

wells drilled and producing after the ROD is signed. Emission estimates will be based on well types, well numbers, and

knowledge of typical equipment and operations. Emission estimation methods are expected to improve over time as

better data become available. The emission estimates would also account for implemented mitigation measures and for

new emission control regulations as they become effective. The BLM would collect additional data related to oil and gas

equipment and operations to improve emission inventory quality. One area identified for improvement involves 

acquiring better data on oil and gas equipment used in the planning area. In order to improve fugitive dust emission

estimates, the number, type, and length of vehicle trips in high-activity areas would also be assessed.

Each three-year oil and gas emission inventory would be compared to emission estimates for the RFD and the Approved 

RMP. .

3.0 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Support

The Air Quality Program of the SD DENR has primary responsibility for siting and operating ambient air quality

monitors within South Dakota and for reporting monitoring data to USEPA and to the public. As described in its

annual Ambient Air Monitoring Annual Network Plan (SD DENR 2012), the SD DENR identifies monitoring

objectives for assessing ambient concentrations of criteria air pollutants and assessing compliance with the NAAQS.

Monitors that are located within the planning area and are representative of rural areas near oil and gas activity are listed

in Table 1. These monitors would be used by the BLM when developing annual air quality assessments. If additional

SD DENR monitoring stations are installed and operated for the purpose of assessing air quality impacts from oil and gas

activity, data from these monitors would be used for ambient air quality assessments under this plan.
Appendix Q-1 SD ARMP

September 2015 Q-4 Air Resource Management Plan

2.5

Table 1. Representative Air Quality Monitoring Stations Within the Planning Area

Station Name

Pollutants Monitored by 

SLAMS Station Number County Latitude Longitude

Badlands NO2, O3, PM10, PM2.5, SO2 46-071-0001 Jackson N 4,847,799.95 E 263,173.81

Wind Cave O3, PM10, PM2.5 46-033-0132 Custer N 4,823,856.93 E 622,471.56

Latitude and longitude are provided in UTM coordinates based on Zone 13, NAD 83.

4.0 Air Quality and AQRV Assessment

The BLM would assess air quality and AQRVs on an annual basis using quality-assured data from the USEPA, SD

DENR, USFS, USFWS, NPS, and other sources. In addition, a preliminary assessment of ozone concentrations would be

performed on a weekly basis using data provided by the SD DENR.

4.1 Annual NAAQS Assessment

Based on the monitors listed in Section 3.0, the BLM would assess air quality monitoring data annually and would share

the results of the assessment with the SD DENR and AQTW. The purposes of the annual assessment are to compare

monitored data to NAAQS and to identify seasonal and long-term trends in air pollutant concentrations. The BLM

would complete the annual assessment by May 31 of each year in order to ensure that quality-assured data are available

for review.

NAAQS are provided in Table 2 for pollutants monitored within the planning area. As of December 1, 2012, CO and

lead were not monitored within the planning area. The standards shown in Table 2 would be revised to reflect future 

regulatory changes.

Table 2. NAAQS for Pollutants Monitored in the Planning Area

Pollutant

Averaging 

Period Concentration Standard Type Form of NAAQS1 Primary Standard

NO2

1-hour 100 ppb Primary

3-year average of the 98th percentile

concentrations

Annual 53 ppb Primary,

Secondary Annual mean

Ozone 8-hour 0.075 ppm

Primary,

Secondary

3-year average of the fourth highest daily

maximum 8-hour average

PM2.5

24-hour 35 μg/m3 Primary,

Secondary 3

3-year average of the 98th percentile

concentrations

Annual 12.0 μg/m3 2

15.0μg/m3

Primary,

Secondary 3-year average annual mean

PM10 24-hour 150 μg/m3 Primary,

Secondary

NTBE more than one per year on average over 3

years

SO2

1-hour 75 ppb Primary

3-year average of the 99th percentile

concentrations

3-hour 0.5 ppm Secondary

Annual 2nd highest maximum of 3-hour block

averages

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter Standards 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

1 NAAQS are codified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR), Part 50.

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 2 Effective March 18, 2013, the primary annual PM standard

NTBE not to be exceeded was revised from 15.0 μg/m3 to 12.0 μg/m3

.

PM2.5 particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns

PM10 particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns

ppb parts per billion

ppm parts per million

SO2 sulfur dioxide

3 The secondary annual PM

μg/m3.

2.5 standard remains at 15.0
SD ARMP Appendix Q

Air Resource Management Plan Q-5 September 2015

The BLM would use design values to compare ambient monitoring data to the NAAQS. Design values reflect the form

of the NAAQS; they define the statistical metric used to compare monitoring data to federal and state standards.

Depending on the pollutant and averaging time being assessed, the NAAQS is typically stated in terms of the maximum

or second maximum concentration, average concentration, or a percentile of the standard. The form of a standard also

states whether the design value is determined based on one or more years of monitoring data. USEPA-calculated design

values serve a critically important regulatory purpose; they determine whether areas are designated attainment or

nonattainment. As such, USEPA’s design value determinations may take more than one year to finalize.

In order to review air quality trends more quickly, the BLM would determine “mitigation design values” by May 31 of

each year for the previous calendar year(s). The mitigation design value would be a metric calculated by the BLM that

uses procedures similar to USEPA’s regulatory design value calculation methodology, with the advantage that the

BLM- calculated mitigation design values can be determined more quickly. The timing allows the SD DENR adequate

time to quality assure monitoring data. However, the SD DENR may not yet have USEPA concurrence on data that has

been flagged by the SD DENR due to exceptional events, such as wildfires. Consequently, the BLM-calculated

mitigation design values would exclude monitoring data associated with SD DENR-identified exceptional events. Each

BLM annual assessment would look back the requisite number of years for each pollutant and include data from the

time period prior to ROD issuance for the first several annual BLM assessments. Additional information concerning

design value calculations is provided in Section 6.2.3. The BLM will work closely with the SD DENR to ensure that 

only data certified by the SD DENR and procedures consistent with MDEQ procedures are used in design value 

calculations.

4.2 Preliminary Ozone Assessment

BLM would perform weekly preliminary ozone concentration reviews to determine if high ozone events occur at the

monitors identified in Section 3.0. If a high-ozone event occurs, the BLM would document meteorological and other

conditions that may have contributed to the event. Because high-ozone events in other rural parts of the nation are not

well understood and contributing factors can be site-specific, the BLM would gather data to develop baseline 

information relevant to any high-ozone events that may occur within the planning area. Relevant baseline information

includes capturing meteorological data for each event, determining the amount of snow on the ground (if applicable), and

identifying any other data that may help describe circumstances associated with the event. For the purposes of this 

effort, a high-ozone event would be defined as a day for which the maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is at or

above 0.065 ppm.

In order to quickly ascertain relevant circumstances, the preliminary ozone assessments would use non-quality-assured

data provided by the SD DENR. As part of the annual NAAQS assessment, quality-assured ozone data would be

reviewed to determine if the preliminary ozone monitoring data were valid or if monitored high ozone concentrations

were due to monitor malfunctions.

If high-ozone events occur within the planning area, a summary of events and a discussion of relevant meteorological

data and circumstances would be developed as part of the annual NAAQS assessment. These summaries and the

underlying data may provide important information that can be used to predict potential occurrences of high-ozone

events and to identify mitigation measures and/or proactive measures that could prevent future events.

4.3 Annual AQRV Assessment

Federal land managers track the status, condition, and trends of AQRVs for Class I and sensitive Class II areas under

their jurisdictions. Consequently, the BLM would request visibility, sulfur and nitrogen deposition, and lake acid

neutralizing capacity data from the USFS, USFWS, and NPS and would include agency-submitted data in the BLM’s

annual review of AQRV trends. The annual review would also include AQRV data from any Class I or sensitive Class

II areas under BLM jurisdiction.

Based on these reviews, the BLM would maintain an awareness of AQRV trends. However, it should be noted that the

reviews would not necessarily link AQRV trends to oil and gas development within the planning area. AQRV impacts

are often associated with pollutants that can be transported long distances from many different types of sources. For

example, sources outside South Dakota play a major role in visibility degradation at Wind Cave National Park and at

Badlands National Park, as described in the South Dakota’s Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SD DENR 2011).
Appendix Q-1 SD ARMP

September 2015 Q-6 Air Resource Management Plan

5.0 Future Modeling

The BLM committed to perform PGM in order to assess regional air quality and AQRV impacts. Due to insufficient

monitoring and regional emissions data available during development of the RMP, PGM will not be completed prior to

issuance of the RMP/EIS and the ROD. In order to complete PGM expeditiously, the BLM began data acquisition and

initiated steps needed to proceed with PGM. When PGM is completed and the results assessed, the BLM may identify

additional emission mitigation measures for oil and gas activity.

5.1 Photochemical Grid Modeling

Comprehensive regional air quality and AQRV regional modeling of emission sources within the planning area and

surrounding areas requires PGM. This type of modeling can predict ozone and regional haze impacts, for which major

pollutants and precursors can be transported many hundreds of miles.

5.1.1 Data Acquisition

PGM requires three main types of concurrent data: meteorological data, ambient monitoring data, and comprehensive

emission data. BLM’s analysis determined that the latter two types of data need to be augmented and updated prior to

performing PGM.

Additional Monitoring

Ambient monitoring data throughout the PGM domain is needed in order to validate model performance, which is

assessed by modeling a previous year and comparing the model’s predicted concentrations to actual monitored

concentrations. New monitors in northern and central Montana near the towns of Malta and Lewistown will provide

much-needed data to assess model performance in areas with oil and gas activity northwest of the planning area.

Updating Emission Inventories

Comprehensive emission inventories are also critically important in predicting cumulative air quality and AQRV

impacts. Current oil and gas regional emission inventories for South Dakota are known to lack important emission

sources, particularly sources of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which contribute to ozone formation. The existing

regional oil and gas inventory for the Williston Basin represents the year 2002 and was developed as part of the Western

Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Phase II inventory. Since then, 2006 Phase III emission inventories have been

developed for oil and gas basins within Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and New Mexico, but have not yet been completed

for Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The Phase III inventories have more comprehensive emission

inventories of VOC sources at oil and gas facilities.

The BLM Montana and Dakotas State Office is providing financial assistance to the WRAP so that Phase III oil and gas

emission inventories can be completed in early 2014 for the Williston Basin and the Great Plains Basin. These

inventories would represent calendar year 2011 emissions. In addition to covering the planning area, the inventories

would include comprehensive recent emission estimates for oil and gas activity in North Dakota and Montana.

5.1.2 PGM Schedule

In order to use a full 12 months of ambient monitoring data from the new monitors in northern and central Montana, the

baseline year for PGM is expected to be 2013 or may be a 12-month period beginning in late 2012 and ending in 2013.

PGM planning began in 2012 and development of the PGM modeling protocol was completed during 2013, with

modeling occurring primarily in 2014 and early 2015. Review and assessment of PGM results would be completed in

Fall 2015. Table 3 provides the data acquisition and PGM schedule.

The Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model would be used to model meteorological conditions and the

Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx) model would be used for photochemical grid modeling. In

addition, multiple models would be used to develop and process emission inventories for input into the photochemical

grid model. When modeling is completed, an Air Resource Technical Support Document (ARTSD) would be developed.

Initial PGM would include future year modeling for a year between 2017 and 2030 using emissions representing full 
SD ARMP Appendix Q

Air Resource Management Plan Q-7 September 2015

development of BLM oil and gas resources under the Approved RMP. The specific year would be determined by the

BLM based on the ability to predict future cumulative regional oil and gas emissions in the Williston and Great Plains 

Basins. After initial PGM is completed, the BLM would begin an assessment process to determine when or if additional

PGM may be needed. Factors to be considered in determining when additional PGM would be needed include the 

adequacy of the adaptive management strategy to maintain good air quality, and the level of BLM-authorized oil and gas 

activity and emissions compared to modeled levels.

Table 3. Data Acquisition and PGM Schedule

Task / Subtask Completion Date

Pre-Modeling Emission Inventory *

Williston and Great Plains Basin Inventory 3/31/2014

Base Year Modeling and Evaluation *

WRF Modeling 5/8/2014

Draft WRF Model Evaluation 6/5/2014

AQTW and SD DENR WRF Evaluation Review 7/10/2014

Emission Modeling (Base and Future Year) & Report 9/9/2014 (base year)

12/11/2014 (future year)

AQTW and SD DENR Emission Modeling Review 10/2/2014 (base year)

1/7/2015 (future year)

Base Year Photochemical Grid Modeling 8/28/2014

Draft Base Year PGM Evaluation 11/17/2014

AQTW and SD DENR PGM Evaluation Review 12/1/2014

Finalize WRF and PGM Evaluations 12/15/2014

Emission Modeling Reports 1/21/2015

Future Year Modeling and Evaluation *

Future Year Photochemical Grid Modeling 3/8/2015

Analyze Air Quality and AQRV Impacts 3/29/2015

Draft ARTSD 4/19/2015

AQTW and SD DENR ARTSD Review 6/19/2015

Finalize ARTSD 7/1/2015

* Dates are estimated and subject to revision.

AQTW = Air Quality Technical Workgroup

ARTSD = Air Resource Technical Support Document

SD DENR = South Dakota Department of Environment & Natural Resources 

PGM = Photochemical grid modeling

RFP = Request for Proposal

WRF = Weather Research and Forecasting Model 

5.1.3 SD DENR and AQTW Review and Input to PGM

Throughout the PGM data collection and modeling process, the BLM would work collaboratively with the SD DENR

AQTW, and with and other agencies or Tribes that request to be involved in the PGM effort. These collaborators

provided technical review and comment on the modeling protocol, and will provide input on the WRF and PGM

performance evaluations, and on the draft ARTSD. Substantial time has been included in the schedule shown in Table 3

to allow adequate review and comment periods during the PGM process.

5.1.4 Availability of PGM Results

Future PGM results would be presented in the final ARTSD and in a summary of the results. The ARTSD and summary

document would be posted on the SDFO website. In addition, the WRF and PGM protocol document would be provided
Appendix Q-1 SD ARMP

September 2015 Q-8 Air Resource Management Plan

via the website when the photochemical modeling ARTSD is made available. Outreach information regarding the

availability of the results would be made through the AQTW and agencies involved in the PGM process, as well as other

interested parties.

5.2 Post-PGM Modeling

To the extent that future emission increases are within the levels modeled with PGM or other modeling and are

proximate to modeled emission locations, far-field air quality and AQRV impact analysis may incorporate by reference

PGM and other modeling results. The BLM and the AQTW would determine whether previous modeling is sufficient to

satisfy MOU requirements. This air quality management approach is consistent with the Air Quality Oil and Gas MOU

(USDI 2011) and allows for efficient air quality and AQRV impact analysis.

If additional modeling is performed after PGM is complete, an assessment of air quality and AQRV impacts would be

made and, if necessary, additional mitigation measures may be identified.

6.0 Mitigation

Air quality and AQRV impact mitigation would involve two types of mitigation: 1) initial mitigation measures that

become effective when the ROD is signed, and 2) enhanced mitigation measures that may be identified based on future

ambient monitoring data or modeling results.

6.1 Initial Mitigation Actions

The following air quality mitigation measures would be applied upon issuance of the ROD through leasing documents

and project-specific NEPA documents. To the extent practical, emission reductions associated with these mitigation

measures have been included in the RMP/EIS emission inventory.

1. Design and construct roads and well pads to reduce the amount of fugitive dust generated by traffic or other

activities. During construction activities, apply water, apply dust-suppression chemicals, apply gravel, or

use other control methods to achieve 50 percent fugitive dust control efficiency, except when ground is wet

or frozen.

2. Use water or other BLM-approved dust suppression during drilling, completion, and well workover

operations for dust abatement on access roads, as needed, to achieve a 50 percent fugitive dust control

efficiency, except when ground is wet or frozen.

3. Use water or other BLM-approved dust suppression in high traffic areas during production operations for

dust abatement, as needed, to achieve 50 percent fugitive dust control efficiency, except when ground is

wet or frozen. Operators will work with local government agencies to improve dust suppression on roads.

4. For oil and gas Project Plans of Development (PODs), oil and gas operators will establish speed limits for

project-required unpaved roads in and adjacent to the project area; oil and gas operator employees will

comply with these speed limits.

5. For oil and gas Project PODs, oil and gas operators will be encouraged to reduce surface disturbance,

vehicle traffic, and fugitive dust emissions by consolidating facilities (e.g., using multi-well pads, storage

vessels) when feasible.

6. Diesel drill rig and completion engines greater than 200 hp will meet Tier 4 emission standards for nonroad diesel engines. Alternatively, oil and gas operators may use drill rig and completion engines that 

exceed Tier 4 emission standards if modeling or monitoring at the project level or programmatic level 

demonstrates compliance with the NAAQS and protection of AQRVs.

7. For hydraulically fractured gas wells that do not qualify as “low pressure wells”, “wildcat,” or

“delineation” wells, oil and gas operators will comply with reduced emissions completion (REC)

requirements specified in Subpart OOOO, Standards of Performance for Crude Oil and Natural Gas

Production, Transmission and Distribution (40 CFR §60.5375) within six months of ROD issuance.
SD ARMP Appendix Q

Air Resource Management Plan Q-9 September 2015

8. Non-road diesel engines will be required to use ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (15 ppmw) as required by 40

CFR§80.610(e)(3)(iii).

6.2 Monitoring-Based Mitigation

Enhanced mitigation would be evaluated and implemented if ambient monitoring data at monitors located in oil and gas

activity areas within the planning area indicate that pollutant concentrations are approaching or threatening the NAAQS.

If additional SD DENR monitoring stations are placed in oil and gas activity areas for the purpose of assessing air quality

impacts from oil and gas activity, data from these stations would be included in ambient air quality assessments used to

determine whether enhanced mitigation is needed.

Prior to completion of initial PGM, monitoring-based thresholds would be based on evaluation of exceedances of the

NAAQS, as described in Section 6.2.1. After completion of initial PGM, monitoring-based thresholds would be based

on BLM-calculated design values, as described in Section 6.2.3.

6.2.1 Monitoring-Based Thresholds before PGM Completion

Based on requests from USEPA during the MOU review process, the BLM would review NAAQS exceedances

and determine if enhanced mitigation would be warranted during the interim period between ROD issuance and

PGM completion. The BLM would require enhanced mitigation for BLM-authorized oil and gas activities if

there is a monitored exceedance of the NAAQS at a monitor listed in Section 3.0, unless the BLM determines that

enhanced mitigation is not warranted after completing specified steps as outlined below.

1. The BLM would notify the USEPA and SD DENR within 30 days after monitoring data showing an

exceedance has been posted on USEPA’s Air Quality System (AQS). The notification would state that

the BLM is reviewing the exceedance according to this procedure.

2. After consulting with the SD DENR, the BLM would determine whether an exceptional event

1 may have

caused the exceedance.

• If the SD DENR informs the BLM that an exceptional event likely caused the exceedance, the BLM

would provide a letter to that effect to the USEPA. No further action would be necessary.

• If an exceptional event did not cause the exceedance or if SD DENR would not submit an exceptional

event waiver to USEPA, the BLM would perform Step 3.

3. The BLM would conduct a screening level analysis

2 to determine the likely source and location of the

exceedance and whether mitigation is needed.

3

• If the screening analysis indicates that the exceedance was not caused by BLM-authorized oil and gas

source(s) within the planning area or indicates that the BLM-authorized oil and gas source(s) within

1 The BLM would not formally decide that an exceptional event occurred as this decision would be made by the SD

DENR. Until a final determination of an exceptional event is presented to USEPA by the SD DENR, and the USEPA

has concurred, the BLM would assume that an exceptional event occurred based on a stated intention by the SD

DENR to submit an exceptional event waiver.

2 Publically available web based applications suggested by the USEPA to identify sources of air pollution and potential

impacts include the following sites: trajectory analysis tools like HySplit (http://ready.arl.noaa.gov/), air quality data at

the USEPA’s AQS site (http://airnow.gov ), state regulatory agency sites and airnowtech.org, an interactive snow site

(http://www.nohrsc.nws.gov/interactive/html/map.html), daily ozone modeling (http://airquality.weather.gov/), daily

ozone and PM2.5 modeling site (http://www.getbluesky.org/), and daily satellite imagery site

(http://ge.ssec.wisc.edu/modis-today/).

3 If data necessary to conduct a screening level analysis is not available, the BLM would consult with the SD DENR and

the USEPA regarding source attribution and the need for mitigation.
Appendix Q-1 SD ARMP

September 2015 Q-10 Air Resource Management Plan

the planning did not contribute to the exceedance, the BLM would convey this finding in writing to the

SD DENR and USEPA for review and comment. No further action would be necessary.

• If the screening analysis indicates that the exceedance was caused or contributed to by BLMauthorized oil and gas sources inside the planning area, the BLM would perform Step 4.

4. The BLM would consult with the SD DENR and USEPA to determine whether there is a need for: 1) a

refined attribution analysis (e.g., attribution test using CAMx ozone source attribution technology or

anthropogenic precursor’s culpability assessment) or 2) mitigation on BLM-authorized oil and gas emission

sources within the planning area. If the refined analysis:

• Is warranted, BLM would perform the refined analysis within 6 months of completing Step 3 in

consultation with SD DENR and USEPA.

• Indicates that the exceedance was not caused or contributed to by BLM-authorized oil and gas sources

inside the planning area, the BLM would provide that recommendation to the SD DENR and USEPA

for review and comment. No further action would be necessary.

• Indicates that the exceedance was caused by BLM-authorized oil and gas sources within the planning

area, the BLM would evaluate enhanced mitigation measures, as described in Section 6.2.2.

6.2.2 Determination of Enhanced Mitigation Measures before PGM Completion

If a NAAQS exceedance occurs prior to completion of PGM and the refined analysis in Step 4 above determined that the

exceedance was caused by BLM-authorized oil and gas sources within the planning area, enhanced mitigation measures

would be evaluated and selected by the BLM, in cooperation with the SD DENR and the AQTW, when appropriate.

Preference would be given to mitigation methods that the SD DENR intends to impose as new regulations or air quality

permitting provisions. Selected mitigation measures would be implemented within one year after the BLM decision to

apply additional mitigation.

Potential enhanced mitigation measures include the measures listed below based on current information concerning

potential emission reduction technologies. Additional measures or equivalent methods or emission restrictions may be

identified in the future.

• Drilling and/or blowdown activity restrictions based on meteorological conditions

• Construction activity restrictions based on meteorological conditions

• Centralization of gathering facilities

• Electric drill rigs

• Field electrification for compressors and/or pumpjack engines

• Plunger lift systems with smart automation

• Oil tank load out vapor recovery

• VOC controls on tanks with a potential to emit less than 5 tons per year

• Selective catalytic reduction on non-drill rig stationary engines

• Reduced emission completions beyond those required by USEPA regulations, if determined to be

technically and economically feasible

• Well pad density limitations

• Reducing the total number of drill rigs operating simultaneously

• Seasonally reducing or ceasing drilling during specified periods

• Using only lower-emitting drill and completion rig engines during specified time periods

• Using natural gas-fired drill and completion rig engines

• Replacing internal combustion engines with gas turbines for natural gas compression

• Employing a monthly forward looking infrared (FLIR) leak detection program to reduce VOCs

• Tank load out vapor recovery

• Enhanced VOC emission controls with 95% control efficiency on additional production equipment having

a potential to emit of greater than 5 tons/year

• Enhanced direct inspection and maintenance program
SD ARMP Appendix Q

Air Resource Management Plan Q-11 September 2015

6.2.3 Monitoring-Based Thresholds After PGM Completion

By May 31 of each year following completion of PGM, the BLM would calculate design values for each pollutant

monitored at a federal reference monitor within the planning area and identified as a representative monitor in

Section 3.0. The design value would be calculated based on calendar year monitoring data available at the time.

Monitoring data from the appropriate prior period would be used. For example, based on PGM completion in summer

2015, the first annual design value calculation would be performed by May 31, 2016 and would include monitoring data

for calendar years 2013, 2014, and 2015 for three-year design values and on monitoring data for calendar year 2015 for

single-year design values.

Calculation methods would, to the extent possible, follow USEPA procedures provided in the following appendices

within Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 50 in effect as of December 1, 2012. These procedures

may be updated by future USEPA regulations and this section of the ARMP Air Resource Management Plan would be

revised to reflect changing regulations.

• NO2 (Appendix S)

• O3 (Appendix P)

• PM10 (Appendix K)

• PM2.5 (Appendix N)

• SO2 (Appendix T)

Design values would be calculated on a site-specific basis (i.e., no spatial averaging of multiple monitors). BLM design

value calculations would exclude data associated with exceptional events identified by SD DENR.

6.2.4 Determination of Enhanced Mitigation Measures After PGM Completion

If the air quality assessment described in Section 6.2.3 indicates that a BLM-calculated design value is greater than 85

percent of a NAAQS, one or more enhanced mitigation measures addressing that pollutant or pollutant precursor would be

evaluated and selected by the BLM, in cooperation with the SD DENR and USEPA. The geographic extent of the 

mitigation measure(s) would be determined based on the analysis performed in Section 6.2.3. Potential enhanced

mitigation measures include the measures listed above in Section 6.2.2, as well as additional measures that may be

identified in the future. Selected mitigation measures would be implemented within 1 year after the BLM decision to 

apply additional mitigation.

6.3 Modeling-Based Mitigation

6.3.1 Modeling-Based Thresholds

Future modeling would assess air quality and AQRV impacts from future BLM-authorized oil and gas activity and

would include regional PGM and project-specific modeling. Modeling-based thresholds for evaluating enhanced

mitigation would include potential future impacts on NAAQS or impacts above specific levels of concern for AQRVs in

Class I or sensitive Class II areas (as identified on a case-by-case basis by SD DENR or a federal land management or

tribal agency).

6.3.2 Modeling-Based Enhanced Mitigation Measures

If BLM-authorized oil and gas activity is predicted to cause or contribute to impacts above the thresholds described

above, the BLM would facilitate an interagency process to ensure that a comprehensive strategy is developed to manage

air quality impacts from future oil and gas development within the region. The local, state, federal, and Tribal agencies

involved in the regulation of air quality and the authorization of oil and gas development would evaluate modeling

results from future modeling studies and identify potential air quality concerns and necessary reductions in air emissions.

If the modeling predicts significant impacts, these agencies would use their respective authorities to implement enhanced

emission control strategies, operating limitations, equipment standards, and/or pacing of development as necessary to

ensure continued compliance with applicable ambient air quality standards, including the enhanced mitigation measures

listed in Section 6.2.2, other future mitigation measures identified through BLM’s adaptive management strategy, or

reasonable mitigation measures suggested by the SD DENR or AQTW. If necessary, implementation of mitigation

measures would occur within one year of obtaining final modeling results for mitigation measures that conform to

currently implemented land use planning decisions and constraints.
Appendix Q-1 SD ARMP

September 2015 Q-12 Air Resource Management Plan

Bibliography for this 

Appendix

SD DENR 2011. South Dakota’s Regional Haze State Implementation Plan. August 18.

http://denr.sd.gov/des/aq/aqnews/RegionalHaze.aspx

SD DENR 2012. South Dakota Ambient Air Monitoring Annual Network Plan. South Dakota Department of

Environment & Natural Resources, Air Quality Program.

http://denr.sd.gov/des/aq/aqnews/Ann%20plan%202012%20Final.pdf

USDI 2011. Memorandum of Understanding Among the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regarding Air Quality Analyses and Mitigation for Federal Oil

and Gas Decisions Through the National Environmental Policy Act Process. June 23,

2011. http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/resources/policies/nepa/air-quality-analyses-mou-2011.pdf
APPENDIX R

RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY AVOIDANCE OR EXCLUSION AREAS

SD ARMP Appendix R

ROW and Renewable Energy Avoidance or Exclusion Areas R-1 September 2015

Appendix R

Rights-of-Way and Renewable Energy

Avoidance or Exclusion Areas

Analysis Area Management Decision

Streams, floodplains, water bodies, 

wetlands, reservoirs & riparian areas

Avoidance – All types of ROWs

Sensitive soils (includes slopes over 25%). Avoidance - All types of ROWs

Badland and rock 

outcrops

Avoidance – All types of ROWs

Fisheries reservoirs with fisheries 0.25 mi.

buffer

Avoidance - All types of ROWs

Pallid and shovel-nosed 

sturgeon

0.25 mi.

buffer Avoidance – All types of ROWs

Bighorn sheep habitat Avoidance - All types of ROWs

Big game wintering areas Avoidance – All Types of ROWS

Prairie dog colonies Avoidance – All types of ROWs

Black-footed ferret Exclusion

– All types of ROWs

Greater sage-grouse wintering areas

Exclusion – Renewable Energy ROWs.

Avoidance - Other types of ROWs

Sharp-tailed grouse/greater prairiechicken brood rearing/nesting areas

2 mi. buffer Avoidance - All types of ROWs
Appendix R SD ARMP

September 2015 R-2 ROW and Renewable Energy Avoidance or Exclusion Areas

Analysis Area Management Action

Interior least tern & piping plover

0.25 mi.

from

habitat

Avoidance- All types of ROWs

Peregrine falcon aerie 0.5 mi. buffer

Exclusion – Renewable Energy ROWs

Avoidance – Other types of ROWs

Bald eagle nests 0.5 mi. buffer

Exclusion – Renewable Energy ROWs

Avoidance – Other types of ROWs

Raptor nests

(Does not include bald eagles & peregrine 

falcons)

0.25 mi

Exclusion – Renewable Energy ROWs

Avoidance – Other types of ROWs

Greater sage-grouse PHMAs

Exclusion – Renewable Energy ROWs

Avoidance – Other types of ROWs

Greater sage-grouse leks in

GHMAs

1.0 mi buffer Exclusion – Renewable Energy ROWs

2.0 mi buffer (Minor 

ROWs only) Avoidance – Other types of ROWs

Greater sage-grouse brood rearing/nesting

habitat outside of PHMAs (in GHMAs)

2 mi.

buffer

Avoidance –

All types of ROWs

Greater sage-grouse general

Habitat (GHMAs)

Entire GH

area

Avoidance for renewable energy ROWs. 

Open for other ROWs except leks, brood 

rearing & nesting habitat as described 

above. 
SD ARMP Appendix R

ROW and Renewable Energy Avoidance or Exclusion Areas R-3 September 2015

Analysis Area Management Action

Sprague’s pipit

Sprague’s

Pipit habitat Avoidance – All types of ROWs

Colonial nesting water birds

1⁄4 mi. of

nesting

colonies

Exclusion

-All types

of ROWS

1⁄2 mi. of

nesting

colonies

Exclusion RenewableEnergy ROWs. 

Avoidance for other ROWs

VRM Class 2

Exclusion – Renewable Energy ROWs

Avoidance – Other types of ROWs

Fort Meade ACEC outside the ROW

corridor

Exclusion - All types of ROWs

Fossil Cycad ACEC Exclusion - All types of ROWs

National Register 

Historic Trails 1⁄2 mile buffer from 

Missouri River Corridor

Exclusion– Renewable Energy

Avoidance other types of ROWs 

Fort Meade SRMA buffer only (Fort Meade

ACEC addresses the interior area) 1⁄2 mile buffer Exclusion – All types of ROWs

Exemption Area SRMA and SRMA buffer 1⁄2 mile buffer

Exclusion – Renewable Energy ROWs

Avoidance – Other types of ROWs
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX S

SUMMARY OF RESTRICTIONS TABLE

SD ARMP Appendix S

Summary of Restrictions and Stipulations S-1 September 2015

Appendix S

Summary of Restrictions Table

Summary of Restrictions

The restrictions listed below are condensed summaries of the restrictions.

Refer to Section 3 for specific details 

Key

ACEC: Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern

CSU: Controlled Surface Use Stipulation

NSO: No Surface Occupancy Stipulation

O&G: Oil and Gas

ROWs: Rights-of-Way

TL: Timing Limitation Stipulation

Note: Subsurface acres include federal 

mineral estate below BLM-administered 

surface estate and federal mineral estate below 

lands of other surface ownerships (splitestate).

Open designations may be subject to site- or project-specific restrictions determined at the project level (implementation) environmental review.

Resource and Resource Use Management Decision

Air Resources

O&G Emissions from nonroad engines—

Tier 4 engines (low emission engines) 

CSU: Tier 4 engines would be required for oil and gas drilling and completion 

activities as follows: Tier 4 nonroad diesel engines, or the engine emits NOx at 

rates less than or equal to EPA emission standards for Tier 4 nonroad diesel 

engines (Refer to Appendix G).

Soil and Water

O&G stipulation within perennial or 

intermittent streams, lakes, ponds, 

reservoirs, 100-year floodplains, wetlands, 

and riparian areas. 

NSO within perennial or intermittent streams, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, 100-year 

floodplains, wetlands, and riparian areas.

Surface: 13,397 acres

Subsurface: 63,426 acres

CSU: Surface occupancy and use would be controlled within 300 feet of perennial 

or intermittent streams, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, 100-year floodplains, wetlands, 

and riparian areas.

Surface: 17,090 acres

Subsurface: 82,745 acres

ROWs restriction within perennial or 

intermittent streams, lakes, ponds, 

reservoirs, 100-year floodplains, wetlands, 

and riparian areas. 

ROWs avoidance

Surface: 14,191 acres

O&G stipulation within source water 

protection areas NSO: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within State-designated 

Source Water Protection Areas.

ROWs restriction within source water 

protection areas ROW avoidance in State-designated Source Water Protection Areas.

O&G stipulation on sensitive soils 

CSU

Surface: 122,725 acres

Subsurface: 719,649 acres

ROWs restriction on sensitive soils 

ROWs avoidance

Surface: 144,171 acres

O&G stipulation on badland formations 

and rock outcrops

NSO: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited on badlands and rock outcrop.

Surface: 21,575 acres

Subsurface: 136,146 acres

ROWs restriction on badlands and rock 

outcrops

ROWs avoidance

Surface: 24,222 acres
Appendix S SD ARMP

September 2015 S-2 Summary of Restrictions and Stipulations

Summary of Restrictions

The restrictions listed below are condensed summaries of the restrictions.

Refer to Section 3 for specific details 

Key

ACEC: Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern

CSU: Controlled Surface Use Stipulation

NSO: No Surface Occupancy Stipulation

O&G: Oil and Gas

ROWs: Rights-of-Way

TL: Timing Limitation Stipulation

Note: Subsurface acres include federal 

mineral estate below BLM-administered 

surface estate and federal mineral estate below 

lands of other surface ownerships (splitestate).

Open designations may be subject to site- or project-specific restrictions determined at the project level (implementation) environmental review.

Resource and Resource Use Management Decision

Invasive Species 

Some exceptions would apply to the following restrictions (refer to Weeds Section of Table 2-6).

Herbicide weed treatments in or near 

special status plant species

Listed T&E and sensitive plant species would have a 100 foot herbicide buffer 

zone, applied by spot treatment unless broadcast treatment would not have adverse 

impacts to such species.

Herbicide weed treatments near active 

raptors nests (including SSS, and bald 

eagle nests) 

No weed treatments from 3/1-8/1 within 1⁄4 mile raptor nest that are currently 

occupied from March 1-

Aug. 1.

Herbicide weed treatments near Greater 

Sage-Grouse leks within General Habitat 

Management Areas (GHMA)

TL: Spot treatments only within 3 miles of sage-grouse leks from March 1-June 30 

in GHMAs.

Herbicide weed treatments in Greater 

Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Management 

Areas (PHMA)

Spot treatments in PHMAs only, using IPM methods within suitable nesting or 

brood rearing habitat of known sage-grouse leks from March 1 – June 30. This 

does not apply to areas outside of PHMAs.

Wildlife

O&G stipulation on bighorn sheep habitat

NSO

Surface: 788 acres

Subsurface: 58,072 acres

ROWs restrictions in bighorn sheep 

habitat

ROWs avoidance

Surface: 875 acres

Livestock grazing in bighorn sheep habitat

Closed to domestic sheep and goat grazing within 15 miles

of bighorn sheep range.

Surface: 9,292 acres

O&G stipulation for colonial-nesting 

waterbirds (refer to Wildlife section of 

Table 2-2 for a list of species)

NSO: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1⁄4 mile 

of waterbird nesting colonies.

TL: Surface use is prohibited within 1⁄2 mile of waterbird

nesting colonies from April 1 through July 15. 

ROW restrictions for colonial-nesting 

waterbirds (refer to Wildlife section of 

Table 2-2 for a list of species)

Renewable energy ROWs: Exclusion 1⁄2 mile of nesting colonies.

Other types of ROWs:

Avoidance 1⁄2 mile of nesting colonies.

O&G stipulation on or near raptor nest 

sites active within the preceding 7 years 

(does not include bald eagle, peregrine 

falcon, or special status species)

NSO: 1⁄4 mile of nest.

Surface: 544 acres

Subsurface: 3,059 acres

TL: Surface use is prohibited within 1⁄2 mile of active raptor nest sites 

from March 1 through July 31.

Surface: 2,258 acres
SD ARMP Appendix S

Summary of Restrictions and Stipulations S-3 September 2015

Summary of Restrictions

The restrictions listed below are condensed summaries of the restrictions.

Refer to Section 3 for specific details 

Key

ACEC: Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern

CSU: Controlled Surface Use Stipulation

NSO: No Surface Occupancy Stipulation

O&G: Oil and Gas

ROWs: Rights-of-Way

TL: Timing Limitation Stipulation

Note: Subsurface acres include federal 

mineral estate below BLM-administered 

surface estate and federal mineral estate below 

lands of other surface ownerships (splitestate).

Open designations may be subject to site- or project-specific restrictions determined at the project level (implementation) environmental review.

Resource and Resource Use Management Decision

Subsurface: 13,674 acres

ROWs restriction on or near other raptor 

nest sites active within the preceding 7 

years (does not include bald eagle, 

peregrine falcon, or special status species)

Renewable energy ROWs: Exclusion 1⁄4 mile from nests.

Surface: 657 acres

Other types of ROWs:

Avoidance 1⁄4 mile from nests.

Surface: 657 acres

O&G stipulation on big game wintering 

areas 

CSU: Within wintering areas.

Surface: 106,382 acres

Subsurface: 411,150 acres

ROWs restriction in big game wintering 

areas ROWs avoidance Surface: 121,406 acres

O&G stipulation on or near sharp-tailed 

grouse/greater prairie-chicken breeding/ 

brood rearing/nesting habitat 

CSU: 2 miles from sharp-tailed grouse/greater prairie-chicken leks.

Surface: 1,316 acres

Subsurface: 15,373 acres

ROWs restriction on or near sharp-tailed 

grouse/greater prairie-chicken 

breeding/brood rearing/nesting habitat

ROWs avoidance

2 miles from sharp-tailed grouse/greater prairie-chicken leks

Surface: 1,366 acres

New power lines would be sited and designed in a manner which does not impact 

sharp-tailed grouse or greater prairie-chickens within 2 miles of leks.

Special Status Species

O&G stipulation in Black-footed ferret 

habitat

NSO: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1⁄4 mile of black-footed 

ferret habitat

ROWs restriction in Black-footed ferret 

habitat ROWs exclusion within habitat

O&G stipulation in prairie dog habitat

CSU: Within prairie dog colonies.

Surface: 2,806 acres

Subsurface: 6,378 acres

ROW restriction in prairie dog habitat. ROWs avoidance within prairie dog colonies

Surface: 2,862 acres

O&G Stipulation for Pallid and Shovelnosed SturgeonNSO: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1⁄4 mile of the waters edge 

(high water mark) of the Missouri River and its reservoirs

ROWs restriction for Pallid and Shovelnosed SturgeonROWs avoidance within 1⁄4 mile of the waters edge (high water mark) of the 

Missouri River and its reservoirs

O&G stipulation for Sprague’s pipit Lease Notice stating that mitigation may be required on all parcels with potential 

habitat. Migratory Bird Treaty Act Lease notice would also apply.

ROWs restiction for Sprague’s pipit ROWs avoidance in areas identified as high to moderate potential for Sprague’s 

pipit habitat
Appendix S SD ARMP

September 2015 S-4 Summary of Restrictions and Stipulations

Summary of Restrictions

The restrictions listed below are condensed summaries of the restrictions.

Refer to Section 3 for specific details 

Key

ACEC: Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern

CSU: Controlled Surface Use Stipulation

NSO: No Surface Occupancy Stipulation

O&G: Oil and Gas

ROWs: Rights-of-Way

TL: Timing Limitation Stipulation

Note: Subsurface acres include federal 

mineral estate below BLM-administered 

surface estate and federal mineral estate below 

lands of other surface ownerships (splitestate).

Open designations may be subject to site- or project-specific restrictions determined at the project level (implementation) environmental review.

Resource and Resource Use Management Decision

O&G stipulation in interior least tern 

nesting habitat

NSO: 1⁄4 mile from identified habitat (specific habitat not identified but potential 

exists)

ROWs restrictions in interior least tern 

nesting habitat

ROWs exclusion 1⁄4 mile from identified habitat (specific habitat not identified but 

potential exists)

O&G stipulation in piping plover nesting 

habitat

NSO: 1⁄4 mile from identified habitat (specific habitat not identified but potential 

exists)

ROWs restriction in piping plover nesting 

habitat

ROWs exclusion 1⁄4 mile from identified habitat (specific habitat not identified but 

potential exists)

O&G stipulation on or near peregrine 

falcon aeries (applies to aeries active 

within past 7 years) 

NSO: 1 mile of aeries

ROWs restriction on or near peregrine 

falcon aeries

(applies to aeries active within past 7 

years)

Renewable Energy ROWs: Exclusion within 1⁄2 mile of aeries

Other types of ROWs: Avoidance within 1⁄2 mile of aeries

O&G stipulation on or near bald eagle 

nest sites active within the preceding 5 

years

NSO: 1⁄2 mile.

Surface: 0 acres

Subsurface: 259 acres

ROWs restriction on or near bald eagle 

nest sites active within the preceding 5 

years 

Renewable Energy ROWs: Exclusion within 1⁄2 mile of nests

Other types of ROWs: Avoidance within 1⁄2 mile of nests

O&G stipulation on or near special status 

raptor nests active within 7 years (bald 

eagles and peregrine falcon addressed in 

separately)

NSO: 1⁄4 mile of nest.

Surface: 499 acres

Subsurface: 7,510 acres

TL: 3/1-7/31 within 1⁄2 mile of nest

Surface: 1,837 acres

Subsurface: 10,636 acres

ROWs restriction on or near special status 

raptor nests (bald eagles and peregrine 

falcon addressed separately)

Renewable Energy ROWs: Exclusion within 1⁄4 mile of nests

Surface: 554 acres

Other types of ROWs:

Avoidance within 1⁄4 mile of nests

Surface: 554 acres

O&G and Geothermal stipulation on 

Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs

NSO (applies to O&G and Geothermal)

Surface: 123,594 acres

Subsurface: 405,849 acres
SD ARMP Appendix S

Summary of Restrictions and Stipulations S-5 September 2015

Summary of Restrictions

The restrictions listed below are condensed summaries of the restrictions.

Refer to Section 3 for specific details 

Key

ACEC: Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern

CSU: Controlled Surface Use Stipulation

NSO: No Surface Occupancy Stipulation

O&G: Oil and Gas

ROWs: Rights-of-Way

TL: Timing Limitation Stipulation

Note: Subsurface acres include federal 

mineral estate below BLM-administered 

surface estate and federal mineral estate below 

lands of other surface ownerships (splitestate).

Open designations may be subject to site- or project-specific restrictions determined at the project level (implementation) environmental review.

Resource and Resource Use Management Decision

ROWs restriction on Greater Sage-Grouse 

PHMAs

Renewable Energy ROWs: Exclusion

Surface: 127,735 acres

Other types of ROWs:

Avoidance

Surface: 127,735 acres

Locatable, salable and other leasable 

minerals other than oil, gas and 

geothermal development in Greater SageGrouse PHMAs (Other leasable minerals 

includes all leasable minerals except oil, 

gas and geothermal which are addressed 

separately)

Development and exploration of locatable minerals would be open subject to 

adequate mitigation measures and conservation actions for sage-grouse and other 

sagebrush obligate species.

Leasable minerals (other than oil. gas and geothermal and commercial salable 

mineral permits would be closed. Salable minerals closed except for free use 

permits.

Surface: 127,735 acres

Subsurface: 412,822 acres

Oil and Gas (O&G and geothermal) 

stipulation on or near Greater Sage-Grouse 

leks within GHMAs

NSO: 6/10 mile from sage-grouse leks. This restriction applies to O&G and 

geothermal development.

Surface: 76 acres

Subsurface: 170acres

ROWs restriction on BLM surface on or 

near Greater Sage-Grouse leks within 

GHMAs

Note: Other ROW restrictions for nesting/ 

brood rearing habitat would also apply 

(see below).

Renewable energy ROWs: Exclusion 1 mile of leks (114 acres of surface) and 

avoidance in other portions of the GHMA (23,570 acres of surface).

Other types of ROWs:

Avoidance for Major ROWs (powerlines ≥ 100kV and pipelines ≥ 24 inches) 

throughout the entire GHMA.

Surface: 23,684 acres

Avoidance for Minor ROWs 2 miles of leks

(801 acres of surface). Other portions of the GHMA would be open to minor 

ROWs (22,883 acres of surface).

O&G, Geothermal stipulation on Greater 

Sage-Grouse brood rearing/nesting habitat 

within GHMAs

CSU: 2 miles from sage-grouse leks within GHMAs. This restriction applies to 

O&G and geothermal development.

Surface: 784 acres

Subsurface: 7,840 acres

ROWs restriction on Greater Sage-Grouse 

brood rearing/nesting habitat within 

GHMAs

Renewable energy ROWs: Exclusion within 1 mile of leks (114 acres of surface) 

and avoidance in other portions of GHMA (23,570 acres of surface).
Appendix S SD ARMP

September 2015 S-6 Summary of Restrictions and Stipulations

Summary of Restrictions

The restrictions listed below are condensed summaries of the restrictions.

Refer to Section 3 for specific details 

Key

ACEC: Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern

CSU: Controlled Surface Use Stipulation

NSO: No Surface Occupancy Stipulation

O&G: Oil and Gas

ROWs: Rights-of-Way

TL: Timing Limitation Stipulation

Note: Subsurface acres include federal 

mineral estate below BLM-administered 

surface estate and federal mineral estate below 

lands of other surface ownerships (splitestate).

Open designations may be subject to site- or project-specific restrictions determined at the project level (implementation) environmental review.

Resource and Resource Use Management Decision

Other types of ROWs:

Avoidance for Major ROWs (powerlines ≥ 100kV and pipelines ≥ 24 inches) 

throughout the entire GHMA.

Surface: 23,684 acres

Avoidance for Minor ROWs within 2 miles of leks (801 acres of surface). Other 

portions of the GHMA would be open to minor ROWs (22,883 acres of surface).

CSU – Bury or modify fiber optic, 

telephone, or power lines – Greater SageGrouse GHMAs, PHMAs and within 

Greater Sage-Grouse winter range

All new power lines within 2 miles of sage-grouse leks in GHMAs, PHMAs, and 

within sage-grouse winter range would be buried provided the lines can be safely 

buried. Acres affected vary depending on site specific circumstances.

O&G, Geothermal stipulation on Greater 

Sage-Grouse wintering areas (includes 

areas within PHMAs and GHMAs)

NSO: Greater sage-grouse crucial wintering areas. Includes Geothermal 

development.

Surface: 50,791 acres

Subsurface: 103,553 acres

ROWs restriction on Greater Sage-Grouse 

wintering areas (includes areas within 

PHMAs and GHMAs)

Renewable Energy ROWs: Exclusion within crucial winter range

Surface: 53,144 acres

Other types of ROWs:

Avoidance within crucial winter range

Surface: 53,144 acres

Fisheries

O&G stipulation in areas within 1⁄4 mile of 

sport fish reservoirs 

NSO

Surface: 551 acres

Subsurface: 12,548 acres

ROWs restriction within 1⁄4 mile of sport 

fish reservoirs. 

ROWs avoidance

Surface: 1,018 acres

Cultural

Leasable minerals and O&G stipulation on 

Bear Butte

Surface: 0 acres

Subsurface: 410 acres

Closed

This restriction applies to O&G and geothermal development.

Locatable minerals on Bear Butte

Surface: 0 acres

Subsurface: 410 acres

Recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry

Salable minerals on Bear Butte

Surface: 0 acres

Subsurface: 410 acres

Closed
SD ARMP Appendix S

Summary of Restrictions and Stipulations S-7 September 2015

Summary of Restrictions

The restrictions listed below are condensed summaries of the restrictions.

Refer to Section 3 for specific details 

Key

ACEC: Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern

CSU: Controlled Surface Use Stipulation

NSO: No Surface Occupancy Stipulation

O&G: Oil and Gas

ROWs: Rights-of-Way

TL: Timing Limitation Stipulation

Note: Subsurface acres include federal 

mineral estate below BLM-administered 

surface estate and federal mineral estate below 

lands of other surface ownerships (splitestate).

Open designations may be subject to site- or project-specific restrictions determined at the project level (implementation) environmental review.

Resource and Resource Use Management Decision

Leasable minerals (including O&G) 

stipulation on National Scenic and Historic 

Trails (NSHT).

NSO: Within 1⁄2 mile of the National Trail Management Corridor of designated 

NSHTs. For the Lewis and Clark NHT this would include the Missouri River and 

its reservoirs and 1⁄2 mile from the high water mark of the Missouri river and its 

reservoirs.

ROWs within 1⁄2 mile of the designated 

National Trail Management Corridor of 

National Scenic and Historic Trails 

(NSHT)

For the Lewis & Clark NHT this would 

include the Missouri River and its 

reservoirs and 1⁄2 mile from the high water 

mark of the Missouri river and its 

reservoirs. 

Renewable energy ROWs: Exclusion within 1⁄2 mile of NSHT

Other types of ROWs: Avoidance within 1⁄2 mile of NSHT

Leasable Minerals (including O&G) 

stipulations on Cultural properties 

determined to be of importance to Native 

American Tribal groups, sites determined 

to be Traditional Cultural Properties, 

and/or designated for traditional use.

NSO

Mineral exploration and development at 

the abandoned Black Hills Army Depot 

(BHAD)

Surface: 0 acres

Subsurface: 11,899 acres

Closed to leasable and salable minerals (including O&G). Open, with restrictions 

applicable to locatable minerals, limited to the prevention of unnecessary or undue 

degradation (UUD).

Abandoned townsite of Igloo (Does not 

include BHAD)

Surface: 0 acres

Subsurface: 903 acres

NSO for leasable minerals (including O&G). Closed to salable minerals.

Open to locatable minerals.

Visual Resources

CSU O&G stipulation on VRM Class II 

designation

CSU: VRM Class II criteria would apply to 1,544 acres in 

Fort Meade and Fossil Cycad ACECs.

ROW restriction on VRM Class II 

designation

Renewable Energy ROWs: Exclusion

Surface: 1,544 acres

Other types of ROWs:

Avoidance

Surface: 1,544 acres
Appendix S SD ARMP

September 2015 S-8 Summary of Restrictions and Stipulations

Summary of Restrictions

The restrictions listed below are condensed summaries of the restrictions.

Refer to Section 3 for specific details 

Key

ACEC: Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern

CSU: Controlled Surface Use Stipulation

NSO: No Surface Occupancy Stipulation

O&G: Oil and Gas

ROWs: Rights-of-Way

TL: Timing Limitation Stipulation

Note: Subsurface acres include federal 

mineral estate below BLM-administered 

surface estate and federal mineral estate below 

lands of other surface ownerships (splitestate).

Open designations may be subject to site- or project-specific restrictions determined at the project level (implementation) environmental review.

Resource and Resource Use Management Decision

Recreation

O&G stipulation in or near SRMAs 

NSO: In and within 1⁄2 mile buffer of Exemption Area SRMA.

NSO: Within 1⁄2 mile buffer around Fort Meade SRMA.

Surface: 5,078 acres

Subsurface: 8,839acres

Locatable and leasable minerals in or near 

SRMAs

Locatable minerals would be withdrawn and leasable minerals would be closed 

within the Fort Meade SRMA.

Surface: 6,574 acres

Subsurface: 6,574 acres

ROWs restriction on Fort Meade SRMA, 

buffer only (Fort Meade ACEC addresses 

the interior area)

Surface: 0 acres

Renewable Energy ROWs: Exclusion within 1⁄2 mile

Other types of ROWs: Avoidance within 1⁄2 mile

ROWs restriction on Exemption Area 

SRMA and SRMA buffer

Surface: 5,078 acres

Renewable Energy ROWs: Exclusion within SRMA and 1⁄2 mile

Other types of ROWs:

Avoidance within SRMA and 1⁄2 mile

Camping Restricted to 16 days

Motorized Cross

Country Travel to Access Campsites (does 

not include Fort Meade)

Allowed within 300 feet of roads to access campsite by direct route

Motorized cross-country travel to retrieve 

downed big game animals Not allowed

Travel with Motorized Vehicles Equipped 

to Travel Over Snow (does not include 

administrative or emergency use)

Not allowed at Fort Meade. 

This type of travel is limited to designated roads and trails in the Exemption Area 

and could be restricted in other areas through subsequent travel management 

planning.

OHV Travel (does not include 

administrative or emergency use)

The planning area would be designated as a ‘OHV Limited Area’, except for the 

Fort Meade and Fossil Cycads ACECs which would be ‘OHV Limited to 

Designated Routes’. The OHV limitation for the planning area would ultimately 

be to “OHV Limited to Designated Routes’ as determined through a subsequent 

implementation/activity level Travel Management Plan(s). In the interim OHV 

use on existing routes may occur, however no new routes may be created without 

specific authorization.

Firearm Shooting

No discharge of firearms in southern portion of Fort Meade ACEC

Surface: 3,996 acres 
SD ARMP Appendix S

Summary of Restrictions and Stipulations S-9 September 2015

Summary of Restrictions

The restrictions listed below are condensed summaries of the restrictions.

Refer to Section 3 for specific details 

Key

ACEC: Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern

CSU: Controlled Surface Use Stipulation

NSO: No Surface Occupancy Stipulation

O&G: Oil and Gas

ROWs: Rights-of-Way

TL: Timing Limitation Stipulation

Note: Subsurface acres include federal 

mineral estate below BLM-administered 

surface estate and federal mineral estate below 

lands of other surface ownerships (splitestate).

Open designations may be subject to site- or project-specific restrictions determined at the project level (implementation) environmental review.

Resource and Resource Use Management Decision

Travel and Transportation Management

Summary of travel and transportation 

management restrictions

Motorized travel limited to designated routes. Existing roads and trails will be 

considered designated routes until such time as an area-specific Travel 

Management Plan is completed and specific routes are identified and designated. 

Oversnow motorized vehicles prohibited in Fort Meade ACEC. Oversnow motor 

vehicles may be restricted in future Travel Management Plan decisions. Motorized 

travel off-road greater than 300 feet from the road for campsite location is 

prohibited.

ACECs

Summary of ACECs and acres protected 

by ACEC Designation

Two ACECs: Fort Meade and Fossil Cycad

Surface: 6,894 acres

Subsurface: 6,894 acres

Leasable minerals (including O&G and 

geothermal) on Fort Meade ACEC 

Closed

Surface: 6,574 acres

Subsurface: 6,574 acres

ROWs restriction on Fort Meade ACEC

Utility and transmission line ROWs would be allowed (open) in the designated 

ROW corridor in the Fort Meade ACEC

Surface: 1,066 acres

ROWs exclusion outside ROW corridor

Surface: 5,508 acres

Locatable minerals on Fort Meade ACEC

Withdrawn from locatable mineral entry

Surface: 6,574 acres

Subsurface: 6,574 acres

Salable minerals on Fort Meade ACEC

Closed to salable minerals

Surface 6,574 acres

Subsurface: 6,574 acres

Leasable minerals (including O&G and 

geothermal) Fossil Cycad ACEC

Surface: 320 acres

Subsurface: 320 acres

Closed

This restriction applies to O&G and geothermal development.

ROWs restriction on Fossil Cycad ACEC

ROWs exclusion

Surface: 320 acres

Other leasable minerals on Fossil Cycad 

ACEC 

No Lease (Closed)

Subsurface: 320 acres

Locatable minerals on Fossil Cycad ACEC

Withdrawn from mineral entry

Surface: 320 acres Subsurface: 320 acres
Appendix S SD ARMP

September 2015 S-10 Summary of Restrictions and Stipulations

Summary of Restrictions

The restrictions listed below are condensed summaries of the restrictions.

Refer to Section 3 for specific details 

Key

ACEC: Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern

CSU: Controlled Surface Use Stipulation

NSO: No Surface Occupancy Stipulation

O&G: Oil and Gas

ROWs: Rights-of-Way

TL: Timing Limitation Stipulation

Note: Subsurface acres include federal 

mineral estate below BLM-administered 

surface estate and federal mineral estate below 

lands of other surface ownerships (splitestate).

Open designations may be subject to site- or project-specific restrictions determined at the project level (implementation) environmental review.

Resource and Resource Use Management Decision

Salable minerals on Fossil Cycad ACEC 

Closed

Surface: 320 acres

Subsurface: 320 acres

Hazardous Materials and Cultural Resources

U.S. Air Force abandoned Minuteman 

missile sites

CSU: Within 1/8 mile (approximately 200 meters) of U.S. Air Force abandoned 

Minuteman missile sites

Mineral exploration and development at 

the abandoned Black Hills Army Depot 

(BHAD)

Surface: 0 acres

Subsurface: 11,899 acres

Closed to leasable and salable minerals (including O&G). Open, with restrictions 

applicable to locatable minerals, limited to the prevention of unnecessary or undue 

degradation (UUD), as defined in 43 CFR 3715 and 43 CFR 3809.5. Additional 

requirements beyond unnecessary or undue degradation UUD are voluntary and 

achieved by negotiation with the claim holder. Required design features would not 

be mandatory, and would be implemented within the limits of the mining laws.