Billings Field Office

Greater Sage-Grouse

Approved Resource Management Plan

Attachment 5

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 

Volume I of II

Prepared by

US Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Billings Field Office, Montana

September 2015 

BLM

NATIONAL SYSTEM OF PUBLIC LANDS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
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-15/011+1610 
State Director Recommendation for Approval 

I hereby recommend for approval the Billings Resource Management Plan. 

5!pt~&-r c),/J/SDate 
[left intentionally blank] 
VOLUME I

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page 

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

1.1 Description of the Planning Area .............................................................................................. 1-2

1.2 Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................................ 1-2

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

1.4 Travel Management Planning ...................................................................................................... 1-8

1.5 Issues Addressed ........................................................................................................................... 1-8

1.5.1 Issues Considered But Not Analyzed Further ...................................................... 1-10

2. APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR GREATER SAGE-GROUSE 

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

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

2.2 Billings GRSG Conservation Summary .................................................................................... 2-3

2.3 Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions for GRSG Habitat .................................. 2-9

2.3.1 Vegetation – Forests and Woodlands (Veg/F&W) ................................................ 2-9

2.3.2 Vegetation – Rangelands and Shrublands (Veg/R&S) ............................................. 2-9

2.3.3 Vegetation – Riparian and Wetlands (Veg/R&W) ................................................ 2-10

2.3.4 Vegetation – Invasive Species and Noxious Weeds (Veg/IS&NW) ................. 2-10

2.3.5 Wildlife Habitat and Special Status Species (Wildlife) (WLH & SSS) .............. 2-10

2.3.6 Fire Ecology and Management (Fire) ....................................................................... 2-21

2.3.7 Energy &Mineral Resources: Solid Leasables (including Coal) (SL-Coal) ....... 2-23

2.3.8 Energy & Mineral Resources: Fluid Mineral Resources (FLUIDS) .................... 2-24

2.3.9 Energy & Mineral Resources: Locatable Minerals (LOC_MIN) ........................ 2-24

2.3.10 Energy & Mineral Resources: Mineral Materials (Saleable) (SALE_MIN) ....... 2-24

2.3.11 Realty, Cadastral Survey, and Lands: Land Tenure Adjustment and 

Access (R/LT) ............................................................................................................... 2-25

2.3.12 Realty, Cadastral Survey, and Lands: Rights-of-Way, Leases, and 

Permits (R/RLP) ............................................................................................................ 2-26

2.3.13 Realty, Cadastral Survey, and Lands – Withdrawals (R/WD) ........................... 2-27

2.3.14 Livestock Grazing (LG) ............................................................................................... 2-27

2.3.15 Recreation and Visitor Services (REC) ................................................................... 2-28

2.3.16 Trails and Travel Management (TTM) .................................................................... 2-29

2.3.17 Renewable Energy (Wind/Solar) (RE) ..................................................................... 2-30

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

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

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

3.2.1 Physical, Biological, and Cultural/Heritage Resources .......................................... 3-2

3.2.2 Resource Uses and Support ...................................................................................... 3-43

3.2.3 Special Designations .................................................................................................... 3-80

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

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

4.1.1 Cooperating Agencies .................................................................................................. 4-1

4.1.2 Native American Indian Tribes ................................................................................... 4-2

4.1.3 United States Fish and Wildlife Service .................................................................... 4-3

4.2 Public Involvement ........................................................................................................................ 4-3
VOLUME I

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter Page 

ii Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015 

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 ..................................................... 5-3

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

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

TABLES Page 

1-1 Lands in the Planning Area ........................................................................................................................ 1-1

2-1 Acres of PHMA, GHMA, and RHMA in the Decision Area for the Approved RMP .................. 2-3

2-2 Acres of GRSG Habitat by County in the Decision Area.................................................................. 2-3

2-3 Threats to GRSG in the BiFO as Identified by the COT ................................................................... 2-5

2-4 Key Components of the BiFO ARMP Addressing COT Report Threats ...................................... 2-5

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

2-6 Billings Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Objectives ....................................................... 2-14

FIGURES Page 

1-1 Billings Field Office Planning Area ............................................................................................................ 1-3

1-2 BLM Administered Surface in the Billings Field Office Planning Area ............................................. 1-4

1-3 BLM Administered Federal Mineral Estate in the Billings Field Office Planning Area ................. 1-5

2-1 Habitat Management Areas ....................................................................................................................... 2-2

2-2 Biologically Significant Units, Priority Habitat Management Areas, and Restoration 

Habitat Management Areas ....................................................................................................................... 2-4

MAPS

Appendix A-1:

1-1 Billings Field Office Planning Area 

1-2 Billings Field Office Administered Surface Lands 

1-3 Billings Field Office Administered Federal Mineral Estate 

2-1 Billings Field Office Habitat Management Areas 

2-2 Billings Field Office Biologically Significant Units and Priority Habitat Management Areas 

2-3 Billings Field Office Livestock Grazing 

2-4 Billings Field Office Fluid Minerals (Oil and Gas) 

2-5 Billings Field Office Locatable Minerals 

2-6 Billings Field Office Saleable Minerals (Mineral Materials) 
VOLUME I

MAPS (continued)

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP iii

2-7 Billings Field Office Renewable Energy (Wind/Solar) 

2-8 Billings Field Office Designated Utility Corridors 

2-9 Billings Field Office Major Rights-of-Way 

2-10 Billings Field Office Minor Rights-of-Way 

2-11 Billings Field Office Land Tenure 

2-12 Billings Field Office Solid Leasables (Coal) 

2-13 Billings Field Office Trails and Travel Management 

Appendix A-2:

3-1 Riparian Priority Recovery Areas 

3-2 Pryor Herd Management Area 

3-3 Visual Resource Management 

3-4 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

3-5 Solid Leasables (Coal) 

3-6 Fluid Minerals 

3-7 Locatable Minerals 

3-8 Mineral Materials (Saleable) 

3-9 Lands Retention and Available for Disposal 

3-10 Rights-of-Way Utility Corridors 

3-11 Rights-of-Way Exclusion and Avoidance Areas 

3-12 Livestock Grazing 

3-13 Recreation Management Areas 

3-14 Sundance Lodge Special Recreation Management Area 

3-15 Four Dances Natural Area / ACEC Special Recreation Management Area 

3-16 Shepherd Ah-Nei Special Recreation Management Area 

3-17 Acton Special Recreation Management Area 

3-18 Yellowstone River Corridor Special Recreation Management Area 

3-19 Asparagus Point Special Recreation Management Area 

3-20 South Hills Special Recreation Management Area 

3-21 Pryor Mountain TMA Special Recreation Management Area 

3-22 Horsethief Special Recreation Management Area

3-23 17 Mile Extensive Recreation Management Area 

3-24 Mill Creek/Bundy Extensive Recreation Management Area 

3-25 Billings Field Office Areas Closed to Target Shooting 

3-26 Billings Field Office Travel Management Areas 

3-27 South Hills Travel Management Area 

3-28 Billings Field Office Renewable Energy 

3-29 Billings Field Office Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

3-30 Pompeys Pillar Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

3-31 Bridger Fossil Area Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

3-32 Castle Butte Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

3-33 East Pryor Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

3-34 Four Dances Natural Area and Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

3-35 Grove Creek Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

3-36 Meeteetse Spires Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

3-37 Petroglyph Canyon Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

3-38 Pryor Foothills Research Natural Area (RNA) Area of Critical Environmental Concern 
VOLUME I

MAPS (continued)

iv Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015 

3-39 Stark Site Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

3-40 Weatherman Draw Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

3-41 Wilderness Study Areas 

3-42 Billings Field Office Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers 

3-43 Billings Field Office National Historic Trail Management Corridors 

APPENDICES

A Approved RMP Maps 

A-1 Approved GRSG RMP Maps 

A-2 Approved RMP Maps 

B Greater Sage-Grouse: Applying Lek Buffers 

C Greater Sage-Grouse Required Design Features 

D The Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework 

E Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Disturbance Caps 

F Greater Sage-Grouse - Mitigation and Mitigation Measures 

G Adaptive Management Strategy for GRSG Habitat Management 

H Best Management Practices 

I Incorporating GRSG RMP Decisions into Grazing Authorizations 

J Fluid Minerals: Procedures in Oil and Gas Recovery and Operations and Summary of the Billings 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario 

K Biological Opinion 

L Wildlife Resources 

M Coal Resources: Coal Development Potential and Unsuitability Criteria 
VOLUME II

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP v 

APPENDICES

N SRMA and ERMA Tables 

O Visual Resource Management Program 

P Air Quality Resource Management Plan: Adaptive Management Strategy for Oil and Gas 

Resources 

Q Implementation and Monitoring 

R Bureau of Land Management Billings Field Office and Pompeys Pillar National Monument Sign 

Plan 

S Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations 

T Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

U Cultural and Heritage Resources 

V Recreational Setting Characteristics 

W Realty, Cadastral Survey, and Lands 

X Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Y Screening Criteria Checklist for Ten Year Grazing Permit / Lease Renewal and Transfers 

Z PFC – Proper Functioning Condition 

AA 1975 Memorandum between Montana and Wyoming - Administration of the Pryor Mountain 

Wild Horse Range 

AB Summary of Eligibility, Suitability, and Tentative Classification Determinations for Rivers in the 

Billings Field Office 

AC Land Health Standards 
vi Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015 

This page intentionally left blank. 
September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP vii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Full Phrase

AML appropriate management level 

AMP allotment management plan 

ANS aquatic nuisance species 

APD application for permit to drill 

AQRV air quality related values 

ARMP Approved Resource Management Plan 

BA biological assessment 

BiFO Billings Field Office 

BLM US Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management 

BMPs best management practices 

BSU biologically significant unit (GRSG) 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COA conditions of approval 

COT Conservation Objectives Team (GRSG) 

CSU controlled surface use 

CWPP community wildfire protection plan 

DFC desired future condition 

DOI Department of the Interior 

EA environmental assessment 

EIS environmental impact statement 

EO Executive Order 

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973 

ESR emergency stabilization and rehabilitation 

FEIS final environmental impact statement 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

FRCC fire regime condition class 

GHMA general habitat management area(s) (GRSG) 

GRSG Greater Sage-Grouse 

HMA herd management area 

HMAP herd management area plan 

IPM integrated pest management 

LBA lease by application 

LCNHT Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail 

LN lease notice 

LWC lands with wilderness characteristics 

MDEQ Montana Department of Environmental Quality 

MIST minimum impact suppression tactics 

MLP master leasing plan 

MSIP Montana State Implementation Plan 

MTFWP Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NHT National Historic Trail 
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued) Full Phrase

viii Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015 

NM National Monument 

NOI notice of intent 

NRCS US Dept. of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NSO no surface occupancy 

NWSRS National Wild and Scenic River System 

OHV off-highway vehicle 

OSV over-snow vehicle 

PAC priority areas for conservation 

PFC proper functioning condition 

PFYC potential fossil yield classification 

PHMA priority habitat management area(s) (GRSG) 

PMWHR Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range 

PPMN Pompeys Pillar National Monument 

R&PP Recreation and Public Purposes Act 

RFD reasonably foreseeable development 

RHMA restoration habitat management area(s) (GRSG) 

RMP resource management plan 

RMZ recreation management zone 

RNA research natural area 

ROD record of decision 

ROW right-of-way 

SFA sagebrush focal area(s) (GRSG) 

SRMA special recreation management area 

SRP special recreation permit 

SSS special status species 

T&E threatened and endangered 

TCP traditional cultural property 

TL timing limitation 

TMA travel management area 

USC United States Code 

USFS US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

USFWS US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS US Department of the Interior, Geological Service 

VRI visual resource inventory 

VRM visual resource management 

WAFWA Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

WMA wildlife management area 

WSA wilderness study area 

WSR wild and scenic river 

WUI wildland urban interface 

YCT Yellowstone cutthroat trout 
September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 1-1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the Approved Resource Management Plan (ARMP) is to approve the BLM management 

decisions on approximately 434,154 acres of BLM-administered surface and 889,479 acres of BLMadministered minerals in the Billings Field Office (BiFO; Table 1-1). The regulations for making and 

modifying land use plan decisions, which comprise an 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. This ARMP replaces the land use decisions within the 1985 

Billings RMP, as amended. 

Table 1-1

Lands in the Planning Area

County Total County 

Acres

BLM-Administered 

Surface Acres (and 

Percentage of 

Total County 

Surface Acres)

BLM-Administered 

Federal Mineral Estate 

(and Percentage of 

Total County Mineral 

Acres)

Big Horn, Wyoming

(managed by BiFO as 

part of the PMWHR)

4,299 4,299 (100%) 4,299 (100%)

Big Horn, Montana 3,209,364 7 (0.00022%) 1.015 (0.000032%)

Carbon 1,319,667 220,556 (16.7%) 341,380 (25.9%)

Golden Valley 752,882 7,943 (1.1%) 44,360 (5.9%)

Musselshell 1,197,367 101,247 (8.5%) 226,885 (18.9%)

Stillwater 1,154,939 5,504 (0.5%) 58,359 (5.1%)

Sweet Grass 1,191,687 15,893 (1.3%) 75,229 (6.3%)

Wheatland 914,081 1,333 (0.2%) 21,433 (2.4%)

Yellowstone 1,695,363 77,540 (4.6%) 116,517 (6.9%)

Total 10,804,548 434,321 (4%) 889,479 (8%)

The BiFO of the US Department of the Interior (DOI), (Bureau of Land Management (BLM) prepared 

the Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument Draft RMP/Draft EIS (published on March 29, 2013) 

and the Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument Proposed RMP/Final EIS (published on May 29, 
1. Introduction

1-2 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

2015) for the BiFO and Pompeys Pillar National Monument planning areas together. For ease of 

implementation, one ARMP for the BiFO and one for PPNM have been prepared. The document reflects 

the management direction for the BiFO only.

1.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNING AREA

The Record of Decision (ROD) approving the resource management plan (RMP) provides a framework 

for future management direction and appropriate use on BLM-administered lands in the following southcentral Montana counties: Carbon, Golden Valley, Musselshell, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Wheatland, 

Yellowstone and portions of Big Horn. The BiFO also administers 4,299 acres of public land in Big Horn 

County, Wyoming as part of the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range (Table 1-1, Figure 1-1, Figure

1-2, and Figure 1-3).

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose of the RMP is to provide a single, comprehensive land use plan to guide management of

BLM-administered lands in the BiFO. This plan provides goals, objectives, land use allocations, and 

management direction for the BLM-administered surface and mineral estate based on multiple use and 

sustained yield, unless otherwise specified by law (Federal Land Policy and Management Act [FLPMA]

Section 102[c], 43 USC, Section 1701 et seq.). More specifically, consistent with valid existing rights and 

applicable law, the intent of the RMP is to provide a net conservation gain to the Greater Sage-Grouse 

(GRSG).

This comprehensive plan is needed to address competing resource uses and values in the same area. In 

addition, the following conditions have changed since the 1984 Billings Resource Area RMP was 

approved:

• Changed ecological, socioeconomic, institutional, and regulatory conditions

• New laws, regulations, and policies that supersede previous decisions

• Increased public demand for use of the lands and changing activity types

• Changing tolerance or acceptance of impacts

• Heightened public awareness

• Increases in conflict between competing resource values and land uses

The RMP 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 RMP also incorporates 

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

The BLM has prepared this ARMP and associated EIS for areas containing GRSG habitat. This is needed 

to respond to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) March 2010 “warranted, but precluded” 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing decision. It identified inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms as a 

significant threat in the finding. The USFWS also identified the principal regulatory mechanisms for the 

BLM and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service (USFS) as conservation measures 

embedded in land use plans. 



1. Introduction

1-6 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

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 that the 

USFWS identified in its March 2010 listing decision and in the USFWS Conservation Objectives Team 

(COT) report (USFWS 2013). 

The major threats identified in BLM-administered lands the BiFO planning area the following: 

• Fluid mineral development—Fragmentation of GRSG habitat due to mineral exploration and 

development 

• Human uses—Fragmentation of GRSG habitat or modification of GRSG behavior due to 

human presence and activities

• Wildfire—Loss of large areas of GRSG habitat due to wildfire 

• Infrastructure—Fragmentation of GRSG habitat due to development, such as rights-of-way 

and renewable energy development 

• Climate change–Fragmentation of GRSG habitat due to climate stress 

• Invasive species—Conversion of GRSG habitat to cheatgrass- dominated plant communities 

• Grazing—Loss of habitat components due to improper livestock grazing 

• Conifer invasion—Encroachment of pinyon or juniper into GRSG habitat 

• Hard rock mining—Fragmentation of GRSG habitat due to mineral exploration and 

development 

The purpose for this ARMP is to identify and incorporate appropriate measures in existing land use 

plans to conserve, enhance, and restore GRSG habitat by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing threats to 

GRSG habitat. The BLM will consider such measures in the context of its multiple use and sustained 

yield mandates under FLPMA. 

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

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

GRSG populations.

1.3 PLANNING CRITERIA

BLM planning regulations (43 CFR, Part 1610) require the preparation of planning criteria as preliminary 

to the development of all RMPs. Planning criteria are the standards, rules, and guidelines that help to 

guide the planning process. These criteria influence all aspects of the planning process, including 

collecting and inventorying data, developing issues to address, formulating alternatives, estimating 

impacts, and selecting the Preferred Alternative. In conjunction with the planning issues, planning criteria 

ensure that the planning process is focused and incorporates appropriate analyses. Planning criteria are 

developed from appropriate laws, regulations, and policies as well as from public participation and 

coordination with cooperating agencies, other federal agencies, state and local governments, and 

American Indian tribes.
1. Introduction

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 1-7

Planning criteria used in the development of this RMP are as follows:

• The RMP will recognize the existence of valid existing rights

• The RMP will comply with applicable laws, regulations, executive orders (EOs), and BLM 

supplemental program guidance

• Planning decisions will cover BLM-administered public lands, including split-estate, where the 

federal government has retained the subsurface mineral estate

• Planning decisions will observe the principles of multiple use and sustained yield set forth in 

FLPMA and other applicable law (43 USC, Section 1701 [c][1])

• The BLM will use a systematic interdisciplinary approach to achieve integrated consideration 

of physical, biological, economic, and other sciences (43 USC, Section 1701 [c][2])

• Areas potentially suitable for ACECs or other special designations will be identified and, 

where appropriate, brought forward for analysis in the EIS (43 USC, Section 1701 [c][3])

• The BLM will rely, to the extent it is available, on the inventory of public lands, their 

resources, and other values (43 USC, Section 1701 [c][4])

• The BLM will consider present and potential uses of the public lands (43 USC, Section 1701 

[c][5])

• The BLM will consider the relative scarcity of the values involved and the availability of 

alternative means (including recycling) and sites for the realization of those values (43 USC, 

Section 1701 [c][6])

• The BLM will consider the relationship between short-term uses of the human environment 

and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity

• Decisions in the RMP will comply with applicable pollution control laws, including state and 

Federal air, water, noise, or other pollution standards or implementation plans (43 USC, 

Section 1701 [c][8])

• To the extent consistent with the laws governing the administration of the public lands 

(FLPMA 202 b[9]), BLM will be consistent with existing officially approved or adopted 

resource plans, policies, or programs of other federal agencies, state agencies, American 

Indian tribes, and local governments that may be affected (43 CFR, Part 1610.3-1 (c) (9))

• The National Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy (BLM 2004a) requires 

that impacts on sagebrush habitat and sagebrush-dependent wildlife species (including 

GRSG) be analyzed and considered in BLM land use planning efforts for public lands with 

GRSG/sagebrush habitats.

• 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, to identify GRSG habitat requirements and best 

management practices (BMPs).
1. Introduction

1-8 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

1.4 TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLANNING

In the Draft and Proposed RMPs, travel management and access was addressed at two levels: (1) RMP 

level decisions, such as identification of Travel Management Areas (TMA) and the designation of areas as 

open, closed, or limited to motorized vehicle use and (2) site-specific motorized travel route 

designations within TMAs which are implementation-level decisions. This ARMP contains only the RMP 

level decisions and the site-specific travel plan decisions for each of the eleven TMAs contained in the 

Draft and Proposed RMPs. These decisions will be made within five years of the signing of the ROD for 

the ARMP.

1.5 ISSUES ADDRESSED

Those planning issues determined to be within the scope of the EIS are used to develop one or more of 

the alternatives or are addressed in other parts of the EIS. For example, as planning issues were refined, 

the BLM collaborated with cooperating agencies to develop a reasonable range of alternatives designed 

to address and resolve key planning issues, such as what areas, if any, contain unique or sensitive 

resources requiring special management. A reasonable range of alternatives provides various scenarios 

for how the BLM and cooperating agencies can address this and other key planning issues, including the 

management of resources and resource uses in the decision area. In other words, key planning issues 

serve as the rationale for alternative development. The key planning issues identified for developing 

alternatives in this EIS are listed below.

Issue 1: How can the public lands be managed to provide desired plant communities?

A healthy cover of perennial vegetation stabilizes the soil, increases infiltration of precipitation, reduces 

runoff, provides clean water to adjacent streams, and minimizes noxious weed invasion. Some resource 

uses (e.g., grazing, mineral development, OHV use, and recreation) can affect the natural function and 

condition of plant communities. Plant communities can also be altered and affected by fire, invasive 

species, and natural disasters (e.g., floods and drought). All factors mentioned that may affect rangeland, 

forest, and riparian vegetation will be addressed in the RMP. 

Issue 2: How can public lands be managed to maintain or improve wildlife and fisheries habitats 

and control invasive species?

Where public land ownership patterns are highly fragmented protection and/or improvement of fish and 

wildlife habitats is more challenging. The key to maintaining fish and wildlife habitats is diverse, healthy 

vegetation and plant communities and good water quality, stream channel, and riparian conditions. The 

RMP will identify the range (current and potential) of wildlife habitat as well as habitat conditions in the 

decision area. 

Issue 3: How can public lands be managed to conserve and recover threatened, endangered, 

proposed, and sensitive species, including Greater Sage-Grouse?

The majority of the animal species considered sensitive by Montana/Dakotas BLM are found in habitats 

within the planning area. Many of these species are associated with grassland and sagebrush habitats, and 

the decision area contains a portion of their global breeding range.

The RMP will identify reasonable strategies to conserve and recover special status species in the 

decision area in consultation with the USFWS as required under the ESA and Bureau Special Status 
1. Introduction

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 1-9

Species policy. Special status species include species listed, proposed for listing, or candidate species 

under the ESA and sensitive species identified by the BLM (Appendix L of the B&PPNM PRMP/FEIS). 

In March 2010, the USFWS determined that the greater sage-grouse warranted protection under the 

Endangered Species (ESA), but that listing the species was precluded by the need to address other, 

higher-priority species first (75 FR 13910, March 23, 2010). One reason for the USFWS decision was an 

identified need for “improved regulatory mechanisms” to ensure species conservation. The principal 

regulatory mechanisms for BLM are RMPs, therefore, the BLM is using this opportunity to develop longterm and effective management for the species on the BLM lands (WO IM 2012-044). 

Issue 4: What public lands will be available for commercial activities and how will those activities 

be managed while protecting the integrity of other resources? 

A wide variety of commercial activities are conducted on BLM-managed lands in the planning area. Some 

of the primary uses are: oil and gas development, coal mining, livestock grazing, rights-of-way and land 

use authorizations, commercial recreation permits, locatable/saleable minerals, and forest product 

removal, and community wildfire protection plans (CWPP). The potential for wind power development 

is also present. The RMP will identify areas available for commercial activities and how those activities 

will be managed to protect resource values. 

Issue 5: How should recreation activities be managed in response to public demand while 

protecting natural and cultural resource values and provide for visitor safety?

Recreation use in the decision area continues to increase. With this popularity has come a demand for a 

greater variety and availability of recreation opportunities such as motorized and non-motorized trails 

(including equestrian trails), climbing, mountain biking, hiking, and camping. With the number of visitors 

growing, resource and user conflicts are becoming more common. Recreational use needs to be 

managed, including identifying special recreation management areas (SRMAs) where management

attention is needed to highlight important recreational opportunities or deal with problems such as 

conflicts between users or impacts on other resources. The RMP should assist the BLM in providing 

access to the public lands and to ensure quality environmentally responsible outdoor recreational 

opportunities, experiences, and benefits for the growing number of public land users. 

Issue 6: How will conflicts between motorized and non-motorized uses be resolved and how will 

impacts on resources from motorized use be addressed? 

Use of the public lands in south central Montana (for recreation, commercial uses, and general 

enjoyment) has grown in popularity in recent years. With this popularity has come a demand for greater 

variety and availability of access opportunities, including off-highway vehicle (OHV) use. With the 

number of visitors growing, resource and user conflicts are becoming more common. Motorized use 

needs to be managed, including identifying areas to be restricted or closed for the protection of other 

resource values.

Major considerations in alternative development and estimation of the effects for travel and access 

management in the RMP will include: public and administrative access needs, road densities, recreational 

activities, and resource values. 
1. Introduction

1-10 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

Issue 7: What areas should be designated for special management (e.g., ACECs and Wild and 

Scenic Rivers) and how should these areas be managed?

FLPMA and BLM policy require the BLM to give priority to designation and protection of ACECs during 

the land use planning process. The Wild and Scenic River (WSR) Act directs federal agencies to consider 

the potential for including watercourses into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS) 

during the land use planning process. The alternatives analyzed in this RMP/EIS include a range of 

management prescriptions for managing the existing and potential ACECs, as well as for managing the 

eligible rivers as suitable WSRs. 

As part of the BiFO RMP/EIS development, evaluations were conducted to address whether certain 

places in the decision area qualified/remained qualified for special designation to protect unique or 

significant values. Subject to valid existing rights, the RMP will avoid approval of proposed actions that 

could degrade the values of potential special designations. 

Issue 8: How will local social and economic conditions be addressed? 

Through this RMP/EIS, the BLM will identify how management of various resources and BLM authorized 

activities in the decision area will affect economic and social conditions. 

1.5.1 Issues Considered But Not Analyzed Further

During scoping, several concerns were raised that are beyond the scope of this planning effort or that 

referred to the BLM planning process and implementation. Additionally, several issues were raised that 

are of concern to the public but governed by existing laws and regulations (e.g., water quality). Where 

law or regulation already dictates certain management, alternatives were not developed.

Policy or administrative actions include those actions that are implemented by the BLM because they are 

standard operating procedure, because federal law requires them, or because they are BLM policy. 

Administrative actions do not require a planning decision to implement. They are, therefore, issues that 

are eliminated from detailed analysis in this planning effort.

The Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement provides a comprehensive list of issues outside the scope of the RMP or 

issues addressed through administrative or policy action. The PRMP/FEIS is available at 

http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/fo/billings_field_office/rmp/prmp_feis.html. Some major issues were 

considered but not analyzed because they were inconsistent with existing laws or higher-level 

management direction or because they were beyond the scope of the purpose and goals of this RMP. 

These issues include those described below.

1.5.1.1 Issues beyond the Scope of the Purpose and Goals of this RMP

• Settlement of RS 2477 claims. The State of Montana and the Counties of Big Horn, Carbon, 

Golden Valley, Musselshell, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Wheatland, and Yellowstone and the 

State of Wyoming and Big Horn County may hold valid existing highway rights-of-way 

across public lands in the planning area pursuant to Revised Statute (RS) 2477, Act of July 

26, 1866, chapter 262, § 8, 14 Stat. 251, 253, codified at 43 USC § 932. This RMP does not 

adjudicate, analyze, or otherwise determine the validity of claimed RS 2477 rights-of-way. 

Nothing in this RMP extinguishes any valid right-of-way (ROW), or alters in any way the 
1. Introduction

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 1-11

legal rights the State of Montana and the Counties of Big Horn, Carbon, Golden Valley, 

Musselshell, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Wheatland, and Yellowstone and the State of Wyoming 

and Big Horn County have to assert and protect RS 2477 rights, and to challenge in federal 

court or other appropriate venue any use restrictions imposed by the RMP that they believe 

are inconsistent with their rights. If a claimed ROW is recognized by the BLM through an 

administrative determination, or a ROW is determined to be valid by a court of law, any use 

restriction imposed by this RMP shall no longer apply to it.

• New proposals for WSAs or wilderness. Any individual, organization, or agency can submit 

potential wilderness designation lands to Congress for designation. Only Congress can 

designate WSAs, established under Section 603 of FLPMA, as wilderness or release WSAs 

for other uses. 

• Expansion of the PMWHR beyond the Herd Area. Wild horses can only be managed on 

areas of public lands where they were known to exist in 1971, at the time of the passage of 

the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (herd areas and territories). Under section 

1339 “Limitation of Authority” the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 

states “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the Secretary to relocate wild freeroaming horses or burros to areas of the public lands where they do not presently exist”. Until a 

change in the law allows for expansion of the PMWHR onto additional USFS and BLM lands 

that are outside of the Herd Area and Territory, the agencies have a legal obligation to 

follow the law to the greatest extent possible. Horses were in the Pryor Mountains 

historically, but by 1968 they were largely limited to the 1968 designated range due to the 

USFS/BLM boundary fence. Though there is much supposition as to the extent of wild 

horses in 1971, comprehensive agency inventories, assessments, and public involvement 

(BLM/USFS/NPS 1972; BLM/USFS 1974) provided the basis for Herd Area and Territory 

boundaries per the 1971 Act. Subsequent land use planning efforts in 1984 (BLM) and 1987 

(USFS) validated the same areas as being wild horse herd management area (HMA) and 

territory, respectively. 

• Activities and uses beyond the jurisdiction of the BLM.

• Changing existing laws, policies, and regulations.

• Availability of funding and personnel for managing programs.

1.5.1.2 Master Leasing Plans

During the preparation of the Billings RMP revision, the BLM issued Washington Office Instruction 

Memorandum (IM) 2010-117 which introduced the Master Leasing Plan (MLP) concept as part of the 

BLM’s oil and leasing reform. The MLP process entails analyzing likely development scenarios and varying 

levels of protective design features and mitigation measures in a defined area with greater detail than a 

traditional RMP allocation analysis, but at a less site-specific level than a development plan that has been 

fully defined by an operator. While preparing some MLPs may result in land use plan-level decisions, 

some may result in implementation-level decisions. 

No externally generated MLP proposals were received for the BiFO. After an internal review by BLM 

staff, the need to address or consider an MLP within the BiFO was determined not to meet the criteria. 

The following provides a brief overview of the findings of the review criteria. For a more detailed review 

of the MLP criteria and considerations, a full report can be reviewed at the Internet website: 
1. Introduction

1-12 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/mt/blm_programs/energy/oil_and_gas/leasing/leasing_reform.Par.

58748.File.dat/MLPAssessments.pdf.

Only 8 percent of the planning area is federal mineral estate. In addition, only 57 percent of the federal 

mineral estate is currently leased. The BiFO is considered to have mostly moderate to low occurrence 

potential based on the updated Reasonably Foreseeable Development (RFD) scenario prepared for the 

Proposed Billings Field Office RMP/EIS. There is scattered oil production throughout the southern 

portion of the area, as well as some production in the northeast corner. This production is in older 

fields with all of the wells being drilled prior to 2000. Since the area contains only 8 percent federal 

mineral estate and since there is no new discovery, an MLP analysis is not warranted at this time. 

Based on the reasons described above and the range of alternatives considered to address the planning 

issues and resource values identified, in relationship to oil and gas leasing and development, an MLP 

proposal is not analyzed further in this RMP.

1.5.1.3 Nonenergy Leasable Minerals

Non-energy leasable minerals, such as phosphate, sodium, potassium , sulphur, trona, or Gilsonite are 

not present in the decision area. Because of this, no allocations are made nor are they discussed or 

analyzed further in this document.
September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 2-1

CHAPTER 2

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR 

GREATER SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF GRSG HABITAT MANAGEMENT AREAS

Within the BiFO planning area, GRSG priority habitat management areas (PHMA) are not further 

refined into biologically significant units (BSU) for GRSG; the PHMA are themselves the BSU for GRSG.

A BSU for this plan is the summary of all the PHMA within a GRSG population, as delineated in the 

COT report.

The decision area for GRSG habitat management within this ARMP is BLM-administered lands in GRSG 

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

habitat on BLM-administered lands in the decision area consists of lands allocated as PHMA, General 

Habitat Management Areas (GHMA), and Restoration Habitat Management Areas (RHMA; Table 2-1, 

Table 2-2, and Figure 2-1).

PHMA, GHMA, and RHMA are defined as follows:

• PHMA—BLM-administered lands identified as having the highest value to maintain 

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

derived from and generally follow the Preliminary Priority Area boundaries identified in the 

Draft RMP/EIS. Areas of PHMA largely coincide with areas identified as priority areas for 

conservation (PAC) in the COT report. The PHMA boundaries were derived from and 

generally follow the preliminary priority area (PPA) boundaries, as identified in the Draft 

RMP/EIS. 

• GHMA—BLM-administered lands where some special management will 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 Draft 

RMP/EIS. 

• RHMA—BLM-administered lands where the priorities are maintaining populations and 

achieving a balance between ongoing and future resource use so that enough quality habitat 

is maintained to allow some residual population in impacted areas to persist.

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

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 2-3

Table 2-1

Acres of PHMA, GHMA, and RHMA in the Decision Area for the Approved RMP

PHMA GHMA RHMA

BLM-administered surface 158,926 176,734 78,927

BLM-administered federal mineral estate 205,254 299,166 88,642

Source: BLM GIS 2015

Table 2-2

Acres of GRSG Habitat by County in the Decision Area

County Name 

Approved RMP

PHMA 

(BLM-Administered 

Surface Acres/BLM 

Federal Mineral 

Estate Acres)

GHMA

(BLM-Administered 

Surface Acres/BLM 

Federal Mineral 

Estate Acres)

RHMA

(BLM-Administered 

Surface Acres/BLM 

Federal Mineral 

Estate Acres)

TOTAL

(BLM-Administered 

Surface Acres/BLM 

Federal Mineral 

Estate Acres)

Big Horn, Wyoming 0 0 0 4,299 / 4,299

Big Horn, Montana 0 0 0 7 / 1.015

Carbon 112,704 / 138,432 59,770 / 87,737 6,850 / 7,571 220,556 / 341,380

Golden Valley 446 / 14,699 497 / 9,147 0 7,943 / 44,360

Musselshell 51,946 / 52,123 36,887 / 49,671 41 / 3,435 101,247 / 226,885

Stillwater 0 528 / 10,243 0 5,504 / 58,359

Sweet Grass 0 6,676 / 27,314 0 15,893 / 72,229

Wheatland 0 40 / 10,053 0 1,333 / 21,433

Yellowstone 0 72,348 / 105,001 72,073 / 77,646 77,540 / 116,517

Total 165,096 / 205,254 176,734 / 299,166 78,927 / 88,642 434,321 / 889,479

Source: BLM GIS 2015

Sagebrush focal areas (SFA) are a subset of PHMA. They were derived from GRSG stronghold areas 

described in a USFWS memorandum to the BLM titled Greater Sage-Grouse: Additional 

Recommendations to Refine Land Use Allocations in Highly Important Landscapes (USFWS 2014). The 

memorandum and associated maps provided by the USFWS identify areas that represent recognized 

strongholds for GRSG; these areas have been noted and referenced as having the highest densities of 

GRSG and other criteria important for the persistence of the species. There are no SFA in the Billings 

planning area. Within the BiFO planning area, GRSG PHMA are not further refined into BSU for GRSG. 

The GRSG PHMA are themselves the BSU for GRSG. A BSU for this plan is the summary of all the 

PHMA within a Greater Sage-Grouse population as delineated in the COT report (Figure 2-2).

2.2 BILLINGS GRSG CONSERVATION SUMMARY

The ARMP identifies and incorporates measures to conserve, enhance, and restore GRSG habitat by 

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

addresses threats to GRSG and its habitat identified by the National Technical Team (NTT) and by the 

USFWS in the March 2010 listing decision, as well as those threats described in the USFWS’s COT

report. The COT report, which identified threats to GRSG populations across the range. The COT 

stated in the report whether that threat is present and widespread, present but localized, or unknown 

for that specific population (see Table 2-3). 

Table 2-4 provides a crosswalk as to how the ARMP for the BiFO addresses the threats from the COT 

report; Table 2-5 provides a summary of allocation decisions by GRSG Habitat Management Areas.

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

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 2-5

Table 2-3

Threats to GRSG in the BiFO as Identified by the COT

GRSG Identified 

Populations from the 

COT Report 

Applicable to the 

Billings Field Office 

Sub-region

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

Yellowstone Watershed 

Population

4 N L Y L L Y Y N Y Y N L N

Wyoming Basin 

Population

9a N L N L L L Y L Y Y L Y L

Source: USFWS 2013

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

is not known to be present, and U = unknown.

Table 2-4

Key Components of the BiFO ARMP Addressing COT Report Threats

Threats to GRSG 

and its Habitat 

(from the COT 

Report)

Key Component of the Proposed Plan

All Threats • Implement the adaptive management plan, which allows for more 

restrictive land use allocations and management actions to be 

implemented if habitat or population hard triggers are met.

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

GRSG, for actions that result in habitat loss and degradation.

• Monitor implementation and effectiveness of conservation measures in 

GRSG habitats according to the Habitat Assessment Framework.

All development 

threats, including 

mining, infrastructure, 

and energy 

development

• PHMA—Implement an anthropogenic 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.

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

best available science, updated as monitoring information on current 

infrastructure projects becomes available.

• Apply buffers necessary based on project type and location to address 

impacts on leks when authorizing actions in GRSG habitat.

• Apply Required Design Features (RDF) when authorizing actions in GRSG 

habitat.

• Consider the potential for the developing valid existing rights when 

authorizing new projects in PHMA.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

2-6 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

Table 2-4

Key Components of the BiFO ARMP Addressing COT Report Threats

Threats to GRSG 

and its Habitat 

(from the COT 

Report)

Key Component of the Proposed Plan

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 within 0.6 mile of 

an occupied lek and Timing Limitation (TL) stipulation from March 1 to 

June 15 within 2 miles of a lek.

• RHMA—Open to fluid mineral leasing subject to NSO within 0.6 miles of 

GRSG leks, subject to a TL stipulation from March to June 15 in nesting 

habitat within 3 miles of a lek, and subject to a controlled surface use 

(CSU) stipulation regarding surface disturbance density and a mitigation 

plan.

• Prioritize the leasing and development of fluid mineral resources outside 

of GRSG habitat.

Energy development—

wind energy

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

any conditions)

• GHMA—Avoidance Area (may be available for wind energy development 

with special stipulations)

• RHMA (Elk Basin)—Exclusion area 

• RHMA (outside of Elk Basin)—Avoidance area 

Energy development—

solar energy

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

any conditions)

• GHMA—Avoidance Area (may be available for solar energy development 

with special stipulations)

• RHMA (Elk Basin)—Exclusion area 

• RHMA (outside of Elk Basin)—Avoidance area 

Infrastructure—major 

ROWs

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

stipulations)

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

stipulations)

• RHMA—Avoidance area (may be available for major ROWs with special 

stipulations)

Infrastructure—minor 

ROWs

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

stipulations)

• RHMA—Avoidance area (may be available for minor ROWs with special 

stipulations)

Mining—locatable 

minerals

• Apply RDFs to locatable minerals consistent with applicable law.

Mining—nonenergy 

leasable minerals

• Not applicable; not present in the planning area.

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

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 2-7

Table 2-4

Key Components of the BiFO ARMP Addressing COT Report Threats

Threats to GRSG 

and its Habitat 

(from the COT 

Report)

Key Component of the Proposed Plan

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

set forth at 43 CFR, Part3461.5(o)(1).

Improper livestock 

grazing

• Prioritize the review and processing of grazing permits/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 present in GRSG habitat 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.

Fire • PHMA—Allow only treatments that conserve, enhance, or restore GRSG 

habitat.

Nonnative, invasive 

plants species

• Do not use noxious and invasive weed control within 0.5 mile of nesting 

and brood-rearing areas for special status species during the nesting and 

brood rearing season.

• Use integrated pest management (IPM) to make progress toward a healthy 

plant community.

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

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

consistent with specific ecological site conditions.

• Ensure that all BLM use authorizations contain terms and conditions 

regarding the actions needed to meet or progress toward meeting the 

habitat objectives for GRSG.

Pinyon and Juniper 

Expansion

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

considers tribal cultural values, prioritizing occupied GRSG habitat.

Agricultural conversion 

and ex-urban 

development

• Retain GRSG habitat in federal management.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

2-8 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

Table 2-5

Summary of Allocation Decisions by GRSG Habitat Management Areas

Resource PHMA RHMA GHMA

Land Tenure

(Figure 2-11)

Retention Retention Retention 

Renewable Energy 

(Wind)

(Figure 2-7)

Exclusion Exclusion (Elk Basin)

Avoidance with approved 

mitigation (outside of Elk Basin)

Avoidance with approved 

mitigation

Major ROWs

(Figure 2-9)

Avoidance Avoidance Avoidance

Minor ROWs

(Figure 2-10)

Avoidance Avoidance Open 

Utility Corridors

(Figure 2-8)

Open Open Open 

Oil and Gas

(Figure 2-4)

Open to fluid 

mineral leasing 

subject to NSO

stipulation without 

waiver or 

modification, and 

with limited 

exception.

Surface occupancy and use for 

oil and gas exploration and 

development will be prohibited 

within 0.6 miles of Greater 

Sage-Grouse leks (NSO). 

Surface use for oil and gas 

exploration and development 

will be prohibited from March 

1 to June 15 in Greater SageGrouse nesting habitat within 3 

miles of a lek (TL).

Surface occupancy and use for 

oil and gas exploration and 

development will be subject to 

the following special operating 

constraints that will maintain 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat:

surface disturbance density and 

mitigation plan (CSU).

Surface occupancy and use 

for oil and gas exploration 

and development will be 

prohibited within 0.6 miles 

of the perimeter of Greater 

Sage-Grouse leks (NSO). 

To protect nesting Greater 

Sage-grouse, surface 

occupancy and use within 2 

miles of a lek may be 

restricted or prohibited.

Prior to such activities, a 

plan to mitigate impacts on

nesting Greater Sage-grouse 

and Greater Sage-grouse 

nesting habitat will be 

prepared by the proponent 

and implemented upon 

approval by the Authorized 

Officer (AO) (CSU).

Geophysical exploration will

be allowed on existing 

roads and trails with surface 

use prohibited from March 

1 to June 15 within 3 miles 

of a lek (TL).

Salable Minerals

(Figure 2-6)

Closed to new Open Open

Locatable Minerals

(Figure 2-5)

Open Open Open

Coal

(Figure 2-12)

Suitable Suitable Suitable 

Travel Management

(Figure 2-13)

Limited Limited Limited

Livestock Grazing

(Figure 2-3)

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

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 2-9

2.3 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND MANAGEMENT DECISIONS FOR GRSG HABITAT

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

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

the BLM in the BiFO planning area. A Monitoring Framework is also included (Appendix D) to describe 

how the implemented program decisions will be monitored.

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

Section 3 of this ARMP 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 (Table 2-5). 

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource 

use programs will be subject to impact mitigation/minimization guidelines and BMPs found in 

Appendix H.

2.3.1 Vegetation – Forests and Woodlands (Veg/F&W)

Management Decisions (MD)

MD Veg/F&W-8: Remove conifers encroaching into sagebrush habitats, in a manner that considers 

tribal cultural values. Prioritize treatments closest to occupied sage-grouse habitats and near occupied 

leks, and where juniper encroachment is phase 1 or phase 2. Use of site-specific analysis and principles 

like those included in the FIAT report (Chambers et. al., 2014) and other ongoing modeling efforts to 

address conifer encroachment will help refine the location for specific priority areas to be treated.

2.3.2 Vegetation – Rangelands and Shrublands (Veg/R&S)

Goal Veg/R&S 3: Maintain, improve, enhance, or restore habitat to facilitate the conservation, recovery, and 

maintenance of populations of native and desirable nonnative plant and animal species. 

Goal Veg/R&S 4: Promote recovery and restoration of sagebrush communities after wildfire events.

Management Decisions (MD)

MD Veg/R&S-1: Manage rangelands to meet health standards consistent with the Standards for 

Rangeland Health (Standards 1 and 5) and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management and apply 

appropriate guidelines where not meeting the standards.

MD Veg/R&S-3: Identify priority treatment areas for conifer encroachment, including big game winter 

range, WUIs, current and historic sagebrush habitat, forest meadows and bighorn sheep habitat.

MD Veg/R&S-6: Within Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA, only treatments that conserve, enhance, or 

restore Greater Sage-Grouse habitat will be allowed. Treatment methods, including prescribed burning 

and mechanical treatments will be used to eliminate conifer encroachment and stimulate vegetative regrowth in grassland/shrub land habitats; and to reduce fuels, thin under-stories, recycle nutrients, and 

create small openings in forested vegetation types.

MD Veg/R&S-7: 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 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).
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

2-10 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

MD Veg/R&S-9: A target of eight percent of crested wheatgrass acres (approximately 2,378 acres) will

be converted to native sagebrush/grassland over the life of the plan.

• Preferred treatment areas will be areas that are not currently being used in a grazing system 

to provide early spring grazing and reduce grazing pressure from other areas within a 

grazing allotment.

• Priority treatment areas will be in Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA, RHMAs, and GHMA.

2.3.3 Vegetation – Riparian and Wetlands (Veg/R&W)

Management Decisions (MD)

MD Veg/R&W-2: Manage riparian communities to meet Standards for Rangeland Health (Standard 2) 

to ensure riparian areas and wetlands are in Proper Functioning Condition (PFC). (Appendix Z) 

MD Veg/R&W-4: Riparian areas will be monitored on a prioritized basis. High priority areas will

include:

• Riparian areas adjacent to fish bearing waters. 

• Riparian areas with existing cottonwood galleries or potential cottonwood gallery habitat

• Riparian areas within Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat

2.3.4 Vegetation – Invasive Species and Noxious Weeds (Veg/IS&NW)

Goal Veg/IS&NW 1: Manage for healthy native plant communities and desirable nonnative plant communities 

by reducing, preventing expansion of, or eliminating the occurrence of undesirable invasive species, undesirable 

nonnative, or noxious weeds (predatory plant pests or disease) by implementing management actions consistent 

with national guidance, state, and local weed management plans.

Goal Veg/IS&NW 2: Use IPM to make progress towards a healthy plant community, while meeting multiple 

land use objectives and meeting Standards for Rangeland Health (Standards 1, 2, and 5).

Management Decisions (MD)

MD Veg/IS&NW-14: Noxious and invasive weed control will not occur within 1⁄2 mile of nesting and 

brood rearing areas for special status species during the nesting and brood rearing season.

2.3.5 Wildlife Habitat and Special Status Species (Wildlife) (WLH & SSS)

Objectives: Sagebrush, native grasslands, seasonal or crucial wildlife ranges, special status species 

habitat, fisheries, cottonwood galleries, and riparian/wetlands will be priority habitats. All wildlife habitats 

will be managed to meet Rangeland Health Standards (Standards 1 and 5). BLM is responsible for 

managing habitats, whereas state and federal wildlife management agencies (e.g., MT FWP, USFWS) 

oversee management of wildlife species. BLM will coordinate with and support the conservation plans of 

those agencies on BLM administered lands. Priority wildlife species for management are described in 

Chapter 3.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 2-11

In 2010, the USFWS determined that the Greater Sage-Grouse is a Candidate species and Warranted, 

but precluded, by other priorities, for listing under the ESA. In 2009, the MT/DAKs BLM delineated 

three types of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat areas as part of the planning process (Map 2-1): 

• Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat - PHMA, 

• Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat - RHMA, and 

• Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat -– GHMA

Each area will have varying degrees of management in order to achieve the goals or objectives for each 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat area. The Greater Sage-Grouse habitat delineations may be modified as 

needed as local site conditions change or as new information becomes available. Refer to the Glossary 

for definitions of the three Greater Sage-Grouse habitat areas, Appendix F for mitigation measures 

and conservation actions for Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, and Appendix D for monitoring of Greater 

Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush Habitats.

Goal WLH & SSS 2: Manage for net conservation gain and connectivity of habitats on BLM-administered 

lands. The necessary habitat will be present to maintain, enhance, or restore threatened and endangered (T & 

E), special status, and priority native species populations. Sagebrush, native grasslands, seasonal or crucial wildlife 

ranges, special status species habitat, fisheries, cottonwood galleries, and riparian/wetlands will be priorities.

Goal WLH & SSS 3: Manage all BLM actions or authorized activities to sustain wildlife populations and their 

habitats and to avoid contributing to the listing of or jeopardizing the continued existence or recovery of special 

status species and their habitats.

Goal WLH & SSS 4: Manage or restore habitat on BLM-administered lands within the planning area to 

facilitate the conservation, recovery, and maintenance of populations of native, desirable non-native, and special 

status species consistent with appropriate local, state, and federal management plans.

Goal WLH & SSS 5: Manage habitats to support MT FWP in the attainment of objectives and well-distributed, 

healthy populations of wildlife species consistent with the MT FWP’s Strategic Habitat Plan, Montana’s 

Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy, and strategic population plans, and to achieve the stated 

purpose of designated State of Montana Wildlife Management Areas (WMA).

Goal WLH & SSS 8: Provide for the long-term conservation, enhancement, and restoration of the sagebrush 

steppe/mixed-grass prairie complex in a manner that supports sustainable Greater Sage-Grouse populations and 

a healthy diversity and abundance of wildlife species.

Management Decisions (MD)

MD WLH & SSS-6: Fences identified as barriers to wildlife movement on BLM-administered lands will

be modified or removed to accommodate wildlife passage, unless the fences were built specifically to 

keep native ungulates out of an area. Fences will also be placed and marked, or modified, to reduce 

wildlife collisions or entanglements.

MD WLH & SSS-7: Conditions of Approval (COAs) will be applied to all Applications for Permit to 

Drill (APDs) for Special Status Species.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

2-12 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

MD WLH & SSS-8: Utilize appropriate off-site compensatory mitigation to reduce impacts on wildlife 

habitat. This will be necessary if (1) all onsite mitigation has been accomplished and adverse effects have 

not been mitigated; or (2) if onsite mitigation is not feasible. Off –site mitigation will be applied as close 

to the affected area as possible and for the same or similar impacted species or habitats.

MD WLH & SSS-18: Areas that will be targeted for conversion from crested wheatgrass to native 

sagebrush/grasslands will be areas that have high wildlife habitat potential, particularly for Greater SageGrouse, big game, and other sagebrush obligate species, and are currently monocultures with little 

vegetation diversity.

MD WLH & SSS-27: Mitigation of surface-disturbing or disrupting activities (including operations and 

maintenance associated with fluid mineral development) will be applied where needed to minimize 

impacts of human activities on important seasonal wildlife habitats, consistent with the wildlife 

stipulations outlined in the Wildlife / Special Status Species and Fluid Minerals sections of Chapter 2. 

Mitigation measures will be applied during activity level planning if an on-site evaluation of the project 

area indicates the presence of important wildlife species. 

Exceptions may be granted by the AO, if an environmental review demonstrates that effects could be 

mitigated to an acceptable level, habitat for the species is not present in the area, or portions of the area 

can be occupied without affecting a particular species. Exceptions may also be granted where the shortterm effects are mitigated by the long-term benefits (e.g., prescribed fire, wildlife monitoring, or forest 

health treatments).

As defined in the Glossary, surface-disturbing and disruptive activities will not prohibit all activities or 

authorized uses. For example, emergency activities (e.g., fire suppression, search and rescue), rangeland 

monitoring, routine maintenance associated with an approved authorization, dispersed recreational 

activities (e.g., hunting, hiking), and livestock grazing are not considered surface-disturbing or disruptive 

activities.

MD WLH & SSS-38: Crucial Winter Range - Surface occupancy and use for oil and gas exploration 

and development will be prohibited (NSO) in crucial winter range (antelope, elk, moose, bighorn sheep, 

mule deer, whitetail deer, and greater sage-grouse).

MD WLH & SSS-51: Special Status Species - Identify distribution, key habitat areas, and special 

management needs for development of management plans and conservation measures, consistent with 

restoration, conservation and recovery plans for threatened, endangered, and other special status 

species. Priority habitats are riparian/ wetland areas, native grasslands, sagebrush steppe, conifer forests, 

and seasonal ranges supporting life cycle requirements for wildlife (i.e., winter, breeding, parturition, 

etc.).

MD WLH & SSS-52: Special Status Species - Timing restrictions will be used in special status species 

habitat. Surface disturbing and disruptive activities that impact special status species habitats during their 

seasons of use, particularly during critical life cycles will be avoided or minimized.

MD WLH & SSS-53: Special Status Species - Assist in the restoration, reintroduction, augmentation, 

or re-establishment of T & E, special status, and priority species and other populations and (or) habitats 

in coordination with other agencies.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 2-13

MD WLH & SSS-56: Special Status Species - Lease Notice: Oil and gas surface occupancy and use is 

subject to the following operating constraints:

• 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 ground-disturbing activity 

that may affect any such species or critical habitat until it completes its obligations under 

applicable requirements of the ESA as amended, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq., including 

completion of any required procedure for conference or consultation.

MD WLH & SSS-73: Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse –

• These habitat objectives in Table 2-6 summarize the characteristics that research has found 

represent the seasonal habitat needs for Greater Sage-Grouse. The specific seasonal 

components identified in Table 2-6 were adjusted based on local science and monitoring 

data to define the range of characteristics used in this sub-region. Thus, the habitat 

objectives provide the broad vegetative conditions we strive 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 habitat objectives will be part of the sage-grouse habitat assessment to be used during 

land health evaluations (Appendix D, Monitoring Framework). These habitat objectives are 

not obtainable on every acre within the designated GRSG habitat management areas.

Therefore, the determination on 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.

• 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.

• This information should not be viewed as providing standards by which to judge the overall 

quality of sagebrush habitats. Instead, these sage-grouse habitat characteristics should be 

used as one tool for assessing habitats and guiding management actions. There is a tendency 

to review each indicator and its suitability category independently, but 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 and 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 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

2-14 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

Table 2-6

Billings Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Objectives

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition Reference

Breeding, Nesting, and Early Brood-Rearing (Seasonal Use Period: March 1 – June 15)

Lek Security Proximity of trees .65– Km2 (.388 miles) 

avoidance of coniferous 

habitats

Doherty, K.E. 2008. Sage-grouse and 

Energy Development: Integrating Science 

with Conservation Planning to Reduce 

Impacts. (Doctoral dissertation, the 

University of Montana (Missoula). 

Available at: 

http://etd.lib.umt.edu/theses/available/etd03262009-

132629/unrestricted/doherty.pdf

Collision Risks Fences and other 

structures that pose a 

high collision risk are 

absent or mitigated with 

visual markers within 

1.25 miles of leks active 

within 5 years.

Connelly et al. 2000

Stevens 2011

Sage‐Grouse Habitat Assessment 

Framework, Multi-scale Habitat Assessment 

Tool (unpublished report). August 2010. 

BLM, Idaho State Office. Boise.

Proximity of sagebrush 

to leks

Adjacent protective 

sagebrush cover within 

100 m (328 ft.) of an 

active lek

Sage‐Grouse Habitat Assessment 

Framework, Multi-scale Habitat Assessment 

Tool (unpublished report). August 2010. 

BLM, Idaho State Office. Boise.

Cover % of seasonal habitat 

meeting desired 

conditions

80% of the nesting 

habitat within 3.1 miles 

of sage-grouse leks 

meets the 

recommended 

vegetation 

characteristics, where 

appropriate (relative to 

ecological site potential, 

etc.)

Knick, S.T. and J.W. Connelly, 2011. 

Greater Sage-grouse, Ecology and 

Conservation of a Landscape Species and its 

Habitats. Studies in Avian Biology No. 38. 

A Publication of the Cooper 

Ornithological Society, University of 

California Press. Berkeley. pp. 1–9.

Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinkes, D. E. Naugle, 

2010. Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment 

Framework. U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management, Idaho State Office, Boise, 

Idaho. 

Sagebrush canopy 

cover

5-25% Herman – Brunson, K.M. 2007.

Swanson, C.C. 2009.

Doherty, K.E., Naugle, D.E., Walker, B.L. 

2010

Hagen, C.A., Connelly, J.W., Schroeder, 

M.A. 2007

Doherty, K.E., Beck, J.L., Naugle, D.E. 

2011.

USDA, NRCS, Montana, Ecological Site 

Descriptions. Accessed January 28, 2014.

Foster, M.A, Ensign, J.T., Davis, W.N., 

Tribby, D.C. 2014.

Wright, P and Wegner, D. 2008

Lane , V.R. 2005
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 2-15

Table 2-6

Billings Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Objectives

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition Reference

Sagebrush height 6-31 inches (15-50cm) Schroeder et al. 1999.

Swanson, C.C. 2009.

Holloran, M.J., Heath, B.J., Lyon, A.G. 

2005. Doherty, K.E., Beck, J.L., Naugle, 

D.E. 2011

USDA, NRCS, Montana, Ecological Site 

Descriptions. Accessed January 28, 2014.

Lane , V.R. 2005

Predominant sagebrush 

shape

Predominately spreading 

shape

Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinkes, D. E. Naugle, 

2010.

Perennial grass cover 

(including 

bunchgrasses/important 

native grasses)

≥10% Doherty, K.E., Beck, J.L., Naugle, D.E. 

2011.

USDA, NRCS, Montana, Ecological Site 

Descriptions. Accessed January 28, 2014.

Holloran, M.J., Heath, B.J., Lyon, A.G. 

2005

Doherty, K.E., Naugle, D.E., Walker, B.L. 

2010

Hagen, C.A., Connelly, J.W., Schroedeer, 

M.A 2007

Lane, V.R. 2005

Perennial grass and 

forb height (including 

residual grasses)

Adequate nest cover 

based on ecological site 

potential and seasonal 

precipitation; 4.4-11.3 

inches (11.4-29 cm)

K.E. Doherty, K.E. Naugle, J.D. Tack, 

B.L.Walker, J.M.Graham and J.L. Beck. 

2014

Perennial forb canopy 

cover

≥3% Doherty, K.E., Beck, J.L., Naugle, D.E. 

2011.

USDA, NRCS, Montana, Ecological Site 

Descriptions. Accessed January 28, 2014.

Holloran, M.J., Heath, B.J., Lyon, A.G. 

2005.

Doherty, K.E., Naugle, D.E., Walker, B.L. 

2010.

Hagen, C.A., Connelly, J.W., Schroedeer, 

M.A. 2007

Brood-Rearing/Summer 1 (Seasonal Use Period: June 16 – October 31)

Cover % of Seasonal habitat 

meeting desired 

condition

>40% of the broodrearing/summer habitat 

meets recommended 

brood habitat 

characteristics where 

appropriate, relative to 

site potential and 

seasonal precipitation.

Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinkes, D. E. Naugle, 

2010. 

Sagebrush canopy 

cover

5-25% Herman – Brunson, K.M. 2007.

Swanson, C.C. 2009.

Doherty, K.E., Naugle, D.E., Walker, B.L. 

2010

Doherty, K.E., Beck, J.L., Naugle, D.E. 

2011.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

2-16 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

Table 2-6

Billings Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Objectives

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition Reference

USDA, NRCS, Montana, Ecological Site 

Descriptions. Accessed January 28, 2014.

Foster, M.A., Ensign, J.T., Davis, W.N., 

Tribby, D.C., 2014.

Lane , V.R. 2005

Sagebrush height 6-31 inches (15-50cm) Schroeder et al. 1999

Holloran, M.J., Heath, B.J., Lyon, A.G. 

2005

Doherty, K.E., Beck, J.L., Naugle, D.E. 

2011.

USDA, NRCS, Montana, Ecological Site 

Descriptions. Accessed January 28, 2014.

Lane , V.R. 2005

Perennial grass and 

forb canopy cover

≥10% Doherty, K.E., Beck, J.L., Naugle, D.E. 

2011.

Holloran, M.J., Heath, B.J., Lyon, A.G. 

2005.

Doherty, K.E., Naugle, D.E., Walker, B.L. 

2010

Hagen, C.A., Connelly, J.W., Schroedeer, 

M.A. 2007

USDA, NRCS, Montana, Ecological Site 

Descriptions. Accessed January 28, 2014.

Riparian areas/mesic 

meadows

Proper Functioning 

Condition

BLM, 1997c.

Prichard, D., F. Berg, S. Leonard, M. 

Manning, W. Hagenbuck, R. Krapf, C. 

Noble, J. Staats, and R. Leinard. 1999.

Prichard, D., 1998

Upland and riparian 

perennial forb 

availability

Preferred forbs are 

common with several 

preferred species 

present.

Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinkes, D. E. Naugle, 

2010

Doherty, K.E., Beck, J.L., Naugle, D.E. 

2011.

USDA, NRCS, Montana, Ecological Site 

Descriptions. Accessed January 28, 2014.

Winter 1 (Seasonal Use Period: November 1 – February 28)

Cover and 

Food

% of seasonal habitat 

meeting desired 

conditions

>80% of wintering 

habitat meets winter 

habitat characteristics 

where appropriate 

(relative to ecological 

site, etc.).

Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinkes, D. E. Naugle, 

2010.

Sagebrush canopy 

cover

≥10% Schroeder et al. 1999.

Swanson, C.C. 2009.

Foster, M.A, Ensign, J.T., Davis, W.N., 

Tribby, D.C. 2014.

Sagebrush height ≥25cm Connelly et al. 2000
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 2-17

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. Professional expertise and judgment are required.

Measurement of these objectives will follow the steps described in Appendix D.

MD WLH & SSS-74: Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse – As described above, the identified 

habitat objectives are averages and will vary based on the individual ecological sites and their potential.

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 ESD. ESDs function as a primary repository of 

ecological knowledge regarding an ecological site. ESDs are maintained on the 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.

MD WLH & SSS-75: Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse – In addition to the references 

identified in the following table, the Conservation Plans developed for each of the Wyoming Local SageGrouse Working Groups will be consulted to identify specific habitat objectives appropriate for sitespecific conditions. The Conservation Plans, updated in March 2014, are available on the Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department (WGFD) website at: https://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/wildlife-1000817.aspx.

MD WLH & SSS-76: Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse – 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. 

Greater Sage-Grouse

MD WLH & SSS-9: The BLM will apply appropriate mitigation measures and conservation actions to 

BLM authorized activities to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for impacts if an evaluation 

of the project area indicates the presence of important wildlife species, seasonal wildlife habitat, or 

other resource concern.

MD WLH & SSS-71: 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 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

2-18 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

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 which result in habitat loss and degradation” 

include 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). 

MD WLH & SSS-77: Surface occupancy and use for oil and gas exploration and development will be 

prohibited within Greater Sage-Grouse crucial winter range (NSO).

MD WLH & SSS-78: Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse –

• 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. 

• If the BLM determines that the State of Montana has adopted a GRSG Habitat Conservation 

Program that contains comparable components to those found in the State of Wyoming’s 

Core Area Strategy including an all lands approach for calculating anthropogenic 

disturbances, a clear methodology for measuring the density of operations, and a fully 

operational Density Disturbance Calculation Tool, the 3% disturbance cap will be converted 

to a 5% cap for all sources of habitat alteration within a project analysis area.

• 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 GRSG PHMA in any given BSU 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.

MD WLH & SSS-81: In undertaking BLM management actions, and consistent with valid and existing 

rights and applicable law in authorizing third-party actions, the BLM will apply the lek buffer-distances 

identified in the USGS Report Conservation Buffer Distance Estimates for Greater Sage-Grouse – A 

Review (Open File Report 2014-1239) in accordance with Appendix B.

MD WLH & SSS-83: 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 the 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 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 2-19

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

energy or mining facility is co-located into an existing disturbed area.

GRSG PHMA 

Goal WLH & SSS 10: To maintain or improve Greater Sage-Grouse populations by maintaining Greater SageGrouse habitat in good condition.

Management Decisions (MD)

MD WLH & SSS-79: Establish Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA (158,926 acres of BLM-administered lands 

and 205,254 acres of federal minerals). These PHMA are generally consistent with MTFWP Greater 

Sage-Grouse core area designations, with the exception of one small area in southern Carbon County 

near Elk Basin Oil field (Map 2-1).

MD WLH & SSS-80: 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 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).

MD WLH & SSS-81: In undertaking BLM management actions, and consistent with valid and existing 

rights and applicable law in authorizing third-party actions, the BLM will apply the lek buffer-distances 

identified in the USGS Report Conservation Buffer Distance Estimates for Greater Sage-Grouse – A 

Review (Open File Report 2014-1239) in accordance with Appendix B.

MD WLH & SSS-82: No waivers or modifications to a fluid mineral lease no-surface-occupancy 

stipulation will be granted. The AO may grant an exception to a fluid mineral lease no-surface-occupancy 

stipulation 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) PHMA of mixed ownership 

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

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

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

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

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

action’s impacts. 

Any exceptions to this lease stipulation may be approved by the AO only with the concurrence of the 

State Director. The AO may not grant an exception unless the applicable state wildlife agency, the 

USFWS, and the BLM unanimously find that the proposed action satisfies (i) or (ii). Such finding shall 

initially be made by a team of one field biologist or other GRSG expert from each respective agency. In 

the event the initial finding is not unanimous, the finding may be elevated to the appropriate BLM State 

Director, USFWS State Ecological Services Director, and state wildlife agency head for final resolution. 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

2-20 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

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

be made publically available at least quarterly. 

MD WLH & SSS-85: Open to fluid mineral leasing and development (including geophysical 

exploration). To protect Greater Sage-grouse, a priority species for management, surface occupancy and 

use for oil and gas exploration and development will be prohibited within Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA

(NSO).

MD WLH & SSS-86: Exclusion area for renewable and solar energy exploration and facility 

development.

MD WLH & SSS-87: Avoidance area for major and minor ROWs. However ROWs will only be 

allowed in GRSG PHMA where habitat functionality will be maintained.

GRSG RHMAs

Goal WLH & SSS 11: In these areas, BLM will manage habitat so that Greater Sage-Grouse populations can 

be restored over the long-term. BLM will strive to restore historical Greater Sage-Grouse habitat functionality, or 

at a minimum, have no net loss of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, to support Greater Sage-Grouse populations.

Management Decisions (MD)

MD WLH & SSS-88: Establish RHMAs (78,927 acres of BLM-administered lands and 88,642 acres of 

federal mineral estate). These areas will include one small polygon of core habitat in Carbon County 

near Elk Basin Oil Field, as well as other areas (Map 2-1).

MD WLH & SSS-89: Surface occupancy and use for oil and gas exploration and development will be 

prohibited within 0.6 miles of Greater Sage-Grouse leks (NSO). 

MD WLH & SSS-90: Surface use for oil and gas exploration and development will be prohibited from 

March 1 to June 15 in Greater Sage-Grouse nesting habitat within 3 miles of a lek (TL).

MD WLH & SSS-91: Surface occupancy and use for oil and gas exploration and development will be 

subject to the following special operating constraints that will maintain Greater Sage-Grouse habitat:

surface disturbance density and mitigation plan (CSU).

MD WLH & SSS-92: Geophysical exploration will be allowed on existing roads and trails with surface 

use prohibited from March 1 to June 15 within 4 miles of a lek (TL).

MD WLH & SSS-93: GRSG RHMAs outside of Elk Basin will be avoidance areas for renewable and 

solar energy exploration, development and facilities with approved mitigation.

MD WLH & SSS-94: The Elk Basin GRSG RHMA will be an exclusion area for renewable and solar 

energy exploration, development and facilities with approved mitigation.

MD WLH & SSS-95: Avoidance area for major and minor ROWs. However ROWs will only be 

allowed in GRSG RHMAs where habitat functionality will be maintained.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 2-21

GRSG GHMA 

Goal WLH & SSS 12: BLM will maintain habitat for viable Greater Sage-Grouse populations to promote 

movement and genetic diversity. Maintain, restore or enhance Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and connectivity 

between sagebrush habitats, with emphasis on those habitats occupied by Greater Sage-Grouse.

Management Decisions (MD)

MD WLH & SSS-96: Establish GHMA (176,734 acres of BLM-administered lands and 299,166 acres of 

federal mineral estate). These areas include a 3 mile buffer around Greater Sage-Grouse leks, outside of 

the PHMA and RHMA areas (Map 2-1). 

MD WLH & SSS-97: In undertaking BLM management actions, and consistent with valid and existing 

rights and applicable law in authorizing third-party actions, the BLM will apply the lek buffer-distances 

identified in the USGS Report Conservation Buffer Distance Estimates for Greater Sage-Grouse – A 

Review (Open File Report 2014-1239) in accordance with Appendix B.

MD WLH & SSS-98: Surface occupancy and use for oil and gas exploration and development will be 

prohibited within 0.6 miles of the perimeter of Greater Sage-Grouse leks (NSO). 

MD WLH & SSS-99: To protect nesting Greater Sage-grouse, surface occupancy and use within 2 

miles of a lek may be restricted or prohibited. Prior to such activities, a plan to mitigate impacts on

nesting Greater Sage-grouse and Greater Sage-grouse nesting habitat will be prepared by the proponent 

and implemented upon approval by the AO (CSU).

MD WLH & SSS-100: Geophysical exploration will be allowed on existing roads and trails with 

surface use prohibited from March 1 to June 15 within 3 miles of a lek (TL).

MD WLH & SSS-101: Avoidance area for renewable and solar energy exploration, development and 

facilities with approved mitigation.

MD WLH & SSS-102: GRSG GHMA will be avoidance areas for major ROWs. GRSG GHMA will be 

open to minor ROWs. Utilities and similar facilities will be located adjacent to other facilities where 

practical and only when habitat can be maintained.

MD WLH & SSS-103: Consider the potential for the development of not-yet-constructed valid 

existing rights of surface disturbing activities as defined in Table 2 of the Monitoring Framework 

(Appendix D) prior to authorizing new projects in PHMA.

2.3.6 Fire Ecology and Management (Fire)

Goals and Objectives

Goal FIRE 1: Manage wildfire and fuels for the protection of public health, safety, property, and resource 

values. The protection of human life is the single, overriding priority. Setting priorities among protecting human 

communities and community infrastructure, other property and improvements, and natural and cultural resources 

will be done based on the values to be protected, human health and safety, and the costs of protection. 

Goal FIRE 3: Maintain desired mix of seral stages within vegetation communities, including desert shrublands, 

forest and woodlands, grasslands, mountain shrublands, sagebrush (all sub-species), riparian/wetlands and aspen.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

2-22 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

Goal FIRE 6: Utilize an integrated management technique unless otherwise restricted (defined as prescribed 

fire, mechanical, chemical, or biological, followed by desired reseeding) to reduce fuels to protect high priority 

areas or resource values.

Management Decisions (MD)

MD FIRE-4: Fuels treatments will be designed to protect or improve resource values

MD FIRE-7: Within the following areas work to restore or maintain approximately 14,000 acres 

available for restoring natural Fire Regime Condition Classes (FRCC) in Musselshell, Stillwater, Carbon, 

and Sweet Grass Counties, should resource management constraints and considerations (i.e. GRSG 

habitat, other identified T&E issues, and culturally sensitive areas) allow.

MD FIRE-8: If prescribed fire is used in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, the NEPA analysis for the Burn 

Plan will address:

• why alternative techniques were not selected as a viable options; 

• how Greater Sage-Grouse goals and objectives will be met by its use; 

• how the COT Report objectives will be addressed and met;

• a risk assessment to address how potential threats to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat will 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 will protect Greater Sage-Grouse habitat in PHMA (e.g., creation of fuel 

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

are a minor component in the understory, burning slash piles from conifer reduction treatments, used as 

a component with other treatment methods to combat annual grasses and restore native plant 

communities).

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

has addressed the four bullets outlined above. Any prescribed fire in winter habitat will need to be 

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

winter range habitat quality.”

MD FIRE-11: Heavy equipment will not be used to construct fire lines in crucial winter range, habitat 

of candidate or special status species, riparian/wetlands or in areas of cultural resource sensitivity or 

other designated areas (e.g., ACECs, WSAs). Exceptions will be permitted for protection of human life, 

property and/or to protect resource values from further loss due to unwanted/unplanned natural or 

human caused wildland fires. 

Cultural Resource Specialists, Wildlife Biologists, or Resource Advisors will be consulted for locations of 

identified areas before use of or anticipated use of heavy equipment.

If heavy equipment is used, rehabilitation work on lines will begin immediately after containment.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 2-23

Heavy equipment could be used in a WSA only if the exceptions in the non-impairment standards are 

met.

MD FIRE-14: Prescribed fire will be allowed on up to 5 percent of the percent of BLM administered 

acres within the planning area to achieve measurable landscape level objectives from (1) other 

resources, including, but not limited to, forestry, wildlife, range, vegetation, and watershed; (2) the 

reduction of hazardous fuels; and (3) the introduction of fire into fire-adapted ecosystems.

Within Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA and RHMAs, only treatments that conserve, enhance, or restore 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat will be allowed. 

Treatment methods, including prescribed burning and mechanical treatments will be used to eliminate 

conifer encroachment and stimulate vegetative re-growth in grassland/shrub land habitats; and to reduce 

fuels, thin under-stories, recycle nutrients, and create small openings in forested vegetation types.

A fire risk assessment will be completed for implementation of prescribed fire in relation to GRSG goals 

and objectives.

When prescribed fire is used for vegetation treatments, the burn plan will clearly indicate how COT 

objectives will be addressed and met by use of prescribed fire and why alternative techniques for 

vegetation treatment were not selected.

2.3.7 Energy &Mineral Resources: Solid Leasables (including Coal) (SL-Coal)

Management Decisions (MD)

MD SL-COAL-4: Terms and conditions will be applied to mining activities to meet land health 

standards for uplands, riparian areas and wetlands, water quality, air quality, and native plant and animal 

species (see BMPs in Appendix H and Greater Sage-Grouse Required Design Features in

Appendix C).

MD SL-COAL-6: 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, Part3461.5. PHMA is essential habitat for maintaining GRSG for 

purposes of the suitability criteria set forth at 43 CFR, Part3461.5(o)(1).

MD SL-COAL-8: Within Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA (Map 3-5) and RHMAs solid mineral leasing 

(coal) will only be allowed with the following lease stipulations:

• Mining may only occur via subsurface methods

• All mine related appurtenant facilities will be placed outside of the PHMA 

MD SL-COAL-9: Remainder of Planning Area: Process lease by application (LBAs) for new coal leases 

by applying the coal screening process to the application. The coal screening process results will

determine which lands may be available for further consideration for coal leasing and development. 

Appropriate NEPA analysis will be required prior to leasing. The existing RMP (BLM 1984) coalscreening management decisions are current and relevant to the application area. (See Appendix M)
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

2-24 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

2.3.8 Energy & Mineral Resources: Fluid Mineral Resources (FLUIDS)

Management Decisions (MD)

MD FLUIDS-15: 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 (Map 2-4). 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).

MD FLUIDS-16: 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 on sage-grouse 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.

MD FLUIDS-17: Where the federal government owns the mineral estate in PHMA and GHMA, and 

the surface is in non-federal ownership, apply the same stipulations, COAs, and/or conservation 

measures and RDFs applied if the mineral estate is developed on BLM-administered lands in that 

management area, to the maximum extent permissible under existing authorities, and in coordination 

with the landowner.

MD FLUIDS-18: Where the federal government owns the surface and the mineral estate is in nonfederal ownership in PHMA and GHMA, apply appropriate surface use COAs, stipulations, and mineral 

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

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

2.3.9 Energy & Mineral Resources: Locatable Minerals (LOC_MIN)

Goal LOC_MIN 1: Encourage and facilitate development of locatable minerals in the manner to prevent 

unnecessary or undue degradation, as defined in 3809.5. Provide land use opportunities contributing to economic 

benefits while protecting or minimizing adverse impacts on other resources. 

Management Decisions (MD)

MD LOC_MIN-4: Terms and conditions will be applied to mining activities (within the constraints of 

the mining law) to meet land health standards for uplands, riparian and wetlands, water quality, air 

quality, and native plant and animal species (see Appendices B, C, D, E, F) for Greater Sage-Grouse 

specific measures). Note: All withdrawal actions (including mineral withdrawals) are processed in the 

Realty, Cadastral Survey, and Lands program. Restrictions applicable to locatable minerals are limited to 

the prevention of unnecessary or undue degradation, as defined in 43 CFR, Part3809.5.

2.3.10 Energy & Mineral Resources: Mineral Materials (Saleable) (SALE_MIN)

Goal SALE_MIN 1: Provide land-use opportunities contributing to economic benefits and meet local 

infrastructure needs while protecting or minimizing adverse impacts on other resources and resource uses. 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 2-25

Management Decisions (MD)

MD SALE_MIN-4: The following areas are closed to mineral material disposals (281,597 acres) (Maps 

2-6 & 3-8):

• Four Dances Natural Area ACEC 

• Petroglyph Canyon ACEC 

• Pompeys Pillar ACEC 

• Pryor Foothills RNA/ACEC 

• Stark Site ACEC 

• Weatherman Draw ACEC 

• Lands with wilderness characteristics (LWC)

• Big Horn Tack-On WSA 

• Burnt Timber Canyon WSA

• Pryor Mountain WSA 

• Twin Coulee WSA (If Twin Coulee WSA is released from further consideration, the area 

may be open to mineral material disposals.)

• Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA - closed to new salable minerals sales; existing permits will be 

renewed with no increase in the permitted boundary. 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 framework 

(Appendix F);

– all applicable required design features are applied; and [if applicable] the activity is 

permissible under the specific sub-regional screening criteria 

• Shepherd Ah-Nei Recreation Area

• Acton Recreation Area 

• Asparagus Point

2.3.11 Realty, Cadastral Survey, and Lands: Land Tenure Adjustment and Access (R/LT)

Management Decisions (MD)

MD R/LT-14: Lands classified as priority habitat and general habitat (or habitat classification 

appropriate for the sub-region) for Greater Sage-Grouse 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 Greater Sage-Grouse or 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

2-26 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

2) the agency can demonstrate that the disposal of the lands, including land exchanges, will

have no direct or indirect adverse impact on conservation of the Greater Sage-Grouse. 

(Map 2-11)

MD R/LT-18: Manage 353,829 acres in Category II (which includes GRSG habitat) - Retention/Limited 

Land Ownership Adjustment (no land disposals through direct sale). Land exchanges will be considered. 

(Map 3-9)

2.3.12 Realty, Cadastral Survey, and Lands: Rights-of-Way, Leases, and Permits (R/RLP)

Goal R/RLP 4: Indirect effects of infrastructure will be minimized through time by siting informed by the best

available science updated as monitoring information becomes available.

Management Decisions (MD)

MD R/RLP-15: PHMA avoidance area for major and minor ROWs. (Maps 2-9 & 2-10)

• However ROWs will only be allowed in GRSG PHMA where habitat functionality will be 

maintained.

MD R/RLP-16: RHMA avoidance area for major and minor ROWs. (Maps 2-9& 2-10)

• However ROWs will only be allowed in GRSG RHMAs where habitat functionality will be 

maintained.

MD R/RLP-17: GHMA avoidance areas for major ROWs. (Maps 2-9 & 2-10)

• Utilities and similar facilities will be located adjacent to other facilities where practical and 

only when habitat can be maintained.

MD R/RLP-18: GHMA open to minor ROWs. 

• Utilities and similar facilities will be located adjacent to other facilities where practical and 

only when habitat can be maintained.

MD R/RLP-21: Silver Tip Road in Carbon County will be designated as a ROW corridor (1,750 feet on 

either side of the center line of Silver Tip Road). This corridor will have a total width of 3,500 feet and 6 

miles in length on public land, with the exception of the portion of this corridor occurring in the Elk 

Basin GRSG RHMA which will be 1,320 feet on either side of the center line of Silver Tip Road (total 

width of 2,640 feet) (Map 2-8).

MD R/RLP-23: ROW avoidance areas will include 378,958 acres (Maps 2-9, 2-10, 3-11):

• Castle Butte ACEC

• East Pryor ACEC

• Four Dances Natural Area ACEC 

• Grove Creek ACEC 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 2-27

• Pompeys Pillar ACEC (General Management Zone - restricts ROW to a 500’ wide path 

paralleling the southern boundary of the public lands along Highway 312) 

• Pryor Foothills RNA/ACEC

• Stark Site ACEC Weatherman Draw (expansion area)

• Cave and karst areas will be managed as ROW avoidance areas. 

• L&CNHT and NPNHT corridors will managed as ROW avoidance areas

• Asparagus Point, Steamboat Butte, portion of Acton, portion of Shepherd Ah-Nei, Bad 

Canyon, East and Red Pryor Mountains

• Hoskins Basin Archeological District, Demi-John Flat Archeological District, Beartooth 

Mountain Front (2 mile strip bordering the eastern boundary of the Custer National Forest)

• WSR eligible segments

• Big Horn Sheep Winter Range

• Big Game Winter Range

• Greater Sage-Grouse GHMA

• Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA and RHMAs will remain avoidance areas. However ROWs will

only be allowed in Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA and RHMAs where habitat functionality will

be maintained.

2.3.13 Realty, Cadastral Survey, and Lands – Withdrawals (R/WD)

Management Decisions (MD)

MD R/RWD-4: Withdrawal proposals will be evaluated at the project level and will not be approved 

unless the land management is consistent with maintaining and protecting BLM resource values (see 

(Appendix H, BMPs) and GRSG Appendices (Appendices B, C, D, E, F, G) as appropriate).

2.3.14 Livestock Grazing (LG)

Goal LG 1: Provide opportunities for livestock grazing as a part of multiple-use in a manner that meets and/or 

exceeds rangeland health standards.

Management Decisions (MD)

MD LG-9: In areas of resource conflicts, installation of structural range improvements will only be 

considered where grazing practices (change in season of use, reduction of AUMs, increased rest, etc.) 

are unable to resolve the resource concern. Structural range improvements could be considered where 

necessary to facilitate the change in grazing management practices. Existing range improvements will be 

evaluated and modified to address impacts on wildlife populations (e.g. Greater Sage-Grouse/fence 

conflicts).

MD LG-11: All allotments wholly located in Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA will be considered for 

retirement, where the base property owner relinquishes their preference.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

2-28 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

MD LG-12: Site specific Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and management objectives will be developed for 

BLM land within Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA. These objectives will be incorporated into the respective 

allotment management plans (AMPs) or livestock grazing permits as appropriate. (Map 2-1)

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

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

Objectives Table (Table 2-6) and Land Health Standards (43 CFR, Part4180.2) 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 LG-14: 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 LG-15: The NEPA analysis for renewals and modifications of livestock grazing permits/leases that 

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

Objectives Table (Table 2-6) and Land Health Standards (43 CFR, Part4180.2) 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 LG-16: Allotments within PHMA, and focusing on those containing riparian areas, including wet 

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

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

MD LG-17: At the time a permittee or lessee voluntarily relinquishes a permit or lease, the BLM will

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

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

allotments or fire breaks. This does not apply to or impact grazing preference transfers, which are 

addressed in 43 CFR, Part4110.2-3.

2.3.15 Recreation and Visitor Services (REC)

Management Decisions (MD)

MD REC-15: In PHMA, do not construct new recreation facilities (e.g., campgrounds, trails, trailheads, 

staging areas) unless the development will have a net conservation gain to GRSG habitat (such as 

concentrating recreation, diverting use away from critical areas, etc.), or unless the development is 

required for visitor health and safety or resource protection

MD REC-27: The BLM will issue special recreation use permits as appropriate for commercial, 

competitive, and special events subject to guidelines in BLM Handbook 2930, resource capabilities, social 

conflict concerns, professional qualifications, public safety, and public needs. SRPs will only be allowed in 

priority habitat if they are consistent with the goals and objectives for that habitat or species.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 2-29

2.3.16 Trails and Travel Management (TTM)

Management Decisions (MD)

MD TTM-24: Site specific travel planning within Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA will be completed within 

a five (5) year period after the ROD is signed where it hasn’t already been completed as part of this 

plan.

MD TTM-25: In PHMA and GHMA, temporary closures will be considered in accordance with 43 CFR 

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

subpart 6320 (Use of Wilderness Areas, Prohibited Acts, and Penalties); 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 implemented to prevent recurrence. (43 CFR, Part8341.2) A closure or 

restriction order should be considered only after other management strategies and alternatives have 

been explored. The duration of temporary closure or restriction orders should be limited to 24 months 

or less; however, certain situations may require longer closures and/or iterative temporary closures.

This may include closure of routes or areas.

Gage Dome/Colony Road TMA

MD TTM-47: Management Objectives: reduce road density to minimize impacts on Greater SageGrouse habitat and other resource values. Manage the TMA to provide recreational opportunities and 

access while protecting Greater Sage-Grouse habitat

Cottonwood/Weatherman Draw TMA

MD TTM-58: This area will be delineated into three sub-regions to address varying resource issues, 

access and recreational opportunities. 

• Sub-Region I - Weatherman Draw/Castle Coulee. Management objectives: protect cultural 

values and resources within the ACEC. Minimize impacts on cultural values, fragile and 

erosive soils and other resources within the sub-region

• Sub-Region II - Hollenbeck. Management objectives: provide recreational opportunities with 

emphasis on minimizing impacts on Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, fragile and erosive soils, 

and other resource values

• Sub-Region III - Silver Tip. Management objectives: provide for motorized recreational 

opportunities with emphasis on minimizing impacts on fragile and erosive soils, and other 

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

2-30 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

Warren TMA

MD TTM-60: Management Objectives: to provide recreational opportunities with emphasis on 

protecting key Greater Sage-Grouse habitat while minimizing impacts on other resources values. 

Maintain current level of access. 

Grove Creek TMA

MD TTM-62: Management Objectives: to minimize impacts on geologic and visual resources, special 

status plants, and cultural and wildlife values, including Greater Sage-Grouse, while providing casual, noncommercial public recreational access.

2.3.17 Renewable Energy (Wind/Solar) (RE)

Management Decisions (MD)

MD RE-5: Manage 231,755 acres as exclusion areas (closed) to renewable energy authorizations, 

including: 

• WSAs*

– Big Horn Tack-On WSA 

– Burnt Timber Canyon WSA 

– Pryor Mountain WSA 

– Twin Coulee WSA

 *If released by an Act of Congress, lands within WSA boundaries will

remain closed.

• National Historic Trails 

– Nez Perce NHT

– Lewis & Clark NHT

• ACECs

– Bridger Fossil Area ACEC 

– Castle Butte ACEC 

– East Pryor ACEC 

– Four Dances Natural Area ACEC 

– Grove Creek ACEC

– Meeteetse Spires ACEC 

– Petroglyph Canyon ACEC 

– Pompeys Pillar ACEC 

– Pryor Foothills RNA ACEC

– Stark Site ACEC
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 2-31

– Weatherman Draw ACEC

• WSR Eligible/Suitable Segments

• LWC

• PMWHR

• Cultural Sites

– Steamboat Butte 

– Bruder-Janich Site 

– Paul Duke Site 

– Demi-John Flat NR District 

– Bighorn Mouth North Cliffs Rock Art Site 

– Hoskins Basin Archaeological District

• VRM Class I areas

• GRSG PHMA

• Elk Basin GRSG RHMA

MD RE-6: Manage 200,278 acres as avoidance areas for renewable energy authorizations, subject to 

special stipulations and mitigation beyond standard stipulations and BMPs applied through site-specific 

analysis.

Special stipulations and mitigation include provisions such as TLs, CSU, and other 

constraints/restrictions consistent with fluid minerals stipulations that will be applied to protect the 

following particular resources/habitats:

• GRSG GHMA

• GRSG RHMAs outside of Elk Basin

• Bald/Golden Eagles

• Ferruginous Hawks

• Greater Sage-Grouse Winter Range

• Big Game Winter Range 

• Big Game Parturition

• Bighorn Sheep Habitat

• Sharp-tailed grouse

• Peregrine Falcon

• Mountain Plover

• Raptor Nests

• Other avoidance areas include:
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

2-32 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

• Asparagus Point, Steamboat Butte, Portion of Acton, Portion of Shepherd Ah-Nei, Bad 

Canyon, East and Red Pryor Mountains, 

• Cave and Karst areas 

• VRM Class II areas

• Within 1⁄4 mile of riparian areas and wetlands, designated 100 year flood plains and on water 

bodies and streams, unless activities are not in conflict with desired outcomes.

• Surface disturbance on slopes >30%, soils with low reclamation potential, and highly 

erodible characteristics will be avoided whenever possible. If disturbance could not be 

avoided an approved mitigation and reclamation plan will be required prior to activities 

taking place.

• TLs apply to development of facilities, but not to operation or maintenance.
September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-1

CHAPTER 3

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

3.1 APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN INSTRUCTIONS

The ARMP is now the baseline plan for management for the BiFO in South Central Montana and 

Northern Wyoming.

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 result in a change in the scope of

resource uses or a change in the terms, conditions, and decisions of the approved plan. If the BLM 

proposes to amend the plan, the amending process will follow the same procedure required for

preparation and approval of the plan, but the focus is limited to that portion of the plan being amended

(43 CFR, Part 1610.5-5).

The BLM decisions proposed in this document only apply to BLM-administered surface and mineral estate

acres. This will include the BLM-administered mineral estate that is under privately owned land, which is

commonly referred to as split estate land. This document does not include planning or management

decisions for lands or minerals privately owned, owned by the State of Montana, owned by local

governments, or administered by other federal agencies.

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 rights-of-ways (ROWs)). However, post-lease actions or

authorizations (e.g., application for permit to drill, (APD) road ROW, pipeline ROW) will potentially be

subject to mitigation measures, as necessary, consistent with the decisions, on a case-by-case basis as

required through project-specific National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis or other

environmental review. The stipulations or COA are in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and if

applicable lease terms.

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 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-2 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

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 Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument Plan constitutes compliance with NEPA 

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

assessments (EAs) and Environmental Impacts Statements (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 actions established for 

protecting and preserving resources on public lands managed by the BLM in the BiFO. 

3.2.1 Physical, Biological, and Cultural/Heritage Resources

Air Resources (AIR)

Goal AIR 1: Ensure authorizations and management activities comply with local, state, and federal air quality 

regulations and requirements.

Goal AIR 2: Manage BLM authorized activities to maintain compliance with the NAAQS, MAAQS, and the 

Montana State Implementation Plan (MSIP). 

Goal AIR 3: Reduce air quality and air quality related value (AQRV) impacts, including visibility and acid 

deposition, by including technically and economically feasible management actions to reduce emissions of criteria 

and hazardous air pollutants (See Appendix P, Air Quality Resource Management Plan).

Management Decisions (MD)

MD AIR-1: The BLM authorized activities will stipulate requirements to reduce fugitive dust emissions 

from construction activities and sites with surface disturbance.

MD AIR-2: The BLM authorized activities will stipulate requirements to reduce fugitive dust emissions 

from travel on high-traffic unpaved roads.

MD AIR-3: The BLM authorized activities will stipulate engine and stationary source emission control 

requirements needed to ensure compliance with NAAQS, MAAQS, WAAQS, and the Montana SIP.

MD AIR-4: If unacceptable air quality or AQRV degradation trends are identified and are determined 

to be caused by BLM authorized activities, additional emission control will be included in the BLM 

authorized activities.

MD AIR-5: The BLM will coordinate smoke management with the Montana-Idaho Airshed Management 

Group, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), and the Yellowstone County Air 

Quality Unit in Yellowstone County.

MD AIR-6: Management of the non-attainment area(s) within the planning area will continue to be the 

responsibility of the State of Montana (Map 4 of the B&PPNM PRMP/FEIS).
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-3

Climate Change (CC)

Goal CC-1: For oil and gas activities, reduce GHG emissions on a unit-production basis.

Goal CC-2: Evaluate the observed and anticipated ling-term dynamic of climate change and reduce GHG 

emissions from projects when feasible.

Goal CC-3: Provide for diverse, healthy ecosystems that are resilient to stressors, such as climate change.

Goal CC-4: Provide for flexible, adaptable management that allows for timely responses to changing climatic 

conditions.

Goal CC-5: Maintain or improve the ability of the BLM lands to reduce (sequester) atmosphere GHGs.

Management Decisions (MD)

MD CC-1: Promote vegetative capture and storage of carbon, with consideration for resource 

objectives, by using Rangeland Standards and Montana Forestry/Rangeland BMP guidelines at the project 

planning and implementation level.

MD CC-2: Identify opportunities for geophysical carbon sequestration on federal lands where federal 

mineral ownership exists as outlined in national guidance.

MD CC-3: The BLM authorized activities will consider the use of BMPs to reduce emissions of GHGs.

MD CC-4: Priority will be placed on actions such as: enhanced energy efficiency, use of lower GHGemitting technologies and/or renewable energy, planning for carbon capture and sequestration, and the 

capture or beneficial use of fugitive methane emissions.

MD CC-5: Adjust the timing of BLM-authorized activities as needed to accommodate long-term 

changes in seasonal weather patterns, while considering the impacts on other resources and resource 

uses.

Soil Resources (SOIL)

Goal SOIL 1: Maintain or improve soil health and productivity (e.g., chemical, physical, and biotic properties) by 

implementing Standards for Rangeland Health and other soil protection measures.

Goal SOIL 2: Minimize accelerated soil erosion and compaction and maintain surface soil water infiltration 

based on site specific conditions.

Goal SOIL 3: Manage BLM-authorized activities to minimize soil mass movement (primarily from accelerated 

water/wind erosion) resulting from fire, above-ground disturbances, and accelerated stream bank erosion. 

Goal SOIL 4: Manage soil resources to:

• Prevent or minimize accelerated soil erosion

• Prevent or minimize flood and sediment damage, as needed
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-4 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

• Establish desirable plant communities, maintain existing desirable vegetative ground cover 

composition consistent with the ecological site characteristics, and sustain other ground cover 

including biotic crusts and litter to increase or maintain surface soil stability and nutrient cycling.

• Manage BLM-authorized activities to minimize sediment delivery to creeks, streams, and standing 

bodies of water (lakes, ponds, reservoirs, etc.).

Management Decisions (MD)

MD SOIL-1: BLM-authorized surface-disturbing activities will include plans for reclamation. Site-specific 

reclamation actions should reflect the complexity of the project, environmental concerns, and the 

reclamation potential of the site, giving consideration to soils susceptible to erosion and compaction 

when assessing projects.

MD SOIL-2: The Standards for Rangeland Health will be used to assess compaction and erosion issues.

MD SOIL-3: Respond in a timely manner to assess soil and mitigate potential soil damage after wildland 

or prescribed fire, in accordance with BLM Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation (ESR) standards.

MD SOIL-4: Identify opportunities to construct water flow, sediment control and watershed 

stabilization projects in partnership with local, state, and federal programs.

MD SOIL-5: Ground-disturbing authorizations will be allowed in areas where erosion will be effectively 

controlled or mitigated with a BLM-approved design plan.

MD SOIL-6: Surface disturbance on slopes >25%, soils with low reclamation potential, and highly 

erodible characteristics will be avoided whenever possible. If disturbance could not be avoided an 

approved mitigation and reclamation plan will be required prior to activities taking place.

MD SOIL-7: Use Rangeland Health Standards and BMPs to assess and mitigate disturbance of soils (e.g., 

erosion, re-vegetation, fiber mats and other restoration measures, etc.).

MD SOIL-8: Mitigate impacts on sensitive soils for oil and gas leasing and development (CSU) 

MD SOIL-9: Surface occupancy and use for oil and gas exploration and development will be prohibited 

on badlands and rock outcrops. (NSO)

MD SOIL-10: Use BMPs and Rangeland Health Standards at the project level to assess and mitigate 

impacts on fragile and unstable soils prone to slumping.

Water Resources (WATER)

Goal WATER 1: Maintain and/or improve surface water and groundwater resources, maintain compliance with 

applicable federal and state water quality standards, and improve water quality where practical within the scope 

of the BLM’s authority.

Goal WATER 2: Restore and/or maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of water resources to 

protect designated beneficial uses and achieve water quality standards.

Goal WATER 3: Minimize erosion and subsequent sedimentation for improved stream and watershed health.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-5

Goal WATER 4: Maintain or improve morphological conditions to a stable state that can fully support 

beneficial uses.

Goal WATER 5: Protect water quality for municipal, industrial, agricultural, recreation, and residential purposes 

by adopting protective measures to meet federal, tribal, state, and local water quality requirements.

Goal WATER 6: Floodplains are properly functioning allowing for aquifer recharge, wildlife habitat, and flood 

water retention. (Map 8 of the B&PPNM PRMP/FEIS)

Goal WATER 7: Stream channel conditions are representative of the site capacity and dimension and 

moderate flows to allow floodplain aquifer recharge and safeguard floodplains.

Goal WATER 8: Secure and protect water rights for beneficial uses on the BLM administered lands to ensure 

water availability to the BLM authorized uses and programs.

Management Decisions (MD)

MD WATER-1: BLM will participate in the development, implementation, and monitoring of water 

quality restoration plans/TMDL plans.

MD WATER-2: Use Rangeland Health guidelines and other management strategies to meet the 

Standards for Rangeland Health (Standards 2, 9 &12).

MD WATER-3: Use BMPs and other practical management strategies to meet water quality standards 

set forth in rules/laws of federal, tribal, state, and local agencies.

MD WATER-4: Acquire in-stream water rights where appropriate, to ensure water availability for 

multiple-use management and proper functioning riparian and upland areas.

MD WATER-5: Cooperate with Montana State DEQ and local communities to implement Source 

Water Protection Programs (SWPPs) and preserve source water.

MD WATER-6: Mitigation of surface-disturbing activities will be applied where needed to minimize 

impacts of human activities on riparian, water and floodplain resources, consistent with the stipulations 

identified for oil and gas development in this section. Mitigation measures will be applied during activity 

level planning if an on-site evaluation of the project area indicates the presence of these resources. 

Exceptions may be granted by the AO, if an environmental review demonstrates that effects could be 

mitigated to an acceptable level or portions of the area can be occupied without affecting a particular 

habitat. Exceptions may also be granted where the short-term effects are mitigated by the long-term 

benefits (e.g., prescribed fire, wildlife monitoring, forest health treatments, and habitat restoration).

As defined in the Glossary, surface-disturbing and disruptive activities will not prohibit all activities or 

authorized uses. For example, emergency activities (e.g., fire suppression, search and rescue), rangeland 

monitoring, routine maintenance associated with an approved authorization, dispersed recreational 

activities (e.g., hunting, hiking), and livestock grazing are not considered surface-disturbing or disruptive 

activities.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-6 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

MD WATER-7: Surface occupancy and use for oil and gas exploration and development will be 

prohibited within State-designated Source Water Protection Areas (NSO)

MD WATER-8: Restrict or limit BLM-authorized activities that contribute to deteriorating watershed 

conditions and/or excessive erosion.

MD WATER-9: Use Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines and BMPs to mitigate impacts from 

activities that are contributing to excessive erosion.

MD WATER-10: Monitor route conditions and temporarily/permanently close roads and/or apply 

mitigation measures where runoff contributes to accelerated decline in water quality and/or habitat, 

and/or reclaim.

MD WATER-11: Avoid the discharge of oil and gas- produced water from point sources to public 

lands, including stream channels and uplands, as a means of disposal. Any allowed discharge will be in 

compliance with Montana DEQ requirements. 

MD WATER-12: Surface occupancy and use for oil and gas exploration and development (including 

geophysical operations) will be prohibited within riparian areas and wetlands, water bodies, perennial 

and intermittent streams, and floodplains of perennial streams. (NSO) (Same as MD FH & SSS-14 and 

MD WATER-6)

MD WATER-13: 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 and wetland areas, The plan will

address: (a) potential impacts on riparian and wetland resources, (b) mitigation to reduce impacts on

acceptable levels (including timing restrictions), (c) post project restoration, and (d) monitoring (the 

operator must conduct monitoring capable of detecting early signs of change in riparian and/or wetland 

conditions. (CSU) (Same as MD FH & SSS-15 and MD VEG/R&W-7)

Vegetation: Forests and Woodlands (VEG/F&W)

Goal VEG/F&W 1: Restore and/or maintain the health and productivity of public forests and woodlands to 

provide a balance of forest and woodland resource benefits to current and future generations.

Goal VEG/F&W 2: Manage forests and woodlands, considering factors such as species, density, canopy cover, 

age class, and stand health and understory components, to restore vitality, health, and diversity.

Goal VEG/F&W 3: Promote forest vegetation recovery on forested lands after wildfire events.

Goal VEG/F&W 4: Use fire and fuels treatments as an integrated approach to meet forest health objectives.

Goal VEG/F&W 5: Return forests toward a more natural forest condition class and fire regime by 

implementing treatments that move forest conditions toward FRCC1.

Goal VEG/F&W 6: Natural disturbance regimes will be maintained or mimicked so that plant communities are 

resilient to climate change and periodic outbreaks of insects, disease, and wildfire.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-7

Goal VEG/F&W 7: Manage quaking aspen stands to promote vigor and resilience and to promote expansion of 

its current range.

Goal VEG/F&W 8: Manage coniferous and deciduous forests to promote vigor and resilience. 

Goal VEG/F&W 9: Manage forests and woodlands to meet or exceed the standards identified in BLM’s 

Standards for Rangeland Health (Standards 1 and 5).

Management Decisions (MD)

MD VEG/F&W-1: An inventory and health assessment of forested stands within the planning area will

be completed during the life of the plan, as budget and other priorities allow.

MD VEG/F&W-2: Monitor forest health indicators, including populations of insects, and apply forest 

management methods which promote the appropriate level of stocking and function based on the forest 

type.

MD VEG/F&W-3: Manage vegetation structure, density, species composition, patch size, pattern, and 

distribution in a manner which reduces the occurrence of unnaturally large and severe wildfires and 

forest insect/disease outbreaks. The amount of vegetation to be treated may vary and will be based on 

inventory and monitoring to meet desired objectives.

MD VEG/F&W-4: Treat stands at risk of catastrophic wildfire and epidemic levels of forest insects 

and/or disease as a high priority.

MD VEG/F&W-5: Conduct forest and woodland health management activities using a prescription 

based on the best available science. At a minimum, prescriptions will require a description of current 

stand conditions and desired future conditions (DFC).

MD VEG/F&W-6: Forest management will emphasize forest structures with large trees appropriate to 

the forest type, snag recruitment, and large diameter trees for cavity nesters where appropriate.

MD VEG/F&W-7: Use adaptive management strategies that address climate change in order to 

maintain or enhance forest and woodland ecosystems

MD VEG/F&W-8: Remove conifers encroaching into sagebrush habitats, in a manner that considers 

tribal cultural values. Prioritize treatments closest to occupied sage-grouse habitats and near occupied 

leks, and where juniper encroachment is phase 1 or phase 2. Use of site-specific analysis and principles 

like those included in the FIAT report (Chambers et. al., 2014) and other ongoing modeling efforts to 

address conifer encroachment will help refine the location for specific priority areas to be treated.

MD VEG/F&W-9: Wheeled and tracked vehicle operation will be avoided on sustained slopes greater 

than 25% whenever possible. If operations could not be avoided, an approved mitigation and reclamation 

plan will be required prior to activities taking place.

MD VEG/F&W-10: Will allow operations on approx. 60% of forested acres not restricted by WSAs 

or ACECs.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-8 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

MD VEG/F&W-11: Mechanical harvest (e.g. soil disturbing activities) limited on slopes > 25% without 

an approved mitigation and reclamation plan in place, but line or helicopter operations allowed.

MD VEG/F&W-12: Emphasis will be placed on retention and acquisition of forested lands. Disposal, 

retention, or acquisition of forested lands will consider the values of the forest type, habitat diversity, 

and potential for carbon sequestration.

MD VEG/F&W-13: Cutting for density management, forest health, and fuels management will be 

allowed unless otherwise restricted (e.g., WSAs, ACECs, etc.). Large trees will be retained in numbers 

and species as appropriate for the forest type and successional stage, consistent with wildlife 

requirements and other resource values.

Vegetation: Rangelands and Shrublands (VEG/R&S)

Goal VEG/R&S 1: Manage vegetative resources to maintain a diversity of ecological conditions on rangelands 

while providing for a variety of multiple uses that are economically feasible, and based on sound biological 

principles and the best available science. 

Goal VEG/R&S 2: Manage vegetative communities to restore, maintain or enhance vegetation community 

health, habitat, composition and diversity to provide a mix of successional stages that incorporate diverse 

structure and composition in the desired vegetation types. 

Goal VEG/R&S 3: Maintain, improve, enhance, or restore habitat to facilitate the conservation, recovery, and 

maintenance of populations of native and desirable nonnative plant and animal species. 

Goal VEG/R&S 4: Promote recovery and restoration of sagebrush communities after wildfire events. 

Management Decisions (MD)

MD VEG/R&S-1: Manage rangelands to meet health standards consistent with the Standards for 

Rangeland Health (Standards 1 and 5) and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management and apply 

appropriate guidelines where not meeting the standards.

MD VEG/R&S-2: Identify and maintain areas containing high quality native vegetation for use as seed 

collection sites.

MD VEG/R&S-3: Identify priority treatment areas for conifer encroachment, including big game winter 

range, WUIs, current and historic sagebrush habitat, forest meadows and bighorn sheep habitat.

MD VEG/R&S-4: To manage cheatgrass and annual bromes, use the best available vegetation 

treatments, including but not limited to early spring grazing, prescribed fire, interim farming practices, 

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

competition and favor establishment of desired species.

MD VEG/R&S-5: Native seed will be used for all restoration and rehabilitation efforts unless site 

specific objectives dictate otherwise.

MD VEG/R&S-6: Within Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA, only treatments that conserve, enhance, or 

restore Greater Sage-Grouse habitat will be allowed. Treatment methods, including prescribed burning 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-9

and mechanical treatments will be used to eliminate conifer encroachment and stimulate vegetative regrowth in grassland/shrub land habitats; and to reduce fuels, thin under-stories, recycle nutrients, and 

create small openings in forested vegetation types.

MD VEG/R&S-7: In 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 specific ecological site conditions. The attributes necessary to sustain these habitats are described 

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

MD VEG/R&S-8: A variety of treatment methods, including mechanical, chemical, biological and 

prescribed fire (including wildfire), will be used if the treatment will achieve a diversity of habitat 

components within sagebrush communities.

MD VEG/R&S-9: A target of eight percent of crested wheatgrass acres (approximately 2,378 acres) 

will be converted to native sagebrush/grassland over the life of the plan.

• Preferred treatment areas will be areas that are not currently being used in a grazing system 

to provide early spring grazing and reduce grazing pressure from other areas within a 

grazing allotment. 

• Priority treatment areas will be in GRSG PHMA, RHMAs, and GHMA.

Vegetation: Riparian and Wetlands (VEG/R&W)

Goal VEG/R&W 1: Riparian and wetland areas will be managed to promote healthy wetland ecosystems, 

supporting physical processes and natural combinations of vegetation that work together to create stable stream 

banks, functional floodplains, complex fish and wildlife habitat and high water quality within site potential (Map 

3-1).

Goal VEG/R&W 2: Riparian vegetation will be managed to achieve or sustain DFCs. The DFCs will be 

developed by an interdisciplinary team, giving consideration to restoring and/or promoting natural communities 

and complex riparian conditions valuable to water quality and wildlife habitat.

Goal VEG/R&W 3: Invasive species management will focus on restoring native and desired non-native 

communities to riparian areas to attain DFCs.

Management Decisions (MD)

MD VEG/R&W-1: Forest treatments will comply with the Montana Streamside Management Zone law 

to protect riparian resources.

MD VEG/R&W-2: Manage riparian communities to meet Standards for Rangeland Health (Standard 2) 

to ensure riparian areas and wetlands are in PFC. (Appendix Z)

MD VEG/R&W-3: Mitigation of surface-disturbing activities will be applied where needed to minimize 

impacts of human activities on riparian, water and floodplain resources, consistent with the stipulations 

identified for oil and gas development in this section. Mitigation measures will be applied during activity 

level planning if an on-site evaluation of the project area indicates the presence of these resources. 

Exceptions may be granted by the AO, if an environmental review demonstrates that effects could be 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-10 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

mitigated to an acceptable level or portions of the area can be occupied without affecting a particular 

habitat. Exceptions may also be granted where the short-term effects are mitigated by the long-term 

benefits (e.g., prescribed fire, wildlife monitoring, forest health treatments, and habitat restoration).

As defined in the Glossary, surface-disturbing and disruptive activities will not prohibit all activities or 

authorized uses. For example, emergency activities (e.g., fire suppression, search and rescue), rangeland 

monitoring, routine maintenance associated with an approved authorization, dispersed recreational 

activities (e.g., hunting, hiking), and livestock grazing are not considered surface-disturbing or disruptive 

activities.

MD VEG/R&W-4: Riparian areas will be monitored on a prioritized basis. High priority areas will

include:

• Riparian areas adjacent to fish bearing waters.

• Riparian areas with existing cottonwood galleries or potential cottonwood gallery habitat

• Riparian areas within GRSG PHMA

MD VEG/R&W-5: High priority riparian areas will be managed towards DFCs. Other riparian areas 

will be managed to meet rangeland health standards (properly functioning condition), unless other DFCs 

are appropriate.

MD VEG/R&W-6: Surface occupancy and use for oil and gas exploration and development (including 

geophysical operations) will be prohibited within riparian areas and wetlands, water bodies, perennial 

and intermittent streams, and floodplains of perennial streams. (NSO) (Same as MD FH & SSS-14 and 

MD WATER-12)

MD VEG/R&W-7: 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 and 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 of detecting early signs of change in riparian and/or wetland 

conditions. (CSU) (same as MD FH & SSS-15 and MD WATER-13)

MD VEG/R&W-8: Surface occupancy and use for oil and gas exploration and development (including 

geophysical operations) will be prohibited within 1⁄4 mile of designated reservoirs with fisheries. (NSO) 

(same as MD FH & SSS-17)

MD VEG/R&W-9: Surface occupancy and use for oil and gas exploration and development (including 

geophysical operations) will be prohibited within 1⁄2 mile of Blue Ribbon streams and YCT populations 

(NSO) (same as MD FH & SSS-16)

MD VEG/R&W-10: Priority riparian habitats will include riparian areas associated with perennial 

streams and cottonwood galleries.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-11

Vegetation: Invasive Species and Noxious Weeds (VEG/IS&NW)

Goal VEG/IS&NW 1: Manage for healthy native plant communities and desirable nonnative plant communities 

by reducing, preventing expansion of, or eliminating the occurrence of undesirable invasive species, undesirable 

nonnative, or noxious weeds (predatory plant pests or disease) by implementing management actions consistent 

with national guidance, state and local weed management plans. 

Goal VEG/IS&NW 2: Use IPM to make progress towards a healthy plant community, while meeting multiple 

land use objectives and meeting Standards for Rangeland Health (Standards 1, 2, and 5).

Goal VEG/IS&NW 3: Maintain baseline data to evaluate effectiveness of management actions and assess 

progress toward meeting invasive species management goals/objectives. 

Goal VEG/IS&NW 4: Create buffer zones to protect and/or restore fish and wildlife habitat and neighboring 

agricultural fields.

Goal VEG/IS&NW 5: Control invasive and non-native weed species and prevent the introduction of new 

invasive species, including aquatic nuisance species (ANS), by implementing a comprehensive weed program 

including: coordination with key partners, prevention and early detection, education, inventory and monitoring, 

and using principles of IPM and creating weed management areas (WMAs).

Management Decisions (MD)

MD VEG/IS&NW-1: Reclamation/stabilization and maintenance materials used will be from weed free 

seed source.

MD VEG/IS&NW-2: Invasive species, including aquatic invasives, will be managed in cooperation with 

other agencies, organizations, and landowners in accordance with EO 13112 (1999).

MD VEG/IS&NW-3: Biological control will be applied where appropriate and approved by APHIS. The 

BLM will consider adapting new or updated biological control techniques, as supported by research.

MD VEG/IS&NW-4: Domestic sheep and goats used for weed control will only be authorized where 

mechanisms are in place to achieve effective separation from wild sheep.

MD VEG/IS&NW-5: Weed control using domestic sheep and/or goats in potential grizzly bear and 

wolf habitat will only be authorized after consultation with U.S. Fish Wildlife Services.

MD VEG/IS&NW-6: Visitor protection during herbicide treatments at developed recreation areas will

include posting signs to prevent public entry. To the extent practical, herbicide treatments will occur 

only during low recreation use.

MD VEG/IS&NW-7: Require the use of certified weed free seed forage and feeds to prevent 

establishment of new weed species. Forage subject to this rule will include hay, grains, cubes, pelletized 

feeds, straw and mulch.

MD VEG/IS&NW-8: Require the use of weed free seed and mulch for BLM-authorized activities and 

projects.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-12 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

MD VEG/IS&NW-9: Noxious/Invasive species treatments will be approved by the appropriate BLM 

specialist prior to treatment occurring

MD VEG/IS&NW-10: Stipulations will be attached to all surface disturbing projects for 

noxious/invasive species prevention, identification, and treatments, as well as monitoring during and after 

project.

MD VEG/IS&NW-11: Oil and gas leases will be inventoried for noxious and/or invasive weeds, 

monitoring will occur throughout the duration of the project to prevent the spread and introduction of 

noxious and/or invasive weeds, and project activities must be designed to minimize soil disturbance. 

(LN)

MD VEG/IS&NW-12: Oil and gas leases will be subject to constraints should noxious and/or invasive 

weeds be identified within the boundaries of the lease parcel (CSU).

MD VEG/IS&NW-13: When possible, hand spray herbicides in areas of special status species (plants 

and animals)

MD VEG/IS&NW-14: Noxious and invasive weed control will not occur within 1⁄2 mile of nesting and 

brood rearing areas for special status species during the nesting and brood rearing season

MD VEG/IS&NW-15: Treatment priorities will be established consistent with State of Montana 

Noxious Weed guidance. 

High Treatment Priority: eradication of new species; new infestations, areas of special concerns, riparian 

corridors or special status plant populations where there is a high threat to species of concern (such as 

Russian olive and salt cedar treatments); areas where partnership/cooperative agreements are in place; 

treatment and prevention in special designations and weed management areas.

Moderate/Low Treatment Priority: areas that contain existing large infestations with a focus on 

boundaries of infestations, travel routes, trails, trailheads, and access points leading to areas of concern, 

control existing large infestations and suppression of existing large infestations when eradication/control 

or containment is likely not to be successful.

MD VEG/IS&NW-16: Remove invasive species from cottonwood galleries and take actions to 

maintain the appropriate stand composition, structure and understory diversity to promote the 

expansion of galleries.

MD VEG/IS&NW-17: Aerial application of non-aquatic label herbicides will not be allowed within 500 

feet of wetlands, riparian areas, and aquatic habitats. 

Specific buffer strip widths indicated on pesticide labels or by state regulations must be followed. This 

also applies to cropland and ornamentals. Exceptions will be applied when managing riparian 

noxious/invasive species and following aquatic approved herbicide labels.

MD VEG/IS&NW-18: Land base application methods will not be allowed within 25 feet (by vehicle) or 

10 feet (by hand) of fish-bearing water bodies during periods when fish are in life stages most sensitive 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-13

to the herbicide(s) used. Exceptions will be applied when managing riparian noxious/invasive species and 

following aquatic approved herbicide labels.

MD VEG/IS&NW-19: Vehicle and hand application of herbicides will not be allowed within 25 feet (by 

vehicle) or 10 feet (by hand) of wetlands, riparian areas, aquatic habitats, dwellings and cropland.

Exceptions will be applied when managing riparian noxious/invasive species and following aquatic 

approved herbicide labels.

MD VEG/IS&NW-20: Mix herbicides with non-aquatic label at a minimum of 500 feet away from 

riparian areas, water sources, floodplains, and known special status plant species populations.

MD VEG/IS&NW-21: Aerial application of herbicides will not be allowed within 1⁄2 mile of special 

status plant species.

Vehicle and hand application of herbicides near special status plant species will be allowed only when the 

treatment will benefit special status plant species (to be determined during site-specific analysis).

MD VEG/IS&NW-22: Native plant species common to the site’s natural plant community will be used 

to restore disturbed ground. 

Desirable non-native species will be considered based on site-specific analysis where difficult site 

stabilization or wildlife concerns prevail.

MD VEG/IS&NW-23: A target range of a minimum of 400 acres and at least a maximum of 2,000 

acres of invasive and noxious weeds will be treated annually by BLM and cooperators through a 

variation of methods (herbicide, manual, mechanical, sheep/goats, biological and fire).

Vegetation: Special Status Plants (Veg/SSP)

Goal Veg/SSP 1: Conserve and recover special status plant species and the ecosystems on which they depend 

to prevent the need to list any of these species as threatened or endangered.

Goal Veg/SSP 2: Protect or enhance areas of ecological importance for special status plant species. Manage for 

no net loss of habitat for any special status plant species.

Goal Veg/SSP 3: Conserve and recover special status plant species by determining and implementing strategies, 

restoration opportunities, use restrictions, and management actions.

Goal Veg/SSP 4: Manage specific environmental hazards, risks, and impacts in a manner compatible with 

special status plant species health.

Management Decisions (MD)

MD Veg/SSP-1: BLM-authorized activities should maintain or improve habitat for Federally listed 

threatened, endangered, and special status plants.

MD Veg/SSP-2: Conduct inventory and monitoring to determine extent and trend of special status 

plant populations.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-14 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

MD Veg/SSP-3: Habitats of special status plants will be managed to meet or exceed the Montana 

Standard for Rangeland Health (Standard 5).

MD Veg/SSP-4: Increase public awareness of special status plants through outreach, tours, and 

brochures.

MD Veg/SSP-5: Consider the high public value of special status plants and their habitat in land 

exchanges, purchases or disposals in which public ownership of such habitat will be affected.

MD Veg/SSP-6: Evaluate all BLM-authorized activities for potential effects on special status plants.

Conduct on-site inventory if potential special status plant habitat is known to be present.

MD Veg/SSP-7: On-site examination will be required prior to oil and gas leasing, exploration and/or 

development surface disturbing activities (CSU).

MD Veg/SSP-8: Mineral material sales will be allowed on a case-by-case basis by permit only. 

Mitigation may be required as appropriate.

MD Veg/SSP-9: No supplement or salt placement within 1⁄4 mile of known special status plant sites, 

unless livestock is otherwise excluded (fence or barrier).

MD Veg/SSP-10: Additional management actions related to Special Status Plants can be found under 

Special Designations - Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) section under the East Pryor 

ACEC, Grove Creek ACEC, Meeteetse Spires ACEC, and Pryor Foothills Research Natural Area (RNA) 

ACEC.

Wildlife Habitat and Special Status Species (WLH & SSS)

Goal WLH & SSS 1: Manage terrestrial habitat to provide native species diversity and viability, and to sustain 

ecological, economic, and social values while providing for multiple uses of public lands. (Appendix L)

Goal WLH & SSS 2: Manage for no net loss and connectivity of priority habitats on BLM-administered lands. 

The necessary habitat will be present to maintain, enhance, or restore T & E, special status, and priority native 

species populations. Sagebrush, native grasslands, seasonal or crucial wildlife ranges, special status species 

habitat, fisheries, cottonwood galleries, and riparian/wetlands will be priorities.

Goal WLH & SSS 3: Manage all BLM actions or authorized activities to sustain wildlife populations and their 

habitats and to avoid contributing to the listing of or jeopardizing the continued existence or recovery of special 

status species and their habitats.

Goal WLH & SSS 4: Manage or restore habitat on BLM-administered lands within the planning area to 

facilitate the conservation, recovery, and maintenance of populations of native, desirable non-native, and special 

status species consistent with appropriate local, state, and federal management plans.

Goal WLH & SSS 5: Manage habitats to support MTFWP in the attainment of objectives and well-distributed, 

healthy populations of wildlife species consistent with the MTFWP’s Strategic Habitat Plan, Montana’s 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-15

Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy, and strategic population plans, and to achieve the stated 

purpose of designated State of Montana WMA.

Goal WLH & SSS 6: Minimize fragmentation of large intact blocks of wildlife habitat to maintain connectivity, 

population migrations and functional blocks of security habitat for big game species.

Goal WLH & SSS 7: Manage environmental risks and associated impacts in a manner compatible with 

sustaining plant, fish, wildlife, and special status species populations. Environmental risks include, but are not 

limited to, parasites, diseases, insect outbreaks, catastrophic fires, contamination, pesticides, rodenticides, 

herbicides, climate, and other hazards.

Goal WLH & SSS 8: Provide for the long-term conservation, enhancement, and restoration of the sagebrush 

steppe/mixed-grass prairie complex in a manner that supports sustainable Greater Sage-Grouse populations and 

a healthy diversity and abundance of wildlife species.

Goal WLH & SSS 9: Coordinate with other agencies to prevent or control diseases, pests and species that 

threaten the health of humans, wildlife, livestock, and vegetation.

Goal WLH & SSS 10: Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMA) for Greater Sage-Grouse habitat: to 

maintain or improve Greater Sage-Grouse populations by maintaining Greater Sage-Grouse habitat in good 

condition.

Goal WLH & SSS 11: Greater Sage-Grouse Restoration Habitat Management Areas (RHMAs): In these areas, 

BLM will manage habitat so that Greater Sage-Grouse populations can be restored over the long-term. BLM will

strive to restore historical Greater Sage-Grouse habitat functionality, or at a minimum, have no net loss of 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, to support Greater Sage-Grouse populations.

Goal WLH & SSS 12: Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat: General Habitat Management Areas (GHMA): BLM will

maintain habitat for viable Greater Sage-Grouse populations to promote movement and genetic diversity. 

Maintain, restore or enhance Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and connectivity between sagebrush habitats, with 

emphasis on those habitats occupied by Greater Sage-Grouse.

Management Decisions (MD)

MD WLH & SSS-1: Implement conservation actions identified in EO 13186 – “Responsibilities of 

Federal Agencies To Protect Migratory Birds.”

MD WLH & SSS-2: Implement the North American Bird Conservation initiative to restore, enhance, 

and maintain habitats for migratory birds. Include USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern for Bird 

Conservation Regions 10 and/or 17 where appropriate through project level NEPA analysis. Emphasize 

maintenance and restoration of habitats that sustain special status species with minimum disturbance 

during the breeding season. 

MD WLH & SSS-3: Enhance or restore habitat composition and structure beyond PFC in riparian 

habitats, where and when appropriate, for migratory bird habitat.

MD WLH & SSS-4: Retaining important blocks of hiding, security, and thermal cover for big game will

be considered during project planning. The BLM will emphasize habitat improvements in areas where 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-16 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

there is limited or fragmented security habitat through vegetation treatments and route limitations 

(including seasonal closures).

MD WLH & SSS-5: Assist in the restoration, reintroduction, augmentation, or re-establishment of T 

& E, special status, and priority species and other populations and (or) habitats in coordination with 

other agencies.

MD WLH & SSS-6: Fences identified as barriers to wildlife movement on BLM-administered lands will

be modified or removed to accommodate wildlife passage, unless the fences were built specifically to 

keep native ungulates out of an area. Fences will also be placed and marked, or modified, to reduce 

wildlife collisions or entanglements.

MD WLH & SSS-7: COAs will be applied to all Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs) for Special 

Status Species.

MD WLH & SSS-8: Utilize appropriate offsite compensatory mitigation to reduce impacts on wildlife 

habitat. This will be necessary if (1) all onsite mitigation has been accomplished and adverse effects have 

not been mitigated; or (2) if onsite mitigation is not feasible. Off –site mitigation will be applied as close 

to the affected area as possible and for the same or similar impacted species or habitats.

MD WLH & SSS-9: The BLM will apply appropriate mitigation measures and conservation actions to 

BLM authorized activities to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for impacts if an evaluation 

of the project area indicates the presence of important wildlife species, seasonal wildlife habitat, or 

other resource concern.

MD WLH & SSS-10: Manage siting of facilities to minimize impacts on wildlife habitat function and 

quality, to minimize impacts on vegetation resources for all uses, and to minimize wildlife mortality 

during the life of the facility.

MD WLH & SSS-11: Where wildlife conflicts exist, overhead power lines and tall structures will

follow the recommendations in the APLIC guidelines. When possible, perch, collision, and electrocution 

preventions will be used.

MD WLH & SSS-12: Functional wildlife escape ramps will be installed on all water tanks on BLMadministered public lands with preference given to built-in bird ramps in new troughs/ tanks.

MD WLH & SSS-13: Management techniques, including but not limited to prescribed and managed 

wildfire, prescriptive livestock grazing, planting, exclusion to intense disturbance, timber harvest and 

other mechanical methods will be used to restore, maintain or improve the desired ecological 

conditions of vegetation communities for the purpose of improving forage, nesting, breeding, and 

security habitat, hiding cover and travel corridors for a wide diversity of terrestrial and aquatic species.

MD WLH & SSS-14: Management actions will emphasize providing habitat of sufficient quantity and 

quality, including connectivity and wildlife movement corridors, habitat complexity, forest openings, 

edges, and ecotones, to enhance biological diversity and provide quality, sustainable habitat for native 

wildlife species.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-17

MD WLH & SSS-15: Caves and abandoned mines will be inventoried for bat habitation. The BLM will

determine the need for closures or seasonal closures for activities affecting caves and abandoned mines. 

Hibernacula and maternity cave closure dates will be determined when the inventory is completed.

MD WLH & SSS-16: Bat gates or other suitable measures will be used to protect bat habitat. Public 

health and safety could take precedence over protection of bat habitat if hazardous mine openings 

cannot be remediated.

MD WLH & SSS-17: Clearing of vegetation, will not be allowed within 250 feet of the entrance of 

caves and abandoned mines with populations of bats except for public safety and vegetation will only be 

removed for installing bat gates, noxious weed control, or when it becomes an obstruction to bat 

movement.

MD WLH & SSS-18: Areas that will be targeted for conversion from crested wheatgrass to native 

sagebrush/grasslands will be areas that have high wildlife habitat potential, particularly for Greater SageGrouse, big game, and other sagebrush obligate species, and are currently monocultures with little 

vegetation diversity.

MD WLH & SSS-19: Predator control will be permitted subject to the stipulations outlined in the 

annual Animal Damage Control (ADC) Memorandum of Understanding between BLM and USDAAnimal Plant Health Inspection Service. Predator control in non-USDA ADC areas will be subject to the 

same stipulations as applied to those counties where predators are managed by USDA-APHIS.

MD WLH & SSS-20: The BLM could seasonally limit/close rock climbing activities in areas with active 

raptor nests and will educate the public about the importance of avoiding such locations.

MD WLH & SSS-21: Unoccupied raptor nests will be protected from removal or destruction for 7 

years.

MD WLH & SSS-22: Surface disturbing and disruptive activities that impact special status species, 

particularly during critical life cycles, will be avoided or minimized.

MD WLH & SSS-23: Water developments, where deemed effective, will be managed to reduce the 

spread of West Nile virus

MD WLH & SSS-24: When wildlife or their habitat could be affected, the BLM will require, as 

appropriate, a current year wildlife survey of the project area from the project proponent.

MD WLH & SSS-25: Oil and gas timing stipulations will not apply to operation and maintenance of 

production facilities. If environmental analysis determines that the operations and maintenance of oil and 

gas production facilities results in surface disturbing and disruptive activities or impacts, mitigation of 

these types of oil and gas activities will be applied where needed through COAs to minimize impact of 

human activities on important seasonal wildlife habitat.

MD WLH & SSS-26: Designated Crucial Winter Ranges will be used in lieu of CAPS data when the 

data is available. Any references to CAPS data will be updated when Crucial Winter Ranges are 

designated.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-18 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

MD WLH & SSS-27: Mitigation of surface-disturbing or disrupting activities (including operations and 

maintenance associated with fluid mineral development) will be applied where needed to minimize 

impacts of human activities on important seasonal wildlife habitats, consistent with the wildlife 

stipulations outlined in the Wildlife / Special Status Species and Fluid Minerals sections of Chapter 2 of 

the PRMP/FEIS. Mitigation measures will be applied during activity level planning if an on-site evaluation 

of the project area indicates the presence of important wildlife species. 

Exceptions may be granted by the AO, if an environmental review demonstrates that effects could be 

mitigated to an acceptable level, habitat for the species is not present in the area, or portions of the area 

can be occupied without affecting a particular species. Exceptions may also be granted where the shortterm effects are mitigated by the long-term benefits (e.g., prescribed fire, wildlife monitoring, or forest 

health treatments).

As defined in the Glossary, surface-disturbing and disruptive activities will not prohibit all activities or 

authorized uses. For example, emergency activities (e.g., fire suppression, search and rescue), rangeland 

monitoring, routine maintenance associated with an approved authorization, dispersed recreational 

activities (e.g., hunting, hiking), and livestock grazing are not considered surface-disturbing or disruptive 

activities.

MD WLH & SSS-28: Where environmental analysis and monitoring demonstrate a continued need 

for mitigation or insufficient mitigation measures are present for impacts on wildlife, restrictions could

be applied to the operation and maintenance of production facilities or other projects.

MD WLH & SSS-29: Monitor areas with wildlife habitat conflicts on an annual basis. Identify all/any 

activities leading to causal factors for not achieving Standard 5. Where Standard 5 is not being met, 

guidelines will be applied within 1 year to make progress toward meeting the Standard.

Sprague’s Pipit Habitat

MD WLH & SSS-32: Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities will be avoided from April 15 through 

July 15 in Sprague’s pipit habitat. (TL)

MD WLH & SSS-33: Surface use for oil and gas exploration, (including geophysical exploration) is 

prohibited from April 15 through July 15 in Sprague’s pipit habitat. (TL)

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MD WLH & SSS-34: The oil and gas operator is responsible for compliance with provisions of the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (LN)

Power lines

MD WLH & SSS-35: Where resource conflicts exist, BLM will not authorize above-ground power 

lines (<69kV), unless burying the power line is unfeasible. If burying power lines is unfeasible, then 

power lines will be authorized in a manner that ensures habitat is maintained (e.g. line location).

State Wildlife Management Areas, Fishing Access Sites, and State Parks

MD WLH & SSS-36: Surface occupancy and use for oil and gas exploration and development will be 

prohibited in designated State WMAs, Fishing Access Sites, and State Parks (NSO).
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-19

Elk Calving

MD WLH & SSS-37: Elk Calving: Prior to surface occupancy and use a plan will be prepared by the 

proponent as a component of the APD, Sundry Notice, etc., and approved by the AO in coordination 

with MTFWP. The operator will not initiate surface disturbing activities unless the AO has approved the 

plan. The plan must demonstrate to the AO’s satisfaction that the function and suitability of the habitat 

will not be impaired (CSU).

Crucial Winter Range

(antelope, elk, moose, bighorn sheep, mule deer, whitetail deer, and Greater Sage-Grouse)

MD WLH & SSS-38: Crucial Winter Range: Surface occupancy and use for oil and gas exploration and 

development will be prohibited in crucial winter range (NSO).

Big Game Winter Range

(antelope, elk, moose, bighorn sheep, mule deer, and whitetail deer)

MD WLH & SSS-39: Big Game Winter Range: Prior to surface occupancy and use a plan will be 

prepared by the proponent as a component of the APD, Sundry Notice, etc. and approved by the AO in 

coordination with the state wildlife management agency. The operator will not initiate surface-disturbing 

activities unless the AO has approved the plan. The plan must demonstrate to the AO’s satisfaction the 

function and suitability of the habitat will not be impaired. (CSU)

MD WLH & SSS-40: Big Game Winter Range: There will be no net increase in permanent roads built 

in areas where open road densities are 1 mi/mi2 or less in big game winter range habitat (Maps 15-20 of 

the B&PPNM PRMP/FEIS ) and parturition ranges, unless not possible due to conflicts with valid existing 

rights. All practicable measures will be taken to assure that important habitats with low road densities 

remain in that condition.

MD WLH & SSS-41: Big Game Winter Range: BLM will manage to reduce open road densities in big 

game winter range (Maps 15-20 of the B&PPNM PRMP/FEIS) and calving ranges where they exceed 1 

mi/mi2. Roads will be gated during crucial seasons, closed and/ or reclaimed.

MD WLH & SSS-42: Big Game Winter Range: Over the snow vehicles will be prohibited in big game 

winter range.

Bighorn Sheep Range and Bighorn Sheep Lambing Areas

MD WLH & SSS-43: Bighorn Sheep Range and Bighorn Sheep Lambing Areas Surface occupancy and 

use for oil and gas exploration and development will be prohibited within bighorn sheep lambing areas. 

(NSO) 

MD WLH & SSS-44: Bighorn Sheep Range and Bighorn Sheep Lambing Areas: Prior to surface 

occupancy and use a plan will be prepared by the proponent as a component of the APD, sundry notice, 

etc., and approved by the AO in coordination with the state wildlife management agency. The operator 

will not initiate surface-disturbing activities unless the AO has approved the plan. The plan must 

demonstrate to the AO’s satisfaction that the function and suitability of the habitat will not be impaired. 

(CSU)
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-20 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

MD WLH & SSS-45: Bighorn Sheep Range and Bighorn Sheep Lambing Areas: Domestic sheep/goat 

permits – No new grazing permits authorizing sheep or goats will be allowed within 14.3 air miles or 23 

kilometers in bighorn sheep range (Map 17 of the B&PPNM PRMP/FEIS) or as determined through 

consultation with MTFWP. 

Sheep and goat grazing allotments in areas with risk of contact between bighorn sheep and domestic 

sheep and/or goats in the planning area will be reviewed and managed, or reclassified if necessary, to 

achieve effective separation (both temporal and/or spatial at 23 kilometers (14.3 miles) or as determined 

through consultation with MTFWP. Contact risk will be based on habitat, distance between bighorn 

sheep range (current and anticipated), sheep and goat allotments, movement potential, and current 

science and guidelines. Domestic sheep/goats will not be allowed within bighorn sheep range unless 

mechanisms are in place to achieve effective separation from wild sheep.

Raptor Nests

(Applies to Special Status Species including ferruginous hawk, burrowing owl, great grey owl, Swainson’s hawk, northern 

goshawk, and osprey (Bald Eagles and peregrine falcons are addressed separately) (note: Special Status Species designations can 

change)

MD WLH & SSS-46: Raptor Nests: Surface occupancy and use for oil and gas exploration and 

development will be prohibited within 1⁄4 mile of raptor nest sites active within the preceding 7 years. 

(NSO)

MD WLH & SSS-47: Raptor Nests: Surface occupancy and use will be prohibited within 1⁄2 mile of 

active raptor nest sites from March 1 through July 31. (TL)

Sharp-tailed Grouse Leks and Nesting Habitat:

MD WLH & SSS-48: Sharp-tailed Grouse Leks and Nesting Habitat: Surface occupancy and use for oil 

and gas exploration and development will be prohibited on and within 1⁄2 mile of the perimeter of leks. 

(NSO)

MD WLH & SSS-49: Sharp-tailed Grouse Leks and Nesting Habitat: Surface use is prohibited within 2 

miles of the perimeter of sharp-tailed grouse and/or greater prairie chicken leks from April 1 through 

July 15. (TL)

Special Status Species

MD WLH & SSS-50: Special Status Species: All federally listed and BLM sensitive species and their 

habitats will be considered priority species and habitats.

MD WLH & SSS-51: Special Status Species: Identify distribution, key habitat areas, and special 

management needs for development of management plans and conservation measures, consistent with 

restoration, conservation and recovery plans for threatened, endangered, and other special status 

species. Priority habitats are riparian/ wetland areas, native grasslands, sagebrush steppe, conifer forests, 

and seasonal ranges supporting life cycle requirements for wildlife (i.e., winter, breeding, parturition, 

etc.).

MD WLH & SSS-52: Special Status Species: Timing restrictions will be used in special status species 

habitat. Surface disturbing and disruptive activities that impact special status species habitats during their 

seasons of use, particularly during critical life cycles will be avoided or minimized.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-21

MD WLH & SSS-53: Special Status Species: Assist in the restoration, reintroduction, augmentation, or 

re-establishment of threatened, endangered, and other priority or special status species populations and 

(or) habitats in coordination with MTFWP and USFWS.

MD WLH & SSS-54: Special Status Species: Water developments, and discharge water from energy 

development, where deemed effective, will be managed with BMPs to reduce the spread of West Nile 

virus

MD WLH & SSS-55: Special Status Species: The BLM will require, as appropriate, a current year 

wildlife survey of the project area from the project proponent.

MD WLH & SSS-56: Special Status Species: Oil and gas surface occupancy and use is subject to the 

following operating constraints: 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 ground-disturbing activity that may affect any such species or critical habitat 

until it completes its obligations under applicable requirements of the ESA as amended, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 

et seq., including completion of any required procedure for conference or consultation. (LN)

Special Status Species: Potential Black-Footed Ferret Habitat

MD WLH & SSS-57: Special Status Species: Potential Black-Footed Ferret Habitat- Black-footed ferret 

habitat is defined as prairie dog colonies within 1.5 km of each other and comprising of 1,500 acres.

MD WLH & SSS-58: Special Status Species: Potential Black-Footed Ferret Habitat: Surface occupancy 

and use for oil and gas exploration and development (including geophysical exploration) will be 

prohibited within 1⁄4 mile of black-footed ferret habitat (NSO).

Special Status Species: Black-tailed and White-tailed Prairie Dogs

MD WLH & SSS-59: Special Status Species: Black-tailed and White-tailed Prairie Dogs- Management 

of prairie dog colonies on public lands will be subject to the Conservation Plan for Black-tailed and 

White-tailed Prairie Dogs in Montana. White-tailed prairie dogs will be considered a priority for 

management due to limited and declining populations in Montana.

MD WLH & SSS-60: Special Status Species: Black-tailed and White-tailed Prairie Dogs - Surface 

occupancy and use for oil and gas exploration and development will be prohibited within 1⁄4 mile of 

prairie dog colonies active within the past 10 years. (NSO)

MD WLH & SSS-61: Special Status Species: Prairie Dog Habitat - Prairie dog colonies will be managed 

for maintenance of populations where the public has access. Control measures will be considered with 

the following criteria**:

**Prairie dog towns will be allowed to expand as long as they are not adversely impacting adjacent 

private or state land, other resources, or affecting Standards for Rangeland Health (Appendix AC). 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-22 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

Prairie dog towns will be adversely impacting other resources, and controls could be considered, if the 

towns are: 

• The source of or an exacerbation of invasive or noxious plants; 

• Substantially limiting forage and/or important habitat for wildlife species in the immediate 

area; 

• Substantially limiting forage for livestock in the immediate area; 

• Overriding the effectiveness of other management measures; or 

• Posing a substantial economic hardship or risk for other landowners, resulting from the 

need to control populations on private or state land because of prairie dogs on adjacent 

BLM land. 

Controls will not occur where mountain plover or burrowing owls have been documented using 

established habitat. Prairie dogs could be reestablished on historic towns that have been eradicated or 

that have died out due to sylvatic plague. Specific actions to address adverse impacts on or from prairie 

dogs will be addressed through a site-specific EA.

Special Status Species: Mountain Plover

MD WLH & SSS-62: Special Status Species: Mountain Plover - Surface occupancy and use for oil and 

gas exploration and development will be prohibited within mountain plover habitat (NSO)

MD WLH & SSS-63: Special Status Species: Mountain Plover - Surface use is prohibited within 1⁄4 mile 

of mountain plover habitat from April 1 through July 15. (TL)

Special Status Species: Interior Least Tern

MD WLH & SSS-64: Special Status Species: Interior Least Tern - Surface occupancy and use for oil 

and gas exploration and development will be prohibited within 1⁄4 mile of wetlands identified as Interior 

Least Tern habitat. (NSO)

Special Status Species: Peregrine Falcon

MD WLH & SSS-65: Special Status Species: Peregrine Falcon - Surface occupancy and use for oil and 

gas exploration and development (including geophysical exploration) will be prohibited within 1 mile of 

peregrine falcon nest sites active within the preceding 7 years. (NSO)

Special Status Species: Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Nests and Habitat

MD WLH & SSS-66: Special Status Species: Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Nests and Habitat - BGEPA 

(Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act): BLM will coordinate with USFWS on activities that may affect 

bald or golden eagles for compliance with BGEPA. The BLM will not issue a notice to proceed for any 

project that is likely to result in take of bald eagles and/or golden eagles until the applicant completes its

obligation under applicable requirements of BGEPA, including completion of any required procedure for 

coordination with the FWS or any required permit. The applicant may be required to conduct further 

analysis and mitigation following assessment of operational impacts.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-23

MD WLH & SSS-67: Special Status Species: Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Nests and Habitat - Bald 

eagle and golden eagle nesting habitats will be actively protected from loss due to fire, insect, or disease 

by reducing vegetation competition and encroachment in these habitats, unless visual barriers are 

compromised.

Special Status Species: Bald Eagle Nests

MD WLH & SSS-68: Special Status Species: Bald Eagle Nests - Activities and habitat alterations 

including surface disturbing or disruptive activities that disturb bald eagles will be restricted within 

suitable habitats or avoided within 1⁄2 mile of bald eagle nest sites active within the preceding 5 breeding 

seasons. Activities in bald eagle habitat will be conducted according to Montana Bald Eagle Management 

guidelines (Montana Bald Eagle Working Group, 2010, Montana Bald Eagle Management Guidelines: An 

Addendum to Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan, 1994).

MD WLH & SSS-69: Special Status Species: Bald Eagle Nests - Surface occupancy and use for oil and 

gas exploration and development will be prohibited within 1⁄2 mile of eagle nest sites active within the 

preceding 5 years unless the activity complies with the USFWS National Bald Eagle Management 

Guidelines (2007). (NSO)

Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse

MD WLH & SSS-70: Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse - Refer to crested wheatgrass 

conversion alternative in the Vegetation- Rangelands section of this table. Acreages and priorities for 

conversion or treatments are discussed. Greater Sage-Grouse habitat is a priority for crested 

wheatgrass conversions or treatments.

MD WLH & SSS-71: Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse - In all sage-grouse habitat, in 

undertaking BLM management actions, and consistent with valid existing rights and applicable law, in 

authorizing third-party actions that result in habitat loss and 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 which result 

in habitat loss and degradation” include those identified as threats which contribute to Greater SageGrouse 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).

MD WLH & SSS-72: Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse - Vegetation objectives have been 

identified for sage-grouse breeding (leks, pre-laying, nesting and early brood-rearing) habitat on public 

land. The desired conditions for sage-grouse habitat presented are based on recommendations in 

current literature (Stiver, et al. 2014, Doherty, et al. 2014, Doherty, et al. 2011, Connelly, et al. 2000, 

and Hagen, et al. 2007) and have been modified to more accurately reflect local conditions based on the 

vegetative potentials identified for ecological sites in the BiFO. Table 2-6, Billings Field Office Greater 

Sage-Grouse Habitat Objectives, is to be used as a minimum to meet the applicable Land Health 

Standard in sage-grouse habitats.

MD WLH & SSS-73: Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse –
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-24 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

• These habitat objectives in Table 2-6 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 sub-region. Thus, the habitat 

objectives provide the broad vegetative conditions we strive 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 habitat objectives will be part of the sage-grouse habitat assessment to be used during 

land health evaluations (Appendix D, Monitoring Framework). These habitat objectives are 

not obtainable on every acre within the designated GRSG habitat management areas.

Therefore, the determination on 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.

• 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.

• This information should not be viewed as providing standards by which to judge the overall 

quality of sagebrush habitats. Instead, these sage-grouse habitat characteristics should be 

used as one tool for assessing habitats and guiding management actions. There is a tendency 

to review each indicator and its suitability category independently, but 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 and 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. Professional expertise and judgment are required.

Measurement of these objectives will follow the steps described in Appendices B, C, D, E, F, 

G.

MD WLH & SSS-74: Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse - As described above, the identified 

habitat objectives are averages and will vary based on the individual ecological sites and their potential.

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 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-25

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 ESD. ESDs function as a primary repository of 

ecological knowledge regarding an ecological site. ESDs are maintained on the 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.

MD WLH & SSS-75: Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse - In addition to the references 

identified in the following table, the Conservation Plans developed for each of the Wyoming Local SageGrouse Working Groups will be consulted to identify specific habitat objectives appropriate for sitespecific conditions. The Conservation Plans, updated in March 2014, are available on the Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department (WGFD) website at: https://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/wildlife-1000817.aspx. 

MD WLH & SSS-76: Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse - 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.

MD WLH & SSS-77: Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse - Surface occupancy and use for oil 

and gas exploration and development will be prohibited within Greater Sage-Grouse crucial winter 

range (NSO).

MD WLH & SSS-78: Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse –

• 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 GRSG PHMA in any given BSU until the 

disturbance has been reduced to less than the cap.

• If the BLM determines that the State of Montana has adopted a GRSG Habitat Conservation 

Program that contains comparable components to those found in the State of Wyoming’s 

Core Area Strategy including an all lands approach for calculating anthropogenic 

disturbances, a clear methodology for measuring the density of operations, and a fully 

operational Density Disturbance Calculation Tool, the 3% disturbance cap will be converted 

to a 5% cap for all sources of habitat alteration within a project analysis area. 

• If the 3% disturbance cap is exceeded on all lands (regardless of land ownership) within a 

proposed project analysis area in PHMA, then no further anthropogenic disturbance will be 

permitted by BLM until disturbance in the proposed project analysis area has been reduced 

to maintain the area under the cap (subject to applicable laws and regulations, such as the 

1872 hard rock mining law, valid existing rights, etc.). Within existing designated utility 

corridors, the 3% disturbance cap may be exceeded at the project scale if the site specific 

NEPA analysis indicates that a net conservation gain to the species will be achieved. This 

exception is limited to projects which fulfill the use for which the corridors were designated 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-26 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

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

exceeded as a result of any project co-location.

MD WLH & SSS-79: Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA- Establish Greater SageGrouse PHMA (158,926 acres of BLM-administered lands and 205,254 acres of federal minerals). These 

PHMA are generally consistent with MTFWP Greater Sage-Grouse core area designations, with the 

exception of one small area in southern Carbon County near Elk Basin Oil field (Map 2-1).

MD WLH & SSS-80: Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA- 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 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).

MD WLH & SSS-81: Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA- In undertaking BLM 

management actions, and consistent with valid and existing rights and applicable law in authorizing thirdparty actions, the BLM will apply the lek buffer-distances identified in the USGS Report Conservation 

Buffer Distance Estimates for Greater Sage-Grouse – A Review (Open File Report 2014-1239) in 

accordance with Appendix B.

MD WLH & SSS-82: Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA-

• No waivers or modifications to a fluid mineral lease no-surface-occupancy stipulation will be 

granted. The AO may grant an exception to a fluid mineral lease no-surface-occupancy 

stipulation 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) PHMA of mixed 

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

areas of the public lands where the proposed exception is an alternative to an action 

occurring on a nearby parcel subject to a valid Federal fluid mineral lease existing as of the 

date of this RMP [revision or amendment]. Exceptions based on conservation gain must also 

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

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

action’s impacts. 

• Any exceptions to this lease stipulation may be approved by the AO only with the 

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

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

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

biologist or other GRSG expert from each respective agency. In the event the initial finding 

is not unanimous, the finding may be elevated to the appropriate BLM State Director, 

USFWS State Ecological Services Director, and state wildlife agency head for final resolution. 

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

exceptions will be made publically available at least quarterly."
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-27

MD WLH & SSS-83: Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse - 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 the 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 an existing disturbed area.

MD WLH & SSS-84: Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA- No ACEC established

MD WLH & SSS-85: Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA- Open to oil and gas leasing 

and development (including geophysical exploration). Surface occupancy and use for oil and gas 

exploration and development will be prohibited within Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA (NSO).

MD WLH & SSS-86: Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA- Exclusion area for 

renewable and solar energy exploration and facility development.

MD WLH & SSS-87: Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA- Avoidance area for major 

and minor ROWs. However ROWs will only be allowed in GRSG PHMA where habitat functionality will

be maintained.

MD WLH & SSS-88: Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse RHMA- Establish RHMAs (78,927 

acres of BLM-administered lands and 88,642 acres of federal mineral estate). These areas will include 

one small polygon of core habitat in Carbon County near Elk Basin Oil Field, as well as other areas (Map 

2-1).

MD WLH & SSS-89: Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse RHMA- Surface occupancy and use 

for oil and gas exploration and development will be prohibited within 0.6 miles of Greater Sage-Grouse 

leks (NSO). 

MD WLH & SSS-90: Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse RHMA- Surface use for oil and gas 

exploration and development will be prohibited from March 1 to June 15 in Greater Sage-Grouse 

nesting habitat within 3 miles of a lek (TL).

MD WLH & SSS-91: Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse RHMA- Surface occupancy and use 

for oil and gas exploration and development will be subject to the following special operating constraints 

that will maintain Greater Sage-Grouse habitat: surface disturbance density and mitigation plan (CSU).

MD WLH & SSS-92: Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse RHMA- Geophysical exploration 

will be allowed on existing roads and trails with surface use prohibited from March 1 to June 15 within 4 

miles of a lek (TL).

MD WLH & SSS-93: Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse RHMA- GRSG RHMAs outside of 

Elk Basin will be avoidance areas for renewable and solar energy exploration, development and facilities 

with approved mitigation.

MD WLH & SSS-94: Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse RHMA- The Elk Basin GRSG RHMA

will be an exclusion area for renewable and solar energy exploration and facility development.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-28 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

MD WLH & SSS-95: Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse RHMA- Avoidance area for major 

and minor ROWs. However ROWs will only be allowed in GRSG RHMAs where habitat functionality 

will be maintained.

MD WLH & SSS-96: Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse GHMA- Establish GHMA (176,734

acres of BLM-administered lands and 299,166 acres of federal mineral estate). These areas include a 3 

mile buffer around Greater Sage-Grouse leks, outside of the PHMA and RHMA areas (Map 2-1).

MD WLH & SSS-97: Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse GHMA- In undertaking BLM 

management actions, and consistent with valid and existing rights and applicable law in authorizing thirdparty actions, the BLM will apply the lek buffer-distances identified in the USGS Report Conservation 

Buffer Distance Estimates for Greater Sage-Grouse – A Review (Open File Report 2014-1239) in 

accordance with Appendix B.

MD WLH & SSS-98: Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse GHMA- Surface occupancy and use 

for oil and gas exploration and development will be prohibited within 0.6 miles of the perimeter of 

Greater Sage-Grouse leks (NSO).

MD WLH & SSS-99: Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse GHMA- To protect nesting Greater 

Sage-grouse, surface occupancy and use within 2 miles of a lek may be restricted or prohibited. Prior to 

such activities, a plan to mitigate impacts on nesting Greater Sage-grouse and Greater Sage-grouse 

nesting habitat will be prepared by the proponent and implemented upon approval by the AO (CSU).

MD WLH & SSS-100: Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse GHMA- Geophysical exploration 

will be allowed on existing roads and trails with surface use prohibited from March 1 to June 15 within 3 

miles of a lek (TL).

MD WLH & SSS-101: Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse GHMA- Avoidance area for 

renewable and solar energy exploration, development and facilities with approved mitigation.

MD WLH & SSS-102: Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse GHMA- Avoidance areas for 

major ROWs and open to minor ROWs. Utilities and similar facilities will be located adjacent to other 

facilities where practical and only when habitat can be maintained.\

MD WLH & SSS-103: Consider the likelihood of development of not-yet-constructed surfacedisturbing activities–as defined in Table 2 of the Monitoring Framework (Appendix D)−under valid 

existing rights prior to authorizing new projects in PHMA..

Fisheries Habitat and Special Status Species (FISHERIES) (FH & SSS) 

Goal FH & SSS 1: Manage aquatic habitat to provide native and desirable non-native species diversity and 

viability, and sustain ecological, economic, and social values while providing for multiple uses of public lands.

Goal FH & SSS 2: Manage aquatic ecosystems to provide sustainable recreational and educational benefits to 

the public.

Goal FH & SSS 3: Manage fisheries habitat to support Montana Fish, Wildlife and Park’s (MTFWP) Strategic 

Habitat Plan and the Montana Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-29

Goal FH & SSS 4: Management activities will emphasize restoration and/or maintenance of riparian structure, 

composition, and processes, including physical integrity of riparian ecosystems, amount and distribution of woody 

debris to sustain physical and biological complexity, adequate summer and winter thermal regulation, water 

quality and hydrologic processes, distribution and diversity of riparian vegetative communities and source habitats 

for riparian dependent species.

Goal FH & SSS 5: Use cooperative efforts to minimize negative impacts on, or enhance aquatic ecosystems on 

adjacent private lands.

Goal FH & SSS 6: Coordinate with other agencies to prevent or control diseases, pests and species that 

threaten the health of humans, wildlife, livestock, and vegetation.

Goal FH & SSS 7: Manage or restore habitat on BLM-administered lands within the planning area to facilitate 

the conservation, recovery and maintenance of populations of native and special status species (BLM special 

status species, Candidate species, USFWS listed, proposed, or petitioned species) consistent with appropriate 

local, state, and federal management plans.

Goal FH & SSS 8: Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout (YCT)bearing waters and associated riparian habitat will be 

managed to protect all ecological values necessary to maintain or enhance YCT populations (using guidelines 

outlined in the Conservation Strategy for Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout in the States of ID, MT, UT, NV, and WY).

Management Decisions (MD)

MD FH & SSS-1: Manage riparian areas and wetlands supporting fisheries toward PFC, as required 

through Standards and Guidelines.

MD FH & SSS-2: Roads will be located, designed and maintained, to the extent practical, to reduce 

sedimentation, identify and remove unnatural barriers, eliminate fish passage barriers (when desired), 

and restore or maintain riparian vegetation.

MD FH & SSS-3: Manage siting of facilities to minimize impacts on fish habitat function and quality, to 

minimize impacts on vegetation resources for all uses, and to minimize fish mortality during the life of 

the facility.

MD FH & SSS-4: If natural barriers cannot be used, in-channel barriers (including selective barriers) 

will be constructed downstream of the native fish populations at risk from invasion.

MD FH & SSS-5: Impacts beyond the riparian zone will be considered as part of YCT habitat 

management. Project-level activities will mitigate impacts on water quality, in-stream habitat, channel 

morphology, and riparian areas to benefit YCT populations.

MD FH & SSS-6: Habitat-improvement techniques will be used where appropriate to provide missing 

habitat components or improve existing habitats.

MD FH & SSS-7: The BLM will continue to partner with MT FWP in the establishment of fishing 

access sites.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-30 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

MD FH & SSS-8: Land and water management decisions likely to affect YCT populations will include 

both pre- and post-project evaluation and monitoring to ensure that the habitat elements for YCT are 

protected.

MD FH & SSS-9: Use restoration to enhance YCT habitat and riparian function where habitat 

conditions are determined to be degraded.

MD FH & SSS-10: Opportunistically enhance or restore habitat for populations of YCT.

MD FH & SSS-11: Establish high priority YCT habitat zones and increase monitoring on YCT bearing 

streams to ensure no significant degradation to water quality and fish habitat.

MD FH & SSS-12: Develop and maintain a prairie fish and fish habitat inventory and identify potential 

or suitable habitat.

MD FH & SSS-13: Mitigation of surface-disturbing activities will be applied where needed to minimize 

impacts of human activities on important fisheries, riparian and water resources, consistent with the 

stipulations identified for oil and gas development in this section. Mitigation measures will be applied 

during activity level planning if an on-site evaluation of the project area indicates the presence of 

important fisheries, water or riparian resources. Exceptions may be granted by the AO, if an 

environmental review demonstrates that effects could be mitigated to an acceptable level, habitat for the 

species is not present in the area, or portions of the area can be occupied without affecting a particular 

species or habitat. Exceptions may also be granted where the short-term effects are mitigated by the 

long-term benefits (e.g., prescribed fire, wildlife monitoring, forest health treatments, and habitat 

restoration).

As defined in the Glossary, surface-disturbing and disruptive activities will not prohibit all activities or 

authorized uses. For example, emergency activities (e.g., fire suppression, search and rescue), rangeland 

monitoring, routine maintenance associated with an approved authorization, dispersed recreational 

activities (e.g., hunting, hiking), and livestock grazing are not considered surface-disturbing or disruptive 

activities.

MD FH & SSS-14: Surface occupancy and use for oil and gas exploration and development (including 

geophysical exploration) will be prohibited within riparian areas and wetlands, water bodies, perennial 

and intermittent streams, and floodplains of perennial streams. (NSO) (same as MD WATER-12 and MD 

VEG/R&W-6)

MD FH & SSS-15: 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 and 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 of detecting early signs of change in riparian and/or wetland 

conditions. (CSU) (same as MD WATER-13 and MD VEG/R&W-7)
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-31

MD FH & SSS-16: Surface occupancy and use for oil and gas exploration (including geophysical 

operations) will be prohibited within 1⁄2 mile of Class I (Blue Ribbon) streams, and YCT populations 

(Maps 26 & 27 of the B&PPNM PRMP/FEIS). (same as MD VEG/R&W-9)

MD FH & SSS-17: Surface occupancy and use for oil and gas exploration and development (including 

geophysical exploration) will be prohibited within 1⁄4 mile of designated reservoirs with fisheries. (NSO) 

(same as MD VEG/R&W-8)

MD FH & SSS-18: New spring developments will be authorized and fenced if the development will

maintain the integrity and functionality of the associated riparian area/wetland.

MD FH & SSS-19: Habitat conditions will be monitored on fish-bearing streams (approx. 7 miles) with 

existing or potential threats, where grazing or human-caused impacts are likely.

MD FH & SSS-20: Livestock grazing will be allowed on YCT- bearing or other sensitive habitats as 

long as rangeland health standards are being met. If standards cannot be met through grazing 

management, grazing will be excluded. 

MD FH & SSS-21: Fencing around the riparian zone, or at least 50’ from the water’s edge or using 

drift fence or other methods to exclude livestock from the riparian zone.

MD FH & SSS-22: Development of existing or potential reservoirs will be considered to promote 

recreational fisheries and riparian/aquatic habitat enhancement.

Wild Horses (WH)

Goal WH 1: Maintain, protect, manage, and control a healthy wild horse herd inside the HMA within the 

appropriate management level (AML) to ensure a thriving natural ecological balance, while preserving multiple 

use relationships with other uses and resources, and making progress towards Standards for Rangeland Health 

(Standards 1 and 5).

Goal WH 2: Maintain a wild horse herd that exhibits a diverse age structure, genetic diversity, and any 

characteristics unique to the Pryor horses.

Goal WH 3: Manage wild horses within a balanced program which considers all values without impairment to 

the productivity of the land.

Management Decisions (MD)

MD WH-1: Initially, the wild horse population will be managed within a population range between 90 

to 120 wild horses.

MD WH-2: Maintain a wild horse herd that exhibits a diverse age structure, genetic diversity, and any 

characteristics unique to the Pryor horses.

MD WH-3: Unless otherwise specified, implementation level planning through a Herd Management 

Area Plan (HMAP) or other activity level plans will identify and set objectives for, but not limited to, the 

following: herd composition, animal characteristics, genetics, and habitat development needs; soil, 

vegetation, and watershed characteristics; and establishment and adjustment to AML.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-32 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

MD WH-4: AMLs will be adjusted as needed to ensure a thriving natural ecological balance through 

monitoring and data collection including but not limited to: forage utilization, trend, ecological condition, 

precipitation data, rangeland health assessments, population inventory, climate or habitat changes, and 

range availability.

MD WH-5: Herd Management Area Establishment: Manage wild horses on approximately 27,094 acres 

of BLM-administered lands (39,994 acres all ownerships) (Map 3-2).

MD WH-6: Herd Management Area Establishment: Designate the closed portions of the Herd Area 

known as the administrative pastures to be included in the HMA. Due to private property conflicts, the 

“buffer” area will remain closed.

MD WH-7: Herd Characteristics: Within an HMAP, herd structure will be managed for all 

representations in the herd, not allowing specific colors or bloodlines to dominate from management 

manipulation.

MD WH-8: Appropriate Management Levels: AML determination will be made within the context of 

having the maximum amount of wild horses the range can sustain while preventing deterioration.

MD WH-9: Wild Horse Habitat: Maximize the amount of acres available for vegetation treatments 

and/or water developments that potentially increase forage availability for wild horses that is compliant 

with other multiple-use decisions and restrictions.

Cultural and Heritage Resouces (C&HR)

Goal C&HR 1: Identify, preserve, and protect significant cultural resources and ensure that they are available 

for appropriate uses by present and future generations (FLPMA, Section 103 (c), 201(a) and (c); National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Section 110(a); Archaeological Resources Protection Act, Section 14(a)).

Goal C&HR 2: Seek to reduce imminent threats and resolve potential conflicts from natural or human-caused 

deterioration, or potential conflict with other resource uses (FLPMA Section 203(c), NHPA 106, 110(a) (2)) by 

ensuring that all authorizations for land use and resource use will comply with the NHPA Section 106. 

Goal C&HR 3: Cultural resources on BLM-administered land will be protected and maintained in stable 

condition. Appropriate management actions will be determined after evaluation and allocation of cultural 

resource use categories through cultural resource project plans. 

Goal C&HR 4: Maintain viewsheds of important cultural resources whose settings contribute significantly to 

their scientific, public, traditional, or conservation values.

Goal C&HR 5: Provide and promote research opportunities that will contribute to our understanding of the 

ways humans have used and influenced the landscape.

Goal C&HR 6: Manage historic trails to realize their educational, recreational, and scientific values.

Goal C&HR 7: Enhance public understanding of, and appreciation for, cultural resources through educational 

outreach and heritage tourism opportunities.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-33

Management Decisions (MD)

MD C&HR-1: Evaluate cultural resources according to National Register criteria (36 CFR, Part 60.4) 

and assign cultural resources to appropriate use categories as the basis for management decisions 

(Appendix U).

MD C&HR-2: All sites determined eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) will be 

allocated and managed for Scientific, Public, Traditional, Experimental, and/or Conservation for Future 

Use. However, if another use becomes evident or proposed after use allocation has occurred, the use 

allocation may be changed without a plan amendment.

MD C&HR-3: All sites determined not eligible to the NRHP and not containing antiquities or 

archaeological resources will be allocated and managed as Discharged from Management Use

MD C&HR-4: Cremains scattering will not be permitted on prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, 

buildings, or structures, Native American burials, sacred sites, or traditional cultural use areas.

MD C&HR-5: Design and maintain facilities to preserve the visual integrity of cultural resources, 

settings, and cultural landscapes consistent with VRM objectives established in the RMP

MD C&HR-6: Where feasible, 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 C&HR-7: A lease notice (consistent with the Montana guidance for cultural resource protection 

related to oil and gas) will continue to be issued to ensure that leased lands are examined to determine 

if cultural resources are present and to specify mitigation measures. (LN)

MD C&HR-8: A lease notice stipulation will be attached to oil and gas leases around the Lake Mason 

National Wildlife Refuge to protect cultural resources. (LN)

MD C&HR-9: A lease notice for NHPA, AIRFA, NAGPRA and E.O. 13007 will be attached to all oil 

and gas leases. (LN)

MD C&HR-10: A Lease Notice for sacred sites and Historic Properties will be attached to oil and gas 

leases. (LN)

MD C&HR-11: Surface occupancy and use for oil and gas exploration and development (including 

geophysical exploration) will be prohibited within cemeteries or individual gravesites located on private 

surface/federal mineral estate (known cemeteries include: Annherer Spring Grave, Sunrise Cemetery, 

Castle Butte Cemetery, and Cabin Creek Cemetery). (NSO)

MD C&HR-12: Surface occupancy and use for oil and gas exploration and development (including 

geophysical exploration) will be prohibited within 1⁄2 mile of cultural properties of particular importance 

to Native Americans (TCPs, traditional use areas, burials, plant gathering locations, etc.). (NSO)

MD C&HR-13: Surface occupancy and use for oil and gas exploration (including geophysical 

operations) will be prohibited on the following sites, districts, or areas (NSO):
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-34 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

• Steamboat Butte 

• Bruder-Janich Site 

• Paul Duke Site 

• Demi-John Flat NR District 

• Bighorn Mouth North Cliffs Rock Art 

• Gyp Springs Site 

• Hoskins Basin Archaeological District 

• Bandit Site (48BH0460)

MD C&HR-14: Surface occupancy and use for oil and gas exploration and development (including 

geophysical exploration) will be prohibited within eligible sites or areas designated for conservation use, 

public use, scientific use, or traditional use, including those areas determined to be traditional cultural 

properties (TCPs) and/or designated for traditional use. (NSO)

MD C&HR-14: Oil and gas leasing, exploration and development will be allowed within 1⁄4 mile of the 

following historic trails with stipulations (CSU):

• Bridger Cut-Off Trail 

• Meeteetse Trail

MD C&HR-15: Parameter – Cultural Resource Use Allocation – Rock Art Sites: Allocate and manage 

all National Register eligible sites for Conservation, Scientific, Traditional, and/or Public Use. 

Interpretative sites will be developed as appropriate.

MD C&HR-16: Parameter – Cultural Resource Use Allocation – Rockshelter/Cave Sites: Allocate and 

manage all National Register eligible sites for Conservation, Scientific, Traditional, and /or Public Use. 

Interpretative sites will be developed as appropriate.

MD C&HR-17: Parameter – Cultural Resource Use Allocation – Aboriginal Occupation Sites and 

Structures (prehistoric and protohistoric): Allocate and manage all National Register eligible sites to 

Scientific, Public, Traditional, and/or Conservation Use. Interpretative sites will be developed as 

appropriate.

MD C&HR-18: Parameter – Cultural Resource Use Allocation – Lithic Scatters/Workshops: Allocate 

and manage all National Register eligible sites to Conservation and or Scientific Use.

MD C&HR-19: Parameter – Cultural Resource Use Allocation – Communal Kill Sites: Allocate and 

manage all National Register eligible sites to Conservation, Scientific, and/or Public Use. Interpretative 

sites will be developed as appropriate.

MD C&HR-20: Parameter – Cultural Resource Use Allocation – Aboriginal Trails: Allocate and manage 

all National Register eligible sites to Conservation, Traditional, and/or Public Use. Interpretative sites 

will be developed as appropriate 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-35

MD C&HR-21: Parameter – Cultural Resource Use Allocation – Lithic Procurement Sites/Quarries 

(bedrock and surface): Allocate and manage all National Register eligible lithic procurement 

sites/quarries to Conservation, Traditional, and/or Scientific Use.

MD C&HR-22: Parameter – Cultural Resource Use Allocation – Vision Quest Sites/Sacred 

Sites/TCPs/Ethnohistoric Sites: Allocate and manage all National Register eligible sites to Conservation 

and/or Traditional Use

MD C&HR-23: Parameter – Cultural Resource Use Allocation – Historic Features: Allocate and 

manage all National Register eligible sites to Conservation and/or Scientific Use

MD C&HR-24: Parameter – Cultural Resource Use Allocation – Historic Roads/Trails: Allocate and 

manage all National Register eligible resources for Scientific, Conservation, and/or Public Use. 

Interpretative sites will be developed as appropriate.

MD C&HR-25: Parameter – Cultural Resource Use Allocation – Historic Structures and/or 

Homesteads: Allocate and manage all National Register eligible sites to Scientific, Conservation, and/or 

Public Use. Interpretative sites will be developed as appropriate.

MD C&HR-26: Parameter – Cultural Resource Use Allocation – Historic Industrial/Development 

(mines, oil/gas, etc.): Allocate and manage all National Register eligible sites to Conservation and/or 

Scientific Use.

MD C&HR-27: Parameter – Cultural Resource Use Allocation – “Other” Sites: All National Register 

eligible sites will be allocated and managed for Scientific and/or Conservation Use with public use being 

monitored.

Paleontological Resources (PALEO)

Goal PALEO 1: Identify, manage, and monitor at-risk paleontological resources (scientific values); preserve and 

protect vertebrate fossils through best science methods; and promote public and scientific use of invertebrate and 

paleo-botanical fossils.

Goal PALEO 2: Manage fossil locales with high scientific value in a stable condition, while allowing appropriate 

scientific and public use.

Goal PALEO 3: Locate, evaluate, and manage paleontological resources and protect them where appropriate

Goal PALEO 4: Facilitate suitable scientific, educational, and recreational uses of fossils

Goal PALEO 5: Ensure that significant fossils are not inadvertently damaged, destroyed, or removed from 

public ownership as a result of surface disturbance or land tenure adjustments

Management Decisions (MD)

MD PALEO-1: The Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) system will be used to assess possible 

resource impacts and mitigation needs for Federal actions involving surface disturbance, land tenure 

adjustments, and land-use planning
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-36 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

MD PALEO-2: Recreational collectors may collect and retain reasonable amounts of common 

invertebrate and plant fossils for personal, non-commercial use. Surface disturbance must be negligible 

and mechanized tools cannot be used.

MD PALEO-3: Vertebrate fossils can be collected only under a permit issued to qualified individuals. 

Vertebrate fossils include bones, teeth, eggs, and other body parts of animals with backbones, such as 

dinosaurs, fish, turtles, and mammals. Vertebrate fossils also include trace fossils such as footprints, 

burrows, gastroliths, and coprolites.

MD PALEO-4: Fossils collected under a permit remain the property of the federal government and 

must be placed in a suitable repository which will be identified at the time of permit issuance

MD PALEO-5: Lands identified for disposal or exchange will be evaluated to determine whether such 

actions will remove significant fossils from federal ownership

MD PALEO-6: Where feasible, acquire properties adjacent to public lands through donation, 

exchange, or purchase that contain significant paleontological resources

MD PALEO-7: Surface occupancy and use for oil and gas exploration and development (including 

geophysical exploration) will be prohibited within designated or recorded paleontological sites NSO)

MD PALEO-8: For oil and gas leasing, exploration, and development occurring within PFYC Class 3 or 

higher, a lease notice will be attached. Assessment, inventory, and/or mitigation will be required based 

on PFYC class (Map 35 of the B&PPNM PRMP/FEIS). (LN)

MD PALEO-9: For all surface disturbing activities occurring within PFYC Class 3 or higher units, a 

stipulation or condition of approval will be included on the permitting document. Assessment, inventory, 

and/or mitigation will be required based on PFYC class (Map 35 of the B&PPNM PRMP/FEIS). (LN)

MD PALEO-10: Written and web-based information will be developed, maintained, and provided 

about fossils and to promote visitor education

MD PALEO-11: Paleontological Resource Use permits will be issued for scientific study.

BLM will support investigations in lesser known areas and in areas where surface disturbance is 

occurring or anticipated.

MD PALEO-12: Collection of common invertebrate and plant fossils will be allowed for personal, noncommercial use. Areas with vertebrate fossils will be closed to common invertebrate and plant fossil 

hobby collecting unless collection activity is authorized by the BLM.

Visual Resources (VISUAL)

Goal VISUAL 1: Manage public lands for their scenic values while providing for the overall multiple-use and 

quality of experience to visitors of public lands.

Goal VISUAL 2: Establish visual management objectives to minimize adverse impacts on the visual resources 

on the landscape.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-37

Goal VISUAL 3: Maintain the overall integrity of VRM classes, while allowing for modifications to landscapes in 

those classes, consistent with the established management objectives.

Management Decisions (MD)

MD VISUAL-1: Manage visual resources according to established guidelines for VRM classes

(Appendix O).

MD VISUAL-2: Use the visual resource contrast rating system during project level planning to 

determine whether or not proposed activities will meet VRM objectives. Identify appropriate mitigation 

measures to reduce visual contrasts.

MD VISUAL-3: Following BLM Handbook 8410-1 and BLM IM 2000-96, the BiFO will manage WSAs 

under VRM Class I objectives to maintain an undeveloped landscape and preserve their natural values.

MD VISUAL-4: Prepare rehabilitation plans to address landscape modifications on a case-by-case basis.

MD VISUAL-5: Manage BLM public lands according to the following VRM class designations (Map 3-3):

• VRM Class I 29,714 acres

• VRM Class II 55,883 acres

• VRM Class III 349,441 acres

• VRM Class IV 0 acres

MD VISUAL-6: Surface occupancy or use, surface disturbing activities, and construction of semipermanent and permanent facilities in VRM Class II – IV areas will require special design including 

location, painting, and camouflage to blend with the natural surroundings and meet the visual quality 

objectives for each respective class (CSU).

Fire Ecology and Management (FIRE)

Goal FIRE 1: Manage wildfire and fuels for the protection of public health, safety, property, and resource 

values. The protection of human life is the single, overriding priority. Setting priorities among protecting human 

communities and community infrastructure, other property and improvements, and natural and cultural resources 

will be done based on the values to be protected, human health and safety, and the costs of protection. 

Goal FIRE 2: Manage hazardous fuels in areas of urban and industrial interface to reduce potential loss due to 

fire.

Goal FIRE 3: Maintain desired mix of seral stages within vegetation communities, including desert shrublands, 

forest and woodlands, grasslands, mountain shrublands, sagebrush (all sub-species), riparian/wetlands and aspen. 

Goal FIRE 4: Manage vegetation communities through cooperative efforts by restoring natural fire regimes and 

frequency to the landscape, where appropriate.

Goal FIRE 5: Maintain partnerships with the public and interagency cooperators to strengthen coordination of 

all fire management activities and encourage the creation of fire-safe communities.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-38 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

Goal FIRE 6: Utilize an integrated management technique unless otherwise restricted (defined as prescribed 

fire, mechanical, chemical, or biological, followed by desired reseeding) to reduce fuels to protect high priority 

areas or resource values.

Management Decisions (MD)

MD FIRE-1: In the course of fire suppression, a resource advisor will be consulted or assigned to 

wildfires that involve or threaten public lands.

MD FIRE-2: The use of fire suppression chemicals will be limited around areas with rock art and 

standing structures and other areas with significant cultural resources (including ACECs).

MD FIRE-3: Use of wildfire suppression chemicals within 300 feet of waterways will be prohibited.

MD FIRE-4: Fuels treatments will be designed to protect or improve resource values.

MD FIRE-5: ESR of burned areas will be conducted according to current policy to protect and sustain 

ecosystems, public health and safety.

MD FIRE-6: Prevent the movement of wildfires from the wildlands into the Wildland Urban Interface 

(WUI) area (Interagency Strategy for the Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management, pg. 28)

MD FIRE-7: Within the following areas work to restore or maintain approximately 14,000 acres 

available for restoring natural FRCC in Musselshell, Stillwater, Carbon, and Sweet Grass Counties, 

should resource management constraints and considerations (i.e. Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, other 

identified T&E issues and culturally sensitive areas) allow.

MD FIRE-8: If prescribed fire is used in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, the NEPA analysis for the Burn 

Plan will address:

• why alternative techniques were not selected as a viable options; 

• how Greater Sage-Grouse goals and objectives will be met by its use; 

• how the COT Report objectives will be addressed and met;

• A risk assessment to address how potential threats to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat will 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 will protect Greater Sage-Grouse habitat in PHMA (e.g., creation of fuel 

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

are a minor component in the understory, burning slash piles from conifer reduction treatments, used as 

a component with other treatment methods to combat annual grasses and restore native plant 

communities). 

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

has addressed the four bullets outlined above. Any prescribed fire in winter habitat will need to be 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-39

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

winter range habitat quality.”

MD FIRE-9: Remove conifers encroaching into sagebrush habitats, in a manner that considers tribal 

cultural values. Prioritize treatments closest to occupied sage-grouse habitats and near occupied leks, 

and where juniper encroachment is phase 1 or phase 2. Use of site-specific analysis and principles like 

those included in the FIAT report (Chambers et. al., 2014) and other ongoing modeling efforts to 

address conifer encroachment will help refine the location for specific priority areas to be treated.

MD FIRE-10: Response to wildfires will be based on ecological, social, economic and legal 

consequences of the wildfire.

Fire management strategies and tactics will be determined by (but not limited to) the following:

• Firefighter and public safety

• Resource values at risk

– In PHMA suppression will be prioritized to conserve habitat

– In GMHA, suppression will be prioritized where wildfires threaten PHMA

• Proximity to private land

• Firefighting resource availability

MD FIRE-11: Heavy equipment will not be used to construct fire lines in crucial winter range, habitat 

of candidate or special status species, riparian/wetlands or in areas of cultural resource sensitivity or 

other designated areas (e.g., ACECs, WSAs). Exceptions will be permitted for protection of human life, 

property and/or to protect resource values from further loss due to unwanted/unplanned natural or 

human caused wildland fires. 

Cultural Resource Specialists, Wildlife Biologists, or Resource Advisors will be consulted for locations of 

identified areas before use of or anticipated use of heavy equipment.

If heavy equipment is used, rehabilitation work on lines will begin immediately after containment.

Heavy equipment could be used in a WSA only if the exceptions in the non-impairment standards are 

met.

MD FIRE-12: Wildfires (natural ignitions) that occur within or adjacent to an area identified for 

vegetation or fuels treatment could be managed to meet the desired management objectives.

MD FIRE-13: Wildfire management (natural ignitions) for resource benefit will be considered for the 

following areas: 

• East Pryor ACEC 

• Grove Creek ACEC 

• Meeteetse Spires ACEC 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-40 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

• Pryor Foothills RNA ACEC 

• Weatherman Draw ACEC 

• Big Horn Tack-On WSA 

• Burnt Timber Canyon WSA 

• Pryor Mountain WSA 

• Twin Coulee WSA

MD FIRE-14: Prescribed fire will be allowed on up to 5 percent of the percent of BLM administered 

acres within the planning area to achieve measurable landscape level objectives from (1) other 

resources, including, but not limited to, forestry, wildlife, range, vegetation, and watershed; (2) the 

reduction of hazardous fuels; and (3) the introduction of fire into fire-adapted ecosystems.

Within Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA and RHMAs, only treatments that conserve, enhance, or restore 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat will be allowed. 

Treatment methods, including prescribed burning and mechanical treatments will be used to eliminate 

conifer encroachment and stimulate vegetative re-growth in grassland/shrub land habitats; and to reduce 

fuels, thin under-stories, recycle nutrients, and create small openings in forested vegetation types.

A fire risk assessment will be completed for implementation of prescribed fire in relation to GRSG goals 

and objectives.

When prescribed fire is used for vegetation treatments, the burn plan will clearly indicate how COT 

objectives will be addressed and met by use of prescribed fire and why alternative techniques for 

vegetation treatment were not selected.

Lands With Wilderness Characteristics (LWC)

Goal LWC 1: Protect, preserve, and maintain wilderness characteristics in areas inventoried and found to 

possess them. 

Goal LWC 2: LWCs will be managed to maintain:

• A high degree of naturalness (where lands and resources are affected primarily by the forces of 

nature and where the imprint of human activity is substantially unnoticeable); 

• Outstanding opportunities for solitude (when the sights, sounds, and evidence of other people are 

rare or infrequent and where visitors can be isolated, alone or secluded from others), and 

• Outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation, where the use of the area will be 

through non-motorized, non-mechanical means, and where no or minimal developed recreation 

facilities are encountered. 

Management Decisions (MD)

MD LWC-1: Conduct active restoration activities to remove unnatural features and rehabilitate 

unauthorized human disturbances. Remove unauthorized facilities consistent with regulations.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-41

MD LWC-2: Monitor for development and disturbances, as well as visitor use, to identify and address 

potential impacts on wilderness character.

MD LWC-3: Manage for wilderness characteristics* the following areas/acres immediately adjacent to 

WSA (13,653 acres) (Map 3-4) (Appendix X):

• Pryor Mountain Unit Tract 1 – 2,873 acres

• Pryor Mountain Unit Tract 2 - 497 acres

• Pryor Mountain Unit Tract 3 - 143 acres

• Pryor Mountain Unit Tract 5 – 512 acres

• Pryor Mountain Unit Tract 6 – 1,074 acres

• Pryor Mountain Unit Tract 7 – 327 acres

• Meeteetse Unit Tract 10 – 2,149 acre

• Burnt Timber Unit Tract 1 – 703 acres

• Burnt Timber Unit Tract 2 – 5,375 acres

MD LWC-4: Do not manage for wilderness characteristics the following areas/acres (13,854 acres):

• Weatherman Draw – 6,033 acres

• Bad Canyon Unit – 2,036 acres

• Yellowstone River islands – 126 acres

• Bear Canyon Unit – 5,659 acres

MD LWC-5: LWCs* will be managed as follows: 

• VRM Class II

• Closed to motorized OHV use, with the exception of the Meeteetse Spires Unit, which will

be limited to authorized motorized OHV use only.

• Closed to oil and gas leasing, exploration and development (NL)

• Closed to solid mineral leasing

• Closed to disposal of mineral materials

• Closed and recommend for withdrawal from mineral entry

• Exclusion area for new ROWs

• Closed to permitted commercial and personal use wood cutting and seed collection

• Vegetation and fuel treatments using prescribed fire will be allowed

• Surface disturbing and disruptive activities will be allowed only if the activity does not impair 

the resource values and/or wilderness characteristics, with the exception of emergency 

operations and the exercise of valid existing rights.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-42 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

• Closed to new structures unrelated to preserving the wilderness characteristics

• Vegetation treatments to control expansion of invasive exotic species will be allowed

Cave and Karst Resources (CAVE)

Goal CAVE 1: Manage all cave resources as mandated by the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988, 

NEPA, and the ESA and other applicable laws and regulations to protect unique, nonrenewable, and fragile 

biological, geological, hydrological, cultural, paleontological, scientific and recreational values for present and 

future users. 

Goal CAVE 2: Cave and karst resources will be managed to provide opportunities for scientific research, 

educational study, and recreational experiences which are compatible and consistent with protection of all 

biologic and non-biologic resources associated with caves and karst landforms.

Management Decisions (MD)

MD CAVE-1: Secure, protect, and preserve natural cave features and conditions.

MD CAVE-2: Geocaching will not be allowed in caves or at cave entrances.

MD CAVE-3: Scientific and research use of caves requires a written proposal explaining the purpose of 

the research, who will be conducting it, how long it is expected to take, if it will require any collection 

of specimens, and what kind of reporting will be done.

MD CAVE-4: Manage all cave and karst formations in compliance with the National Plan for assisting 

state, federal agencies, and tribes in managing White-Nose Syndrome in Bats (US Fish and Wildlife 

Service, May 2011).

MD CAVE-5: Evaluate all known caves in the region to determine if they satisfy the six criteria of 

significance. The Code of Federal Regulations at 43CFR, Part 37.11 (c) lists the six criteria that are used 

to evaluate cave significance.

MD CAVE-6: Manage recreational use of all known caves under a cave management plan and address: 

protecting and maintaining cave resources, including wildlife species and habitat in and around caves, by 

interpreting, restricting, and/or prohibiting nonconforming uses; enhancing user experiences and 

opportunities by managing use at levels compatible with resource carrying capacity and protection. 

Management actions proposed to be implemented also could include installation of cave gates, 

implementation of a visitor use permit system, the development of new visitor public education 

materials; systematic inventories of cave resources; restoration of damaged habitat; and monitoring of 

cave conditions and the quality of visitor recreational experiences.

MD CAVE-7: Mystery Cave, already designated as a significant cave, located near the Big Horn TackOn WSA, is recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry and No Lease for oil and gas leasing, 

exploration, and/or development.

MD CAVE-8: Caves found to be significant will be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry 

and managed as No Lease for oil and gas leasing, exploration, and development.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-43

MD CAVE-9: Surface disturbing or disruptive activities within 1⁄4 mile of cave entrances may be 

allowed if the activity benefits the desired outcome of this resource.

MD CAVE-10: Cave and karst areas will be inventoried prior to oil and gas leasing, exploration and/or 

development. An approved mitigation plan will be required to avoid impacts on cave resources (CSU).

MD CAVE-11: Inventory of cave and karst areas will be required prior to surface-disturbing activities. 

Cave and karst resources will be open to mineral development with an approved mitigation plan that 

protects resource values.

MD CAVE-12: Cave and karst areas will be managed as ROW avoidance areas.

3.2.2 Resource Uses and Support

Energy & Mineral Resources: Solid Leasables (including coal) (SL-COAL)

Goal SL-COAL 1: Make federal solid mineral resources available for exploration and acquisition consistent 

with other resource goals.

Goal SL-COAL 2: Identify the public lands open to solid minerals leasing in accordance with existing laws and 

regulations (43 CFR, Parts 3400 and 3500).

Management Decisions (MD)

MD SL-COAL-1: BLM will consider proposals for developing leasable minerals (coal, phosphate, 

sodium, potash, sulfur, oil shale, native asphalt, and solid and semi-solid bituminous rock) under the 

administration of the federal government on a case-by-case basis. Site specific environmental analysis will

be required to lease these minerals.

MD SL-COAL-2: BLM will allow exploration and development of solid minerals as authorized under 

the 1920 and 1947 Mineral Leasing Acts.

MD SL-COAL-3: Prospecting permits will be available for all land not closed to mineral leasing in 

conformance with 43 CFR, Part 3500.

MD SL-COAL-4: Terms and conditions will be applied to mining activities to meet land health 

standards for uplands, riparian areas and wetlands, water quality, air quality, and native plant and animal 

species (see Appendix H, BMPs, and Appendix C, Greater Sage-Grouse Required Design Features).

MD SL-COAL-5: Surface occupancy and use for oil and gas exploration and development (including 

geophysical exploration) will be prohibited within the boundaries of existing coal leases. (NSO)

MD SL-COAL-6: 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 SL-COAL-7: The following areas will be closed to solid mineral leasing and development (225,655 

acres): (Map 3-5)
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-44 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

• Big Horn Tack-On WSA 

• Burnt Timber Canyon WSA

• Pryor Mountain WSA 

• Twin Coulee WSA (If Twin Coulee WSA is released from further consideration, the area 

may be open for solid mineral leasing and development.)

• LWCs 

• Bridger Fossil Area ACEC 

• East Pryor ACEC 

• Four Dances Natural Area ACEC 

• Grove Creek ACEC 

• Meeteetse Spires ACEC 

• Petroglyph Canyon ACEC 

• Pompeys Pillar ACEC 

• Pryor Foothills RNA/ACEC 

• Weatherman Draw ACEC 

• Nez Perce NHT

• Lewis and Clark NHT

MD SL-COAL-8: Within Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA and RHMAs solid mineral leasing (coal) will only 

be allowed with the following lease stipulations:

• Mining may only occur via subsurface methods

• All mine related appurtenant facilities will be placed outside of the PHMA 

MD SL-COAL-9: Remainder of Planning Area: Process LBAs for new coal leases by applying the coal 

screening process to the application. The coal screening process results will determine which lands may 

be available for further consideration for coal leasing and development. Appropriate NEPA analysis will

be required prior to leasing. The existing RMP (BLM 1984) coal-screening management decisions are 

current and relevant to the application area. (Appendix M)

Energy & Mineral Resources: Fluid Mineral Resources (FLUIDS)

Goal FLUIDS 1: Provide opportunities for exploration and development of fluid mineral resources on available 

public lands.

Goal FLUIDS 2: Provide opportunities for exploring, leasing, and developing conventional oil and gas, coal bed 

natural gas, and geothermal resources while applying the appropriate lease stipulations and COA to mitigate 

environmental impacts from development. 

Goal FLUIDS 3: Provide opportunities for geophysical (e.g. seismic) exploration for oil and gas subject to the 

appropriate mitigating measures.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-45

Management Decisions (MD)

MD FLUIDS-1: Federal oil and gas leasing authority for public lands is found in the Mineral Leasing Act 

of 1920, as amended; and for acquired lands in the Acquired Lands Leasing Act of 1947, as amended. 

Leasing of federal oil and gas is affected by other acts such as NEPA, the NHPA, FLPMA (1976), the 

Wilderness Act of 1964, the ESA of 1973, as amended, and the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing 

Reform Act of 1987. Regulations and other guidance governing federal oil and gas leasing and lease 

operations are contained in 43 CFR Group 3100, Onshore Operating Orders, Notices to Lessees, and 

BLM handbooks manuals and instruction memorandums. Regulations governing geophysical exploration 

are found at 43 CFR, Part 3150.

MD FLUIDS-2: All public lands available for oil and gas leasing will be offered first by competitive bid 

at an oral auction.

MD FLUIDS-3: Appropriate stipulations will be applied at the time of leasing (Appendix S).

MD FLUIDS-4: Areas where oil and gas development will coexist with other resource uses will be 

open to leasing under standard lease terms or with added stipulations. Stipulations are a part of the 

lease only when environmental and planning records show the need for them. Three types of 

stipulations describe how lease rights are modified: NSO, TL (seasonal restriction), and CSU. (For 

descriptions, see Leasing Process in the Oil and Gas section of Appendix J) Stipulations may be 

changed by application of waivers, exceptions, or modifications. The decision whether to grant waivers, 

exceptions, or modifications generally occurs during the APD approval process. If the AO determines 

the change to be substantial, the preferred alternative will be subject to a 30-day public review period. 

Waivers are a permanent exemption from a lease stipulation. This occurs when the resource does not

require the protection of stipulation. Exceptions are granted on a case-by-case basis. Each time the 

lessee applies for an exception, the resource objective of the stipulation must be met. Modifications are 

fundamental changes to the provisions of a lease stipulation either temporarily or for the term of the 

lease.

MD FLUIDS-5: An oil and gas lease grants the lessee the right to explore for, extract, remove, and 

dispose of oil and gas deposits that may be found on the leased lands. The lessee may exercise the rights 

conveyed by the lease, subject to lease terms and any lease stipulations (modifications of the lease), and 

permit approval requirements.

MD FLUIDS-6: The terms of existing oil and gas leases cannot be changed by the decisions in this 

document. When the lease expires, the area will be managed for oil and gas according to the decisions 

reached in this document.

MD FLUIDS-7: For federal oil and gas where the surface is managed by another federal agency, the 

BLM will consult with that agency before issuing leases. In areas where oil and gas development may 

conflict with other resources, the areas may be closed to leasing in accordance with decisions made 

from this document. Regulations at part 43 CFR, Part 3100.0-3(d); the Secretary’s general authority to 

prevent the waste and dissipation of public property; and the Attorney General’s Opinion of April 2, 

1941 (Vol. 40 Op. Atty. Gen 41) allow the BLM to lease lands that are otherwise unavailable for leasing 

if oil and gas is being drained from such lands. If the unavailable lands were under the jurisdiction of 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-46 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

another agency, leasing of such lands will only occur following consultation, and consent if necessary, 

from the surface managing agency.

MD FLUIDS-8: On Bureau of Reclamation or Corps of Engineers lands, in addition to the resource 

specific stipulations under each alternative (e.g., wildlife, recreation); stipulations that are recommended by 

the Bureau of Reclamation or Corps of Engineers will be used (see Oil and Gas section in Appendix J).

MD FLUIDS-9: Lands unavailable under this RMP (Table 2.8 of the B&PPNM PRMP/FEIS) will be leased 

only if a state or fee well is proposed or completed within the same spacing unit, or if the lands are 

within a producing unit. These lands will be leased with a NSO and no subsurface occupancy stipulation 

with no waiver, modification or exception provisions. There will only be a paper transaction with no 

physical impacts on the unavailable lands. There will be no exploration or development (drilling or 

production) within the unavailable lands. After issuance of a lease, the lease will be committed to a 

communitization agreement and the United States will then receive revenue in proportion to its acreage 

interest as it bears to the entire acreage interest committed to the agreements.

MD FLUIDS-10: Additional information can be provided to the lessee in the form of a LN. This notice 

does not place restrictions on lease operation, but does provide information about applicable laws and 

regulations, and the requirements for additional information to be supplied by the lessee.

MD FLUIDS-11: After lease issuance, the lessee may conduct lease operations with an approved 

permit. Proposed drilling and associated activities must be approved before beginning operations. The 

operator must file an APD or Sundry Notice that must be approved according to (1) lease stipulations, 

(2) Onshore Oil and Gas Order, and (3) regulations and laws. (See Permitting in the Oil and Gas section 

of Appendix J).

MD FLUIDS-12: Follow BLM Manual 6330 guidance for mineral leasing in WSAs as appropriate. All 

WSAs will be closed to new oil and gas leases.

MD FLUIDS-13: Oil and gas geophysical activity which is administered by the BLM is governed by 

regulations found at 43 CFR Subparts 3150, 3151 and 3154. Additional guidance is found in BLM Manual 

Section 3150 and Handbook 3150. For additional information on geophysical operations and the BLM’s 

procedures and regulations see the Geophysical Operations portion of the oil and gas section of the 

Appendix J.

The BLM will review Notices of Intent to Conduct Geophysical Exploration in the planning area and 

develop appropriate mitigation measures so as not to create undue and unnecessary degradation. A sitespecific environmental analysis will be prepared for each NOI filed.

MD FLUIDS-14: Lands in the planning area will be available for geothermal leasing, unless located 

within wilderness or WSAs or in instances where it is determined that issuing the lease will cause 

unnecessary or undue degradation to public lands or resources. Other areas that will be made 

unavailable are listed in the ROD and RMP Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United 

States (December, 2008) which is incorporated in this RMP. A site-specific environmental analysis will be 

prepared as needed should interest be expressed in exploring for or developing geothermal resources in 

the planning area. This analysis will address the application of stipulations and develop any additional 

mitigating measures over and above the lease stipulations required.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-47

Stipulations developed in this document for oil and gas leases will be applied to any geothermal lease 

issued if appropriate. If geothermal exploration and production activity is sufficiently different from oil 

and gas, the stipulations developed will be modified.

MD FLUIDS-15: 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).

MD FLUIDS-16: 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 on sage-grouse 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.

MD FLUIDS-17: Where the federal government owns the mineral estate in PHMA and GHMA, and 

the surface is in non-federal ownership, apply the same stipulations, COAs, and/or conservation 

measures and RDFs applied if the mineral estate is developed on BLM-administered lands in that 

management area, to the maximum extent permissible under existing authorities, and in coordination 

with the landowner.

MD FLUIDS-18: Where the federal government owns the surface and the mineral estate is in nonfederal ownership in PHMA and GHMA, apply appropriate surface use COAs, stipulations, and mineral 

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

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

Oil and Gas

MD FLUIDS-19: Manage 44,142 acres as open to leasing, subject to standard lease terms (Map 3-6)

MD FLUIDS-20: Manage 412,600 acres as open to leasing subject to moderate constraints (CSU/TL 

stipulations) (Map 3-6).

MD FLUIDS-21: Manage 420,126 acres as open to leasing subject to major constraints (NSO) (Map 

3-6).

MD FLUIDS-22: Manage 60,359 acres as closed to leasing in the following areas (NL) (Map 3-6):

Non-Discretionary:

• Big Horn Tack-On WSA 

• Burnt Timber Canyon WSA 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-48 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

• Pryor Mountain WSA 

• Twin Coulee WSA

Discretionary:

• Bridger Fossil Area ACEC

• East Pryor ACEC 

• Four Dances Natural Area ACEC 

• Meeteetse Spires ACEC (965 acres)

• Petroglyph Canyon ACEC

• Weatherman Draw ACEC (4,986 acres) 

• PMWHR 

• LWCs

Geophysical Exploration

MD FLUIDS-23: Geophysical exploration will not be allowed in the following areas:

• Pompeys Pillar ACEC 

• East Pryor ACEC 

• Four Dances Natural Area ACEC 

• Meeteetse Spires ACEC 

• Petroglyph Canyon ACEC 

• Pryor Foothills RNA ACEC 

• Stark Site ACEC 

• Weatherman Draw ACEC 

• Within 1⁄2 mile of bald and golden eagle nest sites which have been active within the past 7 

years and within bald and golden eagle nesting habitat in riparian areas.

• Within 1⁄2 mile of ferruginous hawk nest sites which have been active within the past 2 years.

• Within 1 mile of peregrine falcon nesting sites (distance may be reduced if natural barriers 

reduce line of site).

• Within 1⁄2 mile of raptor nests (peregrine, ferruginous and bald and golden eagles noted 

above) from March 1 to August 1 which have been active within the last 2 years (distance 

may be reduced).

• Bighorn Sheep Habitat
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-49

Energy & Mineral Resources: Locatable Minerals (LOC_MIN)

Goal LOC_MIN 1: Encourage and facilitate development of locatable minerals in the manner to prevent 

unnecessary or undue degradation, as defined in 3809.5. Provide land use opportunities contributing to economic 

benefits while protecting or minimizing adverse impacts on other resources.

Goal LOC_MIN 2: Identify the public lands open to locatable mineral entry in accordance with existing laws 

and regulations (43 CFR, Part 3700 and 3800).

Management Decisions (MD)

MD LOC_MIN-1: Standard management practices in the public land administration of locatable 

minerals will continue across all alternatives. BLM will coordinate with MDEQ during the review, 

approval, inspection and reclamation of mining operations. At a minimum, conduct an annual compliance 

inspection on each active notice, and two times per year for Plan of Operations.

MD LOC_MIN-2: Requirements of all state and federal laws will be met in the management of mining 

operations.

MD LOC_MIN-3: In cases involving valid mining claims, exploration will occur under all alternatives. 

Administration of locatable minerals on public lands will continue as required by law and regulation (43 

CFR, Part 3809) by taking the following steps: 

• Review and process notices to ensure the proposed action does not create unnecessary or 

undue degradation of the environment. 

• Review and process plans of operation to ensure the proposed action does not create 

unnecessary or undue degradation of the environment. 

• Conduct at a minimum, annual compliance inspections on each active notice and plan of 

operation. 

• Allow casual use where work is done by hand and no explosives are used. Refer inquiries to 

appropriate agencies for further guidance on other permit requirements.

MD LOC_MIN-4: Terms and conditions will be applied to mining activities (within the constraints of 

the mining law) to meet land health standards for uplands, riparian and wetlands, water quality, air 

quality, and native plant and animal species (see Appendices B, C, D, E, F, G for Greater Sage-Grouse 

specific measures). Note: All withdrawal actions (including mineral withdrawals) are processed in the 

Realty, Cadastral Survey, and Lands program. Restrictions applicable to locatable minerals are limited to 

the prevention of unnecessary or undue degradation, as defined in 43 CFR, Part 3809.5.

MD LOC_MIN-5: Valid, existing mineral rights, within the planning area will not be changed by any 

decision in this document. None of the alternatives give BLM the discretion to prohibit mineral 

exploration or development on valid leases or mining claims.

MD LOC_MIN-6: The following areas are currently closed and will continue to be recommended for 

withdrawal from mineral entry (1,855 acres) (Map 3-7): 

• Britton Springs Administrative Site 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-50 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

• Crooked Creek Natural Area (portions) (WY) 

• Four Dances Natural Area ACEC 

• Petroglyph Canyon ACEC 

• Weatherman Draw ACEC (600 acres)

MD LOC_MIN-7: The following areas will be recommended for withdrawal from all locatable mineral 

entry (60,204 acres): (Map 3-7)

• Bridger Fossil Area ACEC 

• East Pryor ACEC 

• Meeteetse Spires ACEC 

• Pompeys Pillar ACEC 

• Pryor Foothills RNA/ACEC 

• Stark Site ACEC 

• Weatherman Draw ACEC (4,386 acres)

• Big Horn Tack-On WSA 

• Burnt Timber Canyon WSA 

• Pryor Mountain WSA 

• Twin Coulee WSA 

• LWCs

Energy & Mineral Resources: Mineral Materials (Saleable) (SALE_MIN)

Goal SALE_MIN 1: Provide land-use opportunities contributing to economic benefits and meet local 

infrastructure needs while protecting or minimizing adverse impacts on other resources and resource uses.

Goal SALE_MIN 2: Identify the public lands open to minerals materials disposal in accordance with existing 

laws and regulations (43 CFR, Part 3600).

Management Decisions (MD)

MD SALE_MIN-1: BLM will dispose of saleable minerals on unpatented mining claims only for a public 

purpose when no reasonable alternative exists. Saleable mineral sites will have an approved mining and 

reclamation plan and an environmental analysis prior to being opened. Mineral material will be sold at a 

fair market value to the public, but will be free to state, county, or other local governments when used 

for public projects. Mineral material sales will be processed on a case-by-case basis.

MD SALE_MIN-2: The BLM will continue to provide for the exploration and development of mineral 

materials unless closed.

MD SALE_MIN-3: New mineral material sites will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. With the 

exception of lands withdrawn from all mineral entry, the planning area will be available for establishment 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-51

of future sites, pending site-specific analysis. Terms and conditions to protect public land and resource 

values will be applied on a case-by-case basis.

MD SALE_MIN-4: The following areas are closed to mineral material disposals (281,597 acres) (Map 

3-8):

• Four Dances Natural Area ACEC 

• Petroglyph Canyon ACEC 

• Pompeys Pillar ACEC 

• Pryor Foothills RNA/ACEC 

• Stark Site ACEC 

• Weatherman Draw ACEC 

• LWCs 

• Big Horn Tack-On WSA 

• Burnt Timber Canyon WSA

• Pryor Mountain WSA 

• Twin Coulee WSA (If Twin Coulee WSA is released from further consideration, the area 

may be open to mineral material disposals.)

• Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA - closed to new salable minerals; existing permits will be 

renewed with no increase in the permitted boundary. 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 framework 

(Appendix F);

– all applicable required design features are applied; and [if applicable] the activity is 

permissible under the specific sub-regional screening criteria.

• Shepherd Ah-Nei Recreation Area

• Acton Recreation Area 

• Asparagus Point

Forestry and Woodland Products (FWP)

Goal FWP 1: Manage forest resources to provide a sustained flow of local economic benefits and protect nonmarket economic values, consistent with other resource objectives. 

Goal FWP 2: Provide forest products while maintaining a balance between public demand and the health and 

productivity of native and desired vegetative communities. Forest product sales include over the-counter sales of 

firewood, Christmas trees or other products, and small amounts of materials removed as a result of other 

authorizations such as rights-of-way, road use agreements, grazing leases, or other land uses.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-52 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

Goal FWP 3: Provide forest and woodland products including, but not limited to; saw logs, pulp, post/poles, fuel 

wood, and biomass on a sustainable basis.

Goal FWP 4: Manage forests and woodlands to meet or exceed the standards identified in BLM’s Standards for 

Rangeland Health (Standards 1 and 5)

Management Decisions (MD)

MD FWP-1: Commercial harvest of forest products will normally be associated with vegetative 

restoration (including forest health and fuels treatments) and will be designed to meet objectives for 

forest management, wildlife habitat management, fire hazard reduction, hazard tree removal, special 

status species management, visuals, recreation, travel management, and any other relevant resource 

concerns.

MD FWP-2: Provide forest products as practical where forests have been damaged by wildfire and/or 

insects/disease.

MD FWP-3: Biomass and small diameter materials associated with forest/fuels treatments will be made 

available for use.

MD FWP-4: Forest products will be managed according to sustainability limits and where consistent 

with other resource management objectives.

MD FWP-5: Removal of dead or down trees will be allowed for firewood cutting, unless otherwise 

restricted (e.g., WSAs, ACECs, riparian areas, etc.). Cutting of live trees for firewood for personal use 

or commercial purposes will be authorized on a case by case basis after review and compliance with 

NEPA. Forest products use will be allowed except where prohibited.

MD FWP-6: Accommodate the demand for commercial forest products (PSQ appx. 178 MBF/year).

PSQ values may be adjusted based on monitoring evaluations, due to unforeseen events such as 

wildfires, current inventories, and insect/disease, or climate conditions.

MD FWP-7: Restrict permits for other forest products (e.g., Christmas trees, fuel wood, juniper, 

wildlings, mushrooms, etc.), when harvest will conflict with other resource values.

MD FWP-8: New roads will be built where multiple entries will be necessary to meet objectives.

MD FWP-9: New road construction will follow Montana’s Water Quality BMPs for Montana forests. 

New roads may be left open to the public if travel plan objectives for the area are met.

MD FWP-10: Temporary road construction will follow Montana’s Water Quality BMPs for Montana 

forests and be decommissioned, with reclamation initiated within 1 year of project completion.

MD FWP-11: When salvage is proposed in dead and dying forests, contiguous acres of undisturbed 

standing and down woody material will be retained on a site specific basis, consistent with wildlife 

species, forest health restoration, and other resource requirements (e.g., soils, riparian, visual resources, 

etc.).
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-53

Realty, Cadastral Survey, and Lands: Land Tenure Adjustment and Access (R/LT)

Goal R/LT 1: Manage the acquisition, disposal, withdrawal, and use of public lands to meet the access needs of 

internal and external customers and to preserve important resource values.

Goal R/LT 2: Acquire or retain access to public lands to improve management efficiency, to facilitate multiple 

uses and public enjoyment of BLM public lands in coordination with private landownership, local, state or federal 

entities.

Goal R/LT 3: Maintain and/or acquire access across state/private lands to public lands for recreational 

opportunities and management of public land resources.

Goal R/LT 4: Public access will be maintained or improved through all land ownership adjustment transactions.

Management Decisions (MD)

MD R/LT-1: Newly acquired lands will be managed for the highest potential purpose and greatest 

public benefit for which they are acquired and will be managed similar to adjacent and/or surrounding 

lands.

MD R/LT-2: Lands or interest in lands will be acquired by purchase, exchange, revocation of another 

agency’s withdrawals, administrative transfer from another agency, cooperative agreement, donation, or 

other authority, and evaluated against the criteria in Appendix W. All land or mineral ownership 

adjustments will be based on a willing buyer, willing seller basis and will be managed as similar lands are 

under the approved RMP. Administration of other federal lands could occur through revocation of 

withdrawals, jurisdictional or administrative transfer, or agreement.

MD R/LT-3: Evaluate the proposed disposal tracts (Category III) using the land tenure criteria identified 

in Appendix W.

MD R/LT-4: Parcels of land administered by BLM and discovered through land status updates and 

corrections will be managed as similar lands are under the approved RMP.

MD R/LT-5: Lands acquired within or adjoining Congressionally designated areas (NM, NHT, etc.) or 

within administratively designated special management areas, such as ACECs and SRMAs, which have 

unique or fragile resources, will be managed the same as the special management area.

MD R/LT-6: Acquisition of patented mining claims will be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Patented 

claims so acquired will be withdrawn from mineral entry.

MD R/LT-7: Use all methods available to acquire access: easements from land or land exchange with 

willing parties will be the preferred methods of access acquisition.

MD R/LT-8: Retain existing access to BLM-administered lands, or other public lands, in conveyance 

documents.

MD R/LT-9: Participate and adopt National Historic Trails Land Acquisition Plans
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-54 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

MD R/LT-10: The specifically authorized acreage for land use should be avoided by oil and gas 

exploration and development activities. All authorized surface land uses are valid claims to prior existing 

rights unless the authorization states otherwise. (LN)

MD R/LT-11: Surface occupancy and use for oil and gas exploration and development (including 

geophysical exploration) will be prohibited on lands acquired with Land and Water Conservation Funds 

(NSO)

MD R/LT-12: Special Designations (including ACECs and WSAs), archeological sites/historic districts, 

and lands acquired through Land Water Conservation Funds will be managed as Category I – Retention.

MD R/LT-13: Oil and gas facilities will not be allowed within 500 feet of human occupied dwellings 

(LN).

MD R/LT-14: Lands classified as priority habitat and general habitat (or habitat classification 

appropriate for the sub-region) for Greater Sage-Grouse will be retained in federal management unless: 

1) the agency can demonstrate that disposal of the lands will provide a net conservation gain to 

the Greater Sage-Grouse or 

2) the agency can demonstrate that the disposal of the lands, including land exchanges, will

have no direct or indirect adverse impact on conservation of the Greater Sage-Grouse. Map 

2-11)

MD R/LT-15: Surface occupancy and use for oil and gas exploration and development (including 

geophysical exploration) will be prohibited within and 500 feet from unincorporated towns or human 

occupied residential structures (structures that are regularly occupied by persons at least 20 hours per 

week) (NSO).

MD R/LT-16: Land ownership adjustments will be considered through site-specific analysis, based on 

retention, acquisition and disposal criteria (Appendix W). 

Establish three (3) adjustment categories based on BLM land tenure adjustment classes:

• Category I – Retention: Lands managed in Category I – Retention will include all lands with 

Special Designations (including ACECs, WSAs, NHTs, National Monuments, etc.), LWCs, 

National Register listed archeological/historic sites/districts, and lands acquired through 

LWCF. Category I lands will not be transferred from BLM management by any method for 

the life of the plan.

• Category II- Retention/Limited Land Ownership Adjustment: 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. 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 will be retained. 

• Category III – Disposal (land ownership adjustments, including sales): These lands generally 

have low or unknown resource values or are isolated or fragmented from other public land 

ownerships making them difficult to manage. Public land parcels in this category are 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-55

relatively smaller in size (typically 160 acres or less). A listing of the legal descriptions of 

these disposal parcels can be found by alternative in Appendix W. 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, however, exchange could have priority over disposal by FLPMA sale.

MD R/LT-17: Manage 83,507 acres in Category I – Retention (Map 3-9)

MD R/LT-18: Manage 353,829 acres in Category II - Retention/Limited Land Ownership Adjustment 

(no land disposals through direct sale). Land exchanges will be considered. (Map 3-9)

MD R/LT-19: Manage 264.4 acres in Category III – Disposal (land ownership adjustments, including 

direct sale or land exchanges). (Map 3-9)

MD R/LT-20: Consider applications for R&PP leases/patents and airport grants only in Category II and 

Category III.

MD R/LT-21: BLM public lands will be available for state indemnity grants, as legally required in 

Categories II and III lands. 

There are no lands in the BiFO that are suitable for agricultural entry or Indian allotments. This is based 

on a combination of poor soil types, a lack of water, available water rights, and rugged topography.

Realty, Cadastral Survey, and Lands: Rights-of-Way, Leases, and Permits (R/RLP)

Goal R/RLP 1: Manage public lands to meet transportation and rights-of-way (ROW) needs while protecting 

resources.

Goal R/RLP 2: Address the needs of industry, utilities, the public, or government entities for land use 

authorizations while minimizing impacts on other resource values.

Goal R/RLP 3: Maintain availability of public lands to meet the habitation, cultivation, trade, mineral 

development, recreation, and manufacturing needs of external customers and the general public.

Goal R/RLP 4: Indirect 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)

MD R/RLP-1: Analyze requests for land use authorizations and apply mitigation measures as 

appropriate (Appendix H).

MD R/RLP-2: Land use authorizations will not be issued for uses that involve the disposal or storage of 

materials which will contaminate the land (hazardous waste disposal sites, landfills, rifle ranges, etc.).

MD R/RLP-3: New ROW facilities will be located within or adjacent to existing rights-of-way to the 

extent possible.

MD R/RLP-4: New communication site users will be encouraged to locate within existing 

communication site buildings or within boundaries defined by communication site plans.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-56 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

MD R/RLP-5: Reclamation of sites will be required where documented resource damage has occurred 

from unauthorized use.

MD R/RLP-6: ROW exclusion or avoidance areas will be subject to valid existing rights.

MD R/RLP-7: Terms and conditions for ROWs, corridors and development areas will incorporate 

BMPs.

MD R/RLP-8: Issues in connection with RS2477 roads will be subject to the current guidance

MD R/RLP-9: If a BLM ROW, lease, permit, conservation easement, or R&PP lease or patent occurs on 

an oil and gas lease, the lessee will be notified

MD R/RLP-10: The following five ROW areas are designated for communication sites: Wall Creek, 

north of Pompeys Pillar, Bridger, Tin Can Hill, and Four Dances Natural Area ACEC. Applicants are 

encouraged to utilize existing communication site facilities to minimize disturbance.

MD R/RLP-11: Upon project completion, roads used for commercial access on public lands will be 

reclaimed, unless, based on site-specific analysis, the route provides specific benefits for public access 

and does not contribute to resource conflicts.

MD R/RLP-12: Pursue reciprocal rights for public access when granting a BLM ROW, as appropriate.

MD R/RLP-13: Overhead power lines, where authorized, will follow the recommendations in Avian 

Protection on Power lines, State of the Art in 2006. Power poles and other tall structures will be 

designed to prevent raptors from perching on the poles and reflectors attached.

MD R/RLP-14: Geophysical carbon sequestration will be allowed in the planning area in accordance 

with the goals and objectives for resources in the RMP. The BLM will comply with policy for issuing 

ROWs or leases for the purpose of geophysical carbon sequestration.

MD R/RLP-15: PHMA will be avoidance area for major and minor ROWs. However ROWs will only 

be allowed in GRSG PHMA where habitat functionality will be maintained.

MD R/RLP-16: RHMAs will be avoidance areas for major and minor ROWs. However ROWs will only 

be allowed in GRSG RHMAs where habitat functionality will be maintained.

MD R/RLP-17: GRSG GHMA will be avoidance areas for major ROWs. Utilities and similar facilities 

will be located adjacent to other facilities where practical and only when habitat can be maintained.

MD R/RLP-18: GRSG GHMA will be open to minor ROWs. Utilities and similar facilities will be 

located adjacent to other facilities where practical and only when habitat can be maintained.

MD R/RLP-19: BLM will require power lines 69kV and less in size to be buried if feasible. BLM will

require power lines 69kV and less in size to be authorized in a manner that ensures habitat is maintained 

(e.g. burying, perch, collision, and electrocution prevention measures, or line location).
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-57

Corridors

MD R/RLP-20: A multi-modal (pipeline and electrical transmission) Section 368 corridor (identified as 

Segment 79-216) will continue to be a designated corridor and is 5.2 miles in length, 3,500 feet in total 

width, located east of Highway 310 in Carbon County (Map 3-10).

MD R/RLP-21: Silver Tip Road in Carbon County will be designated as a ROW corridor (1,750 feet on 

either side of the center line of Silver Tip Road). This corridor will have a total width of 3,500 feet and 6 

miles in length on public land, with the exception of the portion of this corridor occurring in the Elk 

Basin GRSG RHMA which will be 1,320 feet on either side of the center line of Silver Tip Road (total 

width of 2,640 feet) (Map 3-10).

ROW Exclusion Areas

MD R/RLP-22: ROW Exclusion Areas: (48,258 acres) and include the following areas (Map 3-11):

• Big Horn Tack-On WSA

• Burnt Timber Canyon WSA 

• Pryor Mountain WSA

• Twin Coulee WSA. 

• In addition, if not designated by Congress as Wilderness, the WSAs will continue to be 

managed as ROW exclusion areas. 

• Bridger Fossil Area ACEC 

• Meeteetse Spires ACEC

• Petroglyph Canyon

• Pompeys Pillar ACEC – Front Country Zone, except those necessary to service the site 

facilities 

• Portion of Weatherman Draw ACEC (original ACEC and acquisition).

• LWCs

ROW Avoidance Areas

MD R/RLP-23: ROW avoidance areas will include 378,958 acres (Map 3-11):

• Castle Butte ACEC

• East Pryor ACEC

• Four Dances Natural Area ACEC 

• Grove Creek ACEC 

• Pompeys Pillar ACEC (General Management Zone - restricts ROW to a 500’ wide path 

paralleling the southern boundary of the public lands along Highway 312) 

• Pryor Foothills RNA/ACEC

• Stark Site ACEC 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-58 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

• Weatherman Draw ACEC (expansion area)

• Cave and karst areas will be managed as ROW avoidance areas. 

• L&CNHT and NPNHT corridors will managed as ROW avoidance areas

• Asparagus Point

• Steamboat Butte

• portion of Acton

• portion of Shepherd Ah-Nei

• Bad Canyon

• East and Red Pryor Mountains

• Hoskins Basin Archeological District

• Demi-John Flat Archeological District

• Beartooth Mountain Front (2 mile strip bordering the eastern boundary of the Custer 

National Forest)

• WSR eligible segments

• Big Horn Sheep Winter Range

• Big Game Winter Range

• Greater Sage-Grouse GHMA

• Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA and RHMAs will remain avoidance areas. However ROWs will

only be allowed in Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA and RHMAs where habitat functionality will

be maintained.

Realty, Cadastral Survey, and Lands: Withdrawals (R/WD)

Goal R/WD 1: Protect significant resources or significant government investments.

Goal R/WD 2: Use withdrawal actions with the least restrictive measures and minimum size necessary to 

accomplish the required purposes of the withdrawal.

Management Decisions (MD)

MD R/WD-1: Review withdrawals two (2) years prior to termination either to extend, modify, or 

revoke. If withdrawals are no longer needed, in whole or in part, for the intended purpose for which 

they were created, the withdrawal will be revoked or modified.

MD R/WD-2: Consider other agency requests for new withdrawals, relinquishments, extensions or 

modifications on a case-by-case basis with consideration given to determining if the lands will be suitable 

for return to BLM public domain.

MD R/WD-3: All Classification and Multiple Use classifications in the planning area have been 

terminated.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-59

MD R/WD-4: Withdrawal proposals will be evaluated at the project level and will not be approved 

unless the land management is consistent with maintaining and protecting BLM resource values (see BMP 

(Appendix H) and GRSG Appendices (B, C, D, E, F, G) as appropriate).

MD R/WD-5: The following areas are currently closed and will continue to be recommended for 

withdrawal from mineral entry (1,855 acres): (Map 3-7)

• Britton Springs Administrative Site 

• Crooked Creek Natural Area (portions) (WY) 

• Four Dances Natural Area ACEC 

• Petroglyph Canyon ACEC 

• Weatherman Draw ACEC (600 acres)

MD R/WD-6: The following areas will be closed and recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry 

(60,204 acres): (Map 3-7)

• Bridger Fossil Area ACEC 

• East Pryor ACEC 

• Meeteetse Spires ACEC 

• Pompeys Pillar ACEC 

• Pryor Foothills RNA/ACEC 

• Stark Site ACEC 

• Weatherman Draw ACEC (4,386 acres)

• Big Horn Tack-On WSA 

• Burnt Timber Canyon WSA 

• Pryor Mountain WSA 

• Twin Coulee WSA 

• LWCs

Livestock Grazing (LG)

Goal LG 1: Provide opportunities for livestock grazing as a part of multiple-use in a manner that meets and/or 

exceeds rangeland health standards. 

Goal LG 2: Maintain existing desirable (allotment categorization) rangeland conditions or improve rangeland 

health utilizing best grazing management practices.

Goal LG 3: Monitor and evaluate rangeland health to determine appropriate management actions.

Goal LG 4: Integrate livestock use and associated management practices with other multiple-use needs and 

objectives to maintain, protect, and improve rangeland health.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-60 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

Management Decisions (MD)

MD LG-1: Monitor and evaluate grazing allotments to maintain or improve rangeland productivity.

MD LG-2: AUM levels will be sustained on an allotment-by-allotment basis for livestock grazing, 

providing Montana Standards for Healthy Rangelands are being met.

MD LG-3: Adjust permit terms and conditions (e.g. increased/decreased permitted use, season of use, 

and kind and class of livestock) when grazing permits are issued or as otherwise deemed necessary by 

site specific evaluation of monitoring data and environmental analysis.

MD LG-4: Use livestock grazing to enhance ecosystem health, wildlife habitat, or mitigate resource 

issues (e.g., noxious/invasive weed control and hazardous fuel reduction) where supported by sitespecific environmental analysis.

MD LG-5: During periods of drought, adjust livestock numbers commensurate with the needs of other 

resources in the area (riparian, wildlife, etc.)

MD LG-6: Exclude livestock grazing from small areas (such as springs) within allotments that cannot 

meet Rangeland Health Standards with livestock grazing.

MD LG-7: Site-specific management actions that protect riparian areas will be addressed at the project 

level.

MD LG-8: Grazing treatments and systems will be adaptive to new research, science and 

methodologies.

MD LG-9: In areas of resource conflicts, installation of structural range improvements will only be 

considered where grazing practices (change in season of use, reduction of AUMs, increased rest, etc.) 

are unable to resolve the resource concern. Structural range improvements could be considered where 

necessary to facilitate the change in grazing management practices. Existing range improvements will be 

evaluated and modified to address impacts on wildlife populations (e.g. Greater Sage-Grouse/fence 

conflicts).

MD LG-10: Newly acquired lands will be evaluated for livestock grazing during the acquisition process, 

and subject to 43CFR, Part 4110.1-1.

MD LG-11: All allotments wholly located in Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA will be considered for 

retirement, where the base property owner relinquishes their preference.

MD LG-12: Site specific Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and management objectives will be developed for 

BLM land within Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA. These objectives will be incorporated into the respective 

AMPs or livestock grazing permits as appropriate.

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

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

Objectives Table (Table 2-6) and Land Health Standards (43 CFR, Part 4180.2) and one or more 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-61

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

have already been subject to NEPA analysis.

MD LG-14: 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 LG-15: The NEPA analysis for renewals and modifications of livestock grazing permits/leases that 

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

Objectives Table (Table 7) and Land Health Standards (43 CFR, Part 4180.2), 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 LG-16: Allotments within PHMA, and focusing on those containing riparian areas, including wet 

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

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

MD LG-17: At the time a permittee or lessee voluntarily relinquishes a permit or lease, the BLM will

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

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

allotments or fire breaks. This does not apply to or impact grazing preference transfers, which are 

addressed in 43 CFR, Part 4110.2-3.

Areas Open to Grazing, AUM Allocation, and Monitoring

MD LG-18: Total Acres Available to livestock grazing: 434,154 (Map 3-12)

MD LG-19: Isolated parcels not included within grazing allotments: 9,522 acres

MD LG-20: Total acres permitted for livestock grazing: 387,057

MD LG-21: Total acres closed to permitted livestock use for the life of the plan: 28,387 acres

Areas specifically closed to livestock grazing include:

• Pryor Herd Area: 28,387 acres

MD LG-22: Total acres available for prescriptive use of livestock grazing: 9,021 acres

The following areas could be open to livestock grazing on a temporary basis for the treatment of 

noxious weeds or as a prescriptive treatment (targeted grazing) to meet site specific vegetation or other 

resource management goals:

• Pompeys Pillar ACEC: 432 acres

• Bundy Island: 78 acres
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-62 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

• Sundance Lodge Recreation Area: 387 acres

• Four Dances Natural Area ACEC: 784 acres

• Asparagus Point: +/- 26 acres (that portion north of the Musselshell River and accessible 

from State Hwy 12)

• Meeteetse Spires ACEC: 558 acres

• Twin Coulee WSA: 6,756 acres

MD LG-23: Maintain current available AUMs (up to 54,873). Adjustments to permitted use will be 

authorized, based on allotment specific standards and conformance reviews.

MD LG-24: Consider adjusting (increase or decrease) suspended AUMs, based on monitoring data and 

range conditions.

MD LG-25: Priority Allotments for monitoring and evaluation will be allotments which (Appendix I):

• Are not meeting standards for rangeland health 

• Contain special status species habitat (including Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA / RHMAs)

• Contain impaired streams

• Contain non-functional or functioning at risk downward trend riparian areas.

• Contain invasive plant species.

• Allotments that have established and implemented management plans during the life of the 

plan

MD LG-26: Assess PFC on all fish bearing streams on a 3 year rotation, with the exception of areas 

that are free of existing or potential threats (approx. 30 miles). (ex: Piney and Crooked Creek are the 

current exceptions).

If standards are not being met, and grazing is a significant factor, management actions will be taken to 

make progress toward meeting the standard before the next grazing season.

MD LG-27: No supplement or salt placement within 1⁄4 mile of known special status plant sites, unless 

livestock is otherwise excluded (fence or barrier).

Permit and Lease Renewals and Relinquishments 

MD LG-28: Grazing permits/leases will be transferred or renewed for C and M category grazing 

allotments where the new grazing authorization: 

1. Contains the same mandatory terms and conditions (kind of livestock, the active use 

previously authorized is not exceeded, and grazing does not occur more than 14 days 

earlier or later than as specified on the previous permit/lease).

2. Have evaluation reports documenting that they are meeting land health standards. A 

screening criteria checklist (Appendix Y) would be reviewed prior to renewal. If the 

answer to each of the questions is “NO”, the renewal is within scope and NEPA compliance 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-63

can be achieved by preparing a Documentation of NEPA Adequacy (DNA) form which 

references this RMP/EIS. If the answer to any question is “YES”, the proposed action 

represents an exception, and site-specific analysis would be prepared.

Category I allotments will not meet the criteria for this type of action.

MD LG-29: Relinquished AUMs will be transferred or managed as reserve common allotments for 

neighboring allotments with conflict or resource condition issues.

MD LG-30: Areas with active surface disturbance will be available to livestock grazing. 

The AUMs for these areas will be suspended during surface disturbance activities until at such time 

grazing will continue in a manner which supports the standards for rangeland health.

MD LG-31: Domestic sheep/goat permits – No new grazing permits authorizing sheep or goats will be 

allowed within 14.3 air miles or 23 Kilometers in bighorn sheep range (Map 17 of the B&PPNM 

PRMP/FEIS) or as determined through consultation with MTFWP.

MD LG-32: Sheep and goat grazing allotments in areas with risk of contact between bighorn sheep and 

domestic sheep and/or goats in the planning area will be reviewed and managed, or reclassified if 

necessary, to achieve effective separation (both temporal and/or spatial at 23 kilometers (14.3 miles) or 

as determined through consultation with MTFWP. Contact risk will be based on habitat, distance 

between bighorn sheep range (current and anticipated), sheep and goat allotments, movement potential, 

and current science and guidelines. Domestic sheep/goats will not be allowed within bighorn sheep 

range unless mechanisms are in place to achieve effective separation from wild sheep.

Recreation and Visitor Services (REC)

Goal REC 1: Public lands managed by the BiFO provide a diverse array of benefits to the public, including 

economic, environmental, personal, and social ones. 

Goal REC 1: The BLM policy is to develop and maintain cooperative relationships with national, state, and local 

recreation providers, tourism entities, and local recreational groups.

Goal REC 1: BLM’s goal is to develop and maintain appropriate recreational facilities, balancing public demand, 

protection of public land resources, and fiscal responsibility.

Goal REC 1: The management direction is to emphasize and support collaborative public outreach, awareness 

events, and programs that promote public service and stewardship, and to encourage sustainable travel and 

tourism development with local communities and provide community-based conservation support for visitor 

service. The emphasis is placed on providing interpretive and informational signs and materials for public lands 

visitors, maintaining facilities to a high standard consistent with the recreational setting, and limiting development 

of additional facilities to those areas where public recreational use of surrounding public lands requires them.

Management Decisions (MD)

MD REC-1: Conduct periodic accessibility, safety, and condition assessments in accordance with 

Bureau policy at developed recreation sites. Prioritize available funds to resolve deferred and corrective 

maintenance needs.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-64 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

MD REC-2: Monitoring: Monitoring of recreation resources and human use including the following: 

visitor use and use patterns; recreation caused resource effects or impacts; visitor satisfaction; and 

effectiveness or attainment of outcomes-focused management objectives, recreation setting 

characteristics, and standards and indicators will be developed and implemented as a ImplementationPlan level Decision component.

MD REC-3: Allow non-commercial dispersed camping subject to length of stay limitations, without a 

permit on BLM-administered lands in the planning area, except where prohibited. Evaluate the need for 

future developed camping locations in SRMA plans, based on select criteria such as habitat, resources, 

cultural, and socio-economic needs.

MD REC-4: Mineral exploration activities will be coordinated for timing to minimize conflicts during 

peak use periods (e.g., weekends, holidays, summer use season, etc.).

MD REC-5: Cooperate with FWP, private landowners, and other partners to improve hunter access 

and the availability of public lands for hunting in accordance with EO 13443. Lands closed to hunting are 

51 acres at the PPNM and 784 acres at Four Dances Natural Area SRMA/ACEC.

MD REC-6: Use off-site interpretation, education, and outreach as a means to protect public 

resources.

MD REC-7: Allow target shooting in appropriate areas and prohibit target shooting in areas with 

resource conflicts (refer to management actions by alternative below for areas available/prohibited to 

target shooting). The BiFO will not designate specific target shooting sites but will pursue or facilitate 

the transfer of fee title ownership of suitable areas commonly used for shooting areas, to interested 

local governments or organizations. The BiFO can also employ the patent provisions of the Recreation 

and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act, 43 U.S.C. § 1721, to convey ownership of lands for shooting ranges to 

non-profit organizations or local governments with the stipulation of non-revision of fee title and with 

no monitoring requirements by BLM (refer to the Land Tenure and Access section).

MD REC-8: The BLM will not issue permits or other land use authorizations for commercial services 

providing for the disposal of cremated remains on public lands. Individual, non-commercial scattering of 

cremated remains is subject to applicable state law and is considered casual use under 43 CFR, Part 

2920.0-5(k). Inquiries from individuals and families to scatter cremated remains should be handled on a 

case-by-case basis. 

If the level of use associated with individual, non-commercial scattering of cremated remains exceeds 

casual use criteria and causes resource concerns, the BiFO may establish notification requirements to 

determine the extent of use and whether an authorization process for this activity needs to be 

implemented, and may provide guidelines to users about appropriate scattering procedures and 

locations. If warranted, the BiFO may establish a process for issuing letters of authorization through the 

Lands, Realty, and Cadastral Survey Division, after the appropriate level of public scoping, NEPA analysis, 

and consultation have been completed.

MD REC-9: The landing of fixed wing aircraft and rotary wing helicopters, for non-emergency 

purposes, will be restricted to existing or designated roads. The landing of aircraft for non-casual, 

commercial use such as guiding or air taxi services will be addressed on a case-by-case basis in the 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-65

development of an SRP. Develop an appropriate method to allocate air taxi operator and guiding 

permits, such as lottery, sealed bid, or ranking criteria.

MD REC-10: Monitoring of recreation resources will continue to occur, with emphasis placed on 

developed recreation sites and SRMAs. Monitoring will include regular patrols to check on signing, 

visitor use, recreation related impacts, and user conflicts. Monitoring will also emphasize identification of 

areas with compliance problems. Actual visitor numbers and/or vehicle counts will be documented at 

developed sites for trend analysis. Monitoring of SRPs will be conducted for compliance with the terms, 

conditions, and stipulations of the SRP as well as annual monitoring and evaluation of compliance with 

administrative requirements. Periodic assessments will be made to ensure that uses in SRMAs and 

ERMAs are consistent with their management objectives.

MD REC-11: Cultivation for wildlife habitat improvements at the Sundance Lodge Recreation Area and 

at Pompeys Pillar ACEC will continue. Changes in cultivation patterns, seasons of use, and type of 

activity, including termination of use, could occur during project level review.

MD REC-12: All signs will conform to the sign policies, guidelines, directives, and plans (Appendix R).

MD REC-13: As emerging technologies cause new types of recreational activities to be developed or 

proposed for use on lands managed by the BLM BiFO, these new recreational activities will be evaluated 

on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the resource values present, the types of activities proposed 

and their potential impacts. The emphasis on permitting these activities will be to allow them only if they 

avoid any impacts on high value resource locations (WSAs, ACECs, PMWHR, visual resources, areas of 

high soil erosion, critical wildlife habitats, cultural and paleontological sites, etc.).

MD REC-14: No Surface Occupancy for oil and gas leasing, exploration and development within 

agency-designated fishing access sites (NSO).

MD REC-15: In PHMA, do not construct new recreation facilities (e.g., campgrounds, trails, trailheads, 

staging areas) unless the development will have a net conservation gain to GRSG habitat (such as 

concentrating recreation, diverting use away from critical areas, etc.), or unless the development is 

required for visitor health and safety or resource protection.

Special Recreation Management Areas

MD REC-16: SRMAs management plans will be initiated within 5 years. Existing SRMA plans will be 

reviewed for consistency and revised as needed.

MD REC-17: Distinct recreation settings, recreation objectives, recreational experiences, and activities 

for each SRMA and recreation management zone (RMZ) are identified in Appendix N and Appendix V.

MD REC-18: Construction and maintenance of non-motorized recreational trails will be considered 

during the development of SRMA management plans.

MD REC-19: The following areas will be managed as SRMAs (9 SRMAs – 110,862 acres) (Map 3-13): 

• Sundance Lodge Recreation Area (387 acres) (Map 3-14)

• Four Dances Natural Area ACEC (784 acres) (Map 3-15)
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-66 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

• Shepherd Ah-Nei Recreation Area (4,680 acres) (Map 3-16)

• Acton Recreation Area (3,697 acres) (Map 3-17)

• Yellowstone River Corridor (1⁄2 mile corridor from centerline) (6,311 acres) (Map 3-18)

• Asparagus Point (158 acres) (Will be managed as an SRMA provided that the course of the 

Musselshell River stabilizes to a condition that management as an SRMA is feasible or 

practical.) (Map 3-19)

• South Hills TMA (1,357 acres) (Map 3-20)

• Pryor Mountain TMA (81,227 acres) (Map 3-21)

• Horsethief TMA (12,261 acres) (Map 3-22)

MD REC-20: Manage the following 2 areas as ERMAs (36,319 acres) (Map 3-13): 

• 17 Mile (2,080 acres) (Map 3-23)

• Mill Creek/Bundy TMA (34,239 acres) (Map 3-24)

MD REC-21: Manage the following areas as non-designated areas:

• The remaining public lands not identified above as SRMAs or ERMAs. (322,418 acres)

MD REC-22: Close the following areas to trapping:

• Sundance Lodge Recreation Area SRMA

• Shepherd Ah-Nei Recreation Area SRMA

• Four Dances Natural Area and ACEC/SRMA

Allow trapping in the other designated SRMAs (see Management Decisions for each individual ACEC for 

trapping restrictions in ACECs)

MD REC-23: Oil and gas leasing, exploration and development will be allowed with an NSO stipulation 

in the following SRMAs:

• Sundance Lodge Recreation Area 

• Four Dances Natural Area ACEC 

• Shepherd Ah-Nei Recreation Area 

• Acton Recreation Area

• Yellowstone River Corridor (YRC): 1⁄2 mile corridor

MD REC-24: Oil and gas leasing, exploration and development allowed with a CSU: 

• Asparagus Point 

• Pryor Mountain TMA 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-67

• Horsethief TMA

• South Hills TMA

MD REC-25: The following SRMAs or ERMAs will be managed as VRM Class II:

• Sundance Lodge Recreation Area SRMA (387 acres)

• Four Dances Natural Area ACEC/SRMA (784 acres)

• Shepherd Ah-Nei Recreation Area SRMA (RMZ 2) (3,664 acres)

• Acton Recreation Area SRMA (3,697 acres)

• Yellowstone River Corridor

• Pryor Mountain TMA SRMA (which includes WSA, lands w/ wilderness characteristics, and 

ACECs) 

• Mill Creek/Bundy TMA/ERMA (YRC only)

MD REC-26: The following SRMAs or ERMAs will be managed as VRM Class III:

• Shepherd Ah-Nei Recreation Area SRMA (RMZ 1 (OHV area)) (976 acres)

• Acton Recreation Area SRMA (parking area)

• Horsethief TMA SRMA (12,261 acres)

• 17 Mile Recreation Area ERMA (2,080 acres)

• Asparagus Point Recreation Area SRMA (158 acres)

• South Hills TMA SRMA (1,357 acres)

• Mill Creek/Bundy TMA ERMA (lands outside of YRC)

• Pryor Mountain TMA SRMA (all lands outside of ACEC, lands w/ wilderness characteristics, 

and WSA)

Special Recreation Permits

MD REC-27: The BLM will issue special recreation use permits as appropriate for commercial, 

competitive, and special events subject to guidelines in BLM Handbook 2930, resource capabilities, social 

conflict concerns, professional qualifications, public safety, and public needs. SRPs will only be allowed in 

priority habitat if they are consistent with the goals and objectives for that habitat or species.

MD REC-28: Issuance of Special Recreation Permits (SRP) and special stipulations attached per permit 

for both commercial and non-commercial permits will be determined by set monitoring indicators, BLM

policies, and identified through site specific analysis.

MD REC-29: Issue SRPs, as appropriate, in an equitable manner for specific recreational uses of public 

lands and related waters as a means to minimize user conflicts, control visitor use, protect recreation 

resources, and provide for private and commercial recreation use. “Activity level planning will be 

developed through an environmental review process with public involvement. This management 

approach will identify the necessary indicators to monitor all permit conditions of approval that include 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-68 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

the standards and stipulations necessary to change operations in the future.” Individual Special 

Recreation Permits (ISRP) will continue to be issued at Shepherd Ah-Nei per regulation of the Federal 

Land Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) and follow the business plan for Shepherd Ah-Nei.

Target Shooting Areas Open/Closed (Map 3-25)

MD REC-30: Four Dances Natural Area ACEC & SRMA

• 784 acres closed for resource (cultural, historical, wildlife) and public safety concerns 

(private inholdings, proximity to urban area, topography and vegetation screening)

• 0 acres open

• Managed as ACEC & SRMA

MD REC-31: Sundance Lodge SRMA

• 387 acres closed for resource (cultural, historical, wildlife) and public safety concerns 

(proximity to suburban areas, vegetation screening)

• 0 acres open

• Managed as SRMA

MD REC-32: Acton Recreation Area

• 3,697 acres closed for resource (cultural, historical) and public safety concerns (vegetation

and topography screening, number of other users)

• 0 acres open

• designated an SRMA

MD REC-33: Shepherd Ah-Nei Recreation Area

• 4,689 acres closed for public safety (other recreation users).

• 0 acres open

• SRMA designated for motorized and non-motorized activities, specifically: OHVs less than 

50 “

MD REC-34: South Hills Recreation Area

• 1,357 acres closed for public safety concerns (adjacent housing tracts, golf course, roads).

• 0 acres open

MD REC-35: PPNM and ACEC

• 432 acres closed for resource (cultural, historical) and public safety concerns (major 

bdestination site: visitor center, parking lots, trails, other facilities, adjacent private lands).

• 0 acres open. Management emphasis is on historical significance
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-69

MD REC-36: 17 Mile Recreation Area

• 0 acres closed

• 2,080 acres open

• ERMA designated – no specific management emphasis

MD REC-37: Castle Butte ACEC

• 184 acres closed for resource concerns (historical and cultural)

• 0 acres open 

• Managed as ACEC

MD REC-38: Weatherman Draw ACEC

• 12,277 acres closed for resource concerns (historical and cultural) ACEC size increased

• 0 acres open

• Managed as ACEC

MD REC-30: Petroglyph Canyon ACEC

• 240 acres closed for resource (historical and cultural significance) and public safety concerns 

(topography screening)

• 0 acres open 

• Managed as ACEC 

MD REC-40: PMWHR and East Pryor ACEC

• Shooting not allowed only in T. 8 S., R 28 E., from Memorial Day through Labor Day for 

resource (wild horse population), public safety concerns (number of people present). Total 

area seasonally closed is approximately 6,720 acres.

MD REC-41: Asparagus Point Area

• 2 acres closed for public safety concerns (developed site)

• 156 acres open

• Managed as SRMA

MD REC-42: Stark Site ACEC

• 799 acres closed for resource concerns (cultural and Historical resources) 

• 0 acres open

• Managed as ACEC
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-70 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

MD REC-43: Grove Creek ACEC

• 0 acres closed

• 8,251 acres open

• ACEC designation

MD REC-44: Total Field Office BLM Administered public lands (Map 3-25)

• 31,586 acres closed or seasonally closed for resource/safety concerns 

• 402,568 acres open to target shooting

Trails and Travel Management (TTM)

Goal TTM 1: Manage access to balance public use and protect public land resources, 

Goal TTM 2: Promote safety for all public land users, and 

Goal TTM 3: Minimize conflicts among OHV users and other uses of public lands. 

Goal TTM 4: Goals and objectives will accomplish this by using partnerships with other land managing 

agencies, local governments, communities, and interest groups through a balanced approach, so as to protect 

public lands by minimizing impacts and resources while providing opportunities for the safe use and enjoyment of 

OHVs 

Goal TTM 5: The BiFO will use a systematic process that considers the unique resource issues and social 

environments within each individual TMA and integrate concepts of habitat connectivity into OHV planning to 

minimize habitat fragmentation. 

Goal TTM 6: Establish a long-term, sustainable, multi-modal transportation system of areas, roads, trails, and 

primitive roads which addresses public and administrative access needs to and across BLM-managed lands and 

related waters.

Goal TTM 7: Manage travel and transportation on public lands and related waters in accordance with law, EO, 

proclamation, regulation, and policy.

Management Decisions (MD)

MD TTM-1: Motorized travel on BLM-administered land (outside of established TMAs) will be limited 

to existing roads and trails. Measureable limits of change that will occur to the resource as a result of 

these travel modes will include indicators based on Land Health Standards, accelerated soil erosion 

and/or other resource concerns and potential for natural rehabilitation. Site specific travel planning will

be initiated. Site specific travel planning will be initiated when those limits are exceeded within a five (5) 

year period after the BiFO ROD is signed.

MD TTM-2: To protect resource values 28,631 acres will be managed as closed to motorized vehicle 

use and 405,523 acres will be managed as limited to motorized vehicle use (refer to the specific TMA 

sections below).
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-71

MD TTM-3: Modifications to a transportation network (routes, re-routes or closures) in the planning 

area where travel is limited to existing roads and trails may be made through activity-level planning.

MD TTM-4: Cooperatively develop public outreach programs to promote trail etiquette, 

environmental ethics and a responsible-use stewardship ethic (e.g., Tread Lightly, Leave No Trace, etc.).

MD TTM-5: BLM will continue to coordinate with MFWP in the Block Management program, or other 

access agreements with other landowners, as appropriate. Designated motorized routes will conform 

with seasonal travel limitations, based on annual block management agreements, as determined by the 

AO on a case-by-case basis.

MD TTM-6: Administrative access will limit motorized use to BLM-authorized use only. BLM 

employees, permittees, contractors, personnel from other agencies and other motorized access needs 

authorized by the AO, will be allowed for resource management, maintenance, inventory, monitoring, or 

compliance purposes. Public use on administrative access routes will be limited to non-motorized 

access.

MD TTM-7: Motorized wheeled cross-country travel to conduct BLM-authorized activities will require 

prior authorization

MD TTM-8: Upon completion of site-specific projects, roads used for commercial or administrative 

access on BLM-administered lands will be reclaimed, unless the route provides specific benefits for 

public access, minimizes impacts on the resource and will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

MD TTM-9: The BLM may close or restore unauthorized, user created roads and trails to prevent 

resource damage.

MD TTM-10: Motorized off-road travel will be allowed for any military, fire, search and rescue, or law 

enforcement vehicle for emergency operations.

MD TTM-11: SRPs for motorized events, competitive events, or organized group activities will be 

considered and addressed through site-specific analysis.

MD TTM-12: Non-motorized recreational trails will be considered during the development of SRMA 

management plans and travel management plans (refer to Recreation/Visitor Services section).

MD TTM-13: Motorized off-road big game retrieval will be authorized by the Field Manager on a caseby-case basis for individuals with a disabled hunter access permit (issued by MT FWP). Stipulations or 

limitations will be included in the authorization.

MD TTM-14: Oil and gas activities will comply with all motorized vehicle use and travel plan 

restrictions, including seasonal restrictions and areas closed to motorized travel. (CSU)

MD TTM-15: By BLM Manual 6330, WSAs do not allow for new surface disturbances and there is no 

cross-country OHV use. Use is restricted to the actual tread width.

MD TTM-16: Efforts will be made to acquire easements across private lands to provide for public 

access.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-72 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

MD TTM-17: Motorized travel in designated SRMAs will be allowed on designated routes only.

MD TTM-18: Motorized travel for all activities will be allowed on designated or existing routes only.

Livestock permittees building or maintaining fences as part of the implementation of a grazing permit or 

lease will be exempted.

MD TTM-19: All motorized routes designated as “Open”, “Closed” or “Administrative Use Only” will

be available for use for non-motorized activities.

MD TTM-20: The NPNHT and Lewis& Clark NHT are non-motorized trails by Congressional 

designation except for auto tour routes and crossings, and approve motorized use dating prior to the 

enacting legislation.

MD TTM-21: BLM will manage to reduce open road densities in big game winter and calving ranges 

where they exceed 1.0 miles/square mile.

MD TTM-22: Snowmobile use in the decision area will be allowed, except where restricted, and will be 

subject to the following restrictions: avoid locations where wind or topographic conditions may have 

reduced snow depth and create situations where damage to vegetation or soils will occur, or where 

vegetation is taller than the protective snow cover. Ecologically sensitive areas will be closed to 

snowmobiling if resource damage caused or exacerbated by snowmobile activity is found to be 

occurring in these areas.

MD TTM-23: Where 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 or other authorized uses, or other resources, the affected areas will be 

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

eliminated and measures implemented to prevent recurrence.

MD TTM-24: Site specific travel planning within Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA will be completed within 

a five (5) year period after the ROD is signed where it hasn’t already been completed as part of this 

plan.

MD TTM-25: In PHMA and GHMA, temporary closures will be considered in accordance with 43 CFR, 

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

subpart 6320 (Use of Wilderness Areas, Prohibited Acts, and Penalties); 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 implemented to prevent recurrence. (43 CFR, Part 8341.2) A closure or 

restriction order should be considered only after other management strategies and alternatives have 

been explored. The duration of temporary closure or restriction orders should be limited to 24 months 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-73

or less; however, certain situations may require longer closures and/or iterative temporary closures.

This may include closure of routes or areas.

Dispersed Camping

MD TTM-26: Excluding WSAs and ACECs, OHV use off designated routes for the purposes of 

camping will be allowed, for a distance up to 150 feet from the centerline of the route. 

Site selection must be completed by non-motorized means only and accessed by the most direct route.

Ecologically sensitive areas or other areas restricted to motorized use will be closed to dispersed 

camping if resource damage is found to be occurring in these areas.

Game Retrieval

MD TTM-27: OHV use off-road big game retrieval will not be allowed for the general public.

Snowmobiles (any vehicle capable of over snow travel)

MD TTM-28: Unrestricted Snowmobile (OSV) use will be allowed within the Field Office lands except 

the following areas:

• Restricted to the following designated routes within the PMWHR: Sykes Ridge Road – PM 

1002, PM 1001, PM 1006 and Burnt Timber Road -PM 1011, (except between April 15 and 

June 15, when Burnt Timber Road is closed to all vehicle use for resource protection). 

• Not allowed at any time within WSAs in accordance with Manual 6300. 

• Motorized over-the-snow travel may be limited by vehicle type, season, snow-depth, or 

other conditions as necessary. 

• Over the snow vehicles will be prohibited in big game winter range.

Landing of Aircraft

MD TTM-29: Landing of aircraft (helicopters, wheel and float planes, ultra-lights, gliders, etc.) is 

permissible on roads and primitive roads designated as “open” within TMAs and routes outside of 

TMAs.

Travel Management Areas (TMAs)

MD TTM-39: Establish 11 TMAs to minimize impacts and provide a spectrum of motorized and nonmotorized recreational opportunities (Map 3-26). (refer to Glossary – Travel Management Areas - for 

definitions of terminology)

MD TTM-40: Motorized travel in TMAs will be limited to designated roads, primitive roads, and trails, 

except in designated Open Areas (South Hills OHV Area) or on designated and existing routes (Elk 

Basin area of the Sub Region III of the Cottonwood/Weatherman Draw TMA) until the TMA 

Implementation Plan is completed or other resource concerns (such as soil erosion or sage grouse 

habitat concerns) are addressed. For the Elk Basin Area boundary defined see Section 3.21.3.11 in the 

PRMP.)
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-74 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

MD TTM-41: An implementation and monitoring plan will be initiated for the TMAs within 3-5 years of 

the ROD. The plan will include signing, mapping, information, and education, and monitoring of impacts 

associated with continued use on designated open routes, etc. Implementation plan will also identify 

criteria for route variances specific to each TMA.

MD TTM-42: Upon project completion, routes used for commercial or other BLM authorized 

activities will be reclaimed, unless the route provides specific benefits for public access, minimizes 

impacts on the resource and will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

MD TTM-43: The BLM will close or restore unauthorized or user created roads and trails to prevent 

resource damage.

MD TTM-44: Variances to travel plan or route designations will be issued based on essential agency 

administrative actions, data variances due to route inventory, boundary adjustments, etc., as determined 

by the AO.

MD TTM-45: Travel management planning is not intended to provide evidence bearing on or 

addressing the validity of any R.S. 2477 assertions. R.S. 2477 rights are adjudicated through a separate 

administrative process. The travel planning process analyzed resources, resource uses and associated 

access to public lands and waters. At such time as a decision is made on any R.S. 2477 assertions, the 

BLM will adjust its travel routes accordingly.

MD TTM-46: TMAs can be changed, added, or deleted as conditions warrant, but the management 

prescriptions remain constant.

Gage Dome/Colony Road TMA

MD TTM-47: Gage Dome/Colony Road TMA Management Objectives: reduce road density to 

minimize impacts on Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and other resource values. Manage the TMA to 

provide recreational opportunities and access while protecting Greater Sage-Grouse habitat.

Horsethief TMA

MD TTM-48: Horsethief TMA Management Objectives: provide a range of recreational and access 

opportunities while minimizing impacts on cultural and heritage values and other resources. This TMA 

was expanded to include Stark Site ACEC.

MD TTM-49: A rock crawl area will not be established. SRPs for motorized events or organized group 

activities will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Acton TMA

MD TTM-50: Acton TMA Management Objectives: provide a range of recreational and access 

opportunities while minimizing impacts on cultural properties and other resource values.

Shepherd Ah-Nei TMA

MD TTM-51: Shepherd Ah-Nei TMA. This TMA is delineated into three sub-regions, based on 

landscape patterns, use, and resource considerations. 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-75

Management Objectives: minimize user conflicts and impacts on resources while providing opportunities 

for both motorized and non-motorized activities through three distinct management zones.

MD TTM-52: Shepherd Ah-Nei Area II: Admin Use only

MD TTM-53: Shepherd Ah-Nei Area III: Admin Use Only

Mill Creek/Bundy TMA

MD TTM-54: Mill Creek/Bundy TMA Management Objectives: improve access and provide a range of 

recreational opportunities. Protect cultural and resource habitat values within the Castle Butte ACEC 

boundaries. Emphasis will be placed on minimizing impacts on cultural properties and other resource 

values while providing access for the public, permittees, non-federal landowners, and administrative 

needs.

South Hills TMA

MD TTM-55: South Hills TMA Management Objectives: minimize user conflicts and impacts on

resources while providing opportunities for both motorized and non-motorized activities (Map 3-27)

MD TTM-56: Manage South Hills open to cross country travel - Motorcycles only

• 1,097 acres Motorcycle Use only 

• 260 acre Buffer Area - Closed to Motorized Use (adjacent to residential area)

To see acres of the total miles, refer to the travel area maps in the Map Section of the B&PPNM 

PRMP/FEIS.

Tin Can Hill TMA

MD TTM-57: Tin Can Hill TMA Management Objectives: to provide a range of recreational and access 

(public and administrative) opportunities. Minimize impacts on cultural properties and other resource 

values and minimize conflicting uses.

Cottonwood/Weatherman Draw TMA

MD TTM-58: Cottonwood/Weatherman Draw TMA: This area will be delineated into three subregions to address varying resource issues, access and recreational opportunities.

• Sub-Region I - Weatherman Draw/Castle Coulee. The area is described as being all lands in 

the Cottonwood/Weatherman Draw TMA which are east of Cottonwood Road. These 

lands include the Weatherman Draw ACEC and the Weatherman Draw LWC unit. The 

management objectives are to protect cultural values and resources within the ACEC and 

the LWC units, minimize impacts on cultural values, fragile and erosive soils, scenery and 

other resources throughout the sub-region.

• Sub-Region II - Hollenbeck These lands are described as all lands within the 

Cottonwood/Weatherman Draw TMA which lie west of Silver Tip Road. The management 

objectives are to provide recreational opportunities with an emphasis on minimizing impacts 

on Sage-grouse habitat, fragile and erodible soils, and other resources.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-76 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

• Sub-Region III - Silver Tip. The area is described as being all lands within the 

Cottonwood/Weatherman Draw TMA lying between Silver Tip Road and Cottonwood 

Road. These lands include the Elk Basin area which covers the Oil and Gas field and the 

OHV Motorcycle Trail system. The management goals are to provide for motorized 

recreational opportunities and oil and gas development with emphasis on minimizing impacts 

on fragile and erosive soils, sage grouse habitat, and other resources.

MD TTM-59: Motorcycle use permitted on designated and existing single track trails in the Elk Basin 

Area (area defined in Section 3.21.3.11 of the PRMP/FEIS) until addressed through the follow-on 

Cottonwood/Weatherman Draw Travel Implementation Plan or through other resource initiatives (soil 

erosion, sage grouse, etc.).

Warren TMA

MD TTM-60: Warren TMA Management Objectives: to provide recreational opportunities with 

emphasis on protecting key Greater Sage-Grouse habitat while minimizing impacts on other resources 

values. Maintain current level of access.

Pryor Mountain TMA

MD TTM-61: Pryor Mountain TMA Management Objectives: to protect wilderness values, 

cultural/heritage/paleontological resources, visual characteristics, special status plants, fragile and erosive 

soils, wild horses, and wild horse habitat.

Grove Creek TMA

MD TTM-62: Grove Creek TMA Management Objectives: to minimize impacts on geologic and visual 

resources, special status plants, and cultural and wildlife values, including Greater Sage-Grouse, while 

providing casual, non-commercial public recreational access.

MD TTM-63: Routes may provide non-commercial access to private property; however, even though 

route has been designated as part of the official BLM travel management network, such designation does 

not constitute or afford the rights of a legally or officially recognized easement or ROW.

Renewable Energy (RE)

Goals RE 1: Provide opportunities for the development of renewable energy resources from sources such as 

wind, biomass, and solar, while minimizing adverse impacts on other resource values.

Goals RE 2: Make lands available for renewable energy development, consistent with goals and objectives of 

other resources.

Goals RE 3: In cooperation with project proponents, promote and enhance scientific knowledge of renewable 

energy resources in the planning area.

Management Decisions (MD)

MD RE-1: Proposals for renewable energy development will be considered, except in exclusion areas. 

Proposals will not be entertained in designated exclusion areas. Proposals in avoidance areas could be 

subject to substantial special stipulations given known resource values.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-77

MD RE-2: Wind and solar applications will be processed under the Realty, Cadastral Survey, and Lands 

ROW regulations found at 43 CFR, Part 2800, as will biomass energy generating facilities.

MD RE-3: Geothermal development will be considered under the geothermal regulations found at 43 

CFR, Part 3200; utilization of biomass will generally be authorized under regulations for the forestry 

program found at 43 CFR, Part 5400, and hydropower applications will be considered under provisions 

of the Federal Power Act, as amended, in coordination with the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission 

(FERC).

MD RE-4: Programmatic policies and BMPs identified in the ROD for Implementation of a Wind Energy 

Development Program as well as BLM policies and directives regarding wind energy will be used in 

processing all wind energy applications.

MD RE-5: Manage 231,755 acres as exclusion areas (closed) to renewable energy authorizations, 

including (Map 3-28): 

• WSAs* (*If released by an Act of Congress, lands within WSA boundaries will remain 

closed.)

– Big Horn Tack-On WSA 

– Burnt Timber Canyon WSA 

– Pryor Mountain WSA 

– Twin Coulee WSA

• National Historic Trails 

– Nez Perce NHT

– Lewis & Clark NHT

• ACECs

– Bridger Fossil Area ACEC 

– Castle Butte ACEC 

– East Pryor ACEC 

– Four Dances Natural Area ACEC 

– Grove Creek ACEC

– Meeteetse Spires ACEC 

– Petroglyph Canyon ACEC 

– Pompeys Pillar ACEC 

– Pryor Foothills ACEC

– Stark Site ACEC

– Weatherman Draw ACEC

• WSR Eligible/Suitable Segments
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-78 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

• LWCs

• PMWHR

• Cultural Sites

– Steamboat Butte 

– Bruder-Janich Site 

– Paul Duke Site 

– Demi-John Flat NR District 

– Bighorn Mouth North Cliffs Rock Art Site 

– Hoskins Basin Archaeological District

• VRM Class I areas

• Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA

• Elk Basin GRSG RHMA

MD RE-6: Manage 200,278 acres as avoidance areas for renewable energy authorizations, subject to 

special stipulations and mitigation beyond standard stipulations and BMPs applied through site-specific 

analysis. (Map 3-28)

Special stipulations and mitigation include provisions such as TLs, CSU, and other 

constraints/restrictions consistent with fluid minerals stipulations that will be applied to protect the 

following particular resources/habitats:

• Greater Sage-Grouse GHMA

• Greater Sage-Grouse RHMAs outside of Elk Basin

• Bald/Golden Eagles

• Ferruginous Hawks

• Greater Sage-Grouse Winter Range

• Big Game Winter Range 

• Big Game Parturition

• Bighorn Sheep Habitat

• Sharp-tailed grouse

• Peregrine Falcon

• Mountain Plover

• Raptor Nests

• Other avoidance areas include:

– Asparagus Point

– Steamboat Butte
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-79

– Portion of Acton

– Portion of Shepherd Ah-Nei

– Bad Canyon

– East and Red Pryor Mountains, 

• Cave and Karst areas 

• VRM Class II areas

• Within 1⁄4 mile of riparian areas and wetlands, designated 100 year flood plains and on water 

bodies and streams, unless activities are not in conflict with desired outcomes.

• Surface disturbance on slopes >30%, soils with low reclamation potential, and highly 

erodible characteristics will be avoided whenever possible. If disturbance could not be 

avoided an approved mitigation and reclamation plan will be required prior to activities 

taking place.

• TLs apply to development of facilities, but not to operation or maintenance.

MD RE-7: Manage 1,512 acres as Open to renewable energy, applying standard ROW terms and 

conditions and wind or other BMPs. (Map 3-28)

MD RE-8: Designate 360 acres of Open acres in Class 4 and above as Potential Wind Development 

Areas. At the discretion of the AO, areas designated as Potential Wind Development Areas could be 

offered for competitive leasing.

Transportation and Facilities (T&F)

Goal T&F 1: Manage roads, primitive roads and trails for public access or administrative needs, while 

maintaining or protecting resource values, in coordination with other federal agencies, state and local 

governments and private landowners. This action will be done in coordination with the development and 

implementation of the TMAs. 

Goal T&F 2: Ensure BLM facilities are maintained to meet public health and safety requirements.

Management Decisions (MD)

MD T&F-1: BLM-administered roads included in the transportation system will be assigned 

maintenance intensities, as needed. These roads will be managed in accordance with objectives identified 

in the TMAs, assigned maintenance intensities and in consideration of resources issues and available 

funding.

MD T&F-2: Roads and trails will be inspected on an established schedule in accordance with the 

Bureau’s Condition Assessment guidance. The results of the condition assessments will be reviewed to 

determine the need for reconstruction, maintenance, or disposal.

MD T&F-3: BLM authorized recreation sites, administrative sites, buildings, bridges, roads, and trails 

will be maintained within Bureau standards to reduce deferred maintenance costs; meet public health 

and safety requirements; provide universal accessibility as appropriate and to enhance visitor 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-80 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

experiences. These activities will be coordinated with other federal, state and local government 

agencies, private landowners and the general public as needed.

MD T&F-4: Bridges and major culverts will be inspected on an established schedule in accordance with 

the Bureau’s Condition Assessment guidance. The results of the condition assessments will be reviewed 

to determine the need for reconstruction, maintenance or disposal.

Condition assessments and Emergency Action Planning for hazard class dams will be performed as 

required by the latest version of the 9177 (Dam Safety) manual section and associated handbooks. The 

results of the condition assessments will be reviewed to determine the need for reconstruction, 

maintenance, or disposal.

MD T&F-5: New roads and trails determined to be necessary for permanent or long-term use as part 

of BLM’s transportation system will be constructed subject to NEPA and approved engineering 

standards. Consideration will be given to use demands, location, safety and resource constraints when 

determining the level of road necessary, in accordance with BLM Manuals 9113 and 9114.

MD T&F-6: Lands available or suitable for transportation facilities within the planning area will be 

identified. Road repair, road rehabilitation, road construction, and maintenance standards appropriate to 

specific areas will be identified as well as any limitations.

MD T&F-7: If an existing road, primitive road or trail is substantially contributing to resource impacts, 

the road will be considered for re-design, re-routing, closure, or decommissioning to minimize the 

adverse impacts.

MD T&F-8: Provide adequate administrative and other facilities to accommodate management needs, 

based on management analysis, to maintain, replace, construct, lease; including asset disposal.

3.2.3 Special Designations

Special Designations (SD)

Goal SD-1: Evaluate areas of interest needing special management for special designation (Appendix T)

Management Decision (MD)

MD SD-1: Retain 9 ACECs and designate 2 new ACECs for a total of 38,786 acres (Map 3-29) 

Pompeys Pillar ACEC (432 acres) (PP/ACEC)

Goal PP/ACEC 1: Pompeys Pillar ACEC will be managed as a high potential historic site and a high potential 

route segment along the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail (LCNHT). The Lewis and Clark high potential 

route segment will be managed consistent with the trail-wide goals for the LCNHT. 

Goal PP/ACEC 2: Pompeys Pillar ACEC is included within the LCNHT Management corridor.

Goal PP/ACEC 3: Give priority to the management and protection of the resources for which the ACEC was 

designated, according to FLPMA. The identified resources are primarily significant cultural resources, and also a 

functional riparian ecosystem and fish and wildlife habitat.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-81

Management Decisions (MD)

The 432 acre ACEC includes the 51 acre National Monument. The following management is for the ACEC and 

the Front Country Zone (34 acres) outside of the National Monument only. (see Pompeys Pillar National 

Monument ARMP for Pompeys Pillar National Monument management direction).

MD PP/ACEC-1: Land Use Authorizations: Avoidance (1) Area –restricts ROW to a 500’ wide path

paralleling the southern boundary of the public lands along Highway 312.

MD PP/ACEC-2: Land Tenure: Land disposals not allowed, with the possible exception of the three 

acre parcel south of Interstate 94.

MD PP/ACEC-3: Visual Resource Management: Class II established for consistency with the LCNHT

management.

MD PP/ACEC-4: BLM Road Maintenance: Limited to the designated roadway and only that work 

necessary to ensure public safety and serviceability of the road to meet government standards.

MD PP/ACEC-5: Fluid Mineral leasing: NSO

MD PP/ACEC-6: Fuelwood cutting/Wood Product Sales: not allowed

MD PP/ACEC-7: Target Shooting: Not allowed for public safety and resource concerns

MD PP/ACEC-8: Hunting Allowed: Management restrictions will be implemented to ensure public 

safety. Alterations to restrictions will be made if conditions require. Hunting is not allowed in a portion 

of the ACEC located in proximity to developed facilities and an area of high public use (approximately 

58 acres) for safety considerations.

MD PP/ACEC-9: Management Zones: Front Country Zone – includes all of the National Monument 

lands (51 acres) and 34 acres outside of and immediately adjacent to the National Monument (Map 3-

30). In this zone the BLM will: 

1. Inventory existing facilities and determine whether to remove, maintain, restore, enhance, 

or allow natural disintegration of each facility. Subject to applicable law and valid existing 

rights, the BLM will consider removal of facilities that do not have administrative, public 

safety, recreational, cultural, or historic value.

2. Use this zone area to develop new facilities, including structures and roads, where they are 

necessary for public health and safety, are required under law, are necessary for the 

exercise of valid existing rights or other non-discretionary uses, prevent impacts on fragile 

resources, or further the purposes for which the NM was designated.

3. Facilities within the Monument, including utility, water, and electrical supply lines, will be 

designed and sited in a manner that minimizes impacts on the objects and values and the 

area’s scenic characteristics; emphasizes energy efficiency and, where possible, the use of 

small-scale renewable energy installations; and conforms to BMPs for visual resources 

management and the BLM Guidelines for a Quality Built Environment.

4. Facilities will be designed to enhance visitor experiences
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-82 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

General Management Zone – (347 acres) - entire ACEC outside of the PPNM and Front Country Zone:

The management objective is to improve and/or maintain wildlife habitat, protect significant cultural and 

riparian ecosystem, provide for or enhance recreational opportunities, visitor services, and wildlife 

viewing. Priority may be given to resource protection measures for identified needs, but decisions may 

also include facility development, if needed. (Map 3-30)

MD PP/ACEC-10: OHV and Bicycle use: Limited to designated roads and trails (2). Administrative use 

or other authorized use allowed on a case-by-case basis.

MD PP/ACEC-11: Plant collecting: Allowed but with restrictions (3)

MD PP/ACEC-12: Locatable Minerals: Recommend withdrawal from mineral entry and location under 

the Mining Law of 1872, as amended. Subject to valid existing rights.

MD PP/ACEC-13: Solid Leasable Minerals: Closed and recommend for withdrawal from solid leasable 

mineral entry, subject to valid existing rights.

MD PP/ACEC-14: Mineral Material Sales and Permits: Not allowed

MD PP/ACEC-15: Renewable Energy: Not allowed (6)

MD PP/ACEC-16: Geophysical Exploration: Closed to geophysical exploration

MD PP/ACEC-17: Fire Suppression: No heavy equipment in riparian area. Full range of fire 

management activities will be used in remainder of ACEC.

MD PP/ACEC-18: fuels management: Fuels management and prescribed fire (8) may be allowed in the 

ACEC.

MD PP/ACEC-19: Livestock Grazing: Livestock grazing may be allowed on a temporary basis, for the 

treatment of noxious weeds, or as a prescription to meet site specific vegetation or other resource 

management goals. (7)

MD PP/ACEC-20: Range Improvements: Allowed (5)

MD PP/ACEC-21: Noxious/Invasive Weed Treatments: Allowed (5) (10)

MD PP/ACEC-22: Animal Trapping/Traplines: Allowed for administrative purposes in the entire 

ACEC.

MD PP/ACEC-23: non-commercial collection of common invertebrate and plant fossils: Not allowed

MD PP/ACEC-23: Cremains Scattering: Not allowed

MD PP/ACEC-23: Special Recreation Permits and Letters of Authorization: Allowed (5)

SRPs will initially be limited to existing SRPs. Additional (new) SRPs will be permitted only when 

determined not to result in impacts on the values for which the ACEC was designated.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-83

MD PP/ACEC-23: Other Permitted Activities: Allowed (5)

MD PP/ACEC-23: Geocaching: Generally not allowed but could be if conditions are met (11)

MD PP/ACEC-23: Road Maintenance: Allowed (4)

MD PP/ACEC-23: Other Management: Other management activities and/or uses will be considered in 

subsequent site-specific analysis, and will consider the values for which the ACEC is designated (5).

MD PP/ACEC-23: Notes:

1. Avoidance area; granting Rights-of-Way (surface, subsurface, aerial) within the area should be 

avoided, but rights-of-way may be granted if there is minimal or no conflict with identified 

resource values and impacts on ACEC resource values can be fully mitigated.

2. OHV, and bicycle, use will be limited to designated routes only.

3. Commercial collection of plant materials, including common species, authorized by permit only. 

Casual use allowed.

4. Road maintenance will be limited to the designated roadway and only that necessary to ensure 

public safety and serviceability of the road.

5. The activity is allowed in the area on a case-by-case basis and only if there is minimal or no 

conflict with identified resources values and impacts on ACEC resource values can be fully 

mitigated. Additional NEPA analysis required. Cultural inventories will be required for surface 

disturbing activities. Native American coordination/consultation required on activities within 

ACEC (especially if cultural resources are one of the values for ACEC designation).

6. Closed to renewable energy facilities and renewable energy development. This includes all 

commercial renewable energy facilities, including those for testing, monitoring, and 

development. 

7. Livestock grazing will be controlled through terms and conditions on the grazing permit.

8. Evaluate fire potential and remove fuels where needed to protect resource values. Types of 

treatments permitted include: mechanical treatments, treatment or application of chemicals, and 

other treatments that will not negatively impact the values of the ACEC.

9. Open to mineral material activities on a case-by-case basis and subject to CSU, seasonal timing 

restrictions, restricted or no uses in avoidance areas (e.g. riparian areas, areas with special 

wildlife or plant features, areas of high cultural significance, and sensitive viewsheds), and 

additional NEPA analysis required.

10. Treatments may include any combination of herbicide application, mechanical treatments, 

burning, grazing, and the use of insects or pathogens.

11. If geocache location/activity does not conflict with the resource values of the ACEC this activity 

could be considered. BLM resource specialists (archaeologist and wildlife biologist), BLM ORP, 

must agree activity does not impact ACEC values
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-84 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

Bridger Fossil Area ACEC (BFA/ACEC)

Goal BFA/ACEC 1: The Bridger Fossil Area ACEC will be managed to protect paleontological values. In 

addition, the values for which the Bridger Fossil Area National Natural Landmark was designated will be 

maintained. (Map 3-31)

Management Decisions (MD)

MD BFA/ACEC-1: Land Use Authorizations, including ROWs: Exclusion area

MD BFA/ACEC-2: Land Tenure: Category I retention land: no land disposal will occur

MD BFA/ACEC-3: Off-Highway Vehicle Use: Limited to designated roads and trails (refer to Warren 

TMA).

MD BFA/ACEC-4: BLM Road Maintenance: Limited (4)

MD BFA/ACEC-5: Visual Resource Management: Class II

MD BFA/ACEC-6: Plant Collecting: Allowed (3)

MD BFA/ACEC-7: Fluid Mineral Leasing: Closed (NL)

MD BFA/ACEC-8: Locatable Minerals: Recommend withdrawal from mineral entry and location under 

the Mining Law of 1872, as amended. Subject to valid existing rights.

MD BFA/ACEC-9: Solid Leasable Minerals: Closed

MD BFA/ACEC-10: Mineral Material Sales and Permits: Allowed (9)

MD BFA/ACEC-11: Renewable Energy: Closed (6)

MD BFA/ACEC-12: Geophysical Exploration: Allowed (5) if no damage to paleontological resources. 

If monitoring indicates fossil damage, this activity will not be allowed.

MD BFA/ACEC-13: Use of Explosives for Geophysical Exploration: Not allowed

MD BFA/ACEC-14: Fire Suppression: With the exclusion of heavy equipment, a full range of fire 

management activities will be used in the ACEC.

MD BFA/ACEC-15: Fuels Management: Fuels removed where there will be threat of loss of resource 

(8)

MD BFA/ACEC-16: Fuelwood Cutting/Wood Product Sales: Not allowed

MD BFA/ACEC-17: Livestock Grazing: Available (7)

MD BFA/ACEC-18: Range Improvements: Allowed if no conflicts with ACEC values (5)

MD BFA/ACEC-19: Noxious/Invasive Weed Treatments: Allowed (5) (10)
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-85

MD BFA/ACEC-20: Animal Trapping/Traplines: Allowed

MD BFA/ACEC-21: Target Shooting: Allowed – monitor to ensure no conflicts with resource values.

MD BFA/ACEC-22: Non-Commercial Collection of Common Invertebrate and Plant Fossils: Allowed 

(5) by BLM authorization only

MD BFA/ACEC-23: Cremains Scattering: Allowed (5)

MD BFA/ACEC-24: Special Recreation Permits and Letters of Authorization: Allowed (5)

SRPs will initially be limited to existing SRPs. Additional (new) SRPs will be permitted only when 

determined not to result in impacts on the values for which the ACEC was designated.

MD BFA/ACEC-25: Other Permitted Activities: Allowed (5)

MD BFA/ACEC-26: Transportation: No new permanent road or trail development for motorized 

vehicles.

MD BFA/ACEC-27: Geocaching: Not allowed (11)

MD BFA/ACEC-28: Other Management Activities: Other management activities and/or uses will be 

considered in subsequent site-specific analysis, and will consider the values for which the ACEC is 

designated (5).

MD BFA/ACEC-29: Notes:

1. Avoidance area; granting Rights-of-Way (surface, subsurface, aerial) within the area should 

be avoided, but rights-of-way will be granted if there is minimal or no conflict with identified 

resource values and impacts on ACEC resource values can be fully mitigated.

2. OHV, and bicycle, use will be limited to designated routes only.

3. Commercial collection of plant materials, including common species, authorized by permit 

only. Casual use allowed.

4. Road maintenance will be limited to the designated roadway and only that necessary to 

ensure public safety and serviceability of the road.

5. The activity is allowed in the area on a case-by-case basis and only if there is minimal or no 

conflict with identified resources values and impacts on ACEC resource values can be fully 

mitigated. Additional NEPA analysis required. Cultural inventories will be required for 

surface disturbing activities. Native American coordination/consultation required on 

activities within ACEC (especially if cultural resources are one of the values for ACEC 

designation).

6. Closed to renewable energy facilities and renewable energy development

7. Livestock grazing will be controlled through terms and conditions on the grazing permit.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-86 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

8. Evaluate fire potential and remove fuels where needed to protect resource values and meet 

the objectives of the ACEC values. Types of treatments permitted: No surface disturbing 

heavy equipment use, most types of fire/fuels treatments permitted, check with 

archaeologist prior to retardant use 

9. Open to mineral material activities on a case-by-case basis and subject to CSU, seasonal 

timing restrictions, restricted or no uses in avoidance areas (e.g. riparian areas, areas with 

special wildlife or plant features, areas of high cultural significance, and sensitive viewsheds), 

and additional NEPA analysis required.

10. Treatments may include any combination of herbicide application, mechanical treatments, 

burning, grazing, and the use of insects or pathogens.

11. If geocache location/activity does not conflict with the resource values of the ACEC, this 

activity could be considered. BLM Resource Specialist (arch) and BLM ORP must agree 

activity does not impact ACEC values.

Castle Butte ACEC (CB/ACEC)

Goal CB/ACEC 1: The Castle Butte ACEC will be managed to protect unique cultural values. (Map 3-32)

Management Decisions (MD)

MD CB/ACEC-1: Land Use Authorizations, including ROWs: Avoidance (1)

MD CB/ACEC-2: Land Tenure: Category I retention land: no land disposal will occur

MD CB/ACEC-3: Off-Highway Vehicle Use: Limited to designated routes (refer to Mill Creek TMA).

MD CB/ACEC-4: BLM Road Maintenance: Limited (4)

MD CB/ACEC-5: Visual Resource Management: Class II

MD CB/ACEC-6: Plant Collecting: Allowed (3)

MD CB/ACEC-7: Fluid Mineral Leasing: No federal minerals

MD CB/ACEC-8: Locatable Minerals: No federal minerals

MD CB/ACEC-9: Solid Leasable Minerals: No federal minerals

MD CB/ACEC-10: Mineral Material Sales and Permits: No federal minerals

MD CB/ACEC-11: Renewable Energy: Closed (6)

MD CB/ACEC-12: Geophysical Exploration: Not allowed

MD CB/ACEC-13: Use of Explosives for Geophysical Exploration: Not allowed

MD CB/ACEC-14: Fire Suppression: No heavy equipment use; no retardant or foam use on Castle 

Butte; full range of fire management activities will be used in remainder of ACEC.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-87

MD CB/ACEC-15: Fuels Management: Fuels removed where there will be threat of loss of resource 

(8).

MD CB/ACEC-16: Fuelwood Cutting/Wood Product Sales: Not allowed

MD CB/ACEC-17: Livestock Grazing: Available (7)

MD CB/ACEC-18: Range Improvements: Allowed if no conflicts with ACEC values (5)

MD CB/ACEC-19: Noxious/Invasive Weed Treatments: Allowed (5) (10)

MD CB/ACEC-20: Animal Trapping/Traplines: Not allowed

MD CB/ACEC-21: Target Shooting: Not allowed

MD CB/ACEC-22: Non-Commercial Collection of Common Invertebrate and Plant Fossils: Allowed

MD CB/ACEC-23: Cremains Scattering: Not allowed

MD CB/ACEC-24: Special Recreation Permits and Letters of Authorization: Allowed (5)

SRPs will initially be limited to existing SRPs. Additional (new) SRPs will be permitted only when 

determined not to result in impacts on the values for which the ACEC was designated.

MD CB/ACEC-25: Other Permitted Activities: Allowed (5)

MD CB/ACEC-26: Transportation: No new road or trail development

MD CB/ACEC-27: Geocaching: Not allowed (11)

MD CB/ACEC-28: Other Management Activities: Other management activities and/or uses will be 

considered in subsequent site-specific analysis, and will consider the values for which the ACEC is 

designated (5).

MD CB/ACEC-29: Consider acquiring mineral estate from willing sellers for the ACEC.

MD CB/ACEC-30: Notes:

1. Avoidance area; granting Rights-of-Way (surface, subsurface, aerial) within the area should 

be avoided, but rights-of-way may be granted if there is minimal or no conflict with identified 

resource values and impacts on ACEC resource values can be fully mitigated.

2. OHV, and bicycle, use will be limited to designated routes only

3. Commercial collection of plant materials, including common species, authorized by permit 

only. Casual use allowed.

4. Road maintenance will be limited to the designated roadway; and only that necessary to 

ensure public safety and serviceability of the road.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-88 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

5. The activity is allowed in the area on a case-by-case basis and only if there is minimal or no 

conflict with identified resources values and impacts on ACEC resource values can be fully 

mitigated. Additional NEPA analysis required. Cultural inventories will be required for 

surface disturbing activities. Native American coordination/consultation required on 

activities within ACEC (especially if cultural resources are one of the values for ACEC 

designation).

6. Closed to renewable energy facilities and renewable energy development

7. Livestock grazing will be controlled through terms and conditions on the grazing permit.

8. Evaluate fire potential and remove fuels where needed to protect resource values and meet 

the objectives of the ACEC values. Types of treatments permitted: hand cutting or, 

chainsaw use only on the Castle Butte rock formation, elsewhere in the ACEC other types 

of treatment will be allowed.

9. Open to mineral material activities on a case-by-case basis and subject to CSU, seasonal 

timing restrictions, restricted or no uses in avoidance areas (e.g. riparian areas, areas with 

special wildlife or plant features, areas of high cultural significance, and sensitive viewsheds), 

and additional NEPA analysis required. 

10. Treatments may include any combination of herbicide application, mechanical treatments, 

burning, grazing, and the use of insects or pathogens.

11. If geocache location/activity does not conflict with the resource values of the ACEC, this 

activity could be considered. BLM resource specialist (archaeologist) and BLM ORP must 

agree activity does not impact ACEC values.

East Pryor ACEC (EP/ACEC)

Goal EP/ACEC 1: The East Pryor ACEC will be managed to protect wild horse and wildlife habitat, 

historical/cultural resources, special status plant species, and paleontological values. In addition, the values for 

which the Crooked Creek Natural Area and the Crooked Creek National Natural Landmark were designated will

be maintained. (Map 3-33)

Management Decisions (MD)

MD EP/ACEC-1: Land Use Authorizations, including ROWs: Avoidance (1)

MD EP/ACEC-2: Land Tenure: Category I retention land: no land disposal will occur

MD EP/ACEC-3: Off-Highway Vehicle Use, including Snowmobiles: Limited to designated routes (refer 

to Pryor TMA and Trails and Travel Management - Snowmobiles (OSVs)).

MD EP/ACEC-4: BLM Road Maintenance: Limited (4)

MD EP/ACEC-5: Visual Resource Management: Class II

MD EP/ACEC-6: Plant Collecting: Allowed (3)

MD EP/ACEC-7: Fluid Mineral Leasing: Closed to oil and gas leasing and development (NL).
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-89

MD EP/ACEC-8: Locatable Minerals: Recommend withdrawal from mineral entry and location under 

the Mining Law of 1872, as amended. Subject to valid existing rights.

MD EP/ACEC-9: Solid Leasable Minerals: Closed, subject to valid existing rights.

MD EP/ACEC-10: Mineral Material Sales and Permits: Allowed (9)

MD EP/ACEC-11: Renewable Energy: Closed (6)

MD EP/ACEC-12: Geophysical Exploration: Not allowed

MD EP/ACEC-13: Use of Explosives for Geophysical Exploration: Not allowed

MD EP/ACEC-14: Fire Suppression: Wildfire management (natural ignitions) for resource benefit. 

Full range of fire management activities will be used in ACEC in response to human-ignited fires.

MD EP/ACEC-15: Fuels Management: Allowed (8)

MD EP/ACEC-16: Fuelwood Cutting/Wood Product Sales: Casual collection of dead and down 

allowed for personal use only while recreating.

MD EP/ACEC-17: Livestock Grazing: Closed within PMWHR boundary, except Bad Pass Trail 

Allotment. Available outside PMWHR (7)

MD EP/ACEC-18: Range Improvements: Allowed (5)

MD EP/ACEC-19: Noxious/Invasive Weed Treatments: Allowed (5) (10)

MD EP/ACEC-20: Animal Trapping/Traplines: Allowed

MD EP/ACEC-21: Target Shooting: Not allowed on 8S 28E Memorial Day weekend through Labor 

Day weekend. Allowed in remainder of ACEC

MD EP/ACEC-22: Non-Commercial Collection of Common Invertebrate and Plant Fossils: Allowed

MD EP/ACEC-23: Cremains Scattering: Not allowed

MD EP/ACEC-24: Special Recreation Permits and Letters of Authorization: SRPs will initially be 

limited to existing SRPs. Additional (new) SRPs will be permitted only when determined not to result in 

congestion, wild horse displacement, cause an adverse experience for members of the public viewing 

wild horses outside of an SRP experience through monitoring of existing SRPs and visitation, and when 

determined not to result in impacts on the values for which the ACEC was designated. (5)

MD EP/ACEC-25: Other Permitted Activities: Allowed (5)

MD EP/ACEC-26: Transportation: Routes for commercial or other BLM authorized activities may be 

considered on a case-by-case basis if the route meets public access needs.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-90 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

MD EP/ACEC-27: Geocaching: Not allowed (11)

MD EP/ACEC-28: Other Management: Other management activities and/or uses will be considered in 

subsequent site-specific analysis, and will consider the values for which the ACEC is designated (5).

MD EP/ACEC-29: WSA: Until Congress acts to either release or designate the WSAs as Wilderness, 

the area will continue to be managed under the BLM Manual 6300 prescriptions. If Congress releases 

the lands from WSA status, the special management prescriptions as an ACEC will comprise the 

management direction. These management prescriptions are slightly different from the WSA 

prescriptions. A more detailed ACEC Management Plan will be initiated within 2 years following WSA 

release. This ACEC management plan will be developed through a public process. If at that time 

management decisions are proposed that will significantly alter the resource allocations outlined in this 

RMP, a Plan Amendment will likely be undertaken.

MD EP/ACEC-30: Notes:

1. Avoidance area; granting Rights-of-Way (surface, subsurface, aerial) within the area should 

be avoided, but rights-of-way may be granted if there is minimal or no conflict with identified 

resource values and impacts on ACEC resource values can be fully mitigated.

2. OHV, and bicycle, use will be limited to designated routes only.

3. Commercial collection of plant materials, including common species, authorized by permit 

only. Casual use allowed.

4. Road maintenance will be limited to the designated roadway; and only that necessary to 

ensure public safety and serviceability of the road.

5. The activity is allowed in the area on a case-by-case basis and only if there is minimal or no 

conflict with identified resources values and impacts on ACEC resource values can be fully 

mitigated. Additional NEPA analysis required. Cultural inventories will be required for 

surface disturbing activities. Native American coordination/consultation required on 

activities within ACEC (especially if cultural resources are one of the values for ACEC 

designation).

6. Closed to renewable energy facilities and renewable energy development

7. Livestock grazing will be controlled through terms and conditions on the grazing permit.

8. Evaluate fire potential and remove fuels where needed to protect resource values. Most 

types of fire and fuels treatments are permitted. 

9. Open to mineral material activities on a case-by-case basis and subject to CSU, seasonal 

timing restrictions, restricted or no uses in avoidance areas (e.g. riparian areas, areas with 

special wildlife or plant features, areas of high cultural significance, and sensitive viewsheds), 

and additional NEPA analysis required. 

10. Treatments may include any combination of herbicide application, mechanical treatments, 

burning, grazing, and the use of insects or pathogens.

11. If geocache location/activity does not conflict with the resource values of the ACEC, this 

activity could be considered. BLM resource specialists (Wild Horse Specialist, wildlife 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-91

biologist, and archaeologist) and BLM ORP must agree activity does not impact ACEC 

values.

Four Dances Natural Area ACEC (FDNA/ACEC)

Goal FDNA/ACEC 1: The Four Dances Natural Area ACEC will be managed to protect significant historic, 

cultural, and scenic values, peregrine falcon nesting habitat, and managed for the natural hazards of the cliffs.

(Map 3-34)

Management Decisions (MD)

MD FDNA/ACEC-1: Land Use Authorizations, including ROWs: Avoidance (1). Uses and practices 

will be consistent with the Deed of Conservation Easement.

MD FDNA/ACEC-2: Land Tenure: Category I retention land: no land disposal will occur

MD FDNA/ACEC-3: Off-Highway Vehicle Use: Closed to motorized public use. Mechanized (bicycle) 

travel will be considered in a future SRMA plan.

MD FDNA/ACEC-4: BLM Road Maintenance: Limited (4)

MD FDNA/ACEC-5: Visual Resource Management: Class II (parking lot = Class III)

MD FDNA/ACEC-6: Plant Collecting: Allowed (3)

MD FDNA/ACEC-7: Fluid Mineral Leasing: Closed to oil and gas leasing, exploration and 

development.

MD FDNA/ACEC-8: Locatable Minerals: Closed and continue withdrawal from mineral entry.

MD FDNA/ACEC-9: Solid Leasable Minerals: Closed and continue withdrawal from mineral entry.

MD FDNA/ACEC-10: Mineral Material Sales and Permits: Not allowed

MD FDNA/ACEC-11: Renewable Energy: Closed (6)

MD FDNA/ACEC-12: Geophysical Exploration: Not allowed

MD FDNA/ACEC-13: Use of Explosives for Geophysical Exploration: Not allowed

MD FDNA/ACEC-14: Fire Suppression: Fire suppression will include use of natural barriers and hand 

constructed fire lines. Use of heavy equipment and retardant will be avoided unless approved by the 

AO. No heavy equipment use near vision quest site, no retardant use within 100 feet of Will James 

cabin or rock art. Full range of fire management activities will be used in remainder of ACEC.

MD FDNA/ACEC-15: Fuels Management: Allowed (5) (8)

MD FDNA/ACEC-16: Fuelwood Cutting/Wood Product Sales: Wood product sales and commercial 

timber harvest will not be allowed. 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-92 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

Timber management for the safety and enhancement of other values will be allowed in the woody 

draws, on the islands, and along the Yellowstone River bottom.

MD FDNA/ACEC-17: Livestock Grazing: Buffalo grazing not permitted. 

Livestock grazing will be allowed. 

Only authorized to meet other resource objectives consistent with ACEC designation. Grazing must 

meet Standard and Guidelines. (7)

MD FDNA/ACEC-18: Range Improvements: Allowed if no conflicts with ACEC objectives (5)

MD FDNA/ACEC-19: Noxious/Invasive Weed Treatments: Allowed (5) (10)

MD FDNA/ACEC-20: Animal Trapping/Traplines: Not allowed

MD FDNA/ACEC-21: Hunting/Target Shooting: No discharging of firearms. 

Archery hunting may be allowed, if deemed necessary by MTFWP (authorization from BLM required).

MD FDNA/ACEC-22: Non-Commercial Collection of Common Invertebrate and Plant Fossils:

MD FDNA/ACEC-23: Cremains Scattering: Not allowed

MD FDNA/ACEC-24: Special Recreation Permits and Letters of Authorization: Allowed (5)

Authorizations will be required or timing and locations will be specified for events, such as cross 

country races.

Some limitations on use by the general public may be required to facilitate Native American religious 

activities. These will be limited to specific time periods and specific portions of the property.

SRPs will initially be limited to existing SRPs. Additional (new) SRPs will be permitted only when 

determined not to result in impacts on the values for which the ACEC was designated.

MD FDNA/ACEC-25: Other Permitted Activities: Allowed (5)

MD FDNA/ACEC-26: Transportation: No increase in road density

MD FDNA/ACEC-27: Recreation: Day use area only. 

Closed to horseback riding (with the exception of authorized Native American religious ceremonies), 

hang gliding, rock climbing, paint ball, and discharging of fire arms. 

Pets must be leashed within parking area.

MD FDNA/ACEC-28: Wildlife: Special management and priority will be given to protecting falcon 

eyries by restricting human activity along the rims that might adversely affect the nesting birds. NonACEC values may be adjusted as necessary.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-93

MD FDNA/ACEC-29: Geocaching: Not allowed (11)

MD FDNA/ACEC-30: Other Management: Other management activities and/or uses will be 

considered in subsequent site-specific analysis, and will consider the values for which the ACEC is 

designated (5).

MD FDNA/ACEC-31: Consider acquiring minerals from willing sellers for the ACEC.

MD FDNA/ACEC-32: Notes:

1. Avoidance area; granting Rights-of-Way (surface, subsurface, aerial) within the area should 

be avoided, but rights-of-way may be granted if there is minimal or no conflict with identified 

resource values and impacts on ACEC resource values can be fully mitigated.

2. OHV, and bicycle, use will be limited to designated routes.

3. Commercial collection of plant materials, including common species, authorized by permit 

only. Casual use allowed.

4. Road maintenance will be limited to the designated roadway and only that necessary to 

ensure public safety and serviceability of the road.

5. The activity is allowed in the area on a case-by-case basis and only if there is minimal or no 

conflict with identified resources values and impacts on ACEC resource values can be fully 

mitigated. Additional NEPA analysis required. Cultural inventories will be required for 

surface disturbing activities. Native American coordination/consultation required on 

activities within ACEC (especially if cultural resources are one of the values for ACEC 

designation).

6. Closed to renewable energy facilities and renewable energy development.

7. Livestock grazing will be controlled through terms and conditions on the grazing permit.

8. Evaluate fire potential and remove fuels where needed to protect resource values and meet 

the objectives of the ACEC. Types of treatments permitted: prescribed fire throughout 

ACEC allowed, hand cutting/chainsaw use preferred around rock art sites.

9. Open to mineral material activities on a case-by-case basis and subject to CSU, seasonal 

timing restrictions, restricted or no uses in avoidance areas (e.g. riparian areas, areas with 

special wildlife or plant features, areas of high cultural significance, and sensitive viewsheds), 

and additional NEPA analysis required. 

10. Treatments may include any combination of herbicide application, mechanical treatments, 

burning, grazing, and the use of insects or pathogens.

11. If geocache location/activity does not conflict with the resource values of the ACEC, this 

activity could be considered. BLM resource specialists (archaeologist and wildlife biologist) 

and BLM ORP must agree activity does not impact ACEC values.

Grove Creek ACEC (GC/ACEC)

Goal GC/ACEC 1: The Grove Creek ACEC will be managed to protect significant archaeological and traditional 

cultural values and special status plants. (Map 3-35)
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-94 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

Management Decisions (MD)

MD GC/ACEC-1: Land Use Authorizations, including ROWs: Avoidance (1)

MD GC/ACEC-2: Land Tenure: Category I retention land: no land disposal will occur

MD GC/ACEC-3: Off-Highway Vehicle Use: Limited to designated routes (refer to Grove Creek 

TMA).

MD GC/ACEC-4: BLM Road Maintenance: Limited (4)

MD GC/ACEC-5: Visual Resource Management: Class III

MD GC/ACEC-6: Plant Collecting: Allowed (3)

MD GC/ACEC-7: Fluid Mineral Leasing: NSO. COA for existing leases

MD GC/ACEC-8: Locatable Minerals: Recommend withdrawal from mineral entry and location under 

the Mining Law of 1872, as amended. Subject to valid existing rights.

MD GC/ACEC-9: Solid Leasable Minerals: Closed and recommend withdrawing from mineral entry

MD GC/ACEC-10: Mineral Material Sales and Permits: Allowed (9)

MD GC/ACEC-11: Renewable Energy: Closed (6)

MD GC/ACEC-12: Geophysical Exploration: Allowed (5)

MD GC/ACEC-13: Use of Explosives for Geophysical Exploration: Not allowed

MD GC/ACEC-14: Fire Suppression: Wildfire management (natural ignitions) for resource benefit. Full 

range of fire management activities will be used in ACEC in response to human-ignited fires. Use of 

heavy equipment and retardant will be avoided unless approved by the AO.

MD GC/ACEC-15: Fuels Management: Allowed (8)

MD GC/ACEC-16: Fuelwood Cutting/Wood Product Sales: Allowed if no conflicts with ACEC values 

(5)

MD GC/ACEC-17: Livestock Grazing: Available (7)

MD GC/ACEC-18: Range Improvements: Allowed if no conflicts with ACEC values (5)

MD GC/ACEC-19: Noxious/Invasive Weed Treatments: Allowed (5) (10)

Herbicide applications will be by hand, not by boom or aerial in order to protect special status plants

MD GC/ACEC-20: Animal Trapping/Traplines: Allowed

MD GC/ACEC-21: Target Shooting: Allowed
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-95

MD GC/ACEC-22: Cremains Scattering: Not allowed

MD GC/ACEC-23: Special Recreation Permits and Letters of Authorization: Allowed (5)

SRPs will initially be limited to existing SRPs. Additional (new) SRPs will be permitted only when 

determined not to result in impacts on the values for which the ACEC was designated.

MD GC/ACEC-24: Other Permitted Activities: Allowed (5)

MD GC/ACEC-25: Transportation: No increase in road density

MD GC/ACEC-26: Geocaching: Not allowed (11)

MD GC/ACEC-27: Other Management: Other management activities and/or uses will be considered in 

subsequent site-specific analysis, and will consider the values for which the ACEC is designated (5).

MD GC/ACEC-28: Notes:

1. Avoidance area; granting Rights-of-Way (surface, subsurface, aerial) within the area should 

be avoided, but rights-of-way may be granted if there is minimal or no conflict with identified 

resource values and impacts on ACEC resource values can be fully mitigated.

2. OHV, and bicycle, use will be limited to designated routes only

3. Commercial collection of plant materials, including common species, authorized by permit 

only. Casual use allowed.

4. Road maintenance will be limited to the designated roadway; shoulder barrow/ditch 

construction will be limited to only that necessary to ensure public safety and serviceability 

of the road.

5. The activity is allowed in the area on a case-by-case basis and only if there is minimal or no 

conflict with identified resources values and impacts on ACEC resource values can be fully 

mitigated. Additional NEPA analysis required. Cultural inventories will be required for 

surface disturbing activities. Native American coordination/consultation required on 

activities within ACEC (especially if cultural resources are one of the values for ACEC 

designation).

6. Closed to renewable energy facilities and renewable energy development

7. Livestock grazing will be controlled through terms and conditions on the grazing permit.

8. Evaluate fire potential and remove fuels where needed to protect resource values and meet 

the objectives of the ACEC. Types of treatments permitted: hand cutting, chainsaw, 

mechanical, prescribed fire.

9. Open to mineral material activities on a case-by-case basis and subject to CSU, seasonal 

timing restrictions, restricted or no uses in avoidance areas (e.g. riparian areas, areas with 

special wildlife or plant features, areas of high cultural significance, and sensitive viewsheds), 

and additional NEPA analysis required. 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-96 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

10. Treatments may include any combination of herbicide application, mechanical treatments, 

burning, grazing, and the use of insects or pathogens.

11. If geocache location/activity does not conflict with the resource values of the ACEC, this 

activity could be considered. BLM resource specialists (archaeologist and botanist) and BLM 

ORP must agree activity does not impact ACEC values.

Meeteetse Spires ACEC (MS/ACEC)

Goal MS/ACEC 1: The Meeteetse Spires ACEC will be managed to protect and enhance unique vegetation 

(rare plants) and conserve scenic values. (Map 3-36)

Management Decisions (MD)

MD MS/ACEC-1: Land Use Authorizations, including ROWs: Exclusion area

MD MS/ACEC-2: Land Tenure: Category I retention land: no land disposal will occur

MD MS/ACEC-3: Off-Highway Vehicle Use: Designated routes (refer to Grove Creek TMA)

MD MS/ACEC-4: BLM Road Maintenance: Not allowed 

MD MS/ACEC-5: Visual Resource Management: Class II

MD MS/ACEC-6: Plant Collecting: Allowed for scientific use or range/forestry studies. No collection 

of special status species without a permit.

MD MS/ACEC-7: Fluid Mineral Leasing: Closed (NL) (original ACEC – 965 acres) 

Manage remainder of ACEC for NSO (no federal minerals)

MD MS/ACEC-8: Locatable Minerals: Recommend withdrawal from mineral entry and location under 

the Mining Law of 1872, as amended. Subject to valid existing rights. (original ACEC – 965 acres).

Remainder of ACEC will be Open (no federal minerals)

MD MS/ACEC-9: Solid Leasable Minerals: Open (5)

MD MS/ACEC-10: Mineral Material Sales and Permits: Allowed (9)

MD MS/ACEC-11: Renewable Energy: Closed (6)

MD MS/ACEC-12: Geophysical Exploration: Not allowed

MD MS/ACEC-13: Use of Explosives for Geophysical Exploration: Not allowed

MD MS/ACEC-14: Fire Suppression: Wildfire management (natural ignitions) for resource benefit. Full 

range of fire management activities will be used in ACEC in response to human-ignited fires. No heavy 

equipment use within ACEC.

MD MS/ACEC-15: Fuels Management: Allowed (8)
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-97

MD MS/ACEC-16: Fuelwood Cutting: Not allowed

MD MS/ACEC-17: Wood Product Sales: Allowed if no conflicts with ACEC values (5)

MD MS/ACEC-18: Livestock Grazing: Livestock grazing permitted, except for sheep on 965 acres 

(original ACEC -). The 558 acre acquisition is not suitable for livestock grazing.

MD MS/ACEC-19: Range Improvements: Allowed if no conflicts with ACEC values (5)

MD MS/ACEC-20: Noxious/Invasive Weed Treatments: Allowed (5) (10)

Herbicide applications will be by hand, not by boom or aerial in order to protect special status plants

MD MS/ACEC-21: Animal Trapping/Traplines: Allowed

MD MS/ACEC-22: Target Shooting: Allowed

MD MS/ACEC-23: Cremains Scattering: Not allowed

MD MS/ACEC-24: Special Recreation Permits and Letters of Authorization: Allowed (5)

SRPs will initially be limited to existing SRPs. Additional (new) SRPs will be permitted only when 

determined not to result in impacts on the values for which the ACEC was designated.

MD MS/ACEC-25: Other Permitted Activities: Allowed (5)

MD MS/ACEC-26: Transportation: No net increase in road density

MD MS/ACEC-27: Geocaching: Not allowed (11)

MD MS/ACEC-28: Other Management: Other management activities and/or uses will be considered in 

subsequent site-specific analysis, and will consider the values for which the ACEC is designated (5).

MD MS/ACEC-29: Consider acquiring minerals from willing sellers for the ACEC.

MD MS/ACEC-30: Notes:

1. Avoidance area; granting rights-of-way (surface, subsurface, aerial) within the area should be 

avoided, but rights-of-ways may be granted if there is minimal or no conflict with identified 

resource values and impacts on ACEC resource values can be fully mitigated.

2. OHV, and bicycle, use will be limited to designated routes only.

3. Commercial collection of plant materials, including common species, authorized by permit 

only. Casual use allowed.

4. Road maintenance will be limited to the designated roadway; and only that necessary to 

ensure public safety and serviceability of the road.

5. The activity is allowed in the area on a case-by-case basis and only if there is minimal or no 

conflict with identified resources values and impacts on ACEC resource values can be fully 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-98 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

mitigated. Additional NEPA analysis required. Cultural inventories will be required for 

surface disturbing activities. Native American coordination/consultation required on 

activities within ACEC (especially if cultural resources are one of the values for ACEC 

designation).

6. Closed to renewable energy facilities and renewable energy development

7. Livestock grazing will be controlled through terms and conditions on the grazing permit.

8. Evaluate fire potential and remove fuels where needed to protect resource values and must 

meet objectives of ACEC. Types of treatments permitted: hand cutting, chainsaw, 

mechanical, prescribed and non-surface disturbing treatments.

9. Open to mineral material activities on a case-by-case basis and subject to CSU, seasonal 

timing restrictions, restricted or no uses in avoidance areas (e.g. riparian areas, areas with 

special wildlife or plant features, areas of high cultural significance, and sensitive viewsheds), 

and additional NEPA analysis required. 

10. Treatments may include any combination of herbicide application, mechanical treatments, 

burning, grazing, and the use of insects or pathogens.

11. If geocache location/activity does not conflict with the resource values of the ACEC, this 

activity could be considered. BLM resource specialist (botanist) and BLM ORP must agree 

activity does not impact ACEC values.

Petroglyph Canyon ACEC (PC/ACEC)

Goal PC/ACEC 1: The Petroglyph Canyon ACEC will be managed to protect unique cultural values. (Map 3-

37)

Management Decisions (MD)

MD PC/ACEC-1: Land Use Authorizations, including ROWs: Exclusion Area

MD PC/ACEC-2: Land Tenure: Category I retention land: no land disposal will occur

MD PC/ACEC-3: Off-Highway Vehicle Use: Designated routes only (refer to Pryor TMA)

MD PC/ACEC-4: BLM Road Maintenance: Limited (4)

MD PC/ACEC-5: Visual Resource Management: Class II

MD PC/ACEC-6: Plant Collecting: Allowed (3)

MD PC/ACEC-7: Fluid Mineral Leasing: Closed (NL)

MD PC/ACEC-8: Locatable Minerals: Closed and continue withdrawal from mineral entry

MD PC/ACEC-9: Solid Leasable Minerals: Closed

MD PC/ACEC-10: Mineral Material Sales and Permits: Not allowed

MD PC/ACEC-11: Renewable Energy: Closed (6)
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-99

MD PC/ACEC-12: Geophysical Exploration: Not allowed

MD PC/ACEC-13: Use of Explosives for Geophysical Exploration: Not allowed

MD PC/ACEC-14: Fire Suppression: No heavy equipment use, no retardant or foam use;

MD PC/ACEC-15: Fuels Management: Allowed (8)

MD PC/ACEC-16: Fuelwood Cutting/Wood Product Sales: Not allowed

MD PC/ACEC-17: Livestock Grazing: Available (7)

MD PC/ACEC-18: Range Improvements: Allowed if no conflicts with ACEC values (5)

MD PC/ACEC-19: Noxious/Invasive Weed Treatments: Allowed (5) (10)

MD PC/ACEC-20: Animal Trapping/Traplines: Not allowed

MD PC/ACEC-21: Target Shooting: Not allowed

MD PC/ACEC-22: Non-Commercial Collection of Common Invertebrate and Plant Fossils:

MD PC/ACEC-23: Cremains Scattering: Not allowed

MD PC/ACEC-24: Special Recreation Permits and Letters of Authorization: Allowed (5)

SRPs will initially be limited to existing SRPs. Additional (new) SRPs will be permitted only when 

determined not to result in impacts on the values for which the ACEC was designated.

MD PC/ACEC-25: Other Permitted Activities: Allowed (5)

MD PC/ACEC-26: Transportation: No net increase in road density

MD PC/ACEC-27: Geocaching: Not allowed (11)

MD PC/ACEC-28: Other Management: Other management activities and/or uses will be considered in 

subsequent site-specific analysis, and will consider the values for which the ACEC is designated (5).

MD PC/ACEC-29: Notes:

1. Avoidance area; granting Rights-of-Way (surface, subsurface, aerial) within the area should 

be avoided, but rights-of-way may be granted if there is minimal or no conflict with identified 

resource values and impacts on ACEC resource values can be fully mitigated.

2. OHV, and bicycle, use will be limited to designated routes only.

3. Commercial collection of plant materials, including common species, authorized by permit 

only. Casual use allowed. 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-100 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

4. Road maintenance will be limited to the designated roadway; and only that necessary to 

ensure public safety and serviceability of the road.

5. The activity is allowed in the area on a case-by-case basis and only if there is minimal or no 

conflict with identified resources values and impacts on ACEC resource values can be fully 

mitigated. Additional NEPA analysis required. Cultural inventories will be required for 

surface disturbing activities. Native American coordination/consultation required on 

activities within ACEC (especially if cultural resources are one of the values for ACEC 

designation).

6. Closed to renewable energy facilities and renewable energy development

7. Livestock grazing will be controlled through terms and conditions on the grazing permit.

8. Evaluate fire potential and remove fuels where needed to protect resource values and meet 

the objectives of the ACEC. Types of treatments permitted: hand cutting and chainsaw use 

only.

9. Open to mineral material activities on a case-by-case basis and subject to CSU, seasonal 

timing restrictions, restricted or no uses in avoidance areas (e.g. riparian areas, areas with 

special wildlife or plant features, areas of high cultural significance, and sensitive viewsheds), 

and additional NEPA analysis required. 

10. Treatments may include any combination of herbicide application, mechanical treatments, 

burning, grazing, and the use of insects or pathogens.

11. If geocache location/activity does not conflict with the resource values of the ACEC, this 

activity could be considered. BLM resource specialist (archaeologist) and BLM ORP must 

agree activity does not impact ACEC values.

Pryor Foothills RNA/ACEC (PF/ACEC)

Goal PF/ACEC 1: The Pryor Foothills Research Natural Area ACEC will be managed to protect unique 

vegetation (a large concentration of Bureau special status plant species and rare plant communities) and to 

protect significant historic and cultural values in the Gyp Springs area. (Map 3-38)

Goal PF/ACEC 2: The objectives of the BLM RNA program are: 1) to preserve examples of all significant 

natural ecosystems for comparison with those influenced by man; 2) to provide educational and research areas 

for ecological and environmental studies; and 3) to preserve gene pools of typical and endangered plants and 

animals. Research natural areas (RNA) are intended to represent the full array of North American ecosystems 

with their biological communities, habitats, natural phenomena, and geological and hydrological formations.

Management Decisions (MD)

MD PF/ACEC-1: Land Use Authorizations, including ROWs: Avoidance (1), subject to valid existing 

rights.

MD PF/ACEC-2: Land Tenure: Category I retention land: no land disposal will occur

MD PF/ACEC-3: Off-Highway Vehicle Use: Limited to designated routes (refer to Pryor TMA)

MD PF/ACEC-4: BLM Road Maintenance: Limited (4)
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-101

MD PF/ACEC-5: Visual Resource Management: 839 acres – Class II (overlap w/ LWC unit) 

Class III - remaining portions of ACEC

MD PF/ACEC-6: Plant Collecting: Allowed for scientific use or range/forestry studies. No collection of 

special status species without a permit.

MD PF/ACEC-7: Fluid Mineral Leasing: NSO - 1⁄4 mile buffer on known sensitive plant sites (acres). 

CSU - Inventory prior to surface disturbing activities.

(Note: All lands in this ACEC east of Crooked Creek Rd (839 acres) are within a lands w/ wilderness characteristics unit and are No Lease)

MD PF/ACEC-8: Locatable Minerals: Recommend withdrawal from mineral entry and location under 

the Mining Law of 1872, as amended. Subject to valid existing rights.

MD PF/ACEC-9: Solid Leasable Minerals: Closed, subject to valid existing rights

MD PF/ACEC-10: Mineral Material Sales and Permits: Not allowed

MD PF/ACEC-11: Renewable Energy: Closed (6)

MD PF/ACEC-12: Geophysical Exploration: Not allowed

MD PF/ACEC-13: Fire Suppression: Wildfire management (natural ignitions) for resource benefit. Full 

range of fire management activities will be used in ACEC in response to human-ignited fires. No heavy 

equipment use within ACEC.

MD PF/ACEC-14: Fuels Management: Allowed (8)

MD PF/ACEC-15: Fuelwood Cutting/Wood Product Sales: Allowed (5) periodically to protect 

resource values.

MD PF/ACEC-16: Livestock Grazing: Available (7)

MD PF/ACEC-17: Range Improvements: No improvements will be allowed that will result in a net 

increase of livestock use in the ACEC (5)

MD PF/ACEC-18: Noxious/Invasive Weed Treatments: Allowed (5) (10) to protect rare plant values

Herbicide applications will be by hand, not by boom or aerial in order to protect special status plants

MD PF/ACEC-19: Animal Trapping/Traplines: Allowed

MD PF/ACEC-20: Target Shooting: Allowed

MD PF/ACEC-21: Cremains Scattering: Not allowed

MD PF/ACEC-22: Special Recreation Permits and Letters of Authorization: Allowed (5)
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-102 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

SRPs will initially be limited to existing SRPs. Additional (new) SRPs will be permitted only when 

determined not to result in impacts on the values for which the ACEC was designated.

MD PF/ACEC-23: Other Permitted Activities: Allowed (5)

MD PF/ACEC-24: Transportation: No increase in road density.

MD PF/ACEC-25: Geocaching: Not allowed (11)

MD PF/ACEC-26: Other Management: Other management activities and/or uses will be considered in 

subsequent site-specific analysis, and will consider the values for which the ACEC is designated (5).

MD PF/ACEC-27: Notes:

1. Avoidance area; granting Rights-of-Way (surface, subsurface, aerial) within the area should

be avoided, but rights-of-way may be granted if there is minimal or no conflict with identified 

resource values and impacts on ACEC resource values can be fully mitigated.

2. OHV, and bicycle, use will be limited to designated roads and trails only

3. Commercial collection of plant materials, including common species, authorized by permit 

only. Casual use allowed.

4. Road maintenance will be limited to the designated roadway; and only that necessary to 

ensure public safety and serviceability of the road.

5. The activity is allowed in the area on a case-by-case basis and only if there is minimal or no 

conflict with identified resources values and impacts on ACEC resource values can be fully 

mitigated. Additional NEPA analysis required. Cultural inventories will be required for 

surface disturbing activities. Native American coordination/consultation required on 

activities within ACEC (especially if cultural resources are one of the values for ACEC 

designation).

6. Closed to renewable energy facilities and renewable energy development

7. Livestock grazing will be controlled through terms and conditions on the grazing permit.

8. Evaluate fire potential and remove fuels where needed to protect resource values and meet 

objectives of the ACEC. Types of treatments permitted include: prescribed fire, handcutting, chainsaws, mechanical and non-surface disturbing treatments.

9. Open to mineral material activities on a case-by-case basis and subject to CSU, seasonal 

timing restrictions, restricted or no uses in avoidance areas (e.g. riparian areas, areas with 

special wildlife or plant features, areas of high cultural significance, and sensitive viewsheds), 

and additional NEPA analysis required. 

10. Treatments may include any combination of herbicide application, mechanical treatments, 

burning, grazing, and the use of insects or pathogens.

11. If geocache location/activity does not conflict with the resource values of the ACEC, this 

activity could be considered. BLM resource specialists (botanist and archaeologist) and BLM 

ORP must agree activity does not impact ACEC values.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-103

Stark Site ACEC (SS/ACEC)

Goal SS/ACEC 1: The Stark Site ACEC will be managed to protect unique cultural values. (Map 3-39)

Management Decisions (MD)

MD SS/ACEC-1: Land Use Authorizations, including ROWs: Avoidance (1)

MD SS/ACEC-2: Land Tenure: Category I retention land: no land disposal will occur

MD SS/ACEC-3: Off-Highway Vehicle Use: Motorized travel limited to designated routes (refer to 

Horsethief TMA)

MD SS/ACEC-4: BLM Road Maintenance: Limited (4)

MD SS/ACEC-5: Visual Resource Management: Class II

MD SS/ACEC-6: Plant Collecting: Allowed (3)

MD SS/ACEC-7: Fluid Mineral Leasing: NSO

MD SS/ACEC-8: Locatable Minerals: Recommend withdrawal from mineral entry and location under 

the Mining Law of 1872, as amended. Subject to valid existing rights.

MD SS/ACEC-9: Solid Leasable Minerals: Open (5) with NSO

MD SS/ACEC-10: Mineral Material Sales and Permits: Not allowed

MD SS/ACEC-11: Renewable Energy: Closed (6)

MD SS/ACEC-12: Geophysical Exploration: Not allowed

MD SS/ACEC-13: Use of Explosives for Geophysical Exploration: Not allowed

MD SS/ACEC-14: Fire Suppression: No heavy equipment use, no retardant or foam use.

MD SS/ACEC-15: Fuels Management: Allowed (8)

MD SS/ACEC-16: Fuelwood Cutting/Wood Product Sales: Not allowed

MD SS/ACEC-17: Livestock Grazing: Available (7)

MD SS/ACEC-18: Range Improvements: Allowed if no conflicts with ACEC values (5)

MD SS/ACEC-19: Noxious/Invasive Weed Treatments: Allowed (5) (10)

MD SS/ACEC-20: Animal Trapping/Traplines: Allowed

MD SS/ACEC-21: Target Shooting: Not allowed

MD SS/ACEC-22: Cremains Scattering: Not allowed
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-104 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

MD SS/ACEC-23: Special Recreation Permits and Letters of Authorization: Allowed (5)

SRPs will initially be limited to existing SRPs. Additional (new) SRPs will be permitted only when 

determined not to result in impacts on the values for which the ACEC was designated. 

MD SS/ACEC-24: Other Permitted Activities: Allowed (5)

MD SS/ACEC-25: Transportation: No increase in road density.

MD SS/ACEC-26: Geocaching: Not allowed (11)

MD SS/ACEC-27: Other Management: Other management activities and/or uses will be considered in 

subsequent site-specific analysis, and will consider the values for which the ACEC is designated (5).

MD SS/ACEC-28: Notes:

1. Avoidance area; granting Rights-of-Way (surface, subsurface, aerial) within the area should 

be avoided, but rights-of-way may be granted if there is minimal or no conflict with identified 

resource values and impacts on ACEC resource values can be fully mitigated.

2. OHV, and bicycles, use will be limited to designated routes only

3. Commercial collection of plant materials, including common species, authorized by permit 

only. Casual use allowed.

4. Road maintenance will be limited to the designated roadway; and only that necessary to 

ensure public safety and serviceability of the road.

5. The activity is allowed in the area on a case-by-case basis and only if there is minimal or no 

conflict with identified resources values and impacts on ACEC resource values can be fully 

mitigated. Additional NEPA analysis required. Cultural inventories will be required for 

surface disturbing activities. Native American coordination/consultation required on 

activities within ACEC (especially if cultural resources are one of the values for ACEC 

designation).

6. Closed to renewable energy facilities and renewable energy development

7. Livestock grazing will be controlled through terms and conditions on the grazing permit.

8. Evaluate fire potential and remove fuels where needed to protect resource values and meet 

the ACEC values. Types of treatments permitted: hand cutting & chainsaw use. Other types 

of treatment (mechanical or prescribed) will be allowed if treatment meets objectives of 

ACEC.

9. Open to mineral material activities on a case-by-case basis and subject to CSU, seasonal 

timing restrictions, restricted or no uses in avoidance areas (e.g. riparian areas, areas with 

special wildlife or plant features, areas of high cultural significance, and sensitive viewsheds), 

and additional NEPA analysis required. 

10. Treatments may include any combination of herbicide application, mechanical treatments, 

burning, grazing, and the use of insects or pathogens.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-105

11. If geocache location/activity does not conflict with the resource values of the ACEC, this 

activity could be considered. BLM resource specialist (archaeologist) and BLM ORP must 

agree activity does not impact ACEC values.

Weatherman Draw ACEC (WD/ACEC)

Goal WD/ACEC 1: The Weatherman Draw ACEC will be managed to protect unique cultural values. (Map 3-

40)

Management Decisions (MD)

MD WD/ACEC-1: Land Use Authorizations, including ROWs: ROW exclusion area, subject to valid 

existing rights (1) (4,986 acres)

Remainder of ACEC: Avoidance area (1) (7,291 acres)

MD WD/ACEC-2: Land Tenure: Category I retention land: no land disposal will occur

MD WD/ACEC-3: Off-Highway Vehicle Use: Limited to designated routes (refer to Weatherman 

Draw TMA)

MD WD/ACEC-4: BLM Road Maintenance: Limited (4)

MD WD/ACEC-5: Visual Resource Management: Class II

MD WD/ACEC-6: Plant Collecting: Allowed (3)

MD WD/ACEC-7: Fluid Mineral Leasing: Closed (NL) (4,986 acres). NSO (5) (7,291 acres)

MD WD/ACEC-8: Locatable Minerals: 600 acres withdrawn from mineral entry 

Recommend withdrawal from mineral entry and location under the Mining Law of 1872, as amended.

Subject to valid existing rights. (4,386 acres)

Open (5) (7,291 acres)

MD WD/ACEC-9: Solid Leasable Minerals: Closed from mineral entry (4,986 acres)

Open (5) with NSO (7,291 acres)

MD WD/ACEC-10: Mineral Material Sales and Permits: Not allowed (4,986 acres)

Allowed (7,291 acres) (9)

MD WD/ACEC-11: Renewable Energy: Closed (6)

MD WD/ACEC-12: Geophysical Exploration: Not allowed

MD WD/ACEC-13: Fire Suppression: Wildfire management (natural ignitions) for resource benefit. 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-106 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

Full range of fire management activities will be used in ACEC in response to human-ignited fires. 

No heavy equipment, no retardant or foam use

MD WD/ACEC-14: Fuels Management: Fuels removed where there will be threat or loss of resource 

(8)

MD WD/ACEC-15: Fuelwood Cutting/Wood Product Sales: Not allowed: (4,986 acres)

Allowed by permit only (7,291 acres)

MD WD/ACEC-16: Livestock Grazing: Available (7)

MD WD/ACEC-17: Range Improvements: Allowed if no conflicts with ACEC values (5)

MD WD/ACEC-18: Noxious/Invasive Weed Treatments: Allowed (5) (10)

MD WD/ACEC-19: Animal Trapping/Traplines: Not allowed (4,986 acres)

Allowed: (7,291 acres)

MD WD/ACEC-20: Target Shooting: Not allowed

MD WD/ACEC-21: Cremains Scattering: Not allowed

MD WD/ACEC-22: Special Recreation Permits and Letters of Authorization: Allowed (5)

SRPs will initially be limited to existing SRPs. Additional (new) SRPs will be permitted only when 

determined not to result in impacts on the values for which the ACEC was designated.

MD WD/ACEC-23: Other Permitted Activities: Allowed (5)

MD WD/ACEC-24: Transportation: No net increase in road density

MD WD/ACEC-25: Geocaching: Not allowed (11)

MD WD/ACEC-26: Other Management: Other management activities and/or uses will be considered 

in subsequent site-specific analysis, and will consider the values for which the ACEC is designated (5).

MD WD/ACEC-27: Notes:

1. Avoidance area; granting Rights-of-Way (surface, subsurface, aerial) within the area should 

be avoided, but rights-of-way may be granted if there is minimal or no conflict with identified 

resource values and impacts on ACEC resource values can be fully mitigated.

2. OHV, and bicycles, use will be limited to designated routes only.

3. Commercial collection of plant materials, including common species, authorized by permit 

only. Casual use allowed.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-107

4. Road maintenance will be limited to the designated roadway and only that necessary to 

ensure public safety and serviceability of the road.

5. The activity is allowed in the area subject to specific environmental analysis upon individual 

permit applications and only if there is minimal or no conflict with identified resources 

values and impacts on ACEC resource values can be fully mitigated. Additional NEPA 

analysis required. Cultural inventories will be required for surface disturbing activities. 

Native American coordination/consultation required on activities within ACEC (especially if 

cultural resources are one of the values for ACEC designation).

6. Closed to renewable energy facilities and renewable energy development

7. Livestock grazing will be controlled through terms and conditions on the grazing permit.

8. Evaluate fire potential and remove fuels where needed to protect resource values. Types of 

treatments permitted: hand cutting/chainsaw only around rock art sites. Mechanical thinning 

will be allowed on a case-by-case basis - must meet objectives of ACEC.

9. Open to mineral material activities on a case-by-case basis and subject to CSU, seasonal 

timing restrictions, restricted or no uses in avoidance areas (e.g. riparian areas, areas with 

special wildlife or plant features, areas of high cultural significance, and sensitive viewsheds), 

and additional NEPA analysis required. 

10. Treatments may include any combination of herbicide application, mechanical treatments, 

burning, grazing, and the use of insects or pathogens.

11. If geocache location/activity does not conflict with the resource values of the ACEC, this 

activity could be considered. BLM resource specialist (archaeologist) and BLM ORP must 

agree activity does not impact ACEC values.

Wilderness Study Areas (WSA)

Goal WSA 1: Manage Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) following BLM Manual 6330 – Management of BLM 

Wilderness Study Areas - until such time as Congress acts upon the recommendations. (Map 3-41)

Goal WSA 2: The BLM is statutorily (FLPMA Section 603(c)) required to manage these areas to protect their 

suitability for Congressional designation into the National Wilderness Preservation System unless and until 

Congress either designates an area as wilderness or releases it from further consideration.

Management Decisions (MD)

MD WSA-1: WSAs will be managed according to BLM Manual 6330 – Management of BLM Wilderness 

Study Areas. he BLM is statutorily (FLPMA Section 603) required to manage these areas to protect their 

suitability for congressional designation to the National Wilderness Preservation System unless and until 

Congress either designates an area as wilderness or releases it from further consideration.

MD WSA-2: Conduct resource and activity monitoring to identify developments and disturbances and 

to timely address impacts on wilderness characteristics.

MD WSA-3: Competitive or commercial SRPS will not be allowed within WSAs, with the exception of 

outfitter and guide uses and existing permittees.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-108 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

MD WSA-4: Manage WSAs to protect, conserve, and enhance wilderness characteristics

MD WSA-5: Surface disturbing and disruptive activities will only be allowed if the activity does not 

impair the resource values and/or wilderness characteristics, except those actions specifically exempted 

from this standard by FLPMA (such as grandfathered uses). BLM will rehabilitate existing impacts during 

ESR/rehab operations of any human impacts which are destabilized by during a fire event.

MD WSA-6: Vegetation and fuels treatments, including prescribed fire, will be allowed, only if they 

enhance wilderness values.

MD WSA-7: Allow for habitat manipulations in WSAs on a case-by-case basis using methods which 

protect areas from weed infestations resulting from human influence and which specifically conform to 

guidance in BLM Manual 6330.

MD WSA-8: WSA lands will be closed to permitted commercial and personal use wood cutting, seed 

and plant collection.

MD WSA-9: WSAs will be managed as VRM Class I.

MD WSA-10: WSAs will be managed as closed to all types of mechanical transport, including 

snowmobiles. Aircraft may not land in a WSA, nor may air deliveries be made, with the exception of law 

enforcement activities, emergencies, aerial surveys, the installation of temporary or removal of obsolete 

facilities, and the gathering of wild horses. New routes (those not found in the initial Wilderness 

inventory) may not be established or designated for mechanical use.

MD WSA-11: WSAs will be closed to oil and gas leasing and development, subject to valid existing 

rights. 

MD WSA-12: Mineral material sales will not be allowed in WSAs 

MD WSA-13: WSAs will be managed as a ROW exclusion area. Existing ROWs may be renewed if still 

being used for their authorized purpose.

MD WSA-14: Conduct active restoration activities to remove unnatural features and rehabilitate 

unauthorized facilities, consistent with regulations. Closed vehicle routes will be rehabilitated or 

converted into non-mechanized trails.

MD WSA-15: As a high priority, BLM will acquire lands within WSAs boundaries from willing sellers. 

BLM will rehabilitate existing impacts on any acquired lands

MD WSA-16: Public access to WSAs will be provided through public access easements across public 

lands where feasible and needed.

MD WSA-17: Fire activities and projects in WSAs will adhere to the direction of BLM Manual 6330. 

Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics (MIST) will be used for all suppression efforts. A Resource Advisor 

will be assigned to all fires which occur within a WSAs
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-109

Release of WSAs 

MD WSA-18: BLM Manages lands released from WSA designation by Congress in the same manner as 

surrounding lands. In the event that lands released from WSA designation are protected under some 

other special designation, those lands will retain those same protections identified in the Common to All 

(e.g., ACECs within a WSA). WSA lands not retained under some other special designation will be 

released for other purposes and uses. These other special designations are not a substitute for 

wilderness designation but provide specific management prescriptions to protect important resources.

MD WSA-19: If Congress acts on designation, and Big Horn Tack-On, Burnt Timber Canyon and 

Pryor Mountain WSAs are not selected as wilderness, the area within the current boundaries of all 

WSAs will continue to be closed to motorized use including snowmobile use.

MD WSA-20: If Congress acts on designation, and Big Horn Tack-On, Burnt Timber Canyon, and 

Pryor Mountain WSAs are not selected as wilderness, the land area within these current WSA 

boundaries will be managed as an ACEC.

MD WSA-21: If Congress acts on designation and the lands within Big Horn Tack-On, Burnt Timber 

Canyon, Pryor Mountain, and Twin Coulee WSAs are released from further consideration; the land area 

within the current boundaries will be managed as VRM Class II.

MD WSA-22: If Congress acts on the designation and Twin Coulee WSA is released from further 

consideration, the area will be open for mineral entry and leasing.

If Congress acts on designation, and Big Horn Tack-On, Burnt Timber Canyon and Pryor Mountain 

WSAs are not selected as wilderness, the land area within these current WSA boundaries will continue 

to be closed and recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry.

MD WSA-23: Wildfire management (natural ignitions) for resource benefit. Appropriate fire 

management in response to human-ignited fires. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR)

Goal WSR 1: The BiFO management strategy is to manage eligible river to protect and enhance the freeflowing character, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values until suitability can be determined through 

the land use planning process, determine the suitability or non-suitability of eligible rivers for potential inclusion 

within the NWSR through the land use planning process, manage suitable rivers to protect and enhance the freeflowing character, water quality, and identified outstandingly remarkable values until congress designates the river 

as a component of the NWSRS or releases the river for other uses. (Map 3-42) (Appendix AB)

Management Decisions (MD)

MD WSR-1: Management will be conducted in a manner to protect and enhance the outstandingly 

remarkable values, the free flowing nature, and the water quality for each river segment.

MD WSR-2: Manage the following river segments (3.15 miles) (Map 3-42) as suitable to protect their 

outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature, and classification.

The following segments will be recommended as suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS:
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-110 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

• Crooked Creek (above fish barrier – 1.59 miles); tentative management class will be Wild.

• Crooked Creek (below fish barrier – 1.56 miles); tentative management class will be Scenic.

MD WSR-3: NSO for oil and gas leasing, exploration and development within 1⁄2 mile of WSR- eligible 

and suitable segments (NSO).

MD WSR-4: WSR-suitable and eligible segments will be exclusion areas for wind energy.

Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range (PMWHR)

Goal PMWHR 1: Management activities for other resources and programs within the PMWHR will be 

designed in a manner to minimize impacts on wild horses and their habitat. During the summer and fall seasons 

the PMWHR attracts many members of the public who enjoy viewing the wild horses and other recreational 

opportunities (e.g. camping, hiking, ATV riding, hunting, naturalizing, etc.). (Map 3-2) (Appendix AA)

Goal PMWHR 2: Management of the administrative designation area will be to enhance wild horse protection 

and habitat from congested recreational use, providing for public health, and safety of public land users.

Management Decisions (MD)

MD PMWHR-1: Wild horse protection: public feeding – Only allowed for management purposes

MD PMWHR-2: Wild horse protection: Harassment – Interrupting their behavior or disruption of 

their daily activities, outside of management activities, such as moving animals to take photos or filming, 

feeding or touching or attempting to do these things will not be allowed.

MD PMWHR-3: Wild Horse Protection: Seasonal Road Closures – Motorized routes within the 

PMWHR will be designated according to the Pryor TMA.

Burnt Timber Road from the East Pryor Mine (the abandoned uranium mine) to the USFS boundary and 

Sykes Ridge Road from the horse trap to USFS boundary will be closed to wheeled vehicles and 

motorized vehicles to protect wild horse foaling and their habitat (April 15 to June 15) providing 

consistency with the USFS seasonal closures.

MD PMWHR-4: Wild Horse Protection: Fencing – Exclusion fences for study, range improvements, 

riparian protection or rehabilitation will be allowed through site-specific analysis.

MD PMWHR-5: Wild Horse Protection: Wild horse health – Domestic horse use will be limited to 

day use only.

Recreational domestic horse use will require a free-use permit to ensure animals have health 

certifications to protect wild horses from disease transmission.

MD PMWHR-6: Wild Horse Habitat Enhancement – Maximize the amount of acres for vegetation 

treatment and water developments that will increase forage availability for wild horses, to maximize 

and/or increase wild horse numbers within other multiple uses and restrictions.

MD PMWHR-7: Public Health and Safety: Target shooting – Not allowed on T8S R28E Memorial day 

weekend through Labor Day weekend. Allowed in remainder of PMWHR
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-111

MD PMWHR-8: Public Health and Safety: Speed limits for mechanized and motorized vehicles – Not 

to exceed 15 miles per hour within T8S R28E

MD PMWHR-9: Livestock grazing: Bad Pass Trail will be managed as a livestock grazing allotment for 

trailing use only. 

The remainder of the PMWHR will be closed to livestock grazing.

MD PMWHR-10: Special Recreation Permits and Letters of Authorization: SRPs will initially be limited 

to existing SRPs. Additional (new) SRPs will be permitted only when determined not to result in 

congestion, wild horse displacement or cause an adverse experience for members of the public viewing 

wild horses outside of an SRP experience through monitoring of existing SRPs and visitation.

MD PMWHR-11: Land Use Authorizations: Avoidance (1)

MD PWMRH-12: Land Tenure: Category I retention land: no land disposal will occur

MD PMWHR-13: Off-highway vehicle use (including snowmobiles (OSVs)): Limited to designated 

routes (refer to Table 2.11 Trails and Travel Management – Management Actions by Alternative. 

Snowmobiles (OSVs) in the PRMP/FEIS)

MD PMWHR-14: BLM Road Maintenance: Limited (4)

MD PMWHR-15: Plant Collecting: Allowed (3)

MD PMWHR-17: Fluid Mineral Leasing: Closed to oil and gas leasing and development (NL).

MD PMWHR-18: Locatable Minerals: Close and recommend withdrawal from mineral entry, subject 

to valid existing rights. 

MD PMWHR-19: Solid Leasable Minerals: Closed, subject to valid existing rights.

MD PMWHR-20: Mineral Material Sales and Permits: Allowed (9)

MD PMWHR-21: Renewable Energy: Closed (6)

MD PMWHR-22: Geophysical Exploration: Not allowed

MD PMWHR-23: Use of Explosives for Geophysical Exploration: Not allowed

MD PMWHR-24: Fire Suppression: Wildfire management (natural ignitions) for resource benefit. 

Appropriate fire management in response to human-ignited fires.

MD PMWHR-25: Fuels Management: Allowed (8)

MD PMWHR-26: Fuelwood Cutting/Wood Product Sales: Casual collection of dead and down allowed 

for personal use during recreation activities.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-112 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

MD PMWHR-27: Range Improvements: Allowed (5) 

MD PMWHR-28: Noxious/Invasive Weed Treatments: Allowed (5) (10)

MD PMWHR-29: Animal Trapping/Traplines: Allowed

MD PMWHR-30: Non-Commercial Collection of Common Invertebrate and Plant Fossils: Allowed

MD PMWHR-31: Other Permitted Activities: Commercial film permits will be limited to existing 

permits. Additional (new) commercial film permits will be permitted only when determined not to result 

in congestion, wild horse displacement or cause an adverse experience for members of the public 

viewing wild horses through monitoring of existing commercial film permits and visitation. (5)

MD PMWHR-32: Transportation: Routes for commercial or other BLM authorized activities may be 

considered if the route meets public access needs.

MD PMWHR-33: Other Management Activities: Other management activities and/or uses will be 

considered in subsequent site-specific analysis, and will consider the values for which the PMWHR is 

designated (5).

MD PMWHR-34: Notes:

1. Avoidance area; granting Rights-of-Way (surface, subsurface, aerial) within the area should 

be avoided, but rights-of-way may be granted if there is minimal or no conflict with identified 

resource values and impacts on PMWHR resource values can be fully mitigated.

2. OHV and bicycles, use will be limited to designated routes only.

3. Commercial collection of plant materials, including common species, authorized by permit 

only. Casual use allowed.

4. Road maintenance will be limited to the designated roadway and only that necessary to 

ensure public safety and serviceability of the road.

5. The activity is allowed in the area subject to specific environmental analysis upon individual 

permit applications and only if there is minimal or no conflict with identified resources 

values and impacts on PMWHR resource values can be fully mitigated. Additional NEPA 

analysis required. Cultural inventories will be required for surface disturbing activities. 

6. Closed to renewable energy facilities and renewable energy development

7. Livestock grazing will be controlled through terms and conditions on the grazing permit.

8. Evaluate fire potential and remove fuels where needed to protect and/or enhance resource 

values. Must meet objectives of PMWHR HMAP.

9. Open to mineral material activities on a case-by-case basis and subject to CSU, seasonal 

timing restrictions, restricted or no uses in avoidance areas (e.g. riparian areas, areas with 

special wildlife or plant features, areas of high cultural significance, and sensitive viewsheds), 

and additional NEPA analysis required. 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 3-113

10. Treatments may include any combination of herbicide application, mechanical treatments, 

burning, grazing, and the use of insects or pathogens.

11. If geocache location/activity does not conflict with the resource values of the ACEC, this 

activity could be considered. BLM resource specialist (Wild Horse State Lead) and BLM 

ORP must agree activity does not impact PMWHR values.

National Historic Trails (NHT)

Goal NHT 1: The BLM’s intent is to protect NHTs for long-term heritage and educational values and to 

enhance the public experiences of these unique trails through interpretation and support of heritage tourism 

while maintaining compatible recreational use with historic trail values. (Map 3-43)

Goal NHT 2: The BLM’s intent is to: 1) safeguard the nature and purposes; and conserve, protect, and restore 

the National Trail resources, qualities, values, and associated settings and the primary use or uses; 2) Reduce the 

potential for uses that substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the National Trails; and 3) Avoid 

activities that are incompatible with the purposes for which the National Trail was established.

Management Decisions (MD)

MD NHT-1: Implement the Interagency National Historic Trail Plans for the Lewis and Clark and Nez 

Perce National Historic Trails. Participate in the Interagency planning update efforts as needed.

MD NHT-2: Identify and acquire from willing sellers easements and lands within the NHT corridors. 

See Realty, Cadastral Survey, and Lands Section for additional references

MD NHT-3: Retain public land within federal ownership

MD NHT-4: The Lewis and Clark NHT will be withdrawn from mineral actions. Once the actual Nez 

Perce NHT course is determined it will also be withdrawn

MD NHT-5: Minimize changes that will result in degradation of resource values or opportunities for 

sharing the experience of the original users of the NHTs.

MD NHT-6: Identify the Nez Perce NHT Corridor and establish management prescriptions through a 

land use plan amendment once the corridor has been determined

MD NHT-7: The Lewis and Clark NHT management corridor is identical to the Yellowstone River 

corridor.

MD NHT-8: Support partnerships and cooperative agreements with other agencies, local and state 

authorities, and NGOs to implement stewardship and educational goals for the NHTs. Support the 

Montana site stewardship program for monitoring and evaluation of significant trail resources.

MD NHT-9: Manage the auto tours routes associated with the NHTs to include signage and 

appropriate facilities as set out in the NHT’s Comprehensive Management Plan.

MD NHT-10: Implement the Interagency National Historic Trail Plans and all revisions including sub 

plans such as interpretive plans.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-114 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

MD NHT-11: Participate and follow the NHT’s Land Acquisition Management Plans.

MD NHT-12: The setting for the Lewis and Clark and Nez Perce NHT segments will be maintained 

where setting is an aspect of integrity by utilizing viewshed management tools.

MD NHT-13: The management corridor for the Lewis and Clark and Nez Perce NHT segments is 1⁄2 

mile either side of centerline

MD NHT-14: Management actions will apply to the NHT management corridor 

MD NHT-15: An inventory and evaluation will be maintained for the trail segments and include this 

data in a trails management plan.

MD NHT-16: Manage NHTs as ROW avoidance areas.

MD NHT-17: The NHTs will be managed as exclusion areas for Renewable Energy (wind and solar) 

ROW actions.

MD NHT-18: Surface disturbing activities will be subject to mitigation guidelines.

MD NHT-19: No surface occupancy for oil and gas development and exploration within 1⁄2 mile of the 

L&C and NP NHTs management corridor (NSO).

MD NHT-20: Manage NHTs as Visual Resource Inventory (VRI) Class III.

Manage NHT trails as Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class II once specific trail course has been 

identified

Social and Economic Conditions and Environmental Justice (SEC/EJ)

Goal SEC/EJ 1: Provide opportunities for economic sustainability at the national, regional, and local level.

Goal SEC/EJ 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. 

Goal SEC/EJ 3: Identify and remediate, to the extent possible, disproportionate negative impacts on minority or 

low income populations per EO 12898.

Goal SEC/EJ 4: BLM will continue to notify and consult with appropriate American Indian Tribes and BLM 

authorized actions. Consultation and coordination will be conducted on a government-to-government basis with 

federally recognized tribes with cultural affinity to the decision area. Management of public lands will

accommodate the exercise of rights provided by treaties or law that are applicable to the planning area. BLM will

coordinate with appropriate entities within tribal government on issues under its jurisdiction to determine 

appropriate protocols that provide for treaty uses of public lands.
September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 4-1

CHAPTER 4

CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC 

INVOLVEMENT

An interdisciplinary team of specialists from BLM BiFO and the Montana State Office prepared the 

Billings Field Office RMP. Fifteen agencies, including tribal, federal, state, and county governments, 

participated as cooperating agencies. BLM field and state office staff provided technical review and 

support.

In consideration of public comments and input from tribes and Cooperating Agencies, the BLM prepared 

the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. A notice of availability announcing its release was published in the Federal 

Register on May 29, 2015, initiating a 30-day public protest period, which ended on June 29, 2015. The

BiFO received ten protests during the protest period and resolved all of them. See Section 2.5 of the 

ROD for changes to the ARMP as a result of the protests.

4.1 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

4.1.1 Cooperating Agencies

As part of the initiation process for the RMP, the BLM sent letters to Native American Tribes and more 

than 50 federal, state, county, and local agencies inviting them to participate in the planning process.1

The BLM held meetings with government agencies and tribes and initiated working relationships among 

team members and agency personnel.

 1 The following agencies and tribes are cooperating agencies who helped BLM prepare the RMP: Big Horn County, Wyoming; 

Bureau of Indian Affairs; Bureau of Reclamation; Carbon County, Montana; Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation Northeastern Land Office; Department of Natural Resources and Conservation Southern Land Office; Golden 

Valley County, Montana; Montana Association of Conservation Districts; MTFWP; Montana State Historic Preservation Office; 

Musselshell County, Montana; Musselshell Planning Project; Northern Cheyenne Tribe; Wheatland County, Montana; and 

Yellowstone County, Montana. Other state and federal agencies participated as part of the RMP process, but were not formal 

cooperating agencies, as follows: Wyoming Fish and Game Department, Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office, NPS 

Bighorn Canyon NRA, and USFS Custer National Forest.
4. Consultation, Coordination, and Public Involvement

4-2 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

4.1.2 Native American Indian Tribes

In accordance with the NHPA and in recognition of the government-to-government relationship 

between tribes and the federal government, the BLM sent letters of introduction to the following tribal 

governments to inform them of the RMP revision initiative: 

• Arapahoe

• Assiniboine and Gros Ventre (Fort Belknap)

• Assiniboine and Sioux (Fort Peck)

• Blackfeet

• Chippewa Cree (Rocky Boy)

• Crow

• Lower Brule

• Northern Cheyenne

• Oglala Sioux

• Rosebud Sioux

• Standing Rock Sioux

• Three Affiliated Tribes (Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nations)

• Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa

The BLM Montana/Dakotas invited the Montana State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) and the 

Tribes to participate in the preparation of the ARMP regarding the land use planning decisions included 

in the Billings planning area. The BLM sought information about historic properties in consideration of 

land use planning decisions included in this ARMP, in accordance with the National Programmatic 

Agreement between the BLM, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the 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 ARMPs 

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 in the Section 106 regulations.

The BLM will satisfy the requirements of the NHPA Section 106 for future implementation-level 

decisions, such as project proposals, including adequate consultation with SHPO, Tribal Historic 

Preservation Officers (THPOs), Native American Tribes, and other interested parties, consistent with 

the alternative procedures set forth in the National Programmatic Agreement and relevant state 

protocols or, where applicable, the Section 106 regulations.

The Montana SHPO was a formal cooperating agency for the planning effort. 
4. Consultation, Coordination, and Public Involvement

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 4-3

4.1.3 United States Fish and Wildlife Service

As required by Section 7 of the ESA, the BLM consulted with the USFWS. The BLM prepared a 

biological assessment (BA) based on the RMP’s proposed plan (Alternative D) for USFWS consideration. 

The BLM’s assessment and the response from the USFWS are found in Appendix K, Biological 

Opinion.

4.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

During the scoping for and preparation of the RMP, the BLM encouraged formal and informal public 

input. The 30-day scoping period began when the Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal 

Register on May 15, 2008. The formal scoping period ended August 22, 2008, although comments 

received after that date were also considered.

The BLM hosted seven public scoping meetings during August of 2008 to explain the planning process 

and gather input. News releases to local and regional media sources advertised the times and locations 

of the scoping meetings. The total registered attendance for all seven meetings was 90 people.

A notice of availability announcing the release of the Draft RMP/EIS was published in the Federal Register

on March 29, 2013, initiating a 90-day comment period, which ended on June 29, 2013. During the 90-

day comment period, the public was given the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft 

RMP/EIS.

The BLM held six public meetings on the Draft RMP/EIS in towns and cities throughout the planning area 

and received comment letters by mail, e-mail, fax, and delivered by hand. The 463 unique comment 

submissions covered a wide spectrum of thoughts, ideas, opinions, and concerns.
4. Consultation, Coordination, and Public Involvement

4-4 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

This page intentionally left blank.
September 2015 Billings Field Office 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 RMP decisions to determine if the proposal conforms with the 

RMP.

One-time future decisions—These types of decisions are those that are not implemented until additional 

decision-making and site-specific analysis is completed. Examples are implementation of the 

recommendations to withdraw lands from locatable mineral entry or development of travel management 

plans. Future one-time decisions require additional analysis and decision-making and are prioritized as 

part of the BLM budget process. Priorities for implementing one-time RMP decisions will be based on 

the following criteria:

• National BLM management direction

• Available resources

General implementation schedule of one-time decisions—Future decisions discussed in this ARMPA will 

be implemented over a period of years, depending on budget and staff availability. After issuing the 

ROD, the BLM will prepare implementation plans that establish tentative time frames for completing 

one-time decisions identified in the ARMPA. These actions require additional site-specific decisionmaking and analysis. 
5. Plan Implementation

5-2 Billings Field Office 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, 

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 and/or support new management techniques, 

BMPs, and scientific principles. Where monitoring shows land use plan actions or BMPs are not effective, 

plan maintenance or plan amendment may be initiated, as appropriate.

Plan maintenance will be documented in supporting records. Plan maintenance does not require formal 

public involvement, interagency coordination, or the NEPA analysis required for making new land use 

plan decisions.

5.3 CHANGING THE PLAN

This ARMP may be changed, should conditions warrant, through a plan amendment or plan revision 

process. A plan amendment may become necessary if major changes are needed or to consider a 

proposal or action that is not in conformance with the plan. The results of monitoring, evaluating new 

data, or changing policy and public needs might also provide a need for a plan amendment. If several 

areas of the plan become outdated or otherwise obsolete, a plan revision may become necessary. Plans 

are amended and revised with public input and the appropriate level of environmental analysis,

conducted according to the Council on Environmental Quality procedures for implementation of 

NEPAt.

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 would be added to the existing data inventory without a plan amendment or revision. In 

cases where changes constitute a change in resource allocation outside the scope of this plan, the BLM 

may revise the GRSG habitat management area maps and associated management decisions in 

coordination with Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks and the USFWS and based on the best available 

scientific information, through a plan maintenance or plan amendment or revision, as appropriate.

If the BLM finds that implementation of Montana GRSG Habitat Conservation Program is effective in 

meeting management goals and objectives for GRSG for conservation, the BLM, in coordination with the 

State of Montana and the USFWS, and based on best available scientific information, may revise the 

management decisions and associated GRSG habitat management area maps through plan maintenance 

decisions and associated GRSG habitat management area maps through plan maintenance or plan 
5. Plan Implementation

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 5-3

amendment, as appropriate, to achieve our shared goal of consistent and effective GRSG management 

and conservation across all lands, regardless of ownership.

5.4 PLAN EVALUATION, ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT, AND MONITORING

Evaluation is a process in which the plan and monitoring data are reviewed to see if management goals 

and objectives are being met and if management direction is sound. RMP evaluations determine if 

decisions are being implemented, if mitigation measures are satisfactory, if there are significant changes 

in the related plans of other entities, if there is new data of significance to the plan, and if decisions 

should be changed through amendment or revision. Monitoring data gathered over time is examined and 

used to draw conclusions on whether management actions are meeting stated objectives, and if not, why 

not. Conclusions are then used to make recommendations on whether to continue current management 

or to identify what changes need to be made in management practices to meet objectives.

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. The monitoring framework for this 

ARMP can be found in Appendices D and Q.
5. Plan Implementation

5-4 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

This page intentionally left blank.
September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 6-1

CHAPTER 6

GLOSSARY

Acquisition. The BLM acquires land, easements, and other real property rights when it is in the public 

interest and consistent with approved land use plans. The BLM’s land acquisition program is designed to

accomplish the following:

• Improve management of natural resources through consolidation of federal, state, and 

private lands

• Increase recreation opportunities, preserve open space, and ensure accessibility of public 

land

• Secure key property necessary to protect endangered species and promote biological 

diversity

• Preserve archaeological and historical resources

• Implement specific acquisitions authorized by acts of Congress

Active use. Livestock grazing term meaning the current authorized use. Active use may constitute a 

portion, or all, of permitted use; it does not include temporary non-use or suspended use for forage 

within all or a portion of an allotment (43 CFR, Part 4100.0-5).

Activity plan. A type of implementation plan (see Implementation plan); an activity plan usually 

describes multiple projects and applies best management practices to meet land use plan objectives. 

Examples of activity plans are interdisciplinary, habitat, recreation area, and allotment management plans 

(H-1601, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook).

Actual use. An annual livestock grazing report describing where, how many, what kind or class of 

livestock and how long livestock graze on an allotment or on a portion or pasture of an allotment (43 

CFR, Part 4100.0-5).

Additionality. The conservation benefits of compensatory mitigation are demonstrably new and will

not have resulted without the compensatory mitigation project (adopted and modified from BLM Manual 

Section 1794).
6. Glossary

6-2 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

Administrative purposes. Administrative use functions involving regular maintenance or operation of 

facilities or programs.

Administrative use. Official use related to management and resources of the public lands by federal, 

state, or local governments or non-official use sanctioned by an appropriate authorization instrument, 

such as right-of-way (ROW), permit, lease, or maintenance agreement.

Affected environment. The natural, physical, and human-related environment that is sensitive to 

changes from the alternatives.

Air quality. Depends on the quantity and type of pollutants present 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 FLM for a particular area. AQRV impacts may also include sulfur, nitrogen, acid 

deposition, and lake acidification.

Allotment. An area of land designated and managed for grazing livestock (43 CFR, Part 4100.0-5). An 

allotment may be grazed by one or more livestock operators. Allotments generally consist of BLMadministered lands but may also include other federally managed, state-owned, and private lands. An 

allotment may include one or more separate pastures. Livestock numbers and periods of use are 

specified for each allotment.

Allotment management plan. A document prepared in consultation with the grazing lessees or 

permittees involved, which applies to livestock operations on the public lands and which does the 

following:

• Prescribes the manner in and extent to which livestock operations will be conducted in 

order to meet the multiple-use, sustained-yield, economic and other needs and objectives as 

determined for the lands by the Secretary concerned

• Describes the type, location, ownership, and general specifications for the range 

improvements to be installed and maintained on the lands to meet the livestock grazing and 

other objectives of land management

• Contains such other provisions relating to livestock grazing and other objectives found by 

the Secretary concerned to be consistent with the provisions of this act and other applicable 

law (from FLPMA, Title 43 Chapter 35, Subchapter I 1702[k]).

All-terrain vehicle. A wheeled vehicle other than an over-snow vehicle) that has a wheelbase and 

chassis width of 50-inches or less, is steered using handlebars, generally has a dry weight of 800 pounds 

or less, travels on three or more low-pressure tires, and has a seat designed to be straddled by the 

operator.
6. Glossary

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 6-3

Alternative. A mix of management prescriptions applied to specific land areas to achieve a set of goals 

and objectives. Each alternative represents a different way of achieving a set of similar management 

objectives. 

Amendment. The process for considering or making changes in the terms, conditions, and decisions 

of approved RMPs or management framework plans. Usually only one or two issues are considered that 

involve only a portion of the planning area (H-1601, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook).

Animal unit month (AUM). The amount of forage necessary for the sustenance of one cow or its 

equivalent for one month, or approximately 800 pounds of forage (43 CFR, Part 4100.0-5).

Appeal. Application for review of an implementation decision by a higher administrative level.

Appropriate fire management response (AMR). Any specific action suitable to meet fire 

management objectives. Typically, the AMR ranges across a spectrum of tactical options, from 

monitoring to intensive management actions. The response action is based on an evaluation of risks to 

firefighter and public safety, the circumstances under which the fire occurs, including weather and fuel 

conditions, natural and cultural resource management objectives, protection priorities, and values to be 

protected. The evaluation must also include an analysis of the context of the specific fire within the 

overall local, geographic area, or national wildland fire situation.

Area of critical envrironmental concern (ACEC). Areas within the public lands where special 

management attention is required (when such areas are developed or used or where no development is 

required) to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish 

and wildlife resources, or other natural systems or processes or to protect life and safety from natural 

hazards (FLPMA Section 103 [a]).

Assessment. The act of evaluating and interpreting data and information for a defined purpose (H1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook). 

Assets. Term used to describe roads, primitive roads, and trails that comprise the transportation 

system. Also the general term used to describe all BLM constructed assets in the Facility Asset 

Management System.

Attainment area. A geographic area in which criteria air pollutant levels meet the health-based 

primary standard (National Ambient Air Quality Standard for the pollutant). An area may have on 

acceptable level for one criteria air pollutant but may have unacceptable levels for others. Thus, an area 

could be in attainment and nonattainment simultaneously. Attainment areas are defined using federal 

pollutant limits set by the EPA.

Authorized officer. The BLM employee who has the delegated authority to make a specific decision.

Avoidance area. Areas determined to be less suitable for a ROW because of important or valued 

resources or resources assigned to a special status, or a substantive conflict with use. These areas 

exhibit constraints to siting facilities and are less desirable for a ROW but could be mitigated to reduce 

potential effects the ROW might have on the environment. 
6. Glossary

6-4 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

Avoidance mitigation. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an 

action (40 CFR, Part 1508.20[a]). It may also include avoiding the impact by moving the proposed action 

to a different time or location.

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 outcomes. Also referenced as recreation benefits, these are improved conditions, 

maintenance of desired conditions, prevention of worse conditions, and the realization of desired 

experiences.

Best management practices (BMPs). A suite of techniques that guide or may be applied to 

management actions to aid in achieving desired outcomes. BMPs are often developed in conjunction with 

land use plans, but they are not considered a land use plan decision unless the plan specifies that they 

are mandatory, in which case they may be updated or modified without a plan amendment (H-1601, 

BLM Land Use Planning Handbook).

Big game. Indigenous, ungulate (hoofed) wildlife species that are hunted, such as elk, deer, bison, 

bighorn sheep, and pronghorn antelope.

Biological assessment. The document prepared by or under the direction of BLM concerning listed 

and proposed species and designated and proposed critical habitat in the action area. It contains the 

BLM’s determination of potential effects of the action on such species and habitat. A biological 

assessment is required for formal consultations and conferences on major construction projects. It is

recommended for all formal consultations and formal conferences and many informal consultations 

where a written evaluation of the effects of an action on listed or proposed species and on designated 

or proposed critical habitat is needed (M-6840, Special Status Species Manual).

Biological opinion (BO). The document that includes the opinion of the USFWS as to whether a 

federal action would be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or would destroy 

or adversely modify designated critical habitat. A BO is a summary of the information on which the 

opinion is based and a detailed discussion of the effects of the action on listed species or designated 

critical habitat. Depending on the determination of jeopardy, the BO may contain reasonable and 

prudent alternatives, a statement of anticipated take of listed animals, and conservation 

recommendations for listed plants (M-6840, Special Status Species Manual).

Biologically significant unit (BSU). The summary of all the priority habitat management areas within 

a GRSG population, as delineated in the COT report.

Black-footed ferret habitat. A complex of prairie dog towns within a mile of each other comprising 

a total of 1,000 acres (Biggens 1993; Biggens et al. 2006).

Candidate species. A species for which the US Fish and Wildlife Service has sufficient information on 

status and threats to propose it for listing as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species 

Act, but for which issuance of a proposed rule is currently precluded by higher priority listing actions. 
6. Glossary

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 6-5

Separate lists for plants, vertebrate animals, and invertebrate animals are published periodically in the 

Federal Register (M-6840, Special Status Species Manual).

Canopy. The continuous cover formed by tree crowns, consisting of one or several layers. 

Casual use. Activities that involve practices that do not ordinarily disturb or damage the public lands, 

resources, or improvements and, therefore, do not require a ROW grant or temporary use permit (43 

CFR, Part 2800). Also, any short-term noncommercial activity that does not damage or disturb the 

public lands, their resources, or improvements and that is not prohibited by closing the lands to such 

activities (43 CFR, Part 2920). 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 battery-operated dry washers. Casual use does not include use of mechanized earth-moving 

equipment, truck-mounted drilling equipment, suction dredges, motorized vehicles in areas or on routes 

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.

Cave. A natural underground space large enough for a human to enter. In popular usage, the term 

includes smaller spaces, such as rock shelters and grottos.

Closed. Generally denotes that an area is not available for a particular use or uses. For example, 43 

CFR, Part 8340.0-5, sets forth the specific meaning of closed as it relates to off-highway vehicle use, and 

43 CFR, Part 8364, defines it as it relates to closure and restriction orders (H-1601-1, BLM Land Use 

Planning Handbook). 

Code of federal regulations. The official legal tabulation or regulations directing federal government 

activities (BLM National Management Strategy for OHV Use on Public Lands).

Compensatory mitigation. Compensating for a residual impact by replacing or providing substitute 

resources or environments (40 CFR, Part 1508.20).

Compensatory mitigation projects. The restoration, creation, enhancement, or preservation of 

impacted resources (adopted and modified from 33 CFR, Part 332), such as on-the-ground actions to 

improve or protect habitats, such as chemical vegetation treatments, land acquisitions, and conservation 

easements (adopted and modified from BLM Manual Section 1794).

Compensatory mitigation sites. The durable areas where compensatory mitigation projects will 

occur (adopted and modified from BLM Manual Section 1794).

Comprehensive travel management. Proactive interdisciplinary planning; on-the-ground 

management and administration of travel networks (both motorized and nonmotorized) to ensure that 

public access, natural resources, and regulatory needs are considered. It consists of inventory, planning, 

designation, implementation, education, enforcement, monitoring, easement acquisition, mapping and

signing, and other measures necessary to provide access to public lands for a variety of uses, including 

those for recreational, traditional, casual, agricultural, commercial, educational, and other purposes.
6. Glossary

6-6 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

Conditions of approval. The conditions or provisions (requirements) under which an application for a 

permit to drill or a sundry notice is approved.

Condition class (fire regimes). 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.

Conformance. A proposed action shall be specifically provided for in the land-use plan, or if not 

specifically mentioned, shall be clearly consistent with the goals, objectives, or standards of the approved 

land use plan (H-1601, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook).

Conifer. A tree or shrub of the order coniferae, with cones and needle-shaped or scale like leaves. 

Coniferous. Pertaining to conifers, which bear woody cones containing naked seeds.

Conservation agreement. A formal signed agreement between the US Fish and Wildlife Service and 

other parties that implement specific actions, activities, or programs designed to eliminate or reduce 

threats to a species or otherwise improve its status. Conservation agreements can be developed at a 

state, regional, or national level and generally include multiple agencies at both the state and federal level

and tribes. Depending on the types of commitments the BLM makes in a conservation agreement and 

the level of signatory authority, plan revisions or amendments may be required before the conservation 

agreement is signed or subsequently in order to implement the conservation agreement (M-6840, 

Special Status Species Manual).

Conservation strategy. A strategy outlining current activities or threats that are contributing to the 

decline of a species, along with the actions or strategies needed to reverse or eliminate such a decline 

or threat. Conservation strategies are generally developed for species of plants and animals that are 

designated as BLM sensitive species or that the USFWS has determined to be federal candidates under 

the ESA.
6. Glossary

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 6-7

Controlled surface use (CSU). (1) Use and occupancy is allowed (unless restricted by another 

stipulation), but identified resource values require special operational constraints that may modify the 

lease rights. CSU is used for operating guidance, not as a substitute, for the no surface occupancy or 

timing stipulations; (2) stipulations to be attached to oil and gas leases to protect specific areas or 

resources, such as riparian and wetland areas, rivers, sensitive species, viewsheds, and watersheds.

Cremains. Cremated human remains; not considered a hazardous substance (WO IM-2011-159).

Critical habitat. (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it 

is listed in accordance with the Endangered Species Act, on which are found those physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management 

considerations or protection; (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at 

the time it is listed as threatened or endangered as determined by the USFWS or NMFS that such areas 

are essential for the conservation of the species. Critical habitats are designated in 50 CFR, Parts 17 and 

226. The constituent elements of critical habitat are those physical and biological features of designated 

or proposed critical habitat essential to the conservation of the species, including the following:

• Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior

• Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements

• Cover or shelter

• Sites for breeding, reproducing, rearing offspring, germinating, or dispersing seed

• Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic 

geographic and ecological distributions of a species (M6840, Special Status Species Manual)

Crucial value habitat. Any particular range or habitat component that directly limits a community, 

population, or subpopulation to reproduce and maintain itself at a certain level over the long term. 

Those sensitive use areas that, because of limited abundance or unique qualities, constitute irreplaceable 

critical requirements for high interest wildlife. This may also include highly sensitive habitats, including 

fragile soils that have little or no reclamation potential. Restoring or replacing these habitats may not be 

possible. Examples are the following:

• Most crucial (critical) summer or winter range or concentration areas

• Critical movement corridors

• Breeding and rearing complexes

• Spawning areas

• Developed wetlands

• Class 1 and 2 streams, lake, ponds or reservoirs

• Riparian habitats critical to high interest wildlife

Crucial winter range. That part of the winter range where a high proportion of the species’

population is located during severe winter conditions.
6. Glossary

6-8 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

Cultural resources or cultural property. A definite location of human activity, occupation, or use 

identifiable through field inventory (survey), historical documentation, or oral evidence. The term 

includes archaeological, historic, or architectural sites, structures, or places with important public and 

scientific uses and may include definite locations (sites or places) of traditional cultural or religious 

importance to specified social and/or cultural groups. (Cf. “traditional lifeway value”; see “definite 

location.”) Cultural resources are concrete, material places and things that are located, classified, 

ranked, and managed through the system of identifying, protecting, and utilizing for public benefit 

described in this Manual series. (M-8100-1, BLM Cultural Resources Management)

Cultural resource inventory classes. There are three cultural resource inventory classes identified 

in M-8100-1, BLM Cultural Resources Management, as follows. 

1. Class I—existing data inventory. A study of published and unpublished documents, records, 

files, registers, and other sources, resulting in analysis and synthesis of all reasonably 

available data. Encompass prehistoric, historic, and ethnological/sociological elements and 

are in large part chronicles of past land uses. They may have major relevance to current land 

use decisions. 

2. Class II—sampling field inventory. A statistically based sample survey designed to help 

characterize the probable density, diversity, and distribution of archaeological properties in a 

large area by interpreting the results of surveying limited and discontinuous portions of the 

target area.

3. Class III—intensive field inventory. A continuous, intensive survey of an entire target area, 

aimed at locating and recording all archaeological properties that have surface indications, by 

walking close-interval parallel transects until the area has been thoroughly examined. Class 

III methods vary geographically, conforming to the prevailing standards for the region 

involved (M-8100-1, BLM Cultural Resources Management).

Cumulative effect. The impact on the environment from one action added to other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person 

undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively 

significant actions taking place over time (H-1790-1, BLM NEPA Handbook).

Deferred rotation. Rotation grazing with regard to deferring pasture turn-out dates beyond the 

growing season, if they were used early the prior year, or that have been identified as needing 

deferment for resource reasons.

Designated roads, primitive roads, and trails. Specific roads, primitive roads, and trails identified 

by the BLM (or other agency) where some type of motorized vehicle use is appropriate and allowed, 

either seasonally or yearlong (from MS-1626).

Desirable nonnative. Any species not naturally occurring in a given area that independently or in 

conjunction with other species contributes beneficially to a site’s ecological function, recovery, or the 

desired future condition of a site.

Desired condition. Description of those factors that should exist within ecosystems to maintain their 

survival and to meet social and economic needs.
6. Glossary

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 6-9

Desired outcomes. A type of land use plan decision expressed as a goal or objective.

Dispersed recreation. Recreation activities of an unstructured type that are not confined to specific 

locations or dependent on recreation sites. Examples are hunting, fishing, off-road vehicle use, hiking, 

and sightseeing.

Disposal. Transfer of public land out of federal ownership to another party through sale, exchange, 

Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1926, Desert Land Entry, or other land statutes.

Disruptive activities. Those public land resource uses and activities that are likely to alter the 

behavior, displace, or cause excessive stress to animal or human populations at a specific location or 

time. In this context, a disruptive activity refers to those actions that alter behavior or displace 

individuals of a species such that reproductive success is negatively affected, or an their physiological 

ability to cope with environmental stress is compromised. This term does not apply to the physical 

disturbance of the land surface, vegetation, or features. When administered as a land use restriction 

(e.g., no disruptive activities), this term may prohibit or limit the physical presence of sound above 

ambient levels, light beyond background levels, or the nearness of people and their activities. The term is 

commonly used in conjunction with protecting wildlife during crucial life stages (e.g., breeding, nesting, 

and birthing), although it could apply to any resource value on the public lands. The use of this land use 

restriction is not intended to prohibit all activity or authorized uses.

These definitions are not intended to prohibit all activities or authorized uses. For example, emergency 

activities, such as fire suppression and search and rescue, or rangeland monitoring, dispersed 

recreational activities, such as hunting and hiking, and livestock grazing are not considered surfacedisturbing or disruptive activities.

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 and legal, and 

financial considerations (adopted and modified from BLM Manual Section 1794).

Easement. An interest in land entitling the owner or holder, as a matter or right, to enter land owned 

by another party for a particular purpose.

Ecological site. A kind of land with a specific potential natural community and specific physical site 

characteristics, differing from other kinds of land in its ability to produce distinctive kinds and amounts 

of vegetation and to respond to management. Ecological sites are defined and described with 

information about soil, species composition, and annual production.

Ecological site description. Description of the soils, uses, and potential of a kind of land with specific 

physical characteristics to produce distinctive kinds and amounts of vegetation (Interpreting Indicators of 

Rangeland Health).

Ecosystem. Organisms and their abiotic environment, forming an interacting system and inhabiting an 

identifiable space (Society for Range Management).
6. Glossary

6-10 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

Eligible river. A river or river segment found eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System through the determination that it is free flowing and, with its adjacent land area, possesses 

one or more river-related outstandingly remarkable values (Wild and Scenic Rivers Act).

Emergency stabilization and rehabilitation. Prompt actions following a wildfire that are necessary 

to stabilize and prevent unacceptable degradation to natural and cultural resources, minimize threats to 

life and property, repair lands unlikely to recover, and repair or replace minor facilities damaged by fire. 

Endangered species. Any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion 

of its range (BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species Manual).

Environmental assessment. A concise public document for which a federal agency is responsible that 

serves the following purposes

• Briefly provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an 

environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact

• Aids an agency’s compliance with the NEPA when no environmental impact statement is 

necessary

• Facilitates the preparation of an environmental impact statement when one is necessary (40 

CFR, Part 1508.9)

Environmental impact statement (EIS). A detailed written statement required by Section 102 (2) 

of the NEPA, which states that all agencies of the federal government must include in every major 

federal action significantly affecting the quality of the environment, a detailed statement prepared by the 

responsible official. The EIS must contain the following:

• The environmental impacts of the proposed action

• Any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be 

implemented

• Alternatives to the proposed action

• The relationship between local short-term uses of the human environment and the 

maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity

• Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved in the 

proposed action, should it be implemented (40 CFR, Part 1508.11 and the NEPA of 1969)

Ephemeral stream. A stream that flows only in direct response to precipitation and whose channel is 

at all times above the water table. Generally, ephemeral streams do not flow continuously for more than 

30 days and have more robust upland vegetation than found outside the ephemeral riparian wetland 

area.

Existing way. A way existing at the time that a Wilderness Study Area survey was completed. 

Evaluation (plan evaluation). The process of reviewing the land use plan and the periodic plan 

monitoring reports to determine if the land use plan decisions and NEPA analysis are still valid and if the 

plan is being implemented.
6. Glossary

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 6-11

Exclusion area. An area determined to be unsuitable for a ROW because of the following:

• Unique, highly valued, complex, or legally protected resources

• Potentially significant environmental impact resulting from conflict with current land uses

• Posing substantial hazard to construction or operation of a linear facility (e.g., electric 

transmission line, pipeline, telephone line, or fiber optic line

In these areas, ROWs will be granted only in cases where there is a legal requirement to provide such 

access.

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 or mining. Human constructed assets designed and created to serve a particular 

function and to afford a particular convenience or service that is affixed to a specific locations, such as 

oil and gas well pads and associated infrastructure.

Federal lands. As used in this document, lands owned by the United States, without reference to how 

the lands were acquired or what federal agency administers the lands. The term includes mineral estates 

and coal estates underlying private surface but excludes lands held by the United States in trust for 

Indians, Aleuts, or Eskimos.

Federal Land Policy And Management Act of 1976 (Public law 94-579). An act to establish 

public land policy, to establish guidelines for its administration, to provide for the management, 

protection, development, and enhancement of the public lands.

Federal register. A daily publication that reports presidential and federal agency documents (BLM 

National management Strategy for OHV Use on Public Lands).

Fire management plan. Strategic implementation-level plans that define a program to manage 

wildland fires, fuel reduction, and fire rehabilitation based on an area’s approved RMP. Fire management 

plans must address a full range of fire management activities that support ecosystem sustainability, values 

to be protected, firefighter and public safety protection, and public health and environmental issues and 

must be consistent with resource management objectives and activities of the area.

Fire regime/condition class (FRCC). An interagency standardized tool for determining the degree 

of departure from reference condition vegetation, fuels, and disturbance regimes. Assessing FRCC can 

help guide management objectives and set priorities for treatments

Fire suppression. All work activities connected with fire extinguishing operations, beginning with 

discovery of a fire and continuing until the fire is completely out.

Fluid minerals. Oil, gas, coal bed natural gas, and geothermal resources.

Forage. Vegetation of all forms available and of a type used for animal consumption.
6. Glossary

6-12 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

Forest. An ecosystem characterized by a more or less dense and extensive tree cover, often consisting 

of stands varying in such characteristics as species composition, structure, age class, and associated 

processes and commonly including meadows, streams, fish, and wildlife.

Forest health. The perceived condition of a forest derived from concerns about such factors as its age, 

structure, composition, function, vigor, presence of unusual levels of insects or disease, and resilience to 

disturbance.

Forest health treatments. These restore forest ecosystems or stands to a condition that sustains 

complexity, function, and productivity, while providing for human needs.

Forest land. Land that is now, or has the potential of being, at least 10 percent stocked by forest trees 

(based on crown closure) or 16.7 percent stocked (based on tree stocking).

Fossil. Remains, traces, or imprints of organisms, preserved in or on the Earth’s crust; includes

fossilized bones, impressions of parts of organisms, or tracks.

Fragmentation. The splitting or isolating of patches of similar habitat. Habitat can be fragmented by 

natural events or development.

Free-flowing river. Term applied to any river or section of a river that means existing or flowing in a 

natural condition without impoundment, diversion, straightening, riprapping, or other modifications of 

the waterway (Wild and Scenic Rivers Act).

Fuel loading. The weight of fuels in a given area, usually expressed in tons per acre, pounds per acre, 

or kilograms per square meter.

Fuel treatment. The rearrangement or disposal of fuels to reduce fire hazard.

Functional habitat. The combination of requirements (food, water, cover, and space), juxtaposed in a 

manner necessary to provide sustainable populations of fish and wildlife species. In addition, human

activities within this habitat must be such that fish or wildlife can subsist without their sustainability being 

reduced. Habitat functionality will vary by wildlife species and by location.

Functioning at risk. (1) A condition in which vegetation and soil are susceptible to losing their ability 

to sustain naturally functioning biotic communities. Human activities, past or present, may increase the 

risks. (Rangeland Reform Final Environmental Impact Statement at 26.) (2) Uplands or riparian-wetland 

areas that are properly functioning, but a soil, water, or vegetation attribute makes them susceptible to 

degradation and lessens their ability to sustain natural biotic communities.

Uplands are particularly at risk if their soils are susceptible to degradation. Human activities, past or 

present, may increase the risks (Rangeland Reform Draft Environmental Impact Statement Glossary). 

See also Properly Functioning Condition and Nonfunctioning Condition (H-4180-1, BLM Rangeland Health 

Standards Manual).

Geocaching. An outdoor adventure game for global position system (GPS) users. Participating in a 

cache hunt is designed to take advantage of the features and capability of a GPS unit and to enjoy the 

freedom of access to public land. GPS users find caches through their location coordinates. Once found, 
6. Glossary

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 6-13

a cache may provide the visitor with a variety of awards. The visitor is asked to sign a logbook and to 

leave or replace items they find in the cache. 

Geographic information system (GIS). A system of computer hardware, software, data, and 

applications that capture, store, edit, analyze, and display a wide array of geospatial information (H-1601, 

BLM Land Use Planning Handbook).

Goal. A broad statement of a desired outcome; usually not quantifiable and may not have established 

time frames for achievement (H-1601, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook).

Grazing lease. A document authorizing use of the public lands outside an established grazing district. 

Grazing leases specify all authorized uses, including livestock grazing, suspended use, and conservation 

use. Leases specify the total number of AUMs apportioned, the area authorize for grazing use, or both 

(43 CFR, Part 4100.0-5).

Grazing permit. A document authorizing the use of the public lands within an established grazing 

district. Grazing permits specify all authorized use, including livestock grazing, suspended use, and 

conservation use. Permits specify the total number of AUMs apportioned, the area authorized for 

grazing use, or both (43 CFR, Part 4100.0-5).

Grazing plan. A concisely written program of livestock grazing management, including supportive 

measures, if required, designed to attain specific management goals in a grazing allotment. Prepared in 

consultation with the permittees, lessees, and the interested public. Livestock grazing is considered in 

relation to other uses of the range and to renewable resources, such as watershed, vegetation, and 

wildlife. Establishes seasons of use, the number of livestock to be permitted, the range improvements 

needed, and the grazing system.

Grazing preference (or 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 

the permittee or lessee (43 CFR, Part 4100.0-5).

Grazing relinquishment. The voluntary and permanent surrender by an existing permittee or lessee, 

(with concurrence of any base property lienholders), of their priority (preference) to use a livestock 

forage allocation on public land, as well as their permission to use this forage. Relinquishments do not 

require the consent or approval of the BLM, whose receipt of a relinquishment is not a decision to close 

areas to livestock grazing.

Guidelines. A practice, method, or technique determined to be appropriate to ensure that standards 

can be met or that significant progress can be made toward meeting the standard. Guidelines are tools 

such as grazing systems, vegetative treatments, or improvement projects that help managers and 

permittees achieve standards. Guidelines may be adapted or modified when monitoring or other 

information indicate they are not effective or a better means of achieving the applicable standard 

becomes appropriate (H-4180-1, BLM Rangeland health Standards Manual).

Habitat. An environment that meets a specific set of physical, biological, temporal, or spatial 

characteristics that satisfy the requirements of a plant or animal species or group of species for part or 

all of their life cycle (M6840, Special Status Species Manual).
6. Glossary

6-14 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

Habitat type. An aggregation of units of land capable of producing similar plant communities at climax.

Habitat management plan. A written and approved activity plan for a geographical area of public 

lands that identifies wildlife habitat management actions to be implemented in achieving specific 

objectives related to RMP planning document decisions (BLM Manual 6780, 1981).

Herd area. The geographic area identified as having been used by a herd as its habitat as of December 

1971.

Herd management area. Public land under the jurisdiction of the BLM that has been designated for 

special management, emphasizing the maintenance of an established wild horse or burro herd (H-4710-

1).

Herd management area plan (HMAP). An activity plan that focuses on and contains the necessary 

instructions for managing wild horses on specified public lands to meet wild horse health, resource 

condition, sustained yield, multiple use, economic, and other objectives. The HMAP prescribes measures 

for the protection, management, and control of wild horses and burros and their habitat on one or 

more herd management areas, in conformance with decisions made in approved management 

framework or RMPs.

Historic resources or historic property. Any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, 

or object included on, or eligible for inclusion on, the National Register of Historic Places. The term 

includes, for purposes of these regulations, artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and 

located within such properties. The term “eligible for inclusion on the National Register” includes both 

properties formally determined as such by the Secretary of the Interior and all other properties that 

meet National Register listing criteria (quoted from 36 CFR, Part 800.2[e]; compare National Historic 

Preservation Act, Section 301, Appendix 5; see also cultural resource-cultural property. Cultural property is 

an analogous BLM term not limited by National Register status; M-8100-1, BLM Cultural Resources 

Management). The term can also refer to cultural properties that have a period of use between EuroAmerican settlement to present.

Impacts (or effects). Environmental consequences (the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of 

alternatives) as a result of a proposed action. Effects may be either direct, which are caused by the 

action and occur at the same time and place, or indirect, which are caused by the action and are later in 

time or farther removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable, or cumulative (BLM National 

Management Strategy for OHV Use on Public Lands).

Implementation decisions. Decisions that take action to implement land use plan decisions; generally 

appealable to the Interior Board of Land Appeals under 43 CFR, Part 4.410 (H-1601-1, BLM Land Use 

Planning Handbook).

Implementation plan. An area or site-specific plan written to implement decisions made in a land use 

plan. Includes both activity plans and project plans (H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook).

Important value. As related to ACECs, a relevant value, resource, system, process, or hazard that has 

substantial significance and values. This generally requires qualities of more than local significance and 
6. Glossary

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 6-15

special worth, consequence, meaning, distinctiveness, or cause for concern. A natural hazard can be 

important if it is a significant threat to human life or property (43 CFR, Part 1610.7-2[a][2]).

Indicator (species). Components of a system whose characteristics (presence or absence, quantity, or 

distribution) are used as an index of an attribute, such as rangeland health attribute, that are too difficult, 

inconvenient, or expensive to measure (Interagency Technical Reference 1734-8, 2000) (H-4180-1, BLM 

Rangeland Health Standards Manual).

Inholding. A nonfederal parcel of land that is completely surrounded by federal land.

Integrated pest management (IPM). A long-standing, science-based, decision-making process that 

identifies and reduces risks from pests and pest management-related strategies. It coordinates the use of 

pest biology, environmental information, and available technology to prevent unacceptable levels of pest 

damage by the most economical means, while posing the least possible risk to people, property, 

resources, and the environment. IPM provides an effective strategy for managing pests in all arenas, from 

developed agricultural, residential, and public areas to wild lands. IPM serves as an umbrella to provide 

an effective, all encompassing, low-risk approach to protect resources and people from pests. BLM 

Departmental Manual 517 (Pesticides) defines integrated pest management as “a sustainable approach to 

managing pest by combining biological, cultural, physical, and chemical tools in a way that minimizes 

economic, health, and environmental risks.”

Integrated weed management. A decision support system involving deliberate selections, 

integration, and implementation of effective weed management tactics. It uses cost/benefit analysis and 

takes into consideration public interests and social, economical, and ecological impacts in the decisionmaking process.

Interdiscliplinary team. Staff specialists representing different skill and knowledge needs working 

together to resolve issues and provide recommendations to the BLM Authorized Officer (H-4180-1, 

BLM Rangeland Health Standards Manual).

Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA). The Department of the Interior’s Office of Hearings and 

Appeals Board acts for the Secretary of the Interior in responding to appeals of decisions on the use and 

disposition of public lands and resources. Because the IBLA acts for and on behalf of the Secretary of the 

Interior, its decisions usually represent the department’s final decision but are subject to the courts.

Intermittent stream. A stream that flows only at certain times of the year when it receives water 

from springs or from some surface sources, such as melting snow in mountainous areas. During the dry 

season and throughout minor drought periods, these streams will not flow. Geomorphological 

characteristics are not well defined and are often inconspicuous. In the absence of external limiting 

factors, such as pollution and thermal modifications, species are scarce and adapted to the wet and dry 

conditions of the fluctuating water level.

Invasive nonnative species. See Invasive plants and species.

Invasive plants and species. Plants and organisms that have been introduced into an environment 

where they did not evolve. Executive Order 13112 focuses on organisms whose presence is likely to 

cause harm the economy, the environment, or human health.
6. Glossary

6-16 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

Invasive weeds, noxious weeds. Nonnative invasive plants that are fast spreading and often 

expensive or difficult to control. Noxious weeds may proliferate, forming monocultures, which can 

crowd out other plants that provide biodiversity.

Jurisdiction. The legal right to control or regulate use of a transportation facility. Jurisdiction requires 

authority but not necessary ownership.

K factor. A soil erodibility factor used in the universal soil loss equation that is a measure of the 

susceptibility of soil particles to detachment and transport by rainfall and runoff. Estimation of the factor 

takes several soil parameters into account, including soil texture, percent of sand greater than 0.10 

millimeter, soil organic matter content, soil structure, soil permeability, clay mineralogy, and coarse 

fragments. K factor values range from .02 to .64, the greater values indicating the highest susceptibilities 

to erosion.

Karst topography. Karst is a landscape shaped by the dissolution of a layer or layers of soluble 

bedrock, usually carbonate rock such as limestone or dolomite. Due to subterranean drainage, there 

may be very limited surface water, even to the absence of all rivers and lakes or perennial streams. Many 

karst regions display distinctive surface features, with sinkholes or dolines (an often funnel-shaped basin)

being the most common. Some karst regions include thousands of caves, even though evidence of caves 

that are big enough for human exploration is not a required characteristic of karst.

Land classification. A process for determining the suitability of public lands for certain types of 

disposal or lease under the public land laws or for retention under multiple use management. 

Land tenure adjustments. Ownership or jurisdictional changes. To improve the manageability of 

BLM-administered lands and their usefulness to the public, the BLM has numerous authorities for 

repositioning lands into a more consolidated pattern, disposing of lands, and entering into cooperative 

management agreements. These land pattern improvements are completed primarily through the use of 

land exchanges but also through exchange, sale, purchase, donation, or other authority and through the 

use of cooperative management agreements and leases.

Land tenure adjustment category. The designation of an analyzed tract of land for retention or 

manner of disposal, based on resource values or public access. 

Category I. Lands managed in Category I—Retention will include all ACECs, WSAs, lands with 

wilderness characteristics, archaeological sites/historic districts, and lands acquired through 

LWCF, NHTs, National Monuments or other congressionally designated areas. Lands in 

Category I will not be transferred from BLM management by any method for the life of the plan.

Category II. Retention/limited landownership adjustment (no land disposals through sale)—

Public lands in Category II will not be available for sale under Section 203 of FLPMA. However, 

lands in this category could be exchanged for lands or interest in lands. Some public lands in 

Category II may contain resource values protected by law or policy. If actions could not be 

taken to adequately mitigate impacts from disposal of those lands, those parcels would be 

retained. 
6. Glossary

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 6-17

Category III. (Disposal of landownership adjustments, including sale)—These lands generally 

have low or unknown resource values or are isolated or fragmented from other public 

landownerships making them difficult to manage. Public land parcels in this category are 

relatively smaller, typically 160 acres or fewer. A listing of the legal descriptions of these disposal 

parcels can be found at the end of Appendix W, under Legal Descriptions of Disposal Tracts 

by Alternative. 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; however, exchange could have priority 

over disposal by FLPMA sale.

Land use allocation. The identification in a land use plan of the activities and foreseeable development 

that are allowed, restricted, or excluded for all or part of the planning area, based on desired future 

conditions (from H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook).

Land use plan. Decisions that establish management direction for land in an administrative area, as 

prescribed under the planning provisions of FLPMA; an assimilation of land use plan-level decisions 

developed through the planning process and outlined in 43 CFR, Part 1600, regardless of the scale at 

which the decisions were developed. The term includes both RMPs and management framework plans

(H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook).

Land use plan boundary. The geographic extent of a resource management plan.

Land use plan decision. Establishes desired outcomes and actions needed to achieve them. Decisions 

are reached using the planning process in 43 CFR, Part 1600. When they are presented to the public as 

proposed decisions, they can be protested to the BLM Director. They are not appealable to Interior 

Board of Land Appeals.

Lands with wilderness characteristics. Lands that have been inventoried under the provisions of 

BLM Manual Sections 6300-1 and 6300-2 and found to contain wilderness characteristics, as defined by 

Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964. If found to possess wilderness characteristics, these lands

may be designated as Wild Lands. 

Leasable minerals. Those minerals or materials designated at leasable under the Mineral Leasing Act 

of 1920. They include coal, phosphate, asphalt, sulphur, potassium and sodium minerals and oil, gas, and 

geothermal.

Lease. Section 302 of FLPMA provides the BLM’s authority to issue leases for the use, occupancy, and 

development of public lands. Leases are authorizations to possess and use public lands for fixed periods. 

Land uses that may be authorized by lease are those involving substantial construction, development, or 

land improvement and the investment of large amounts of capital that is to be amortized over time. A 

lease conveys a possessory interest and is revocable only in accordance with its terms and the 

provisions of 43 CFR, Part 2920.1-1(a). There are no limitations on the amount of land that may be 

included in a lease, but the area should be limited to the size justified. Also see Permits.

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 BLM Authorized Officer has the authority to relocate, control 
6. Glossary

6-18 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

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.

Lek. An assembly area where birds, especially GRSG, carry on display and courtship behavior. Also

referred to as a strutting ground. The following are the definitions of lek terminology when applied to 

trends and monitoring of leks from Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks:

Unconfirmed—Single count with no subsequent survey or a reported lek without supporting 

survey data

Confirmed Active—Data supports existence of a lek. Supporting data is 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 subsequent years.

Confirmed Inactive—10 years with no males or sign of lek activity; supported by surveys 

conducted for three or more years over the last 10 years. GRSG abundance patterns have 

generally fit into a 10-year time frame, encompassing years of abundance and relative scarcity

both. For the purpose of assigning lek status, ten years with three years of supporting data is 

minimal for characterizing a lek as inactive. However, the capacity for surveying leks at a greater 

annual frequency in 10 years is generally limited; therefore, this status definition incorporates 

both biological (i.e., past abundance patterns) and current administrative factors.

Confirmed Extirpated—Habitat changes have caused birds to permanently abandon a lek 

(e.g., plowing, urban development, overhead power lines)

Limited areas. Designated areas where the use is subject to restrictions, such as limiting the number 

or types or vehicles allowed, dates and times of use (seasonal restrictions), limiting use to existing roads 

and trails, limiting use to designated roads and trails where use will be allowed only on roads and trails 

that are signed for use, or limited to administrative use. Combinations of restrictions are possible, such 

as limiting use to certain types of vehicles during certain times of the year (BLM National Management 

Strategy for OHV Use on Public Lands).

Mechanized travel. Moving by means of mechanical devices, such as a bicycle; not powered by a 

motor.

Mine. An opening or excavation in the Earth for extracting minerals.

Mechanized travel. Moving by means of mechanical devices, such as a bicycle; not powered by a 

motor.

Mine. An opening or excavation in the Earth for extracting minerals.

Mineral. Any naturally formed inorganic material, solid, or fluid inorganic substance that can be 

extracted from the Earth; any of various naturally occurring homogeneous substances (as stone, coal, 

salt, sulfur, sand, petroleum, water, or natural gas) obtained usually from the ground. Under federal laws, 
6. Glossary

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 6-19

considered as locatable (subject to the general mining laws), leasable (subject to the Mineral Leasing Act 

of 1920), and salable (subject to the Materials Act of 1947).

Leasable Minerals. Those minerals or materials designated as leasable under the Mineral 

Leasing Act of 1920, as amended. Leasable minerals include such solid leasables as coal, 

phosphate, asphalt, sulphur, potassium, and sodium minerals and such fluid leasables as oil and 

gas.

Nonenergy Leasable Minerals. These solid minerals include phosphate, sodium, potassium, 

sulphur, potash, and Gilsonite. Most are used for fertilizer, feed stock (mineral supplement for 

livestock), or other industrial processes. See 43 CFR, Part 3500, for more information on 

nonenergy leasable minerals.

Locatable Minerals. Minerals subject to exploration, development, and disposal by staking 

mining claims as authorized by the Mining Law of 1872, as amended. This includes deposits of 

gold, silver, and other uncommon minerals not subject to lease or sale.

Salable Minerals or Mineral Materials. Common materials, such as sand and gravel, and 

common varieties of stone, pumice, pumicite, and clay that are not obtainable under the mining 

or leasing laws but that can be acquired under the Materials Act of 1947, as amended, through 

sales or special permits.

Mineral entry. The filing of a claim on public land to obtain the right to any locatable minerals it may 

contain.

Mineral estate. The ownership of minerals, including rights necessary for access, exploration, 

development, mining, ore dressing, and transportation operations. 

Minimization mitigation. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its 

implementation (40 CFR, Part 1508.20[b]).

Minimize. To reduce the adverse impact of an operation to the lowest practical level.

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.

Mitigation. A measure that will change the proposed action and will actually reduce or eliminate

impacts. CEQ NEPA regulations identify five types of measures to deal with significant environmental 

effects, as follows:

• Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action

• Minimizing an impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its 

implementation

• Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment
6. Glossary

6-20 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

• Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance

• Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or 

environments

Monitoring. Observations, data collection, and studies that evaluate compliance of on-the ground 

management with the RMP direction, or the effectiveness of RMP-prescribed management direction, in 

meeting broader goals objectives. Monitoring evaluates if actions comply with NEPA decisions that have 

been implemented, achieve the desired objectives (e.g., effectiveness), and are based on accurate 

assumptions (e.g., validation).

Motorized. Any machine activated by a nonliving power source. Small battery-powered, hand-carried 

devices such as flashlights, shavers, and Geiger counters are not classed as motorized equipment, such as

ATVs/OHVs, motorcycles, cars, and trucks.

Multiple use. The management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are 

used in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people; 

making the most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources or related services over 

areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to changing needs and 

conditions; the use of some land for less than all of the resources; a combination of balanced and diverse 

resource uses that takes into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and 

nonrenewable resources, including recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and 

natural scenic, scientific and historical values; and harmonious and coordinated management of the 

various resources without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the 

environment, with consideration being given to the relative values of the resources and not necessarily 

to the combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return or the greatest unit output 

(FLPMA and BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species Manual).

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Encourages productive and enjoyable harmony 

between humans and the environment; promotes prevention or elimination of damage to the 

environment and biosphere and stimulates the health and welfare of humans; enriches the understanding 

of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the nation; and establishes a CEQ (BLM 

National Management Strategy for OHV Use on Public Lands).

National register. The National Register of Historic Places, expanded and maintained by the Secretary 

of Interior, as authorized by Section 2(b) of the Historic Sites Act and Section 101(a)(1)(A) of the 

National Historic Preservation Act. The National Register lists cultural properties found to qualify for 

inclusion because of their local, state, or national significance. Eligibility criteria and nomination 

procedures are found in 36 CFR, Part 60. The Secretary’s administrative responsibility for the National 

Register is delegated to the National Park Service (M-8100-1, BLM Cultural Resource Management).

National wild and scenic rivers system. A system of nationally designated rivers and their 

immediate environments that have outstanding scenic, recreational, geological, fish and wildlife, 

historical, cultural, and other similar values and are preserved in a free-flowing condition. The system 

consists of three types of streams, as follows:
6. Glossary

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 6-21

• Recreational—Rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad and 

that may have some development along their shorelines and may have undergone some 

impoundments or diversion in the past

• Scenic—Rivers or sections of rivers free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds 

still largely undeveloped but accessible in places by roads

• Wild—Rivers or sections of rivers free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except 

by trails, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted

Naturalness. Lands and resources affected primarily by the forces of nature, where the imprint of 

human activity is substantially unnoticeable in an area of 5,000 acres or greater. The BLM has the 

authority to inventory, assess, and monitor the attributes of the lands and resources on public lands, 

which, taken together, are an indication of an area’s naturalness. These attributes may include roads and 

trails, fences and other improvements, the nature and extent of landscape modifications, the presence of 

native vegetation communities, and the connectivity of habitats (from IM-20030275, change 1, 

Considerations of Wilderness Characteristics in LUP, Attachment 1). 

Neotropical migratory birds. Birds that winter in Central America, South America, the Caribbean, 

and Mexico and then return to the United States and Canada during spring to breed. Includes almost 

half of the bird species that breed in the United States and Canada.

Net conservation gain. The actual benefit or gain above baseline conditions.

Nonfunctioning condition. A condition in which vegetation and ground cover are not maintaining soil 

conditions that can sustain natural biotic communities. It also refers to riparian-wetland areas that do 

not provide adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris to dissipate stream energy associated 

with high flows and thus are not reducing erosion, improving water quality, or possess other normal 

characteristics of riparian areas. The absence of a floodplain may be an indicator of nonfunctioning 

condition (H-4180-1, BLM Rangeland Health Standards Manual).

No surface occupancy (NSO). A fluid mineral leasing constraint that prohibits occupancy or 

disturbance on all or part of the lease surface to protect special values or uses. Lessees may exploit the 

fluid mineral resources under the leases restricted by this constraint through use of directional drilling 

from sites outside the area. Leasing with NSO means that there will be no development or disturbance 

whatsoever of the land surface, including establishment of wells or well pads and construction of roads, 

pipelines, or power lines.

Noxious weed. A nonnative plant species designated by federal or state law and county weed boards 

that generally possess one or more of the following characteristics. aggressive and difficult to manage; 

parasitic; a carrier or host of serious insects or disease; or nonnative, new, or not common to the 

United States.

Objective. A desired outcome for a resource. Objectives can be quantified and measured and, where 

possible, have established time frames for achievement.

Off-highway or off-road vehicle. Any motorized vehicle designed for or capable of cross-country 

travel on or immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural terrain. 
6. Glossary

6-22 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

It excludes any registered motorboat, any fire, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle when used for 

emergency operations, and any combat or combat support vehicle when used for national defense 

purposes, and any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the respective agency head under a 

permit, lease, license, or contract (EO 11644).

Off-road vehicle designations:

• Open—Designated areas and trails where off-road vehicles may be operated, subject to 

operating regulations and vehicle standards set forth in BLM Manuals 8341 and 8343, or an 

area where all types of vehicle use are permitted at all times, subject to the standards in 

BLM Manuals 8341 and 8343.

• Limited—Designated areas and trails where use of off-road vehicles 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 roads and trails, or limiting use to designated 

roads and trails, where use will be allowed only where they are signed for use.

Combinations of restrictions are possible, such as limiting use to certain types of vehicles 

during certain times of the year.

• Closed—Designated areas and trails where the use of off-road vehicles is permanently or 

temporarily prohibited. Off-road vehicles in closed areas may be allowed for certain 

reasons; however, such use would be made only with the approval of the BLM Authorized 

Officer.

Official use. Use by an employee, agent, or designated representative of the federal government or 

one of its contractors, in the course of his or her employment, agency, or representation (BLM National 

Management Strategy for OHV Use on Public Lands).

Open area. An area where all types of vehicle use is permitted at all times, anywhere in the area,

subject to the operating regulations and vehicle standards set forth in 43 CFR, Parts 8341 and 8342. 

Operator. One who has authorization from the BLM to conduct activity on public land.

Outstandingly remarkable values. Values among those listed in Section 1(b) of the WSR Act of 

1968. “scenic, recreational, geological, fish and wildlife, historical, cultural, or other similar values....” 

Other similar values that may be considered are ecological, biological, or botanical.

Over-snow vehicle. A motor vehicle that is designed for use over snow that runs on a track or tracks 

or skis, while in use. Does not include machinery used strictly for grooming on nonmotorized trails.

Overstocked. The situation in which trees are so closely spaced that they compete for resources and 

do not reach full growth potential.

Paleontological resources. Any fossilized remains, traces, or imprints of organisms, preserved in or 

on the Earth’s crust, that are of paleontological interest and that provide information about the history 

of life on Earth; does not include any materials associated with an archaeological resource (as defined in 

Section 3[1] of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 [16 USC, Section 470bb(1)]) or 
6. Glossary

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 6-23

any cultural item (as defined in Section 2 of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act [24 USC, Section 3001 et seq.]).

Perennial stream. A stream that flows continuously. Perennial streams are generally associated with a 

water table in the localities they flow through.

Permit. A short-term (up to three years) revocable authorization to use public lands for specific 

purposes. Section 302 of FLPMA provides the BLM’s authority to issue permits for the use, occupancy, 

and development of public lands. Permit land uses involve either little or no land improvement or 

construction or investment that can be amortized within the terms of the permit. A permit conveys no 

possessory interest. The BLM Authorized Officer may renew it at his or her discretion or revoke it in 

accordance with its terms or the provisions of 43 CFR, Part 2920.1-1(b). Also see Leases. 

Permittee. Holder of a valid permit that authorizes grazing use of the public lands within the grazing 

district. Also a holder of a special recreation permit for commercial, competitive, organized, or vending 

activities for recreation on public lands. Also a holder of a commercial filming permit issued by the BLM 

for filming on public lands. 

Permitted use. The forage allocated by, or under the guidance of, an applicable land use plan for 

livestock grazing in an allotment under a permit or lease and expressed in AUMs (43 CFR, Part 4100.0-

5; from H-4180-1, BLM Rangeland Health Standards Manual).

Petroglyph. A figure, design, or indentation carved, abraded, or pecked on natural rock surfaces. 

Pictograph. A figure or design, colored with charcoal or natural mineral pigments, painted on a rock.

Planning area. A geographical area for which land use and resource management plans are developed 

and maintained.

Planning criteria. The standards, rules, and other factors developed by managers and interdisciplinary 

teams for their use in decision-making, analysis, and data collection during planning; planning criteria 

streamline and simplify the resource management planning actions (H-1601, BLM Land Use Planning 

Handbook).

Play (oil and gas). A set of known or postulated oil and gas accumulations sharing similar geologic, 

geographic, and temporal properties, such as source rock, migration pathway, trapping mechanism, and 

hydrocarbon type. 

Pole. A tree of a size between a sapling and a mature tree.

Population. Within a species, a distinct group of individuals that tend to mate only with members of 

the group. Because of generations of inbreeding, members of a population tend to have similar genetic 

characteristics.

Potential fossil yield classification (PFYC). A system of general classification based on the lithology 

of surface rocks that estimates the likelihood of a given rock unit to yield vertebrate or other 

scientifically important fossil materials.
6. Glossary

6-24 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

Prairie dog habitat. The maximum extent of areas occupied by prairie dogs at any time during the last 

10 years.

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 the permittee or lessee (43 

CFR, Part 4100.0-5). Active use and suspended use together make up permitted use. 

Prehistoric. Refers to the period when wherein Native American cultural activities took place that 

were not yet influenced by contact with historic nonnative cultures. The end of this period varies by 

region. 

Prescribed fire. Any fire ignited by management action to meet specific objectives. A written approved 

fire plan must exist and NEPA requirements must be met before the fire is set (H-9214-1, BLM 

Prescribed Fire).

Primitive and unconfined recreation (in regard to designated Wilderness Areas). Means 

nonmotorized types of outdoor recreation that do not require developed facilities or mechanical 

transport. Mechanical transport means any vehicle, device, or contrivance for moving people or material 

in or over land, water, snow, or air that has moving parts. This includes sailboats, sailboards, hang 

gliders, parachutes, bicycles, game carriers, carts, and wagons. The term does not include wheelchairs 

nor horses or other pack stock, skis, snowshoes, nonmotorized river craft, including drift boats, rafts, 

and canoes, or sleds, travois, or similar devices without moving parts (43 CFR, Part 6301.5, Definitions).

There are no designated Wilderness Areas in the Billings Field Office planning area. For lands under 

Wilderness Review (Wilderness Study Areas), “No mechanical transport, which includes all motorized 

vehicles plus trail or mountain bikes, will be allowed on such trails” (H-8550-1, Chapter III, Section H1).

Primitive recreation. As defined in the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, primitive recreation is 

managed to be essentially free from evidence of humans and on-site controls. Motor vehicle use is not 

permitted. Means of access include hiking, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, nonmotorized boating, 

and horseback riding.

Primitive road. A linear route managed for use by four-wheel drive or high-clearance vehicles. 

Primitive roads do not normally meet any BLM road design standards. 

Primitive route. Any transportation linear feature in areas that have been identified as having 

wilderness characteristics and not meeting the wilderness inventory road definition.

Probable sale quantity (PSQ). The allowable harvest level that can be maintained without decline 

over the long term if the schedule of harvests and regeneration are followed. PSQ recognizes a level of 

uncertainty in meeting the determined level; this uncertainty is typically based on other environmental 

factors that preclude harvesting at a particular time (for example, because of watershed or habitat 

concerns). A PSQ is not a commitment to offer for sale a specific level of timber volume every year. 

Properly functioning condition (PFC).

• An element of the Fundamental of Rangeland Health for watersheds and therefore a 

required element of state or regional standards and guidelines under 43 CFR, Part 

4180.2(b).
6. Glossary

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 6-25

• Condition in which vegetation and ground cover maintain soil conditions that can sustain 

natural biotic communities. For riparian areas, the process of determining that function is 

described in BLM Technical Reference (TR) 1737-9, Final Environmental Impact Statement at 

26, 72.

• Riparian-wetland areas are functioning properly when adequate vegetation, landform, or 

large woody debris are present to dissipate stream energy associated with high-water flows, 

thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality; filter sediment, capture bed load, and 

aid floodplain development; improve floodwater retention and groundwater recharge; 

develop root masses that stabilize streambanks against cutting action; develop diverse 

ponding and channel characteristics to provide the habitat and the water depth, duration, 

and temperature necessary for fish production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses; and 

support greater biodiversity. The functioning condition of riparian-wetland areas is 

influenced by geomorphic features, soil, water, and vegetation. 

• Uplands function properly when the existing vegetation and ground cover maintain soil 

conditions capable of sustaining natural biotic communities. The functioning condition of 

uplands is influenced by geomorphic features, soil, water, and vegetation. See also 

Nonfunctioning Condition and Functioning at Risk (H-4180-1, BLM Rangeland Health Standards 

Manual).

Proper functioning condition for lentic areas. Riparian-wetland areas are functioning properly 

when adequate vegetation, landform, or debris is present to dissipate energies associated with wind 

action, wave action, and overland flow from adjacent sites, thereby reducing erosion and improving 

water quality; filter sediment and aid floodplain development; improve flood-water retention and 

groundwater recharge; develop root masses that stabilize islands and shoreline features against cutting 

action; restrict water percolation; develop diverse ponding characteristics to provide the habitat and the 

water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for fish production, water bird breeding, and other 

uses; and support greater biodiversity.

Proper functioning condition for lotic areas. A riparian-wetland area is considered to be in proper 

functioning condition when adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris is present to

accomplish the following. 

• Dissipate stream energy associated with high water flow, thereby reducing erosion and 

improving water quality

• Filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development

• Improve flood-water retention and ground-water recharge

• Develop root masses that stabilize streambanks against cutting action

• Develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide the habitat and the water 

depth, duration, and temperature necessary for fish production, waterfowl breeding, and 

other uses

• Support greater biodiversity
6. Glossary

6-26 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

Proposed species. Species that the Secretary of the Interior has officially proposed for listing as 

threatened or endangered and a proposed rule has been published in the Federal Register (M-6840, 

Special Status Species Manual).

Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range (PMWHR). The combination of agency (BLM, Forest Service, 

and National Park Service) and private rangelands authorized for use by wild horses. Not to be confused 

with WILD HORSE RANGE (see definition below), which is a special designation where only the BLM 

portion has this status. 

Public land. Any land and interest in land owned by the United States and administered by the 

Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management, without regard to how the United 

States acquired ownership, except lands located on the Outer Continental Shelf and land held for the 

benefit of Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos (from H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook and BLM 

Public Land Statistics).

Range improvement. An authorized physical modification or treatment designed to improve 

production of forage, change vegetation composition, control patterns of use, provide water, stabilize 

soil and water conditions restore, protect and improve the condition of rangeland ecosystems to benefit 

livestock, wild horses and burros, and fish and wildlife. The term includes structures, treatment projects, 

and use of mechanical devices or modifications achieved through mechanical means (43 CFR, Part 

4100.0-5; H-4180-1, BLM Rangeland Health Standards Manual).

Rangeland. A kind of land on which the native vegetation, climax, or natural potential consists 

predominantly of grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or shrubs. Rangeland includes lands revegetated 

naturally or artificially to provide a non-crop plant cover that is managed like native vegetation. 

Rangeland may consist of natural grasslands, savannahs, shrublands, most deserts, tundra, alpine 

communities, coastal marshes, and wet meadows (H-4180-1, BLM Rangeland Health Standards Manual).

Raptor. A group of predatory avian species (e.g., hawks, eagles, falcons, and owls) also referred to as 

birds of prey, which share various physical characteristics, such as sharp talons and a strongly curved bill.

Reasonably foreseeable development (RFD) scenario. The prediction of the type and amount of 

oil and gas activity that will occur in a given area. The prediction is based on geologic factors, past 

history of drilling, projected demand for oil and gas, and industry interest.

Reclamation. Actions taken to restore damaged lands to proper functioning condition, including 

removing structures, replacing or regrading topsoil, tilling compacted soils to allow infiltration of air and 

water, installing erosion control structures, seeding or planting native vegetation, and implementing 

integrated pest management to control invasive species. 

Record of decision (ROD). A document signed by a responsible official recording a decision that was 

preceded by an EIS.

Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act of 1926. The objective of the this act is to meet the 

needs of state and local government agencies and nonprofit organizations by leasing or conveying public 

land required for recreation and public purpose uses. 
6. Glossary

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 6-27

Recreation management zones. Delineated for specific recreation opportunities, the predominant

recreation and visitor services focus, and recreation setting characteristics for long term management. 

Recreation opportunities. Favorable circumstances enabling visitors’ engagement in a leisure activity 

to realize immediate psychological experiences and attain more lasting, value-added beneficial outcomes.

Recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS). A framework for inventorying, planning, and managing 

recreation. ROS is divided into six classes. primitive, semiprimitive nonmotorized, semiprimitive 

motorized, roaded natural, rural, and urban. This system has been replaced by the Recreation Setting 

Characteristics Matrix.

Recreation setting character. The distinguishing recreational qualities of any landscape, objectively 

defined along a continuum, ranging from primitive to urban landscapes, expressed in terms of the nature 

of the component parts of its physical, social, and administrative attributes. These recreational qualities 

can be both classified and mapped. This classification and mapping process should be based on variation 

that either exists (for example, setting descriptions) or is desired (for example, setting prescriptions) 

among component parts of the various physical, social, and administrative attributes of any landscape. 

The recreation opportunity spectrum is one of the tools for doing this. Below is a text version of the 

recreation setting character matrix:

• Primitive Classification: 

– Physical:

 More than 1⁄2 mile from either mechanized or motorized routes.

 Undisturbed natural landscape.

 No structures. Foot/horse and water trails only. 

– Social: 

 Fewer than three encounters/day at camp sites and fewer than 6 

encounters/day on travel routes. 

 Fewer than or equal to three people per group. 

 No alteration of the natural terrain. Footprints only observed. Sounds of 

people rare.

– Operational: 

 Foot, horse, and non-motorized float boat travel.

 No maps or brochures available on-site. Staff is rarely present to provide 

on-site assistance.

 No on-site posting/signing of visitor regulations, interpretive information or 

ethics. Few use restrictions

• Back Country Classification:

– Physical:

 Within 1⁄2 mile of four-wheel drive vehicle, ATV and motorcycles routes.

 Character of the natural landscape retained. A few modifications contrast 

with character of the landscape (e.g. fences, primitive roads).

 Maintained and marked trails, simple trailhead developments and basic 

toilets.
6. Glossary

6-28 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

– Social: 

 3-6 encounters/day off travel routes (e.g., campsites) and 7-15 

encounters/day on travel routes 

 4-6 people per group. 

 Areas of alteration uncommon. Little surface vegetation wear observed. 

Sounds of people infrequent. 

– Operational:

 Mountain bikes and perhaps other mechanized use, but all is non-motorized.

 Basic maps, staff infrequently present (e.g. seasonally, high use periods) to 

provide on-site assistance.

 Basic user regulations at key access points. Minimum use restrictions.

• Middle Country Classification:

– Physical:

 Within 1⁄2 mile of four-wheel drive vehicle, ATV and motorcycles routes.

 Character of the natural landscape retained. A few modifications contrast 

with character of the landscape (e.g. fences, primitive roads).

 Maintained and marked trails, simple trailhead developments and basic 

toilets. 

– Social: 

 7-14 encounters/day off travel routes (e.g., staging areas) and 15-29 

encounters/ day on travel routes 

 7-12 people per group. 

 Small areas of alteration. Surface vegetation showing wear with some bare 

soils. Sounds of people occasionally heard.

– Operational

 Four-wheel drives, all-terrain vehicles, dirt bikes, or snowmobiles in addition 

to non-motorized, mechanized use.

 Area brochures and maps, staff is occasionally (e.g. most weekends) present 

to provide on-site assistance.

 Some regulatory and ethics signing. Moderate use restrictions. (e.g. camping, 

human waste).

• Front Country Classification

– Physical: 

 Within 1⁄2 mile of low-clearance or passenger vehicle routes (includes 

unpaved County roads and private land routes).

 Character of the natural landscape partially modified but none overpower 

natural landscape (e.g. roads, structures, utilities).

 Rustic facilities such as campsites, restrooms, trailheads, and interpretive 

displays.

– Social: 

 15-29 encounters/day off travel routes (e.g., campgrounds) and 30 or more 

encounters/day on travel routes.

 13-25 people per group.
6. Glossary

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 6-29

 Small areas of alteration prevalent. Surface vegetation gone with compacted 

soils observed. Sounds of people regularly heard

– Operational:

 Two-wheel drive vehicles predominant, but also four wheel drives and nonmotorized, mechanized use.

 Information materials describe recreation areas & activities, staff periodically 

present (e.g. weekdays & weekends).

 Rules, regulations, and ethics clearly posted. Use restrictions, limitations, 

and/or closures.

• Rural Classification 

– Physical: 

 Within 1⁄2 mile of paved/primary roads and highways.

 Character of the natural landscape considerably modified (agriculture, 

residential or industrial).

 Modern facilities such as campgrounds, group shelters, boat launches, and 

occasional exhibits.

– Social: 

 People seem to be generally everywhere.

 26-50 people per group.

 A few large areas of alteration. Surface vegetation absent with hardened 

soils. Sounds of people frequently heard.

– Operational:

 Ordinary highway auto and truck traffic is characteristic.

 Information described to the left, plus experience and benefit descriptions, 

staff regularly present (e.g. almost daily).

 Regulations strict and ethics prominent. Use may be limited by permit, 

reservation, etc.

• Urban Classification

– Physical: 

 Within 1⁄2 mile of streets and roads within municipalities and along highways.

 Urbanized developments dominate landscape.

 Elaborate full-service facilities such as laundry, restaurants, and groceries.

– Social: 

 Busy place with other people constantly in view.

 Greater than 50 people per group.

 Large areas of alteration prevalent. Some erosion. Constantly hear people.

– Operational:

 Wide variety of street vehicles and highway traffic is ever-present.

 Information described to the left, plus regularly scheduled on-site outdoor 

demonstrations and clinics.

 Enforcement in addition to rules to reduce conflicts, hazards, and resource 

damage. 
6. Glossary

6-30 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

Recreation setting characteristics matrix. More than half a mile from either mechanized or 

motorized routes; undisturbed natural landscape; no structures; hiking, equestrian, and water trails only; 

fewer than three encounters per day at campsites and fewer than six encounters per day on travel 

routes; fewer than or equal to three) people per group; no alternation of the natural terrain; footprints 

only observed; and sounds of people rare.

Recreation settings. The collective distinguishing attributes of landscapes that influence and 

sometimes actually determine what kinds of recreation opportunities are produced.

Regeneration. The act of renewing tree cover by establishing young trees naturally or artificially.

Relevant value. As related to ACECs, a relevant value is a significant historic, cultural, or scenic value; 

a fish or wildlife resource or other natural system or process; or natural hazard (43 CFR, Part 1610.7-

2[a][1]).

Required design features (RDFs). These are required for certain activities in all GRSG habitat. RDFs 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rendered inapplicable.

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

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

• A specific RDF will provide no additional protection to GRSG or its habitat.

Reserve allotment. A separate BLM administered grazing unit (allotment or pasture) that is reserved 

for nonrenewable grazing use by permittees and lessees or others participating in land restoration or 

recovery that preclude use of all or part of the permitted use assigned to their base property. 

Reserve common allotment. An area designated in the land use plan as available for livestock grazing 

but reserved as 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 will provide needed flexibility that will help the agency apply temporary 

rest from grazing where vegetation treatments or management will be most effective.

Residual impacts. Impacts that remain after applying avoidance and minimization mitigation; also 

referred to as unavoidable impacts.

Resilience. The capacity of a plant community or ecosystem to maintain or regain normal function and 

development following disturbance. 
6. Glossary

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 6-31

Resource management plan (RMP). A land use plan as described by the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act. The RMP generally establishes the following in a written document:

• Land uses for limited, restricted, or exclusive use; designations, including ACEC designation; 

and transfer from BLM administration

• Allowable resource uses (either singly or in a combination) and related levels of production 

or use to be maintained

• Resource condition goals and objectives to be attained

• Program constraints and general management practices needed to achieve the above items

• Need for an area to be covered by more detailed and specific plans

• Support action, including such measures as resource protection, access, development, realty 

action, or cadastral survey, as necessary to meet the above

• General implementation sequences in which carrying out a planned action

• Intervals and standards for monitoring and evaluating the plan to determine the effectiveness 

of the plan and the need for amendment or revision (43 CFR, Part 1601.0-5[k])

Revision. The process of completely rewriting the land use plan due to changes in the planning area 

affecting major portions of the plan or the entire plan. 

Right-of-way (ROW). Public lands authorized to be used or occupied for specific purposes, in 

accordance with a ROW grant, which are in the public interest and require ROWs over, on, under, or 

through such lands. A 44LD513 ROW is a ROW that BLM issues to itself.

• Major ROWs—High-voltage transmission lines (100 kilovolts and over) and major pipelines 

(24 inches and over in width)

• Minor ROWs and Land Use Authorizations/Permits—Communication sites and towers

Right-of-way corridor. A parcel of land that has been identified by law, Secretarial order, through a 

land use plan or by other management decision as being the preferred location for existing and future 

ROW grants and suitable to accommodate one type of ROW or one or more ROWs that are similar, 

identical, or compatible. The purpose of establishing ROW corridors is to encourage the concentration 

of utilities in a defined area to reduce the proliferation of multiple single-user ROWs and to reduce the 

extent of environmental impact analysis for each separate ROW proposal. 

Riparian area. A form of wetland transition between permanently saturated wetlands and upland 

areas. Riparian areas exhibit vegetation or physical characteristics that reflect the influence of permanent 

surface or subsurface water. Typical riparian areas are lands along perennially and intermittently flowing 

rivers and streams, glacial potholes, and the shores of lakes and reservoirs with stable water levels. 

Excluded are ephemeral streams or washes that lack vegetation and depend on free water in the soil.

River. As defined in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, a flowing body of water or estuary or section, 

portion, or tributary thereof, including rivers, streams, creeks, runs, kills, rills, and small lakes.
6. Glossary

6-32 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

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. Can be designated as closed, 

limited, open, or permanent.

Roaded natural. As defined in the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, managed to provide a naturalappearing environment with moderate evidence of humans. Motor vehicle use is permitted and facilities 

for this use are provided. Activities include wood gathering, downhill skiing, fishing, OHV driving, 

interpretive uses, picnicking, and vehicle camping.

Rock art. A generic term used to describe both petroglyphs (carvings) and pictographs (paintings).

Rotation. Livestock rotations from one pasture to the next (in an allotment) at specified times of the 

year. 

Routes. Multiple roads, trails, and primitive roads; a group or set of roads, trails, and primitive roads 

that represents less than 100 percent of the BLM transportation system. Generically, components of the 

transportation system are described as routes.

Rural. As defined in the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, rural recreation is managed to provide a 

setting that is substantially modified with moderate to high evidence of civilization. Motor vehicle use is 

permitted and visitor conveniences may be provided. Activities are facility and vehicle dependent and 

include sightseeing, horseback riding, road biking, golf, swimming, picnicking, and outdoor games.

Sage-grouse habitat—general habitat management areas. Areas with or without ongoing or 

imminent impacts containing GRSG habitat outside of the priority areas. Management actions will

maintain habitat for sustainable GRSG populations to promote movement and genetic diversity. Areas 

are delineated based on GRSG habitat. 

Sage-grouse habitat—priority habitat management areas. Areas with limited impacts containing 

substantial and high quality GRSG habitat that support sustainable GRSG populations. Management 

actions emphasize the protection and enhancement of sustainable GRSG populations. Areas are 

delineated by using key, core, and connectivity data/maps and other resource information. 

Sage-grouse habitat—restoration habitat management areas. Areas with ongoing or imminent 

impacts containing substantial and high quality GRSG habitat that historically supported sustainable

GRSG populations. Management actions emphasize restoration for the purpose of establishing or 

restoring sustainable GRSG populations. Areas are delineated by using key, core, and connectivity 

data/maps and other resource information. 

Scenic quality ratings. The relative scenic quality (A, B, or C) assigned a landscape by applying the 

scenic quality evaluation key factors; scenic quality A being the highest rating, B a moderate rating, and C 

the lowest rating. The evaluation factors are landform, vegetation, water, color, adjacent scenery, 

scarcity, and cultural modifications (M-8400, Visual Resource Management).

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.
6. Glossary

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 6-33

Scoping. An early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for 

identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action. This effort involves the participation of 

affected federal, state, and local agencies and any affected Native American tribe, the proponent of the 

action, and other interested persons, unless there is a limited expectation under 40 CFR, Part 1507.3I. 

Season of use. The period of time during which livestock grazing is permitted on a given allotment, as 

specified in the mandatory terms and conditions of the grazing lease or permit.

Section 7 consultation. A part or section of the Endangered Species Act called Interagency 

Cooperation; the mechanism by which federal agencies ensure the actions they take, including those 

they fund or authorize, and do not jeopardize the existence of any listed species. 

Section 106 compliance. The requirement of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

that any project that the federal government funds, licenses, permits, or assists be reviewed for impacts 

on significant historic properties and that the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation be allowed to comment on a project.

Semiprimitive motorized. As defined in the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, managed to provide 

a natural-appearing environment with evidence of humans and management controls present, but subtle. 

Means of access include motorized vehicles and mountain bicycles.

Semiprimitive nonmotorized. As defined in the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, managed to be 

largely free from evidence of humans and on-site controls. Motor vehicle use is not permitted (except as 

authorized). Facilities for the administration of livestock and for visitor use are allowed but limited. 

Means of access include hiking, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, nonmotorized boating, and horseback 

riding.

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 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 species. Species that require special management consideration to avoid potential future 

listing under the ESA and that have been identified in accordance with procedures set forth in the BLM’s 

6840 Manual. Those species designated by a BLM State Director, usually in cooperation with the state 

agency responsible for managing the species and state natural heritage programs, as sensitive. They are 

species that have the following characteristics:

• Could become endangered in or extirpated from a state or within a significant portion of its 

distribution

• Are under status review by the USFWS or NMFS

• Are undergoing significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that 

will reduce its existing distribution

• Are undergoing significant current or predicted downward trends in population or density 

such that federal listed, proposed, or candidate or state-listed status may become necessary
6. Glossary

6-34 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

• Typically have small and widely dispersed populations

• Inhabit ecological refugia or other specialized or unique habitats

• Are state listed but may be better conserved through application of BLM-sensitive species 

status (M6840, Special Status Species Manual)

Seral (state or stage). One of three successional states based on the current composition of the 

vegetation community. Includes early, mid and late seral states culminating in a climax community. 

Transition from one state to the next can be natural or induced. Induced transition is typically 

disturbance induced and can be progressive or regressive. Natural succession from one stage to the 

next is typically progressive, culminating in the climax community, a term that is often used 

synonymously with potential natural community and potential natural vegetation. It is the highest 

potential vegetative community that the site will support.

Setting character. See Recreation Setting Character.

Significant. An effect that is analyzed in the context of the proposed action to determine the degree 

or magnitude of importance of the effect, whether beneficial or adverse. The degree of significance can 

be related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. 

Significant Paleontological Resource (Significant Fossil Resource). Any paleontological 

resource that is considered to be of scientific interest, including most vertebrate fossil remains and 

certain rare or unusual invertebrate and plant fossils. A significant paleontological resource may be 

considered scientifically important because it is a rare or previously unknown species, it is of high quality 

and is well preserved, it preserves a previously unknown anatomical or other characteristic, or provides 

new information about the history of life on Earth. Paleontological resources that may be considered to 

not have paleontological significance are those that lack provenance or context, lack physical integrity 

because of decay or natural erosion, or that are overly redundant or are otherwise not useful for 

research.

Site. The combination of biotic, climatic, topographic, and soil conditions of an area. 

Site preparation. Hand or mechanized manipulation of a site, designed to enhance the success of 

regeneration. 

Socioeconomic study area. The geographic area used for estimating and analyzing economic and 

social impacts.

Solitude. Visitors may have outstanding opportunities for solitude, or primitive and unconfined types of 

recreation, when the sights, sounds, and evidence of other people are rare or infrequent, where visitors 

can be isolated, alone, or secluded from others, where the use of the area is through nonmotorized, 

nonmechanized means, and where no or minimal recreation facilities are encountered in an area of 

5,000 acres or greater (from IM-2003-275, Change 1, Considerations of Wilderness Characteristics in 

LUP, Attachment 1). 
6. Glossary

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 6-35

Special recreation management area (SRMA). An administrative unit where the existing or 

proposed recreation opportunities and setting are recognized for their unique value, importance, or 

distinctiveness; especially compared to other areas used for recreation.

Special recreation permit (SRP). An authorization that allow specified and often time-restricted 

recreation of the public lands and related waters. Permits are administered under the BLM Handbook H 

-2930 and policy is specifically provided for in the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (PL 108-

47). SRPs are used to manage visitor use, to protect natural and cultural resources, to achieve the goals 

and objectives of the BLM Field Office recreation program as outlined in a land use plan, and to 

authorize the following:

• Commercial use

• Competitive

• Vending

• Special area use

• Organized use

• Commercial filming permits in conjunction with an SRP 

Special status species. Collectively, federally listed or proposed and BLM sensitive species (BLM State 

Director designated sensitive species), which include both federal candidate species and delisted species 

within five years of delisting (BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species Management; H-1601-1, BLM 

Land Use Planning Handbook).

Split-estate. Surface land and mineral estate of a given area under different ownerships. Frequently, the 

surface will be privately owned and the minerals federally owned.

Sprague’s pipit habitat. Moderately suitable and optimal habitat classes from the NTNHP Maxent 

Inductive Model of Sprague’s pipit breeding habitat.

Standard. A description of the physical and biological conditions or degree of function required for 

healthy, sustainable lands (e.g., land health standards). To be expressed as a desired outcome (goal; H1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook).

Standards for rangeland health. Descriptions of the desired condition of the biological and physical 

components and characteristics of rangeland. The four standards deal with upland soils, riparian and 

wetland areas, desired species, and water quality.

State implementation plan. A detailed description of the programs a state uses to carry out its 

responsibilities under the Clean Air Act. 

State-listed species. Species listed by a state in a category implying but not limited to potential 

endangerment or extinction. Listing is either by legislation or regulation (M-6840, Special Status Species 

Manual).
6. Glossary

6-36 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

Stipulations. Requirements that are part of the terms of various types of leases. Some stipulations are 

standard on all federal leases; others may be applied to the lease at the discretion of the surface 

management agency to protect valuable surface resources and uses. 

Suitable river. A river segment found, through administrative study by an appropriate agency, to meet 

the criteria for designation as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers system, specified in 

Section 4(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

Suppression. Actions taken to extinguish or reduce the intensity or extent of wildland fires, including 

the construction of fuel breaks by manual or mechanical means, ground or aerial application of water or 

water/chemical mixtures, ignition of backfires, or burning out of fuels to increase the size of fuel breaks. 

Sustained slope. A slope, measured by the length of an incline, where short variances do not affect the 

overall grade. 

Surface-disturbing activities or surface disturbance. The physical disturbance or removal of land 

surface and vegetation. Some examples of surface-disturbing activities are construction of roads, well 

pads, pipelines, power lines, 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.

Surface occupancy. Placement or construction of the land surface (temporary or permanent) for 

more than 14 days, requiring continual service or maintenance. Casual use is excluded. 

Sustainability. Long-term management of ecosystems to meet the needs of present human 

populations without interruption, weakening, or loss of the resource base for future generations (EPA).

Sustained yield. The achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular 

periodic output of the various renewable resources of the public lands, consistent with multiple use. 

Take. For the purposes of the Endangered Species Act, to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, 

kill, trap, capture, or collect or to attempt to engage in any such conduct (Endangered Species Act of 

1973). 

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).

Temporary disruptive activities. Activities that involve human presence or activities to be in crucial 

habitats for less than one hour during a 24-hour period in a specific area (MT-IM-2010-017, 11-30-09, 

“Guidance of Greater Sage Grouse Management and Conservation in RMP’s in Management Zones 1 & 

2 within Montana/Dakotas BLM,” Attachment 3, Definitions).
6. Glossary

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 6-37

Territory. The USFS geographic area identified as having been used by a herd as its habitat in 1971 at 

the passage of the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act (PL 92-195) as amended.

Thinning. A treatment made to reduce stand density of trees, primarily to improve growth, enhance 

forest health, or recover potential mortality. 

Threatened species. Any species that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of its range (BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species 

Management).

Timeliness. The lack of time lag between impacts and the achievement of compensatory mitigation 

goals and objectives (BLM Manual Section 1794).

Timing limitation (seasonal restriction). Allows certain activities during specific periods to avoid 

the disturbance of plant or animal species during critical periods of the life cycle, including, mating, 

parturition, or periods of environmental stress caused by limited food supplies or extreme 

temperatures. 

Total maximum daily load (TMDL). An estimate of the total quantity of pollutants (from all 

sources. point, nonpoint, and natural) that may be allowed into waters without exceeding applicable 

water quality criteria.

Traditional cultural property. A property that derives significance from traditional values associated 

with it by a social or cultural group, such as an Indian tribe or local community. A traditional cultural 

property may qualify for listing on the National Register of Historic Places if it meets the criteria and 

criteria exceptions at 36 CFR, Part 60.4. See National Register Bulletin 38.

Trail. A linear route managed for human-powered, stock, or some off-highway forms of transportation 

or for historical or heritage values. Trails are not generally managed for use by four-wheel-drive or high 

clearance vehicles.

Transfer of grazing preference. The BLM’s approval of an application to transfer grazing preference 

from one party to another or from one base property to another or both. Grazing preference means a 

superior or priority position against others for the purposes of receiving a grazing permit or lease. This 

priority is attached to base property owned or controlled by the permittee or lessee.

Transportation linear feature. Represents the broadest category of physical disturbance (planned 

and unplanned) on BLM-administered land. Transportation-related linear features include engineered 

roads and trails, as well as user-defined, non-engineered roads and trails created as a result of the public 

use of BLM-administered land. Linear features may include roads and trails identified for closure or 

removal as well as those that make up the BLM’s defined transportation system.

Transportation system. The sum of the BLM’s recognized inventory of linear features (roads, 

primitive roads, and trails) formally recognized, designated, and approved as part of the BLM’s 

transportation system.
6. Glossary

6-38 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

Travel management areas. Polygons or delineated areas where a rational approach has been taken 

to classify areas as open, closed, or limited and have identified or designated a network of roads, trails, 

ways, and other routes that provide for public access and travel across the planning area. All designated 

travel routes within travel management areas should have a clearly identified need and purpose as well 

as clearly defined activity types, modes of travel, and seasons or time frames for allowable access or 

other limitations (MS-1626).

Definitions of terminology used on travel management area maps:

• Open to all vehicles (O)—Route is open to all uses without any stipulations or restrictions

• Open with additional management (MO)—Route is open to all uses with some forms of 

additional management, such as adaptive management monitoring or specific mitigations, 

monitoring, or maintenance

• Open with restrictions – seasonal (ML or L) – Pryors—Route is open to all uses with 

seasonal restrictions. There may be some forms of additional management such as adaptive 

management monitoring or specific mitigation, monitoring, or maintenance. 

• Open with restrictions – conditional (ML or L) – Shepherd—Route is open to all uses,

except during periods of high soil moisture/high erosion potential, during which time route 

will be closed to all motorized uses. There may be some forms of additional management,

such as adaptive management monitoring or specific mitigation, monitoring, or maintenance.

• Open to technical 4WD by permit only (Alt C) – (Open with Restrictions – Vehicle Type 

(ML or L)) – Horsethief. Open to modified 4-wheel-drive vehicles with special event permit 

only. There may be some forms of additional management, such as adaptive management 

monitoring or specific mitigation, monitoring, or maintenance.

• Open to motorcycles only (open with restrictions – vehicle type) ML or L—Route is open 

to motorcycles. There may be some forms of additional management, such as adaptive 

management monitoring or specific mitigation, monitoring, or maintenance.

• Open to vehicles 50 inches wide or less (open with restriction) vehicle type (ML or L)—

Route is open to vehicles 50 inches wide or less. There may be some forms of additional 

management, such as adaptive management monitoring or specific mitigation, monitoring, or 

maintenance.

• Administrative use only (L or ML)—Route limited to administrative or authorized use only. 

There may be some forms of additional management, such as adaptive management 

monitoring or specific mitigation, monitoring, or maintenance.

• Closed to all vehicles (C)—Route is closed to all uses, including nonmotorized uses, in that 

a trail or route will not be officially recognized or maintained.

• Nonmotorized use only—Route is limited to nonmotorized use only (closed to all 

motorized uses). There may be some forms of additional management, such as adaptive 

management monitoring or specific mitigation, monitoring, or maintenance.

Unallotted lands. Public lands available for grazing that currently have no livestock grazing authorized. 
6. Glossary

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 6-39

Undertaking. 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; those requiring a federal permit, license, or approval; and 

those subject to state or local regulation, administered in accordance with a delegation or approval by a 

federal agency.

Unsuitability criteria. Criteria of the federal coal management program by which lands may be 

assessed as unsuitable for all or certain stipulated methods of coal mining (43 CFR, Part 4300).

Urban. As defined in the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, urban recreation is managed to provide a 

setting that is largely modified. Large numbers of users can be expected, and vegetation cover is often 

exotic and manicured. Facilities for highly intensified motor vehicle use and parking are available, with 

mass transit often included to carry people throughout the site.

Utility. A service that a public utility provides (e.g., electricity, telephone, or water).

Utility corridor. A linear or areal parcel of land that has been identified by law, Secretarial order, the 

land-use planning process, or by other management decisions as being a preferred location for existing 

and future ROW grants and suitable to accommodate more than one type of ROW or one or more 

ROWs that are similar, identical, or compatible.

Valid existing rights. Documented legal rights or interests in the land that allow a person or entity to 

use said land for a specific purpose and that are still in effect. Such rights include fee title ownership, 

mineral rights, rights-of-way, easements, permits, and licenses. Such rights may have been reserved, 

acquired, leased, granted, permitted, or otherwise authorized over time.

Vegetation type. A plant community with distinguishable characteristics described by the dominant 

vegetation present. 

Visibility (air quality). A measure of the ability to see and identify objects at different distances.

Visitor use. Visitor use of a resource for inspiration, stimulation, solitude, relaxation, education, 

pleasure, or satisfaction.

Visual resource management. A system by which the BLM inventories and manages the scenic 

values and visual quality of public lands. The system is based on research that has produced ways of 

accessing aesthetic qualities of the landscape in objective terms. In RMPs, lands are assigned management 

classes, which determine the amount of modification allowed for the basic elements of the landscape. 

Visual resource mangement classes. A process to define the degree of acceptable visual change 

within a characteristic landscape. Visual Resources are inventoried using procedures established in the 

BLM Handbook H-8410-1 and are managed under the guidelines in BLM Handbook H-8431. A class is 

based on the physical and sociological characteristics of any given homogeneous area and serves as a 

management objective. Categories assigned to public lands are based on scenic quality, sensitivity level, 

and distance zones. Each class has an objective that prescribes the amount of change allowed in the 

characteristic landscape (from H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook). The four classes are 

described below:
6. Glossary

6-40 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

• 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.

Waiver. Permanent exemption from a lease stipulation. The stipulation no longer applies anywhere 

within the leasehold.

WAFWA Management Zone GRSG Conservation Team. 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.

Water quality. The chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of water with respect to its 

suitability for a particular use. 

Way. A vehicle route within a WSA that was in existence and inventoried during the FLPMA Section 

603-mandated wilderness inventory. Interim Management Policy for Lands under Wilderness Review (H8550-1) defines a way as “a track maintained solely by the passage of vehicles, which has not been 

improved and/or maintained by mechanical means to ensure relatively regular and continuous use.” The 

term is also used during wilderness inventories to identify routes that are not roads. It is developed 

from the definition of roadless, provided in the Wilderness Inventory Handbook (September 27, 1978), 

as follows. “...the absence of roads which have been improved and maintained by mechanical means to 

insure relatively regular and continuous use. A way maintained solely by the passage of vehicles does not 

constitute a road.” A trace maintained solely by the passage of vehicles that has not been improved or 

maintained by mechanical means to ensure relatively regular and continuous use (Interim Management 

Policy for lands under Wilderness review, IMP, H-8550-1). 

Wetlands. Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water often and long enough to 

support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for 

life in saturated soil conditions.
6. Glossary

September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 6-41

Wild and scenic river. Rivers identified in Section 5 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 for 

study as potential additions to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The rivers will be studied 

under the provisions of Section 4 of the act (from M-8351, BLM WSR Policy and Program).

Wilderness. A congressionally designated area of undeveloped federal land retaining its primeval 

character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, that is protected and 

managed to preserve its natural conditions and that (1) generally appears to have been affected mainly 

by the forces of nature, with human imprints substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least 5,000 acres 

or is large enough to make practical its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may 

also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historic value. 

The definition is contained in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 891; from H-6310-1, 

Wilderness Inventory and Study Procedures). These lands are included in the National Wilderness 

Preservation System. 

Wilderness characteristics. The size, appearance of naturalness, outstanding opportunities for 

solitude, or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. They may also include ecological, geological, 

or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value. A complete definition is contained 

in Section 2 (c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 (78 Stat 891).

Wildernerss study areas (WSAs). Areas designated as having wilderness characteristics, as 

described in Section 2 (c) of the Wilderness Act (78 Stat. 891), made through the inventory and study 

process authorized by Section 603 or Section 202 of FLPMA. Areas designated as WSAs must be 

managed as being under wilderness review until Congress either designates these lands as wilderness or 

releases them for other purposes. They are not managed as if they are already designated wilderness but 

as not to impair their suitability for potential designation by Congress. If the lands are released from 

wilderness review, they are managed under the general BLM management policies and applicable land 

use plans.

Wildfire. An unplanned ignition of a wildland fire (such as a fire caused by lightening, volcanoes, 

unauthorized and accidental human-caused fires) and escaped prescribed fires (2009 Guidance for 

Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy).

Wild horse range. An area of land designated from a herd management area to be managed 

principally, but not exclusively, for wild horse or burro herds.

Wild horses and burros. Unbranded and unclaimed horses and burros that use the public lands as all 

or part of their habitat or that have been removed from these lands by the BLM Authorized Officer but 

have not lost their status under Section 3 of the act (H-4750-2, BLM Wild Horse and Burro Adoption 

Handbook).

Wild lands. A designation resulting from a plan decision to protect lands with wilderness 

characteristics outside of the Wilderness Study Areas and wilderness areas. Wild land protection 

measures are developed in the course of plan development. The BLM is required under Section 201 of 

FLPMA to conduct and maintain a current inventory of natural resources. It conducts its wilderness 

characteristics inventory through the BLM Manual 6301 and incorporates the findings in the RMP 

through its Manual 6302. These manuals implement Secretarial Order 3310 and incorporate principles 
6. Glossary

6-42 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

from BLM guidance (for example, the Organic Act directives) and legal rules developed as part of BLM’s 

original wilderness inventories.

Wildland fire. Any non-structure fire that occurs in vegetation or natural fuels. Wildland fire includes 

prescribed fire and wildfire (2014 NWCG glossary).

Wildland urban interface. The line, area, or zone in which structures and other human development 

meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels. 

Wild river. Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible 

except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and unpolluted. These represent 

vestiges of primitive America.

Wild, scenic, or recreational. The term used for what is traditionally shortened to wild and scenic 

rivers. Designated river segments are classified as wild, scenic, or recreational but cannot overlap (from 

M-8351, BLM WSR Policy and Program).

Winter range. Range that is grazed by livestock or wildlife during the winter.

Withdrawal. An action that restricts the use of public lands by removing them from the operation of 

some or all of the public land laws (e.g., mineral rights).

Woodland. A community of trees that are often small, characteristically short boled relative to their 

crown depth, and forming only an open canopy with the intervening area being occupied by a lower 

vegetation type. 
September 2015 Billings Field Office Approved RMP 7-1

CHAPTER 7

REFERENCES

BLM. September 1984. Resource Management Plan, Final EIS, and Record of Decision. Billings Resource 

Area, Montana.

_____. GIS. 2015. BLM GIS data.

BLM, Forest Service, and NPS, 1972. Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range Biology and Alternatives for 

Management. Billings, Montana.

_____. 1974. Pryor Mountain Complex Land Use Decisions.

Chambers, Jeanne C., David A. Pyke, Jeremy D. Maestas, Mike Pellant, Chad S. Boyd, Steven B. 

Campbell, Shawn Espinosa, et al. 2014. Using resistance and resilience concepts to reduce 

impacts of invasive annual grasses and altered fire regimes on the sagebrush ecosystem and 

greater sage-grouse: A strategic multi-scale approach. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. US 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, For Collins, 

Colorado.

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

populations and their habitats.” Wildl. Soc. Bull. 28:967-985.

Connelly, J. W., S. T. Knick, M. A. Schroeder, and S. J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation Assessment of Greater 

Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush Habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

Unpublished report. Cheyenne, Wyoming.

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.

Doherty, K. E., J. L. Beck, and D. E. Naugle. 2011. “Comparing ecological site descriptions to habitat 

characteristics influencing greater sage-grouse nest site occurrence and success.” Rangeland 

Ecology and Management 64:344-351.
7. References

7-2 Billings Field Office Approved RMP September 2015

Doherty, K. E., D. E. Naugle, J. D. Tack, B. L. Walker, J. M. Graham, and J. L. Beck. 2014. “Greater sagegrouse nesting habitat: the importance of managing at multiple scales.” Journal of Wildlife 

Management 74:1544-1553.

Hagen, C. A., J. W. Connelly, and M. A. Schroeder. 2007. “A meta‐analysis for greater sage‐grouse 

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

Miles City Standards for Rangeland Health. 1997. Internet website: 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/mt/blm_programs/grazing.Par.83445.File.dat/MCSG.pdf.

Standards for Rangeland Health (43 CFR, Part 4180.2).

Montana Bald Eagle Working Group. 2010. Montana Bald Eagle Management Guidelines: An Addendum 

to Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan, 1994, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena.

Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinkes, D. E. Naugle, P. D. Makela, D. A. Nance, and J. W. Karl. 2014 (in press). SageGrouse Habitat Assessment Framework: A Multi-Scale Habitat Assessment Tool. Bureau of 

Land Management and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Technical Reference 

6710-1. US Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado.

US Department of the Interior, USFWS. 2011. A National Plan for Assisting States, Federal Agencies, 

and Tribes in Managing White-Nose Syndrome in Bats. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, 

Massachusetts. May 2011.

_____. 2013. Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report. 

Denver, Colorado. February 2013.
Appendices 

Appendix A 

Approved RMP Maps

Appendix A1 

Approved GRSG RMP Maps

















Appendix A2 

Approved RMP Maps












































This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix B: 

Greater Sage-Grouse: Applying Lek Buffers

Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix B B - 1 September 2015

Greater Sage-Grouse: Applying Lek Buffers

Buffer Distances and Evaluation of Impacts to Leks

The BLM will evaluate impacts to leks from actions requiring NEPA analysis. In addition to any other relevant

information determined to be appropriate (e.g., state wildlife agency plans), the BLM will assess and address impacts

from the following activities using the lek buffer-distances as identified in the USGS Report Conservation Buffer 

Distance Estimates for Greater Sage-Grouse – A Review (Open File Report 2014-1239). The BLM will apply the

lek buffer-distances specified as the lower end of the interpreted range in the report unless justifiable departures are

determined to be appropriate (see below). The lower end of the interpreted range of the lek buffer-distances is as 

follows: 

• linear features (roads) within 3.1 miles of leks 

• infrastructure related to energy development within 3.1 miles of leks.

• tall structures (e.g., communication or transmission towers, transmission lines) within 2 miles of leks. 

• low structures (e.g., fences, rangeland structures) within 1.2 miles of leks. 

• surface disturbance (continuing human activities that alter or remove the natural vegetation) within 3.1

miles of leks. 

• noise and related disruptive activities including those that do not result in habitat loss (e.g., motorized 

recreational events) at least 0.25 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 recognizes 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 General Habitat Management Area (GHMA) 

The BLM will apply the lek buffer-distances identified above as required conservation measures to fully address the

impacts to leks as identified in the NEPA analysis. 

• Impacts should first be avoided by locating the action outside of the applicable lek buffer-distance(s) 

identified above. Impacts should first be avoided by locating the action outside of the applicable lek bufferdistance(s) identified above. 

• The BLM may approve actions in GHMA that are within the applicable lek buffer distance identified above 

only if: 

o 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 Greater

Sage-Grouse and its habitat, including conservation of seasonal habitat outside of the analyzed 

buffer area; or 

o The BLM determines that impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat are minimized such that 

the project will cause minor or no new disturbance (ex. co-location with existing authorizations); 

and
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 B - 2 Appendix B

o 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

For Actions in Priority Habitat Management Area (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 Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat, including 

conservation of seasonal habitat outside of the analyzed buffer area. 

Range improvements which do not impact GRSF, 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: 

Greater Sage-Grouse Required Design Features 

Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

Appendix C C - 1 September 2015

Greater Sage-Grouse Required Design Features 

This appendix also 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, state-implemented conservation measure, or a plan-level protection is determined to 

provide equal or better protection for GRSG or its habitat;

• A specific RDF 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.

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.
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 C - 2 Appendix C 

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.

• 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. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

Appendix C C - 3 September 2015

• 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.

• 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 PH and design them to reduce noise that may be directed towards 

PH.

• Clean up refuse.

• Locate man camps outside of PH.

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. 

General Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Areas (GHMA)

• Make applicable BMPs mandatory as Conditions of Approval (COA) within GH. 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.
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 C - 4 Appendix C 

• 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.

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.
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

Appendix C C - 5 September 2015

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 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.

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. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 C - 6 Appendix C 

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

Introduction

The following measures would be applied as RDFs for all solid minerals. They would also apply to locatable 

minerals consistent with applicable law. The RDFs or BMPs would be applied as appropriate in PH and GH, 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.

• 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).
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

Appendix C C - 7 September 2015

• 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 PH.

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.
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 C - 8 Appendix C 

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix D: 

The Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework 

Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix D D - 1 September 2015 

The Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework 

Developed by the Interagency GRSG Disturbance and Monitoring Subteam May 30, 2014 

D.1 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 sage- grouse 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 multi-scale monitoring approach is necessary, as sage-grouse are a landscape species and conservation is scaledependent 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 sagegrouse and to respond at the appropriate scale. For descriptions of these habitat suitability indicators for each scale, 

see “Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework: Multi-scale Habitat Assessment Tool” (HAF; Stiver et al. 2015 

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). (Figure D-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 sage- grouse designated 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 D - 2 Appendix D 

Figure D-1: Map of Greater Sage-Grouse Range, Populations, Subpopulations, and Priority Areas for 

Conservation as of 2013. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix D D - 3 September 2015 

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.”

This monitoring framework is divided into two sections. The broad- and mid-scale methods, described in Section 

D.2, provide a consistent approach across the range of the species to monitor implementation decisions and actions, 

mid-scale habitat attributes (e.g., sagebrush availability and habitat degradation), and population changes to 

determine the effectiveness of the planning strategy and management decisions. (Table D-1, Indicators for 

monitoring implementation of the national planning strategy, RMP/LMP decisions, sage-grouse habitat, and sagegrouse populations at the broad and mid scales.) For sage-grouse habitat at the fine and site scales, described in 

Section D.3, 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 of BLM and USFS multiscale monitoring commitments, see Attachment A. 

Table D-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 Degradation Demographics

Broad Scale: From 

the range of sagegrouse to WAFWA 

Management Zones

BLM/USFS 

National Planning 

Strategy goal and 

objectives

Distribution and 

amount of 

sagebrush within 

the range

Distribution and 

amount of energy, 

mining and 

infrastructure 

facilities

WAFWA 

Management Zone 

population trend

Mid-scale: From 

WAFWA 

Management Zone 

to populations; 

PACs

RMP/LMP 

decisions

Mid-scale habitat 

indicators (HAF; 

Table 2 herein, 

e.g., percent of 

sagebrush per unit 

area) 

Distribution and 

amount of energy, 

mining, and 

infrastructure 

facilities (Table 2 

herein)

Individual 

population trend

D.2 Broad and Mid-Scales

First-order habitat selection, the broad scale, describes the physical or geographical range of a species. The firstorder 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).

D.2.1 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 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 D - 4 Appendix D 

and/or site-specific actions and authorizations, with their associated conditions of approval/stipulations for sagegrouse, 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 implementationlevel 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. 

D.2.2 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. (Table D-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 sagegrouse 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 (D.2.2.1 Sagebrush 

Availability (Measure 1)). Measure 2 (D.2.2.2 Habitat Degradation Monitoring (Measure 2)) and Measure 3 (D.2.2.3 

Energy and Mining Density (Measure 3)) 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. 

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. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix D D - 5 September 2015 

Table D-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.

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 salable 

developments) X X

Infrastructure (roads) X

Infrastructure (railroads) X

Infrastructure (power lines) X

Infrastructure (communication towers) X

Infrastructure (other vertical structures) X

Other developed rights of ways X

D.2.2.1 Sagebrush Availability (Measure 1) 

Sage-grouse populations have been found to be more resilient where a percentage of the landscape is maintained in 

sagebrush (Knick and Connelly 2011), which will be determined by sagebrush availability. Measure 1 has been 

divided into two sub measures 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 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 D - 6 Appendix D 

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 Euro-American 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 D-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.

D.2.2.1.1Establishing the Sagebrush Base Layer 

The current geographic extent of sagebrush vegetation within the rangewide distribution of sage- grouse 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 (D.2.4 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 localscale analyses (D.3 Fine and Site Scales). The fact that these products are not available everywhere limits their 

utility for monitoring at the broad and mid-scale, where consistency of data products is necessary across broader 

geographies. 

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): 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix D D - 7 September 2015 

 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 D-3, Datasets for establishing and monitoring changes in 

sagebrush availability. 

Table D-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
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 D - 8 Appendix D 

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. (Table D-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 Oak- Mixed 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 Oak- Mixed Montane 

Shrubland ecological system were named Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana Shrubland Alliance and Quercus 

gambelii Shrubland Alliance, respectively. 

Table D-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

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
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix D D - 9 September 2015 

Table D-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

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 ShrubSteppeArtemisia 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

Accuracy and Appropriate Use of LANDFIRE Datasets 

Because of concerns over the thematic accuracy of individual classes mapped by LANDFIRE, all ecological systems 

listed in Table D-4 will be merged into one value that represents the sagebrush base layer. 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. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 D - 10 Appendix D 

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 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 D-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 (D.2.2.1.2 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 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 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix D D - 11 September 2015 

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. (Table D-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. 

Table D-5: Ecological Systems with Conifers Most Likely to Encroach into Sagebrush Vegetation

EVT Ecological Systems Coniferous Species and Sagebrush Vegetation that 

the Ecological System has the Capability to Produce

Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Pinus edulis

Juniperus osteosperma

Artemisia tridentata

Artemisia arbuscula

Artemisia nova

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Artemisia bigelovii

Artemisia pygmaea

Columbia Plateau Western Juniper Woodland and 

Savanna

Juniperus occidentalis

Pinus ponderosa

Artemisia tridentata

Artemisia arbuscula

Artemisia rigida

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

East Cascades Oak-Ponderosa Pine Forest and 

Woodland

Pinus ponderosa

Pseudotsuga menziesii

Artemisia tridentata

Artemisia nova
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 D - 12 Appendix D 

Table D-5: Ecological Systems with Conifers Most Likely to Encroach into Sagebrush Vegetation

EVT Ecological Systems Coniferous Species and Sagebrush Vegetation that 

the Ecological System has the Capability to Produce

Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Pinus monophylla

Juniperus osteosperma

Artemisia arbuscula

Artemisia nova

Artemisia tridentata

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Northern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland 

and Savanna

Pinus ponderosa

Artemisia tridentata

Artemisia arbuscula

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine-Juniper 

Woodland

Juniperus osteosperma

Juniperus scopulorum

Artemisia nova

Artemisia tridentata

Rocky Mountain Poor-Site Lodgepole Pine Forest Pinus contorta

Pseudotsuga menziesii

Pinus ponderosa

Artemisia tridentata

Southern Rocky Mountain Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Pinus edulis

Juniperus monosperma

Artemisia bigelovii

Artemisia tridentata

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Artemisia tridentata ssp.vaseyana

Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland Pinus ponderosa

Pseudotsuga menziesii

Pinus edulis

Pinus contorta

Juniperus spp.

Artemisia nova

Artemisia tridentata

Artemisia arbuscula

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

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 D.2.2.1.2 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. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix D D - 13 September 2015 

D.2.2.1.2 Monitoring Sagebrush Availability 

Sagebrush Availability Updates 

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: 

Base 2010 Existing Sagebrush 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 1,000 acres, 

excluding unburned sagebrush islands within the perimeter] plus [restoration/monitoring data provided by 

the field] 

D.2.2.1.3 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 site- scale monitoring, the polygonal data will be used to add sagebrush 

pixels back into the broad- and mid-scale sagebrush base layer. 

Measure1b: 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 D-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. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 D - 14 Appendix D 

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 broad- and mid-scale analyses through the Grass/Shrub mapping effort. The 

Grass/Shrub mapping effort applies the Wyoming multi-scale 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. 

D.2.2.2 Habitat Degradation Monitoring (Measure 2) 

The measure of habitat degradation will be calculated by combining the footprints of threats identified in Table D-2. 

The footprint is defined as the direct area of influence of “active” energy and infrastructure; 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 D-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 mid- scale 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. 

D.2.2.2.1 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. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix D D - 15 September 2015 

Table D-6: Geospatial Data Sources for Habitat Degradation (Measure 2)

Geospatial data sources for habitat degradation (Measure 2)

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

FederalCommunications 

Commission 2.5ac (1.0ha) BLM WO300

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 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 D - 16 Appendix D 

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, 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 (Monitoring Sagebrush Restoration in 

D.2.2.1.2 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 towers) 

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 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 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix D D - 17 September 2015 

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 broadand mid-scale monitoring, may support a volume of traffic that can have deleterious effects on sage-grouse leks. It 

may be appropriate to consider the frequency and type of use of roads in a NEPA analysis for a proposed project. 

This fine- 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. Nonabandoned 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-ways 

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 described above. The newly purchased 

IHS data do contain pipeline information; however, this database does not currently distinguish between aboveground 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. 

D.2.2.2.2 Habitat Degradation Threat Combination and Calculation 

The threats targeted for measuring human activity (Table D-2) will be converted to direct area of influence polygons 

as described for each threat above. These threat polygon layers will be combined and features dissolved to create 

one overall polygon layer representing footprints of active human activity in the range of sage-grouse. Individual 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 D - 18 Appendix D 

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 sub measures to describe habitat degradation on the landscape. Percentages 

will be calculated as follows: 

1) 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). 

2) 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). 

3) 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)) 

D.2.2.3 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 D-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 D-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 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. 

Energy and Mining Density Datasets and Assumptions 

Energy (oil and gas wells and development facilities) 

(See Section D.2.2.2 Habitat Degradation Monitoring (Measure 2). 

Energy (coal mines) 

(See Section D.2.2.2 Habitat Degradation Monitoring (Measure 2)). 

Energy (wind energy facilities) 

(See Section D.2.2.2 Habitat Degradation Monitoring (Measure 2)). 

Energy (solar energy facilities) 

(See Section D.2.2.2 Habitat Degradation Monitoring (Measure 2)). 

Energy (geothermal energy facilities) 

(See Section D.2.2.2 Habitat Degradation Monitoring (Measure 2)). 

Mining (active developments; locatable, leasable, saleable) 

(See Section D.2.2.2 Habitat Degradation Monitoring (Measure 2). 

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. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix D D - 19 September 2015 

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 sections 

would be counted as one in each 640-acre section for a density per 640-acre- section 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. 

D.2.3 Population (Demographics) Monitoring 

State wildlife management agencies are responsible for monitoring sage-grouse populations within their respective 

states. WAFWA will coordinate this collection of annual population data by state agencies. These data will be made 

available to 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.2.4 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 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 D.3 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? 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 D - 20 Appendix D 

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 

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. 

D.2.4.1 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 (D.2.2.1 Sagebrush Availability (Measure 1)) 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 (D.2.2.1 Sagebrush Availability (Measure 1)) 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 D.2.2.1 Sagebrush Availability (Measure 1)); the results from the calculation of the landscape 

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. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix D D - 21 September 2015 

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 sagegrouse 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 mid- scale habitat suitability indicator measures, and the sagebrush availability information will be 

used to answer Question 1 of the National Planning Strategy Effectiveness Report. 

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 (D.2.2.2 Habitat 

Degradation Monitoring (Measure 2)) and Measure 3 (Section D.2.2.3 Energy and Mining Density (Measure 3)).

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 

D.2.3 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 D.2.2.1 Sagebrush Availability (Measure 1)). This measure is derived from the national datasets that 

remove sagebrush (Table D-1). 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 D.2.2.2 Habitat Degradation Monitoring (Measure 2)) and Measure 3 (Section D.2.2.3 Energy and Mining 

Density (Measure 3)). These measures are all derived from the national disturbance datasets that degrade habitat 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 D - 22 Appendix D 

(Table D-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 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. 2015. in press) or other approved WAFWA MZ–consistent guidance to measure and 

monitor sage- grouse 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 sage- grouse 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. 

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 D.2.3 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 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix D D - 23 September 2015 

and mid scales will provide a suite of characteristics for evaluating the effectiveness of the adaptive management 

strategy. 

D.3 Fine and Site Scales 

Fine-scale (third-order) habitat selected by sage-grouse is described as the physical and geographic area within home 

ranges 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 D.2.4 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 (D.4 Conclusion), 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 sitescale-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 sagegrouse 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: 

 “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. 2015 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 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 D - 24 Appendix D 

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 D.2.4 

Effectiveness Monitoring).

D.4 Conclusion 

This Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework was developed for all of the Final Environmental Impact 

Statements involved in 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. 

D.5 The Greater Sage-Grouse Disturbance and Monitoring Sub-Team Members 

Gordon Toevs (BLM -WO) 

Duane Dippon (BLM-WO) 

Frank Quamen (BLM-NOC) 

David Wood (BLM-NOC) 

Vicki Herren (BLM-NOC) 

Matt Bobo (BLM-NOC) 

Michael “Sherm” Karl (BLM-NOC) 

Emily Kachergis (BLM-NOC) 

Doug Havlina (BLM-NIFC) 

Mike Pellant (BLM-GBRI) 

John Carlson (BLM-MT) 

Jenny Morton (BLM -WY) 

Robin Sell (BLM-CO) 

Paul Makela (BLM-ID) 

Renee Chi (BLM-UT) 

Sandra Brewer (BLM-NV) 

Glenn Frederick (BLM-OR) 

Robert Skorkowsky (USFS) 

Dalinda Damm (USFS) 

Rob Mickelsen (USFS) 

Tim Love (USFS) 

Pam Bode (USFS) 

Lief Wiechman (USFWS) 

Lara Juliusson (USFWS) 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix D D - 25 September 2015 

D.6 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 Sage- Grouse 

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.

Hemstrom, M. A., M. J. Wisdom, M. M. Rowland, B. Wales, W. J. Hann, and R. A. Gravenmier. 2002. Sagebrushsteppe 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. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 D - 26 Appendix D 

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. OylerMcCance, 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. 

NatureServe. 2011. International ecological classification standard: Terrestrial Ecological classifications. 

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. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix D D - 27 September 2015 

Stiver, S.J., E.T. Rinkes, D.E. Naugle, P.D. Makela, D.A. Nance, and J.W. Karl. 2015. 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. AIM- monitoring: 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. 

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/. 

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. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 D - 28 Appendix D 

Attachment A: AN OVERVIEW OF MONITORING COMMITMENTS 

Broad and Mid-scales

Fine & Site 

Implementation Vegetation Disturbance Population Effectiveness Scales

How will the 

data be used?

Track and document 

implementation of 

land use plan 

decisions and 

inform adaptive 

management

Track changes in 

land cover 

(sagebrush) and 

inform adaptive 

management

Track changes in 

disturbance 

(threats) to sagegrouse habitat 

and inform 

adaptive 

management

Track trends in 

sage-grouse 

populations 

(and/or leks; as 

determined by 

state wildlife 

agencies) and 

inform adaptive 

management

Characterize the 

relationship 

among 

disturbance, 

implementation 

actions, and 

sagebrush metrics 

and inform 

adaptive 

management

Measure 

seasonal habitat, 

connectivity at 

the fine scale, 

calculate 

disturbance, and 

inform adaptive 

management

Who is 

collecting the 

data?

BLM FO and USFS 

Forest 

NOC and NIFC National data 

sets (NOC), 

BLM FOs and 

USFS Forests as 

applicable

State wildlife 

agencies through 

WAFWA

Comes from 

other broad- and 

mid-scale 

monitoring types, 

analyzed by the 

NOC

BLM FO and 

SO, USFS 

Forests and RO 

(with partners) 

How often are 

the data 

collected, 

reported, and 

made available 

to USFWS?

Collected and 

reported annually; 

summary report 

every 5 years

Updated and 

changes reported 

annually; 

summary report 

every 5 years

Collected and 

changes reported 

annually; 

summary report 

every 5 years

State data 

reported annually 

per WAFWA 

MOU; summary 

report every 5 

years

Collected and 

reported every 5 

years (coincident 

with LUP 

evaluations)

Collection and 

trend analysis 

ongoing, 

reported every 5 

years or as 

needed to inform 

adaptive 

management

What is the 

spatial scale?

Summarized by 

LUP with flexibility 

for reporting by 

other units

Summarized by 

PACs (size 

dependent) with 

flexibility for 

reporting by 

other units

Summarized by 

PACs (size 

dependent) with 

flexibility for 

reporting by 

other units

Summarized by 

PACs (size 

dependent) with 

flexibility for 

reporting by 

other units

Summarized by 

MZ and LUP 

with flexibility 

for reporting by 

other units (e.g., 

PAC)

Variable (e.g., 

projects and 

seasonal 

habitats)

What are the 

potential 

personnel and 

budget 

impacts?

Additional capacity 

or re-prioritization 

of ongoing 

monitoring work 

and budget 

realignment

At a minimum, 

current skills and 

capacity must be 

maintained; data 

management 

costs are TBD

At a minimum, 

current skills and 

capacity must be 

maintained; data 

management and 

data layer 

purchase cost are 

TBD 

No additional 

personnel or 

budget impacts 

for BLM or 

USFS

Additional 

capacity or reprioritization of 

ongoing 

monitoring work 

and budget 

realignment

Additional 

capacity or reprioritization of 

ongoing 

monitoring work 

and budget 

realignment

Who has 

primary and 

secondary 

responsibilities 

for reporting?

1) BLM FO & 

SO; USFS 

Forest & RO

2) BLM & FS 

Planning

1) NOC

2) WO

1) NOC

2) BLM SO, 

USFS RO & 

appropriate 

programs

1) WAFWA & 

state 

wildlife 

agencies

2) BLM SO, 

USFS RO, 

NOC

1) Broad and 

mid-scale at 

the NOC, 

LUP at 

BLM SO, 

USFS RO

1) BLM FO & 

USFS 

Forests

2) BLM SO & 

FS RO

What new 

processes/ tools 

will be needed?

National 

implementation data 

sets and analysis 

tools 

Updates to 

national land 

cover data 

Data standards 

and roll-up 

methods for 

these data

Standards in 

population 

monitoring 

(WAFWA)

Reporting 

methodologies

Data standards 

data storage; and 

reporting

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) 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix D D - 29 September 2015 

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%

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).
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 D - 30 Appendix D 

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 
 

Appendix E: 

Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Disturbance Caps 

Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix E E - 1 September 2015 

Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) 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 

Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMA) in any given Biologically Significant Unit (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 GRSG PHMAs in any 

given BSU until the disturbance has been reduced to less than the cap. 

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

disturbance and habitat loss associated with conversion to agricultural tillage or fire exceed 5% within a 

proposed project analysis area in a Priority Habitat Management Areas, then no further anthropogenic 

disturbance will be permitted by BLM until disturbance in the proposed project analysis area has been 

reduced to maintain the area under the cap (subject to applicable laws and regulations, such as the 1872 

hard rock Mining Law, valid existing rights, etc.). If the BLM determines that the State of Montana’s GRSG 

Habitat Conservation Program contains comparable components to those found in the State of Wyoming’s 

Density and Disturbance model (an all lands approach for calculating anthropogenic disturbances, a clear 

methodology for measuring the density of operations, and a fully operational Density Disturbance 

Calculation Tool), the 3% disturbance cap will be converted to a 5% 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 E-1) will be used 

at a minimum to calculate the amount of disturbance and to determine if the disturbance cap has been exceeded as 

the land use plans (LUP) are being implemented. Locally collected disturbance data will be used to determine if the 

disturbance cap has been exceeded for project authorizations, and may also be used to calculate the amount of 

disturbance in the 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. 

Formulas for calculations of the amount of disturbance in the PHMA in a BSU and or in a proposed project area are 

as follows: 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 E - 2 Appendix E 

 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. 

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 E-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 E-1, the 7 additional features that 

are considered threats to sage-grouse (Table E-2), and areas of sagebrush loss. Using 1 meter 

resolution NAIP imagery is recommended. Use existing local data if available. 

 Calculate percent existing disturbance using the formula above. If existing disturbance is less than 3% 

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. 

 

1

 See Table E-1. 

2

 See Table E-2. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix E E - 3 September 2015 

 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. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 E - 4 Appendix E 

Table E-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
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix E E - 5 September 2015 

Table E-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.
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 E - 6 Appendix E 

Table E-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: 

Greater Sage-Grouse - Mitigation and Mitigation 

Measures 

Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix F F - 1 September 2015

F. Greater Sage-Grouse - Mitigation and Mitigation Measures

MITIGATION 

General

In undertaking BLM/USFS 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/USFS 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/USFS 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/USFS, 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/USFS 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/USFS, 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/USFS 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/USFS 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

o 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,

o Include any potential, additional avoidance actions (e.g. additional avoidance best management 

practices) with regard to greater sage-grouse conservation. 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 F - 2 Appendix F 

• Minimization

o 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,

o Include any potential, additional minimization actions (e.g. additional minimization best management 

practices) with regard to greater sage-grouse conservation.

• Compensation

o Include discussion of impact/project valuation, compensatory mitigation options, siting, compensatory 

project types and costs, monitoring, reporting, and program administration. Each of these topics is 

discussed in more detail below.

 Residual Impact and Compensatory Mitigation Project Valuation Guidance

o A common standardized method should be identified for estimating the value of the 

residual impacts and value of the compensatory mitigation projects, including 

accounting for any uncertainty associated with the effectiveness of the projects. 

o This method should consider the quality of habitat, scarcity of the habitat, and the 

size of the impact/project.

o For compensatory mitigation projects, consideration of durability (see glossary), 

timeliness (see glossary), and the potential for failure (e.g. uncertainty associated 

with effectiveness) may require an upward adjustment of the valuation.

o The resultant compensatory mitigation project will, after application of the above 

guidance, result in proactive conservation measures for Greater Sage-grouse 

(consistent with BLM Manual 6840 – Special Status Species Management, section 

.02).

 Compensatory Mitigation Options

o Options for implementing compensatory mitigation should be identified, such as:

 Utilizing certified mitigation/conservation bank or credit exchanges.

 Contributing to an existing mitigation/conservation fund.

 Authorized-user conducted mitigation projects.

o For any compensatory mitigation project, the investment must be additional (i.e. 

additionality: the conservation benefits of compensatory mitigation are demonstrably 

new and would not have resulted without the compensatory mitigation project).

 Compensatory Mitigation Siting

o Sites should be in areas that have the potential to yield a net conservation gain to the 

greater sage-grouse, regardless of land ownership.

o Sites should be durable (see glossary).

o Sites identified by existing plans and strategies (e.g. fire restoration plans, invasive 

species strategies, healthy land focal areas) should be considered, if those sites have 

the potential to yield a net conservation gain to greater sage-grouse and are durable. 

 Compensatory Mitigation Project Types and Costs

o Project types should be identified that help reduce threats to greater sage-grouse (e.g. 

protection, conservation, and restoration projects).

o Each project type should have a goal and measurable objectives.

o Each project type should have associated monitoring and maintenance requirements, 

for the duration of the impact.

o To inform contributions to a mitigation/conservation fund, expected costs for these 

project types (and their monitoring and maintenance), within the WAFWA 

Management Zone, should be identified.

 Compensatory Mitigation Compliance and Monitoring

o Mitigation projects should be inspected to ensure they are implemented as designed, 

and if not, there should be methods to enforce compliance.

o Mitigation projects should be monitored to ensure that the goals and objectives are 

met and that the benefits are effective for the duration of the impact.

 Compensatory Mitigation Reporting

o Standardized, transparent, scalable, and scientifically-defensible reporting 

requirements should be identified for mitigation projects.
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix F F - 3 September 2015

o 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

o Guidelines for implementing the State-level compensatory mitigation program 

should include holding and applying compensatory mitigation funds, operating a 

transparent and credible accounting system, certifying mitigation credits, and 

managing reporting requirements.

Incorporating the Regional Mitigation Strategy into NEPA Analyses

The BLM/USFS will include the avoidance, minimization, and compensatory recommendations from the Regional 

Mitigation Strategy in one or more of the NEPA analysis’ alternatives for BLM/USFS 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/USFS need to ensure that compensatory mitigation is strategically implemented to provide a net 

conservation gain to the species, as identified in the Regional Mitigation Strategy. In order to align with existing 

compensatory mitigation efforts, this compensatory mitigation program will be managed at a State-level (as opposed 

to a WAFWA Management Zone, a Field Office, or a Forest), in collaboration with our partners (e.g. Federal, 

Tribal, and State agencies). 

To ensure transparent and effective management of the compensatory mitigation funds, the BLM/USFS 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/USFS will remain responsible 

for making decisions that affect Federal lands.

MITIGATION MEASURES

Introduction

The following Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions are a compilation of Best Management Practices 

(BMPs), Required Design Features (RDFs), 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. 

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 powerline 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).
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 F - 4 Appendix F 

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 consider those 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 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.

GENERAL MITIGATION MEASURES and CONSERVATION ACTION 

RESOURCES

Best Management Practices

Air Resource BMPs 

Developed by: Bureau of Land Management 

Publication reference: BLM/WO Updated May 9, 2011 

Available from: Online 

at: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/best_management_practices/technical_information.html 

Description: Identifies a range of typical Best Management Practices for protecting air resources during oil and gas 

development and production operations. 

Erosion and Sediment Control Practices: Field Manual 

Developed by: Prepared for the Montana Department of Transportation 

Publication reference: FHWA/MT-030003/8165 

Available from: National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 21161 

Description: The Erosion and Sediment Control Best Management Practices Construction Field Manual was 

developed to assist in design, construction, and post-construction phases of MDT projects. This manual provides 

background to concepts of Erosion and Sediment Control. Most of MDTs Best Management Practices are listed 

within the manual based on application categories. Each BMP is described; its applications and limitations are listed, 

as well as its design criteria. Construction phase and post-construction phase BMPs are described. This manual is a 

field guide and condensed version of the Erosion and Sediment Control Design Construction Best Management 

Practices Manual. For more detailed discussion on topic found within, refer to the Erosion and Sediment Control 

Construction Best Management Practices Manual.
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix F F - 5 September 2015

Erosion and Sediment Control Practices: Reference Manual 

Developed by: Prepared for the Montana Department of Transportation 

Publication reference: FHWA/MT-030003/8165 

Available from: National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 21161 

Description: The Erosion and Sediment Control Construction Best Management Practices Manual was developed to 

assist in the design, construction, and post-construction phases of Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) 

projects. This manual provides background to State and Federal regulations associated with erosion and sediment 

control practices including a general overview of the erosion and sediment processes. Best management practices 

are listed within the manual based on application categories. Each BMP is described; its applications and limitations 

are listed, as well as its design criteria. The design phase includes development of construction plans, notice of intent 

(NOI), and stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). Construction phase includes the finalization of the 

SWPPP, NOI, and the implementation of BMPs. Post-construction phase includes monitoring, maintenance, and 

removal activities. 

Fluid Minerals BMPs 

Developed by: Bureau of Land Management 

Publication reference: BLM/WO/ST-06/021+3071 

Available from: 

Online at: http://www.blm.gov/bmp/ 

Online at: http://www.mt.blm.gov/oilgas/operations/goldbook/goldbook1.html 

Online at: http://www.mt.blm.gov/oilgas/operations/goldbook/Stand_Enviro_Color.pdf 

Online at: http://www.mt.blm.gov/oilgas/operations/color.pdf 

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 publication reference is to the “Gold Book” 

which is formally titled “Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development.” In addition, the first internet citation is to a location maintained by the Washington Office of the 

BLM containing general and technical information on the use and application of BMPs. The second location refers 

the reader directly to an online version of the “Gold Book.” The third and fourth locations refer the reader to color 

charts for use in selecting paint colors for oil and gas facilities. 

Montana Guide to the Streamside Management Zone Law 

Developed by: Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation Service Forestry Bureau, in cooperation 

with Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Montana Logging Association, Montana Wood Products 

Association, Plum Creek Timber LP, USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management 

Publication reference: Revised August 2002 

Available from: Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, 2705 Spurgin Road, Missoula MT 

59801-3199, (406)542-4300, or local MT DNRC field office. 

Description: The Montana Guide to the Streamside Management Zone Law is a field guide to compliance with State 

of Montana Law 77-5-301[1] MCA.) Complementary BMPs are found in the Water Quality BMPS for Montana 

Forests (also referenced in this appendix). Provides definitions, stream classifications, and guidelines on the seven 

forest practices prohibited by Montana law in SMZs (broadcast burning, operation of wheeled or tracked vehicles 

except on established roads, the forest practice of clearcutting, the construction of roads except when necessary to 

cross a stream or wetland; the handling, storage, application, or disposal of hazardous or toxic materials in a manner 

that pollutes streams, lakes, or wetlands, or that may cause damage or injury to humans, land, animals, or plants; the 

side casting of road material into a stream, lake, wetland, or watercourse; and the deposit of slash in streams, lakes, 

or other water bodies. 

Montana Non-Point Source Management Plan 

Developed by: Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Planning Bureau, Watershed 

Protection Section 

Publication reference: 2007 

Available from: Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Planning Bureau, Watershed 

Protection Section, P.O. Box 200901, Helena, MT 59620-0901. 

Online at: http://www.deq.state.mt.us/wqinfo/nonpoint/2007NONPOINTPLAN/Final/NPSPlan.pdf 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 F - 6 Appendix F 

Description: This document describes the Montana Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) updated strategy 

for controlling nonpoint source (NPS) water pollution, which is the state’s single largest source of water quality 

impairment. NPS pollution is contaminated runoff from the land surface that can be generated by most land use 

activities, including agriculture, forestry, urban and suburban development, mining, and others. Common NPS 

pollutants include sediment, nutrients, temperature, heavy metals, pesticides, pathogens, and salt. The purpose of the 

Montana NPS Pollution Management Plan (Plan) is: 1) to inform the state’s citizens about NPS pollution problems; 

and 2) to establish goals, objectives, and both long-term and short-term strategies for controlling NPS pollution on a 

statewide basis. The goal of Montana’s NPS Management Program is to protect and restore water quality from the 

impacts of non-point sources of pollution in order to provide a clean and healthy environment. 

Montana Placer Mining BMPs 

Developed by: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology 

Publication reference: Special Publication 106, October 1993 

Available from: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Main Hall, Montana College of Mineral Science and 

Technology, Butte MT 59701 

Description: Provides guidelines for planning, erosion control, and reclamation in arid to semi-arid, alpine, and 

subalpine environments, to prevent or decrease environmental damage and degradation of water quality. 

Water Quality BMPs for Montana Forests 

Developed by: Montana State University Extension Service 

Publication reference: Logan, R. 2001. Water Quality BMPs – Best Management Practices for Montana Forests. 

EB158, MSU Extension Forestry, Missoula, MT. 58 pp. 

Available from: MSU Extension Forestry, 32 Campus Dr., Missoula MT 59812, OR MSU Extension Publications, 

PO Box 172040 Bozeman MT 59717 

Description: Discusses methods for managing forest land while protecting water quality and forest soils. Intended 

for all forest land in Montana, including non-industrial private, forest industry, and state or federally-owned forests. 

These are preferred (but voluntary) methods that go beyond Montana State Law (Streamside Management Zones). 

Includes definitions, basic biological information, and BMPs for Streamside Management Zones; road design, use, 

planning and locating, construction, drainage, and closure; stream crossings, soil, timber harvesting methods, 

reforestation, winter planning, and clean-up. 

Wind Energy BMPs 

Developed by: Bureau of Land Management 

Publication reference: Wind Energy Development Programmatic EIS 

Available from: FEIS Chapter 2 (section 2.2.3.2) at http://windeis.anl.gov/ 

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. 

Communication Tower BMPs

Developed by: United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Publication reference: Service Guidance on the Siting, Construction, Operation and Decommissioning of 

Communications Towers

Available from: http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/com_tow_guidelines.pdf 

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.

• Any company/applicant/licensee proposing to construct a new communications tower should be strongly 

encouraged to collocate the communications equipment on an existing communication tower or other 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix F F - 7 September 2015

structure (e.g., billboard, water tower, or building mount). Depending on tower load factors, from 6 to 10 

providers may collocate on an existing tower.

• If collocation is not feasible and a new tower or towers are to be constructed, communications service 

providers should be strongly encouraged to construct towers no more than 199 feet above ground level, 

using construction techniques which do not require guy wires (e.g., use a lattice structure, monopole, etc.). 

Such towers should be unlighted if Federal Aviation Administration regulations permit.

• If constructing multiple towers, providers should consider the cumulative impacts of all of those towers to 

migratory birds and threatened and endangered species as well as the impacts of each individual tower.

• If at all possible, new towers should be sited within existing "antenna farms" (clusters of towers). Towers 

should not be sited in or near wetlands, other known bird concentration areas (e.g., State or Federal refuges, 

staging areas, rookeries), in known migratory or daily movement flyways, or in habitat ofthreatened or 

endangered species. Towers should not be sited in areas with a high incidence of fog, mist, and low 

ceilings.

• If taller (>199 feet AGL) towers requiring lights for aviation safety must be constructed, the minimum 

amount of pilot warning and obstruction avoidance lighting required by the FAA should be used. Unless 

otherwise required by the FAA, only white (preferable) or red strobe lights should be used at night, and 

these should be the minimum number, minimum intensity, and minimum number of flashes per minute 

(longest duration between flashes) allowable by the FAA. The use of solid red or pulsating red warning 

lights at night should be avoided. Current research indicates that solid or pulsating (beacon) red lights 

attract night-migrating birds at a much higher rate than white strobe lights. Red strobe lights have not yet 

been studied.

• Tower designs using guy wires for support which are proposed to be located in known raptor or waterbird 

concentration areas or daily movement routes, or in major diurnal migratory bird movement routes or 

stopover sites, should have daytime visual markers on the wires to prevent collisions by these diurnally 

moving species. (For guidance on markers, see Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 1994. 

Mitigating Bird Collisions with Power Lines: The State ofthe Art in 1994. Edison Electric Institute, 

Washington, D.c., 78 pp, and Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 1996. Suggested 

Practices/or Raptor Protection on Power Lines. Edison Electric Institute Raptor Research Foundation, 

Washington, D. C; 128 pp. Copies can be obtained via the Internet at 

http://www.eei.org/resources/pubcat/enviro/. or by calling 1-800/334-5453).

• Towers and appendant facilities should be sited, designed and constructed so as to avoid or minimize 

habitat loss within and adjacent to the tower "footprint." However, a larger tower footprint is preferable to 

the use of guy wires in construction. Road access and fencing should be minimized to reduce or prevent 

habitat fragmentation and disturbance, and to reduce above ground obstacles to birds in flight.

• If significant numbers of breeding, feeding, or roosting birds are known to habitually use the proposed 

tower construction area, relocation to an alternate site should be recommended. If this is not an option, 

seasonal restrictions on construction may be advisable in order to avoid disturbance during periods of high 

bird activity.

• In order to reduce the number of towers needed in the future, providers should be encouraged to design new 

towers structurally and electrically to accommodate the applicant/licensee's antennas and comparable 

antennas for at least two additional users (minimum of three users for each tower structure), unless this 

design would require the addition of lights or guy wires to an otherwise unlighted and/or unguyed tower.

• Security lighting for on-ground facilities and equipment should be down-shielded to keep light within the 

boundaries of the site.

• If a tower is constructed or proposed for construction, Service personnel or researchers from the 

Communication Tower Working Group should be allowed access to the site to evaluate bird use, conduct 

dead-bird searches, to place net catchments below the towers but above the ground, and to place radar, 

Global Positioning System, infrared, thermal imagery, and acoustical monitoring equipment as necessary to 

assess and verify bird movements and to gain information on the impacts of various tower sizes, 

configurations, and lighting systems.

• Towers no longer in use or determined to be obsolete should be removed within 12 months of cessation of 

use.
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 F - 8 Appendix F 

GRAZING MANAGEMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (Guidelines)

Guidelines for grazing management are the types of grazing management methods and practices determined to be 

appropriate to ensure that rangeland health standards can be met or significant progress can be made toward meeting 

the standards. Guidelines are best management practices (BMP), treatments, and techniques and implementation of 

range improvements that will help achieve rangeland health standards. Guidelines are flexible and are applied on site 

specific situations. Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for the 

Billings Field Office can be found 

at: http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/mt/blm_programs/grazing.Par.83445.File.dat/MCSG.pdf 

BLM BMPs

The website below provides an introduction to BLM BMPs with links to BLM contacts, General BMP Information, 

BMP Frequently Asked Questions, BMP Technical Information, Oil and Gas Exploration—The Gold Book, 

Specific Resource BMPs, and, other BLM links. 

• http://www.blm.gov/bmp/

Visual Resources

The website below provides numerous design techniques that can be used to reduce the visual impacts from surfacedisturbing projects. The techniques described here should be used in conjunction with BLM’s visual resource 

contrast rating process wherein both the existing landscape and the proposed development or activity are analyzed 

for their basic element of form, line, color, and texture. 

• http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/content/wo/en/prog/Recreation/recreation_national/RMS.html

Renewable Energy Development 

The following resources provide information on BMPs related to renewable energy development.

• Wind Energy Development Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement: http://windeis.anl.gov/documents/fpeis/index.cfm 

• BLM Instruction Memorandum 2009-043, Rights-of-Way, Wind 

Energy: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/national_instruct

ion/2009/IM_2009-043.htm 

• Solar Energy Development Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement:

http://www.solareis.anl.gov/

Healthy Watersheds

The website below provides conservation approaches and tools designed to ensure healthy watersheds remain intact. 

It also provides site-specific examples. 

• http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/

Storm Water BMPs

The website below provides BMPs designed to meet the minimum requirements for six control measures specified 

by the EPA’s Phase II Stormwater Program. 

• http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm

Pasture, Rangeland, and Grazing Operations BMPs

The website below provides BMPs compiled by the EPA to prevent or reduce impacts associated with livestock 

grazing. 

http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/anprgbmp.html 

National Range and Pasture Handbook 

The website below provides procedures in support of NRCS policy for the inventory, analysis, treatment, and 

management of grazing land resources.

• http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix F F - 9 September 2015

Montana Nonpoint Source Management Program 

The website below provides links to information on funding for implementing nonpoint source controls, examples of 

control projects, and Montana’s current Nonpoint Source Management Plan. This plan identifies and provides 

details for BMPs to improve and maintain water quality.

• http://www.deq.mt.gov/wqinfo/nonpoint/nonpointsourceprogram.mcpx

The following would be applied, if warranted, to any BLM authorized activity:

• The total disturbance area would be minimized and to the extent possible. 

• Surface disturbances would be co-located in areas of previous or existing disturbance to the extent 

technically feasible. 

• Linear facilities would be located in the same trenches (or immediately parallel to) and when possible, 

installed during the same period of time.

• Plans of development would be required for major ROWs, renewable energy and minerals development. 

Such plans would identify measures for reducing impacts.

• Where the federal government owns the surface and the mineral estate is in nonfederal ownership, the BLM 

would apply appropriate fluid mineral BMPs to surface development.

• Remove facilities and infrastructure when use is completed.

• Vegetation would be removed only when necessary. Mowing would be preferred. If mowed, when possible 

work would be performed when vegetation is dormant.

• Two-track (primitive) roads would be used when possible.

• Utilization of the Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development (i.e., The Gold Book) shall be utilized for the design of roads, utilities, and oil and gas 

operations.

• Directional drilling, drilling multiple wells from the same pad, co-mingling, recompletion, or the use of 

existing well pads would be employed to the extent technically feasible to minimize surface impacts from 

oil and gas development.

• Utilities would be ripped or wheel-trenched whenever practical.

• Remote telemetry would be used to reduce vehicle traffic to the extent technically feasible (e.g., monitoring 

oil and gas operations). 

• Perennial streams would be crossed using bore crossing (directional drill) or other environmentally sound 

method.

• For activities resulting in major surface-disturbance as determined by the AO, a mitigation monitoring and 

reporting strategy would be developed and implemented (see the Reclamation Appendix for further 

guidance). 

• Operations would avoid sensitive resources including riparian areas, wetlands, floodplains, waterbodies and 

areas subject to erosion and soil degradation. 

• The BLM would, on a case-by-case basis, use temporary or permanent enclosures (e.g., in woody draw or 

riparian areas) to promote species diversity, recruitment, and structure.

• Accelerated erosion, soil loss, and impacts to water quality would be reduced by diverting stormwater and 

trapping sediment during activity. 

• Pitless or aboveground closed-loop drilling technology would be used to the extent technically feasible. 

Recycle drilling mud and completion fluids for use in future drilling activities. 

• Where needed, pits would be lined with an impermeable liner. Pits would not be placed in fill material or 

natural watercourses, and pits may not be cut or trenched. 

• Fertilizer would not be applied within 500 feet of wetlands and waterbodies. 

• Vehicle and equipment servicing and refueling activities would take place 500 feet from the outer edge of 

riparian areas, wet areas, and drainages. 

• Activity may be restricted during wet or frozen conditions. Mechanized equipment use would be avoided if 

the equipment causes rutting to a depth of 4 inches or greater.

• Vehicle wash stations would be used prior to entering or leaving disturbance to reduce the transport and 

establishment of invasive species.

• Invasive species plant parts would not be transported off site without appropriate disposal measures.

• Use alternative energy (solar or wind power) to power new water source developments.
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 F - 10 Appendix F 

• Overhead power lines, where authorized would follow the recommendations in the most recent guidance 

from the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (1994, as amended 2006, 2012).

• Weed management prescriptions would be included in all new treatment projects and incorporated into 

existing contracts, agreements, task forces, designated weed-free management areas, and land use 

authorizations that resulted in ground-disturbing activities. 

• Whenever possible, ROWs would be constructed within or next to compatible ROW’s, such as roads, 

pipelines, communications sites, and railroads. 

• The operator shall be responsible for locating and protecting existing pipelines, power lines, 

communication lines, and other related infrastructure. 

• Potential changes in climate would be considered when proposing restoration seedings when using native 

plants. Collection from the warmer component of the species current range would be considered when 

selecting native species.
Appendix G: 

Adaptive Management Strategy for 

GRSG Habitat Management

Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix G G - 1 September 2015 

Adaptive Management Strategy for GRSG Habitat 

Management 

Adaptive management is a decision process that promotes flexible resource management decision making that can 

be adjusted in the face of uncertainties as outcomes from management actions and other events become better 

understood. Careful monitoring of these outcomes both advances scientific understanding and helps with 

adjusting resource management directions as part of an iterative learning process. Adaptive management also 

recognizes the importance of natural variability in contributing to ecological resilience and productivity. It is not 

a ‘trial and error’ process, but rather emphasizes learning while doing. Adaptive management does not represent 

an end in itself, but rather a means to more effective decisions and enhanced benefits. 

In relation to the BLM National Greater Sage-grouse Planning Strategy, adaptive management will help identify 

if sage grouse conservation measures contain the needed level of certainty for effectiveness. Principles of 

adaptive management are incorporated into the conservation measures in the plan to ameliorate threats to a 

species, thereby increasing the likelihood that the conservation measure and plan will be effective in re ducing 

threats to that species. The following provides the BLM’s adaptive management strategy.

This ROD/ARMP contains a monitoring framework plan (Appendix D, GRSG Monitoring Framework) that 

includes an effectiveness monitoring component. The BLM intends to use the data collected from the 

effectiveness monitoring to identify any changes in habitat condition related to the goals and objectives of the 

plan and other range-wide conservation strategies (US Department of the Interior 2004; Striver et al. 2006; US 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). The information collected through the Monitoring Framework Plan outlined in 

the GRSG Monitoring Framework Appendix will be used by the BLM to determine when adaptive management 

hard and soft triggers (discussed below) are met. The GRSG adaptive management plan provides regulatory 

assurance that the means of addressing and responding to unintended negative impacts to greater sage-grouse 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 GRSG 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 action. 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 DDCT evaluations. BLM field offices, local Montana 

Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) offices, and GRSG working groups will evaluate the metrics. The purpose of these 

strategies is to address localized GRSG population and habitat changes by providing the framework in which

management will change if monitoring identifies negative population and habitat anomalies. 

Each major project (EIS level) will include adaptive management strategies in support of the population management 

objectives for GRSG set by the State of Montana, and will be consistent with this GRSG Adaptive Management Plan. 

These adaptive management strategies will be developed in partnership with the State of Montana, project 

proponents, partners, and stakeholders, incorporating the best available science.

If the BLM finds that the State of Montana is implementing a GRSG Habitat Conservation Program that is 

effectively conserving the GRSG, the BLM will review the management goals and objectives to determine if they 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 G - 2 Appendix G 

are being met and whether amendment of the BLM plan is appropriate to achieve consistent and effective 

conservation and GRSG management across all lands regardless of ownership.

In making amendments to this plan, the BLM will coordinate with the USFWS as BLM continues to meet its 

objective of conserving, enhancing and restoring GRSG habitat by reducing, minimizing or eliminating threats to 

that habitat.

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 BLM 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 an 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 (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 

Montana are maintained by Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MTFWP). Estimates of population are determined 

based upon survey protocols determined by MTFWP, and are implemented consistently throughout the state. 

Population counts are tracked for individual leks and are then summarized for each Priority Habitat Management 

Area (PHMA). 

Hard Trigger Response: 

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

GRSG conservation objectives set forth in the BLM plan. As such, the ROD/ARMP includes a “hard-wired” planlevel 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 PRMP/FEIS will be implemented without further action 

by the BLM. Specific “hard-wired” changes in management are identified in Table G-1, Specific Management 

Responses. 

In addition to the specific changes identified in Table G-1, the BLM will review available and pertinent data, in 

coordination with GRSG biologists and managers from multiple agencies including the USFWS, NRCS, and the 

State of Montana, to determine the causal factor(s) and implement a corrective strategy. The corrective strategy will 

include the changes identified in Table G-1 and could also include the need to amend or revise the RMP to address 

the situation and modify management accordingly. 

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 causal factor, put project-level responses in place, as 

appropriate and discuss further appropriate actions to be applied. (BSU is the total of all the PHMA within a GRSG 

population delineated in the COT report.) Adoption of any further actions at the plan level may require initiating a 

plan amendment process. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix G G - 3 September 2015 

Table G-1: Specific Management Responses 

Program Adaptive Management Response

GRSG Management Areas within and adjacent to PHMA where a hard trigger has been 

reached will be the top priority for regional mitigation habitat 

restoration and fuels reduction treatments.

Vegetation Management PHMA will 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. 

Rights of Way – Existing Corridors Retain the corridors as mapped, but limit the size of new lines within 

the corridors to same as existing structures, or not larger than 138kV.

Wind Energy Development No change from ROD/ARMP.

Industrial Solar No change from ROD/ARMP.

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 No change from ROD/ARMP.

Locatable Minerals No change from ROD/ARMP.

Salable Minerals No change from ROD/ARMP.

Non-energy Leasable Minerals No change from ROD/ARMP. Not known to exist in the planning area 

(see Chapter 1).
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 G - 4 Appendix G 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Appendix H: 

Best Management Practices

Appendix H H - i September 2015 

Table of Contents

H. Best Management Practices .......................................................................................................................... H-1

H.1 Air ....................................................................................................................................................... H-1

Air Resource BMPs: Best Management Practices for Fluid Minerals (USDOI, BLM) ............. H-1

H.2 Water .................................................................................................................................................. H-1

Water Quality BMPs (Best Management Practices) for Montana Forests ................................ H-1

Montana Guide to the Streamside Management Zone Law ....................................................... H-2

Erosion and Sediment Control Practices: Field Manual ............................................................. H-2

Erosion and Sediment Control Practices: Reference Manual ..................................................... H-2

Montana Non-Point Source Management Plan ........................................................................... H-3

National Menu of Stormwater Best Management Practices (US EPA) ..................................... H-3

Water-Road Interaction Technology Series Documents (USFS) May 2000 .............................. H-4

H.3 Invasive Species and Noxious Weeds ........................................................................................... H-4

Invasive Species: Final Vegetation Treatments using Herbicides on BLM in 

17 Western States .............................................................................................................................. H-4

H.4 Wildlife Habitat ................................................................................................................................ H-4

Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines: State of the Art in 

2006 Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). .......................................................... H-4

Com Towers etc. ............................................................................................................................... H-5

H.5 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management ..................................................................................... H-6

Interagency Burned Area Emergency Response Handbook ...................................................... H-6

Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Handbook ..................................... H-6

Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations (Redbook) ............................... H-7

H.6 Fluid Minerals ................................................................................................................................... H-7

Best Management Practices for Oil and Gas Development on Public Lands ........................... H-7

BMPs for Fluid Minerals ................................................................................................................. H-7

Western Governors’ Association Coal Bed Methane BMPs Handbook ................................... H-7

Handbook on Best Management Practices and Mitigation Strategies for Coal Bed 

Methane in the Montana Portion of the Powder River Basin .................................................... H-7

H.7 Coal .................................................................................................................................................... H-8

Coal Mining BMPs ........................................................................................................................... H-8

H.8 Mineral Materials ............................................................................................................................. H-8

Mineral materials site BMP (construction and stormwater) ...................................................... H-8

H.9 Livestock Grazing ............................................................................................................................ H-8

Montana Best Management Practices for Grazing....................................................................... H-8

H.10 Transportation and Facilities .......................................................................................................... H-9

Low Volume Roads Engineering Best Management Practices Field Guide 

(U.S. Forest Service) ......................................................................................................................... H-9

H.11 Resource Program Best Management Practices (BMPs) ............................................................. H-9

Surface Disturbing Activities ........................................................................................................ H-10

Air ..................................................................................................................................................... H-10

Soil .................................................................................................................................................... H-12

Climate: ............................................................................................................................................ H-13

Water/Wetlands/Riparian etc. .................................................................................................... H-14

Vegetation ....................................................................................................................................... H-15

Vegetation - Rangelands ................................................................................................................ H-15

Vegetation - Invasive Species and Noxious Weeds ................................................................... H-16

Wildlife Habitat and Special Status Species ............................................................................... H-17

Fisheries Habitat and Special Status Species .............................................................................. H-18

Cultural and Heritage Resources ................................................................................................. H-19

Paleontological Resources ............................................................................................................. H-20
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 H - ii Appendix H 

Wildfire Ecology and Management ............................................................................................. H-21

Fire Management for Sage-Grouse Conservation ...................................................................... H-21

Fuels Management for Sage-Grouse Conservation ................................................................... H-22

Visual Resource Management ...................................................................................................... H-22

Fluid Mineral Exploration and Development ............................................................................ H-23

Fluid Mineral Extraction ............................................................................................................... H-24

Fluid Minerals: Best Management Practices ............................................................................... H-24

Solid Minerals: Best Management Practices ............................................................................... H-24

Realty, Cadastral Survey, and Lands ........................................................................................... H-28

Management of Land Boundaries ................................................................................................ H-28

Livestock Grazing .......................................................................................................................... H-29

Recreation ........................................................................................................................................ H-30

Health and Safety ........................................................................................................................... H-30

Transportation– Travel Management (Road design and maintenance) ................................. H-31

H.12 BLM Wind Energy Development Program Policies and Best Management 

 Practices (BMPs) ............................................................................................................................. H-31

A.1 Policies ................................................................................................................................ H-32

A.2 Best Management Practices (BMPs) ............................................................................... H-34
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix H H - 1 September 2015 

H. Best Management Practices

The publications referenced in this appendix are sources of “Best Management Practices” (BMPs). BMPs are 

measures that have been developed by agency, industry, scientific, and/or working groups as voluntary methods for 

reducing environmental impacts associated with certain classes of activity. BLM typically uses these measures as 

guidelines or “project design features” during implementation planning at the activity and/or project-specific levels. 

The list included in this appendix is not limiting, but references the most frequently used sources. As new 

publications are developed, BLM may consider those 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. 

Planning implications: Use of Best Management Practices is not mandatory, since individual measures may not be 

appropriate for use in every situation. They may be added, dropped, or modified through plan maintenance. 

NEPA implications: Only the wind energy development BMPs have been analyzed in a NEPA process. The use of 

other BMPs should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis in NEPA documents associated with projects on the public 

lands. These case-by-case analyses should not “tier to” the BMP publication as a way to dismiss environmental 

impacts (i.e., must still analyze and disclose the environmental considerations and effects associated with use of the 

BMP). 

In this sections B.1 through B.10 reference specific documents in which to locate BMPs. Section B.11 lists BMPs 

by resource or resource use. Section B.12 is the BLM Wind Energy Development Program Policies and Best 

Management Practices (BMPs). 

H.1 Air 

Air Resource BMPs: Best Management Practices for Fluid Minerals (USDOI, BLM) 

Developed by: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

Publication reference: 

Available Online:

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/bmps.

Par.60203.File.dat/WO1_Air%20Resource_BMP_Slideshow%2005-09-2011.pdf 

Description: Updated in May 2011, this Power Point presentation provides a summary of typical Best Management 

Practices (BMPs) for protecting air resources during oil and gas development and production operations. Emission 

reduction BMPs are provided for criteria air pollutants, hazardous air pollutants, volatile organic compounds (an 

ozone precursor), and greenhouse gases. Emission source types include combustion emissions from mobile and 

stationary sources, fugitive emissions, and stationary source vented emissions from non-combustion sources. 

Emission controls include transport reduction strategies and fugitive dust controls, as well as emission control 

techniques for drilling, completion, and production. Emission monitoring and maintenance strategies are also 

addressed. This document provides a partial list of air resource BMPs and includes links to many additional BMP 

descriptions that addressing technical and economic considerations. 

H.2 Water 

Water Quality BMPs (Best Management Practices) for Montana Forests 

Developed by: MSU Extension Service, Missoula, Montana, in cooperation with the Montana Department of 

Natural Resources & Conservation, Forestry Division Montana Logging Association.( Logan, Robert. 2001). 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 H - 2 Appendix H 

Publication Reference: Publication EB 158 

Available from: Conservation Districts Bureau, DNRC, P.O. Box 20160, Helena, MT. 59620-1601, or MSU 

Extension Forestry, 32 Campus Drive, Missoula, MT 59812, or MSU Extension Publications, P.O. Box 172040, 

Bozeman, MT 59717. 

Description: Discusses methods for managing forest land, while protecting water quality and forest soils. These 

BMPs are intended for all forest land in Montana, including non-industrial private, forest industry, and state or 

federally-owned forests. These are preferred (but voluntary) methods that go beyond Montana State Streamside 

Management Zone Law. These BMPs includes definitions, basic biological information, and BMPs for: Streamside 

Management Zones, road design, use, planning and location, construction, drainage and closure, stream crossings, 

soils, timber harvesting methods, reforestation, winter planning, and clean-up. 

Montana Guide to the Streamside Management Zone Law 

Developed by: Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation Service Forestry Bureau, in 

cooperation with Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Montana Logging Association, Montana Wood 

Products Association, Plum Creek Timber LP, USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of land Management. 

Publication Reference: Revised 2006; reprinted November 2006 

Available from: Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, 2705 Spurgin Road, Missoula, MY 

59801-3199 or local MY DNRC field offices. 

Description: MT State Law (77-5-301[1] MCA). Complementary BMPs are found in the Water Quality BMPs for 

Montana Forests (also referenced in the appendix). Provides definitions, stream classifications, guidelines and 

exceptions on the seven forest practices prohibited by Montana law in Stream Management Zones: 1. broadcast 

(Slash) burning, 2. operation of wheeled or tracked vehicles except on established roads, 3. the forest practice of 

clearcutting, 4. the construction of roads, except when necessary to cross a stream or wetlands; 5. the handling, 

storage, application, or disposal of hazardous or toxic materials in a manner that pollutes streams, lakes, or wetland, 

or that may cause damage or injury to humans, land, animals or plants; 6. the side casting of road material into a 

stream, lake, wetland, or watercourse; and 7. the deposit of slash in streams, lakes, or other water bodies. 

Erosion and Sediment Control Practices: Field Manual 

Developed by: Prepared for the Montana Department of Transportation 

Publication reference: FHWA/MT-030003/8165 

Available From: National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 21161 

Description: The Erosion and Sediment Control Best Management Practices Construction Field Manual was 

developed to assist in design, construction, and post-construction phases of MDT projects. This manual provides 

background to concepts of Erosion and Sediment Control. Most of MDTs Best Management Practices are listed 

within the manual based on application categories. Each BMP is described; its applications and limitations are listed, 

as well as its design criteria. Construction phase and post-construction phase BMPs are described. This manual is a 

field guide and condensed version of the Erosion and Sediment Control Design Construction Best Management 

Practices Manual. For more detailed discussion on topic found within, refer to the Erosion and Sediment Control 

Construction Best Management Practices Manual. 

Erosion and Sediment Control Practices: Reference Manual 

Developed by: Prepared for the Montana Department of Transportation 

Publication reference: FHWA/MT-030003/8165 

Available From: National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 21161 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix H H - 3 September 2015 

Description: The Erosion and Sediment Control Construction Best Management Practices Manual was developed to 

assist in the design, construction, and post-construction phases of MDT projects. This manual provides background 

to State and Federal regulations associated with erosion and sediment control practices including a general overview 

of the erosion and sediment processes. Best Management practices are listed within the manual based on application 

categories. Each BMP is described; its applications and limitations are listed, as well as its design criteria. The 

design phase includes development of construction plans, NOI, and SWPPP. Construction phase includes the 

finalization of the SWPPP, NOI, and the implementation of BMPs. Post-Construction phase includes monitoring, 

maintenance, and removal activities. 

Montana Non-Point Source Management Plan 

Developed by: Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Planning Bureau, Watershed 

Protection Section 

Publication reference: 2007 

Available From: Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Planning Bureau, Watershed 

Protection Section, P.O. Box 200901, Helena, MT 59620-0901 

Online at: http://www.deq.state.mt.us/wqinfo/nonpoint/2007NONPOINTPLAN/Final/NPSPlan.pdf 

Description: This document describes the Montana Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) updated strategy 

for controlling nonpoint source (NPS) water pollution, which is the state’s single largest source of water quality 

impairment. NPS pollution is contaminated runoff from the land surface that can be generated by most land use 

activities, including agriculture, forestry, urban and suburban development, mining, and others. Common NPS 

pollutants include sediment, nutrients, temperature, heavy metals, pesticides, pathogens, and salt. The purpose of the 

Montana NPS Pollution Management Plan (Plan) is: 1) to inform the state’s citizens about NPS pollution problems 

and 2) to establish goals, objectives, and both long-term and short-term strategies for controlling NPS pollution on a 

statewide basis. The goal of Montana’s NPS Management Program is to protect and restore water quality from the 

impacts of non-point sources of pollution in order to provide a clean and healthy environment. 

National Menu of Stormwater Best Management Practices (US EPA) 

Developed by: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Publication reference: 

Available Online: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm

Description: The National Menu of Best Management Practices for Stormwater Phase II was first released in 

October 2000. EPA has renamed, reorganized, updated, and enhanced the features of the website. These revisions 

include the addition of new fact sheets and revisions of existing fact sheets. Because the field of stormwater is 

constantly changing, EPA expects to update this menu as new information and technologies become available. The 

Menu of BMPs is based on the Stormwater Phase II Rule's six minimum control measures. 

1. Public Education - BMPs for MS4s to inform individuals and households about ways to reduce 

stormwater pollution. 

2. Public Involvement - BMPs for MS4s to involve the public in the development, implementation, and 

review of an MS4's stormwater management program. 

3. Illicit Discharge Detection & Elimination - BMPs for identifying and eliminating illicit discharges and 

spills to storm drain systems. 

4. Construction - BMPs for MS4s and construction site operators to address stormwater runoff from 

active construction sites. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 H - 4 Appendix H 

5. Post Construction - BMPs for MS4s, developers, and property owners to address stormwater runoff 

after construction activities have completed. 

6. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping- BMPs for MS4s to address stormwater runoff from their 

own facilities and activities. 

Water-Road Interaction Technology Series Documents (USFS) May 2000 

Available at: http://www.stream.fs.fed.us/water-road/

H.3 Invasive Species and Noxious Weeds 

Invasive Species: Final Vegetation Treatments using Herbicides on BLM in 17 Western States 

Developed By: Bureau of Land Management 

Publications reference: U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2007. Vegetation 

Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM in 17 Western States. Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Final. 

ROD: September 29, 2007. BLM/WO/GI/-07/018+6711 

Available from: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/veg_eis.html

Description: Considered activities, including noxious weed and invasive terrestrial plant species management, 

hazardous fuels reduction treatments, emergency stabilization and rehabilitation efforts. Addressed human health 

and ecological risk for the use of chemical herbicides on public lands and provided a cumulative impact analysis 

addressing the use of chemical herbicides in conjunction with other treatment methods. 

The ROD also identifies which standard operation procedures must be used with all applications of herbicides. 

Standard operation procedures are found in Appendix B of the ROD. 

BLM must also implement additional measures to mitigate potential adverse environmental effects of using 

herbicides as appropriate from site specific assessments to ensure that all practicable means to avoid or minimize 

environmental harm have been adopted. All BLM District and Field Offices must adhere to the mitigation measures 

listed in Appendix C of the ROD. 

To prevent the spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants, the BLM will follow prevention measures to minimize 

the amount of existing non-target vegetation that is disturbed during project planning. Preventions measures are 

found in Table 2-7, on page 2-24 of the Final 

Programmatic EIS (June 2007) and ROD (September 2007). (PEIS) 

H.4 Wildlife Habitat 

Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines: State of the Art in 2006 Avian Power Line 

Interaction Committee (APLIC). 

Developed by: First published in 1975 (Miller et al.), later updated in 1981 (Olendorff et al.) and most recently 

revised in 1996 by Edison Electric Institute and the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) in 

collaboration with the Raptor Research Foundation. 2006 

Publication reference: CEC-500-2009-022 

Available from: Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group morning@ucsc.edu, Avian Power Line Interaction 

Committee www.aplic.org, Edison Electric www.eei.org, California Energy Commission www.energy.ca.gov
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix H H - 5 September 2015 

Description: Examines the history of raptor-power line interactions from biological and electrical standpoints; and 

proposes specific solutions for reducing avian-caused electrical outages and avian fatalities through cooperative 

measures between utilities, industry, and federal and state agencies. 

Com Towers etc. 

The following is an attachment from a USFWS Memo from the Director of USFWS pertaining to management 

guidance for the protection of wildlife for siting, construction, operation, and decommissioning of communication 

towers dated September 14, 2000. 

Service Interim Guidelines for Recommendations on Communications Tower Siting, Construction, 

Operation, and Decommissioning 

1. Any company/applicant/licensee proposing to construct a new communications tower should be 

strongly encouraged to co-locate the communications equipment on an existing communication tower 

or other structure (e.g., billboard, water tower, or building mount). Depending on tower load factors, 

from 6 to 10 providers may collocate on an existing tower. 

2. If collocation is not feasible and a new tower or towers are to be constructed, communications service 

providers should be strongly encouraged to construct towers no more than 199 feet above ground level, 

using construction techniques which do not require guy wires (e.g., use a lattice structure, monopole, 

etc.). Such towers should be unlighted if Federal Aviation Administration regulations permit. 

3. If constructing multiple towers, providers should consider the cumulative impacts of all of those 

towers to migratory birds and threatened and endangered species as well as the impacts of each 

individual tower. 

4. If at all possible, new towers should be sited within existing "antenna farms" (clusters of towers). 

Towers should not be sited in or near wetlands, other known bird concentration areas (e.g., State or 

Federal refuges, staging areas, rookeries), in known migratory or daily movement flyways, or in 

habitat of threatened or endangered species. Towers should not be sited in areas with a high incidence 

of fog, mist, and low ceilings. 

5. If taller (>199 feet AGL) towers requiring lights for aviation safety must be constructed, the minimum 

amount of pilot warning and obstruction avoidance lighting required by the FAA should be used. 

Unless otherwise required by the FAA, only white (preferable) or red strobe lights should be used at 

night, and these should be the minimum number, minimum intensity, and minimum number of flashes 

per minute (longest duration between flashes) allowable by the FAA. The use of solid red or pulsating 

red warning lights at night should be avoided. Current research indicates that solid or pulsating 

(beacon) red lights attract night-migrating birds at a much higher rate than white strobe lights. 

Red strobe lights have not yet been studied. 

6. Tower designs using guy wires for support which are proposed to be located in known raptor or 

waterbird concentration areas or daily movement routes, or in major diurnal migratory bird movement 

routes or stopover sites, should have daytime visual markers on the wires to prevent collisions by these 

diurnally moving species. (For guidance on markers, see Avian Power Line Interaction Committee 

(APLIC). 1994. Mitigating Bird Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1994. Edison 

Electric Institute, Washington, D.C., 78 pp, and Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 

1996. Suggested Practices/or Raptor Protection on Power Lines. Edison Electric Institute Raptor 

Research Foundation, Washington, D. C; 128 pp. Copies can be obtained via the Internet at 

http://www.eei.org/resources/pubcat/enviro or by calling 1-800/334-5453). 

7. Towers and appendant facilities should be sited, designed and constructed so as to avoid or minimize 

habitat loss within and adjacent to the tower "footprint." However, a larger tower footprint is preferable 

to the use of guy wires in construction. Road access and fencing should be minimized to reduce or 

prevent habitat fragmentation and disturbance, and to reduce above ground obstacles to birds in flight. 

8. If significant numbers of breeding, feeding, or roosting birds are known to habitually use the proposed 

tower construction area, relocation to an alternate site should be recommended. If this is not an option, 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 H - 6 Appendix H 

seasonal restrictions on construction may be advisable in order to avoid disturbance during periods of 

high bird activity. 

9. In order to reduce the number of towers needed in the future, providers should be encouraged to design 

new towers structurally and electrically to accommodate the applicant/licensee's antennas and 

comparable antennas for at least two additional users (minimum of three users for each tower 

structure), unless this design would require the addition of lights or guy wires to an otherwise 

unlighted and/or unguyed tower. 

10. Security lighting for on-ground facilities and equipment should be down-shielded to keep light within 

the boundaries of the site. 

11. If a tower is constructed or proposed for construction, Service personnel or researchers from the 

Communication Tower Working Group should be allowed access to the site to evaluate bird use, 

conduct dead-bird searches, to place net catchments below the towers but above the ground, and to 

place radar, Global Positioning System, infrared, thermal imagery, and acoustical monitoring 

equipment as necessary to assess and verify bird movements and to gain information on the impacts of 

various tower sizes, configurations, and lighting systems. 

12. Towers no longer in use or determined to be obsolete should be removed within 12 months of 

cessation of use. 

In order to obtain information on the extent to which these guidelines are being implemented, and to identify any 

recurring problems with their implementation which may necessitate modifications, letters provided in response to 

requests for evaluation of proposed towers should contain the following request: 

"In order to obtain information on the usefulness of these guidelines in preventing bird strikes, and to identify any 

recurring problems with their implementation which may necessitate modifications, please advise us of the final 

location and specifications of the proposed tower, and which of the measures recommended for the protection of 

migratory birds were implemented. If any of the recommended measures cannot be implemented, please explain 

why they were not feasible." 

H.5 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management 

Interagency Burned Area Emergency Response Handbook 

Guidebook version 1.3 October 2006 

Developed by: DOI, Bureau of Land Management 

Publication reference: Interagency Burned Area Rehabilitation Guidebook, Interpretation of Department of the 

Interior 620 DM 3, For the Burned Area Rehabilitation of Federal and Tribal Trust Lands, Version 1.3. 

Available from: http://www.fws.gov/fire/ifcc/esr/Policy/BAR_Guidebook11-06.pdf (last accessed 6/10/2011) 

Description: Interpretation of Department of the Interior 620 DM 3 for the burned area rehabilitation of Federal and 

Tribal Trust Lands. 

Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Handbook 

Developed by: DOI, Bureau of Land Management 

Publication reference: Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Handbook (H-1742-1, 2007) 

Available from:

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_handbook.Par.5

2739.File.dat/h1742-1.pdf (last accessed 6/10/2011) 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix H H - 7 September 2015 

Description: This document addresses the process for implementing emergency fire rehabilitation projects 

following wildland fires. 

Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations (Redbook) 

Developed by: Department of the Interior; Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

National Park Service, and Department of Agriculture; U.S. Forest Service 

Available from: National Interagency Fire Center, 3833 S. Development Avenue 

Boise, Idaho 83705-5354 http://www.nifc.gov/policies/pol_ref_redbook_2011.html (last accessed 6/10/2011) 

Description: This document addresses specific action items that are contained in the Guidance for Implementation 

of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (February 13, 2009). 

H.6 Fluid Minerals 

Best Management Practices for Oil and Gas Development on Public Lands 

Available from: http://www.blm.gov/bmp/Technical_Information.htm 

BMPs for Fluid Minerals 

Developed by: Bureau of Land Management 

Publication reference: BLM/WO/ST-06/021+3071/REV 07 

Available from: Online at: http://www.blm.gov/bmp/ 

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 publication reference is to the “Gold Book” 

which is formally titled “Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development.” In addition, the first internet citation is to a location maintained by the Washington Office of the 

BLM containing general and technical information on the use and application of BMPs. The second location refers 

the reader directly to an online version of the “Gold Book.” The third and fourth locations refer the reader to color 

charts for use in selecting paint colors for oil and gas facilities. 

Western Governors’ Association Coal Bed Methane BMPs Handbook 

http://www.westgov.org/wga/initiatives/coalbed/

Handbook on Best Management Practices and Mitigation Strategies for Coal Bed Methane in the Montana 

Portion of the Powder River Basin 

Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy National Petroleum Technology Office National Energy Technology 

Laboratory Tulsa, Oklahoma 

Developed by: Lead researcher: ALL Consulting Tulsa, Oklahoma; and Co-researcher ; the Montana Board of Oil 

& Gas Conservation Billings, Montana. 

Publication reference: 

Available Online: http://bogc.dnrc.state.mt.us/website/mtcbm/webmapper_cbm_info_res.htm; last accessed 

9/8/2010 

Description: This handbook is intended to serve as a resource to industry, regulators, land managers, and concerned 

citizens. The handbook presents background information on CBM activity in the Montana portion of the Powder 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 H - 8 Appendix H 

River Basin (Study Area) while also presenting a number of Best Management Practices and Mitigation Strategies 

specific to CBM that have been successfully used throughout the United States. 

H.7 Coal 

Coal Mining BMPs 

Developed by: Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Engineering and Analysis Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Publication reference: COAL REMINING, BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES GUIDANCE MANUAL, 

MARCH 2000 

Available From: Office of Water Office of Science and Technology Engineering and Analysis Division U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Washington DC, 20460 

Description: The manual was created to support EPA’s proposal of a Re-mining subcategory under existing 

regulations for the Coal Mining industry. The purpose of this guidance manual is to assist operators in the 

development and implementation of a best management practice (BMP) plan specifically designed for a particular 

re-mining operation. This guidance manual was also developed to give direction to individuals reviewing remining 

applications and associated BMP plans. This document is not intended as a substitute for thoughtful and thorough 

planning and decision making based on site-specific information and common sense. 

H.8 Mineral Materials 

Mineral materials site BMP (construction and stormwater) 

Developed by: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, adopted by Montana DEQ 

Publication Reference: The National Menu of Best Management Practices for Stormwater Phase II, EPA, October, 

2000. 

Description: EPA has found the practices listed in the menu of BMPs to be representative of the types of practices 

that can successfully achieve the minimum control measures. The list of BMPs is not all-inclusive, and it does not 

preclude MS4s from using other technically sound practices. However, in all cases the practice or set of practices 

chosen needs to achieve the minimum measure. 

EPA also recognizes that some MS4s may already be meeting the minimum measures, or that only one or two 

additional practices may be needed to achieve the measures. Existing stormwater management practices should be 

recognized and appropriate credit given to those who have already made progress toward protecting water quality. 

There is no need to spend additional resources for a practice that is already in existence and operational. 

H.9 Livestock Grazing 

Montana Best Management Practices for Grazing 

Developed by: Working group with representation from: MSU College of Agriculture, Society of American 

Fisheries, Montana Stockgrowers Association, Montana Woolgrowers Association, USDI Bureau of Land 

Management, USDA Forest Service, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Montana Farm Bureau, and 

Montana Department of Natural Resource and Conservation. 

Publication reference: N/A, first printed in 1999 

Available From: Conservation Districts Bureau, and Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, 

P.O. Box 201601, Helena MT 59620-1601. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix H H - 9 September 2015 

Description: Describes BMPs for livestock grazing designed to protect and enhance water quality, soils, plant 

communities, and other rangeland resources. Explains how and why to use BMPs to manage upland rangeland, 

forested rangeland, and riparian areas; and describes how grazing BMPs fit into a grazing management plan. 

H.10 Transportation and Facilities 

Low Volume Roads Engineering Best Management Practices Field Guide (U.S. Forest Service) 

Developed by: US Agency for International Development (USAID) with the cooperation of the USDA, the Forest 

Service, the Office of International Programs, and the International Programs Department at Virginia Polytechnic 

Institute and State University. (Gordon Keller & James Sherar USDA Forest Service/USAID). 

Available on line: http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/24000/24600/24650/Chapters/B_Preface_TableOfContents_Glossary.pdf

Description: The basic objective of this guide is to help engineers, planners, environmental specialists, and road 

managers make good decisions, protect the environment, and build good low-volume roads. This Low-Volume 

Roads Engineering Best Management Practices Field Guide is intended to provide an overview of the key planning, 

location, design, construction, and maintenance aspects of roads that can cause adverse environmental impacts and 

to list key ways to prevent those impacts. Best Management Practices are general techniques or design practices that, 

when applied and adapted to fit site specific conditions, will prevent or reduce pollution and maintain water quality. 

BMPs for roads have been developed by many agencies since roads often have a major adverse impact on water 

quality, and most of those impacts are preventable with good engineering and management practices. Roads that are 

not well planned or located, not properly designed or constructed, not well maintained, or not made with durable 

materials often have negative effects on water quality and the environment. 

Road Construction and maintenance: H-9113-1—Road Design Handbook. 

BLM Manual: M9113 

Developed by: 

Publication reference: 

Available from: 

Description: 

H.11 Resource Program Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

Best management practices (BMP) are those land and resource management techniques determined to be the most 

effective and practical means of maximizing beneficial results and minimizing conflicts and adverse environmental 

impacts of management actions. BMPs could include, but are not limited to structural and nonstructural controls, 

specific operations, and maintenance procedures. BMPs can be applied before, during and after activities to reduce 

or eliminate adverse environmental impacts. BMPs are not one-size-fits-all solutions. BMPs should be matched and 

adapted through interdisciplinary analysis to determine which management practices would be necessary to meet the 

goals and objectives in the Resource Management Plan (RMP). The actual practices and mitigation measures that 

are best for a particular site are evaluated through the site-specific National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

process and vary to accommodate unique site-specific and local resource conditions. 

BMPs described in this appendix are designed to assist in achieving the RMP objectives. These guidelines could 

apply, where appropriate, to all use authorizations, including projects initiated by the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM). BMPs are dynamic, and should not be interpreted as specific direction at the same level as the RMP 

decisions. BMPs are selected and implemented as necessary, based on site-specific conditions, to meet resource 

objectives for specific management actions. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 H - 10 Appendix H 

This appendix does not provide an exhaustive list of BMPs. Additional BMPs may be identified during an 

interdisciplinary process when evaluating site-specific management actions. Implementation and effectiveness of 

BMPs must be monitored to determine whether the practices are achieving RMP goals and objectives. Adjustments 

could be made as necessary to ensure RMP goals and objectives are being met, as well as to conform with changes 

in BLM regulations, policy, direction, or new scientific information. BMPs may also be updated as new technology 

emerges. In addition, applicants can suggest alternate conditions that could accomplish the same result. 

Because the management of environmental impacts is an ongoing process, continual refinement of BMP design is 

necessary. This process can be described in these five steps: (1) selection of design of a specific BMP; (2) 

application of the BMP; (3) monitoring; (4) evaluation; and (5) feedback. Data gathered through monitoring is 

evaluated and used to identify changes needed in BMP design or application or in the monitoring program. 

These best management practices have been organized by the primary resource the best management practices could 

benefit or protect. Each best management practice could actually be implemented by a number of resource programs 

within the Field Office. Best management practices would be implemented at the discretion of the Billings Field 

Office on a project-specific basis, depending on the specific characteristics of the project area and the types of 

disturbance being proposed. They may not be appropriate to implement in all cases. It has been assumed for impact 

analysis that best management practices would be implemented whenever appropriate. 

Surface Disturbing Activities 

 Evaluate areas subject to surface disturbance for the presence of cultural and paleontological 

resources/values. This is usually accomplished through the completion of a cultural and 

paleontological inventory. An on-the-ground inspection by a qualified archaeologist and/or 

paleontologist is required. In cases where cultural and/or paleontological resources are found, the 

preferred response would be to modify the proposed action to avoid the cultural/paleontological 

resource (avoidance). If avoidance is not possible, actions would be taken to preserve the data or 

value represented by the cultural resource (mitigation). 

 Evaluate areas subject to surface disturbance for the presence of threatened, endangered or 

candidate animal or plant species. This is usually accomplished through the completion of a 

biological inventory. An on-the-ground inspection by a qualified biologist is required. In cases 

where threatened, endangered, or candidate species are affected, the preferred response would be 

to modify the proposed action to avoid species or their habitat (avoidance). If avoidance of a 

threatened, endangered, or candidate species or its habitat is not possible, a Section 7 consultation 

with USFWS would be required, and a biological assessment would be prepared to recommend 

actions to protect the species or its habitat. 

 Consider requiring special design and reclamation measures to protect scenic and natural 

landscape values. These may include transplanting trees and shrubs, mulching and fertilizing 

disturbed areas, use of low-profile permanent facilities, and painting to minimize visual contrasts. 

Surface disturbing activities may be moved to avoid sensitive areas or to reduce the visual effects 

of the proposal. 

 Design above-ground facilities requiring painting to blend in with the surrounding environment. 

 Implement reclamation concurrent with construction and site operations to the extent possible. 

Final reclamation actions shall be initiated within 6 months of the termination of operations unless 

otherwise approved in writing by the authorized officer. 

 Ensure fill material is pushed into cut areas and up over back slopes. Depressions should not be 

left that would trap water or form ponds. 

Air 

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: 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix H H - 11 September 2015 

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 nonprimitive 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; 

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) re-vegetating 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: 

6) electrifying equipment when feasible; 

7) achieving high levels of emission control by installing and operating low-emission 

equipment (i.e., drill rig engines with emissions at least as low as Tier 4 engine standards) or 

operating older equipment that has been retrofitted with additional emission controls such as 

nonselective catalytic reduction or catalytic oxidation; 

8) using natural gas or electric engines rather than diesel engines; 

9) using alternative energy (solar power, wind power, or both) to power new water source 

developments; and 

10) 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 not feasible; 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 H - 12 Appendix H 

3) using closed tanks rather than open tanks or pits; 

4) installing vapor recovery units on 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) optimize 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 monitoring equipment 

leaks and repairing equipment leaks. 

Soil 

 Surface disturbance on sustained slopes over 25%, would require reclamation and mitigation planning 

that demonstrates how site productivity will be restored. 

 Surface runoff will be adequately controlled using mitigations such as: water bars, fiber mats, contour 

felling, and vegetative filters. 

 Off-site areas will be protected from accelerated erosion, such as rilling, gullying, piping, and mass 

wasting. 

 Surface-disturbing activities will not be conducted during extended wet periods. 

 Construction will not be allowed when soils are frozen. 

 Construction activities will be restricted during wet or muddy conditions and will be designed 

following BMPs to control erosion and sedimentation. 

 Surface disturbing activities are to be avoided in areas of active mass movements (landslides and 

slumps) (MT-11-2)

 Erosion control and sited restoration measures will be initiated within one year of completion of a 

project. Disturbed areas will be re-contoured to provide proper drainage. 

 Interim reclamation for long-term projects would be considered at the project level plan and could 

include seeding with BLM-approved seed mixtures. 

 All surface disturbances are to be reseeded/re-vegetated with native plant species common to the site’s 

natural plant community. Site specific planning may warrant the use, on a case by case basis, of 

introduced species where difficult site stabilization or wildlife concerns prevail. 

 Require a temporary protection surface treatment such as mulch, matting and netting for the 

reclamation of all mechanically-disturbed areas (this excludes wildland fire). 

 Speed restrictions for areas susceptible to wind erosion i.e., 25 mph, limited travel 

 Use of saline dust inhibitors 

 Areas with steep topography will be developed in accordance with the BLM Gold Book (United States 

Department of the Interior and United States Department of Agriculture 2007) requirements. Lease 

roads and constructed facilities will be located in accordance with the approved APD. In areas of 

construction, topsoil will be stockpiled separately from other material, and be reused in reclamation of 

the disturbed areas. Unused portions of the producing well site will have topsoil spread over it and will 

be reseeded 

 Construction activities will be restricted during wet or muddy conditions and will be designed 

following BMPs to control erosion and sedimentation. If porous subsurface materials are encountered 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix H H - 13 September 2015 

during pit construction, all onsite fluid pits will be lined. During road and utility ROW construction, 

surface soils will be stockpiled adjacent to the cuts and fills. 

 Stream crossings will be designed to minimize impacts and not impede stream flow. Erosion control 

measures will be maintained and continued until adequate vegetation cover (as defined by BLM on a 

case-by-case basis) is reestablished. Vegetation will be removed only when necessary. Water bars will 

be constructed on slopes of 3:1 or steeper. 

 Erosion control and site restoration measures will be initiated as soon as a particular area is no longer 

needed for exploration, production, staging, or access. Disturbed areas will be recontoured to provide 

proper drainage. 

 The road ditches would be flat bottomed and “V” ditches not allowed. Place water turn outs where 

appropriate to lessen the water impacts upon the ditches. 

 Topsoil piles may be required to be seeded following the BLM seeding policy. 

 Displaced farmland, whether in crop production or not, will be reclaimed to original soil productivity 

through adoption of standard reclamation procedures. 

 Require the use of specialized low-surface impact equipment (e.g. balloon tired vehicles) or 

helicopters, as determined by the BLM Authorized Officer, for activities in off-road areas where it is 

deemed necessary to protect fragile soils and other resources. 

 During periods of adverse soil moisture conditions caused by climatic factors such as thawing, heavy 

rains, snow, flooding, or drought, suspend activities on existing roads that could create excessive 

surface rutting. When adverse conditions exist, the operator/permittee would contact the BLM 

Authorized Officer for an evaluation and decision based on soil types, soil moisture, slope, vegetation, 

and cover. 

 When preparing the site for reclamation, include contour furrowing, terracing, reduction of steep cut 

and fill slopes, and the installation of water bars, as determined appropriate for site-specific conditions. 

 Restoration requirements include reshaping, re-contouring, and/or resurfacing with topsoil, installation 

of water bars, and seeding on the contour. Removal of structures such as culverts, concrete pads, cattle 

guards, and signs would usually be required. Fertilization and/or fencing of the disturbance may be 

required. Additional erosion control measures (e.g. fiber matting and barriers) to discourage road travel 

may be required. 

Climate: 

 Reduce CO2 emissions by reducing vehicle miles traveled and using fuel-efficient vehicles. 

 Reduce CO2 emissions by using renewable energy to power equipment. 

 Reduce CO2 emissions by using energy-saving techniques. 

 Identify and implement methods to sequester CO2. 

 Reduce methane emissions from oil and gas activities by: 

► capturing methane using green completion, when feasible, and beneficially using the gas by 

placing it in sales pipeline; 

► flaring methane during well completion activities for which green completion is infeasible; 

► replacing natural gas driven pneumatic equipment with solar or electrically powered equipment; 

► optimizing glycol recirculation rates for glycol dehydrators; 

► 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 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 H - 14 Appendix H 

► implementing additional GHG emission reduction strategies from the oil and gas BMPs located at 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOURCE_PRO

TECTION_/bmps.Par.60203.File.dat/WO1_Air%20Resource_BMP_Slideshow%2005-09-

2011.pdf and the EPA Natural Gas Star website at 

http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/tools/recommended.html. 

Water/Wetlands/Riparian etc. 

 Avoid locating roads, trails, and landings in wetlands. 

 Locate, identify, and mark riparian management areas during design of projects that may cause adverse 

impacts to riparian management areas. 

 Keep open water free from slash. 

 Avoid equipment operation in areas of open water, seeps, and springs. 

 Use low ground pressure equipment (flotation tires or tracked) as necessary to minimize rutting and 

compaction. 

 All linear and underground facilities crossing riparian areas or wetlands would be bored, unless an 

approved mitigation plan illustrates a maintenance or improvement to the riparian area or wetland.(alt 

table) 

 If riparian zones are fenced to exclude grazing, fences will be 100’ from the stream banks, unless sitespecific circumstances dictate otherwise. 

 Water well and spring mitigation agreements will be used to facilitate the replacement of groundwater 

that may be lost to drawdown. Replacement water may require supply from offsite sources. 

 Avoid the application of fire retardant or foam within 300 feet of a stream channel or waterway, when 

possible, except for the protection of life and property. Aerial application and use of retardants and 

foams would be consistent with national policy guidelines established by the National Office of Fire 

and Aviation, as amended. 

 Fire engines that have surfactant foam mixes in tanks must be fitted with an anti-siphon (back flow 

protection valve) if filled directly from a stream channel. 

 Construct a containment barrier around all pumps and fuel containers utilized within 100 feet (30.5 

meters) of a stream channel. The containment barrier would be sufficient size to contain all fuel being 

stored or used on site. 

 Prior to use on lands administered by the Billings Field Office, all fire suppression equipment from 

outside the planning area utilized to extract water from lakes, streams, ponds, or spring sources (e.g. 

helicopter buckets, draft hoses, and screens) will be thoroughly rinsed to remove mud and debris and 

then disinfected to prevent the spread of invasive aquatic species. Rinsing equipment with disinfectant 

solution will not occur within 100 feet of natural water sources (i.e. lakes, streams, or springs). 

Suppression equipment utilized to extract water from water sources known to be contaminated with 

invasive aquatic species, as identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Montana Fish, 

Wildlife, and Parks, also will be disinfected prior to use elsewhere on lands administered by the 

Billings Field Office. 

 Do not dump surfactant foam mixes from fire engines within 600 feet of a stream channel. 

 Do not conduct fire retardant mixing operations within 600 feet of a stream channel. 

 Remove all modifications made to impound or divert stream flow by mechanical or other means to 

facilitate extraction of water from a stream for fire suppression efforts when suppression efforts are 

completed. 

 When drafting or dipping water during fire operations, continuously monitor water levels at the site 

that water is being removed from. Do not allow water extraction to exceed the ability of the recharge 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix H H - 15 September 2015 

inflow to maintain the water levels that exist at the time initial attach efforts began. If the water level 

drops below this predetermined level, all water removal would cease immediately until water levels are 

recharged. 

 When possible, do not cross or terminate fire control lines at the stream channel. Terminate control 

lines at the edge of the riparian zone at a location determined appropriate to meet fire suppression 

objectives based on fire behavior, vegetation/fuel types, and fire fighter safety. 

 Do not construct new roads or mechanical fire control lines or improve existing roads within 300 feet 

of a stream channel unless authorized by the BLM Field Manager or Authorized Officer. 

 Limit stream crossings on travel routes and trails to the minimal number necessary to minimize 

sedimentation and compaction. The BLM Authorized Officer will determine if any impacts need to be 

rehabilitated by the permittee. 

 Conduct mixing of herbicides and rinsing of herbicide containers and spray equipment only in areas 

that are a safe distance from environmentally sensitive areas and points of entry to bodies of water 

(storm drains, irrigation ditches, streams, lakes, or wells). 

 When used to pump water from any pond or stream, screen the intake end of the draft hose to prevent 

fish from being ingested. Screen opening would be a minimum of 3/16 inch (4.7 mm). 

Vegetation 

 Where seeding is required, use appropriate seed mixture and seeding techniques approved by the BLM 

Authorized Officer. 

 Keep removal and disturbance of vegetation to a minimum through construction site management (e.g. 

using previously disturbed areas and existing easements, limiting equipment/materials storage and 

staging sites, etc.). 

 Generally conduct reclamation with native seeds that are representative of the indigenous species 

present in the adjacent habitat. Document rationale for potential seeding with selected nonnative 

species. Possible exceptions would include use of nonnative species for a temporary cover crop to outcompete weeds. In all cases, ensure seed mixtures are approved by the BLM Authorized Officer prior 

to planting. 

 Certify that all interim and final seed mixes, hay, straw, and hay/straw products are free of plant 

species listed on the Montana noxious weed list. 

 An area is considered to be satisfactorily reclaimed when all disturbed areas have been recontoured to 

blend with the natural topography, erosion has been stabilized, and an acceptable vegetative cover has 

been established. Use established guidelines to determine if revegetation has been successful. 

Vegetation - Rangelands 

 The perennial plant cover of the reclaimed area would equal or exceed perennial cover of selected 

comparison areas normally, adjacent habitat. If the adjacent habitat is severely disturbed, an ecological 

site description may be used as a cover standard. Selected cover can be determined using a method as 

described in Sampling Vegetation Attributes, Interagency Technical Reference, 1996, BLM/RS/ST96/002+1730. The reclamation plan for the area project would identify the site-specific release criteria 

and associated statistical methods in the reclamation plan or permit. 

 Surface disturbing exploration operations would be subject to site specific stipulations found in 

Appendix C.

 Disturbed areas resulting from any construction will be seeded in accordance with the BLM seeding 

policy (USDI BLM, 1999c) or surface owner‘s requirements. Depending on surface ownership, 

seeding is usually required during the fall or spring. 

 Should the reseeding of sagebrush be required, different seeding times and techniques will be required. 

To the extent practicable, vegetation will be preserved and protected from construction operations and 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 H - 16 Appendix H 

equipment except where clearing operations are required to conduct oil and gas operations, such as for 

roads, well pads, pipelines, power lines, utility lines, and structures. Clearing of vegetation will be 

restricted to the minimum area needed for construction and equipment. 

 Cuts and fills for new roads will be sloped to minimize erosion and to facilitate re-vegetation. Riparian 

zones will be protected by federal lease stipulations and permit mitigation measures. The BLM seeding 

policy will be followed for all reclamation and reseeding activities. 

 During reclamation activities, early succession plants will be used for re-vegetation to provide a fast 

growing cover crop to minimize and compete against noxious weeds. 

 Operator reclamation plans will be developed in consultation with the surface owner. Reclaimed areas 

reseeded with native species will require a certified weed-free seed mix. The seed mix used on private 

surface will be developed in consultation with the surface owner. Successful revegetation will usually 

require at least two growing seasons to ensure a self-sustaining stand of seeded species. 

 Where seeding is required, use appropriate seed mixture and seeding techniques approved by the BLM 

Authorized Officer. 

 Generally, conduct reclamation with native seeds that are representative of the indigenous species 

present in the adjacent habitat. Document rationale for potential seeding with selected nonnative 

species. Possible exceptions would include use of nonnative species for a temporary cover crop to outcomplete weeds. In all cases, ensure seed mixes are approved by the BLM Authorized Officer prior to 

planting 

 Certify that all interim and final seed mixes, hay, straw, and hay/straw products are free of plant 

species listed on the Montana noxious weed list. 

 Displaced farmland, whether in crop production or not, will be reclaimed to original soil productivity 

through adoption of standard reclamation procedures. 

Vegetation - Invasive Species and Noxious Weeds 

 To reduce the potential for the introduction of noxious weeds, clean off all equipment with pressure 

washing prior to operating on BLM lands. Removal of all dirt, grease, and plant parts that may carry 

noxious weed seeds or vegetative parts is required and may be accomplished with a pressure hose. 

 Ensure all seed, hay, straw, mulch, or other vegetation material transported and used on public land for 

site stability, rehabilitation, or project facilitation is free of noxious weeds and noxious weed seed as 

certified by a qualified federal, state, or county officer. 

 Operators will monitor noxious weed occurrence on all project areas and implement a noxious weed 

control program in cooperation with the BiFO to ensure noxious weed invasion does not become a 

problem. Reclamation /stabilization and maintenance materials used would be from weed seed free 

source to the extent practicable. 

 The operator, grantee, or lessee will be responsible for the control of all noxious weed infestations on 

surface disturbances. Prior to any treatment, the operator, grantee, or lessee will be responsible for 

submission of Pesticide Use Proposals and subsequent Pesticide Use Reports. Control measures will 

adhere to those allowed in the Final Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM in 17 Western 

States Programmatic EIS (June 2007) and ROD (September 2007). Herbicide approvals and treatments 

will be monitored by BiFO. Vehicle and hand application of herbicides near specials status plant 

species would be determined on a case-by-case basis and allowed only when the treatment would 

benefit special status plant species. Aerial application of herbicides is prohibited within one-half mile 

of special status plant locations, or other distance deemed safe by the Billings Field Office. 

 It is the responsibility of the operator to develop a noxious weed prevention plan outlining ways to 

control noxious weeds on lands disturbed in association with oil and gas lease operations. Leaseassociated weed control strategies are to be coordinated with any involved surface owners and local 

weed control boards. A pesticide-use proposal must be reviewed and approved by BLM prior to any 

herbicide application on lands disturbed by federal oil and gas lease operations. A pesticide application 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix H H - 17 September 2015 

record must be made within 24 hours after completion of application of herbicides. Additional 

measures may be required to prevent the spread of noxious weeds. 

 The noxious weed prevention plan must include measures to prevent the spread of weed seeds from 

any vehicles and equipment traveling from or prior to mobilizing it to, the project area. 

 When managing weeds in areas of special status species, carefully consider the impacts of the 

treatment on such species. Whenever possible, hand spraying of herbicides is preferred over other 

methods. 

 Do not conduct noxious and invasive weed control within 0.5 mile of nesting and brood rearing areas 

for special status species during the nesting and brood rearing season. 

 Consider nozzle type, nozzle size, boom pressure, and adjuvant use and take appropriate measures for 

each herbicide application project to reduce the chance of chemical drift. 

 All applications of approved pesticides will be conducted only by certified pesticide applicators or by 

personnel under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. 

 Prior to commencing any chemical control program, and on a daily basis for the duration of the 

project, the certified applicator will provide a suitable safety briefing to all personnel working with or 

in the vicinity of the herbicide application. This briefing will include safe handling, spill prevention, 

cleanup, and first aid procedures. 

 Do not apply pesticides within 440 yards (0.25 mile) of residences without prior notification of the 

resident. 

 Areas treated with pesticides will be adequately posted to notify the public of the activity and of safe 

re-entry dates, if a public notification requirement is specified on the label of the product applied. The 

public notice signs will be at least 81⁄2” x 11” in size and will contain the date of application and the 

date of safe re-entry. 

Wildlife Habitat and Special Status Species 

 Where effective, water developments would be managed to reduce the spread of West Nile virus. 

 Well locations and associated road and pipeline routes would be selected and designed to avoid 

disturbances to areas of high wildlife value (e.g., raptor nest sites, wetland areas). 

 Avoid activities and facilities that create barriers to the seasonal movements of big game and livestock. 

 Reserve, workover, and production pits potentially hazardous to wildlife would be adequately 

protected (e.g., fencing, netting) to prohibit wildlife access as directed by the BLM. 

 Install wildlife escape ramps in all watering troughs, including temporary water haul facilities, and 

open storage tanks. Pipe the overflow away from the last water trough on an open system to provide 

water at ground level. 

 As appropriate, mark certain trees on BLM administered lands for protection as wildlife trees. 

 Consider seasonal distribution of large wildlife species when determining methods used to accomplish 

weed and insect control objectives. 

 Temporary and permanent access roads will be avoided on south-facing slopes within designated 

crucial big game winter range, where practicable. 

 The planting of grasses, forbs, trees, or shrubs beneficial to wildlife will follow the BLM seeding 

policy. When needed, BLM will require installation of erosion and sedimentation control measures, 

such as riprap, erosion mats, mulch, bales, dikes or water bars. Riprap material and placement must be 

approved by the appropriate agency. 

 All above-ground electrical poles and lines will be raptor-proofed to avoid electrocution following the 

criteria outlined in the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (2006). ROW fencing would be kept 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 H - 18 Appendix H 

to a minimum; if necessary, fences would consist of four-strand barbed wire meeting BLM Fencing 

Handbook 1741-1 standards for facilitating wildlife movement. Bottom wire would be smooth. 

 For all breeding birds (sage grouse) observed, additional surveys would be conducted immediately 

prior to construction activities to search for active nest sites. 

 To avoid potentially significant noise impacts, compressor engines would be located 2,500 feet or 

more from a dwelling or residence and from sage-grouse leks. Activities in crucial habitats would be 

avoided when practicable. 

 Wildlife habitat mitigation would be carried out as quickly as possible or at the same time as the 

disturbance. 

 Locatable mineral development activities would not be allowed within identified big game parturition 

areas between May 1 and June 30 or within raptor nesting areas from February 1 to July 31. 

 Powerlines would be buried or otherwise constructed or modified to reduce impacts to wildlife where 

possible. 

 Wildlife-proof fencing would be used on reclaimed area, in accordance with standards specified in 

BLM Fencing Handbook 1741-1, if it is determined that wildlife species are impeding successful 

vegetation establishment. 

 Waste water / West Nile 

► Avoiding shallow depths in the pools. Depths should be sufficient to prevent the growth of 

wetland vegetation. 

► Provide steep slopes to micropool banks 

► Consider mechanical aeration of permanent pools 

► Make the micropool accessible to remove silt, vegetation, and maintain the outlet structure

► Make the micropool accessible to treat with larvicide 

► Avoid rock at the outlet structures 

Fisheries Habitat and Special Status Species 

 Habitat improvement techniques: including stream bank stabilization, riparian management, enhancing 

in-stream cover, providing fish passage, and preventing entrainment. All reasonable alternatives for 

maintaining adequate in-stream flows, physical habitat, and water quality would be used, along with 

purchase of private water rights and negotiations on timing, duration and volume of flows and drawdowns where possible. 

 If riparian zones are fenced to exclude grazing, fences will be 100’ from the stream banks, unless sitespecific circumstances dictated otherwise. 

 Habitat-improvement techniques will be used where appropriate to provide missing habitat 

components or improve existing habitats: Examples of these techniques include stream bank 

stabilization, riparian management, enhancement of in-stream cover, provisions for fish passage, and 

prevention of entrainment. All reasonable alternatives for maintaining adequate in-stream flows, 

physical habitat, and water quality will be used, along with the purchase of private water rights and 

negotiations on timing, duration and volume of flows and draw-downs where possible. 

 At the project level, dead and down woody material would be retained in amounts that are within the 

range of natural variability for the plant community, to the extent compatible with reforestation 

objectives, fire hazard reduction standards, and public safety. 

 For stream currently occupied by any special status species, do not allow extraction of water from 

ponds or pools if stream inflow is minimal (i.e. during drought situations) and extraction of water 

would lower existing pond or pool level. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix H H - 19 September 2015 

 Activities such as stream crossings that could directly impact sensitive or protected fish species will be 

undertaken during non-spawning periods for these species. In the unlikely event that multiple, 

sensitive, or protected fish species with back-to-back spawning periods are present in the same stream 

reach, one of the following options will be exercised: selecting a nearby, alternative stream crossing 

site that does not provide suitable spawning habitat for the fish species of concern; using a nearby, 

existing stream crossing over the channel to avoid instream disturbances; or using shore-based 

equipment to position and extend the pipeline or other item (e.g., temporary bridge) across the stream, 

thereby avoiding in-channel activities. 

 Habitat-improvement techniques will be used where appropriate to provide missing habitat 

components or improve existing habitats. Examples of these techniques include stream bank 

stabilization, riparian management, enhancing in-stream cover, provide fish passage, and prevent 

entrainment. All reasonable alternatives for maintaining adequate in-stream flows, physical habitat, 

and water quality will be used, along with purchase of private water rights and negotiations on timing, 

duration and volume of flows and draw-downs where possible. 

Cultural and Heritage Resources 

 Ensure a Class III cultural inventory will be conducted prior to surface disturbance commencement 

 Ensure that all activities associated with the undertaking, within 100 meters of the discovery, are halted 

and the discovery is appropriately protected, until the BLM Authorized Officer issues a Notice to 

Proceed. A Notice to Proceed may be issued by the BLM under any of the following conditions: 

o Evaluation of potentially eligible resource(s) results in a determination that the resource(s) are 

not eligible; 

o The fieldwork phase of the treatment option has been completed; and 

o The BLM has accepted a summary description of the fieldwork performed and a reporting 

schedule for that work 

 The operator/permittee will inform all persons associate with the project/undertaking that knowingly 

disturbing cultural resources (historic or archaeological) or collecting artifacts is illegal. 

 Perform viewshed reclamation when the setting of a site contributes to the significance of the property. 

 Implement protection measures to stop, limit, or repair damage to sites. A variety of protection 

measures described in BLM Manual 8140 may be used to protect the integrity of sites at risk , such as 

signs, fencing or barriers, trash removal, target shooting closures, erosion control, backfilling, 

repairing, shoring up, or stabilizing structures, restricting uses and access, and closures. 

 Nominate eligible sites, districts, landscapes and traditional cultural properties for inclusion on the 

National Register of Historic Places 

 Encourage public/volunteer involvement in the management of cultural resources through participation 

of established site steward programs and other programs. 

 Specific plans would be developed for each site type unless included in other integrated activity plans. 

Such plans would include protective measures, Native American consultation, and regulatory 

compliance. These plans would also include but not be limited to developing a site monitoring system; 

identifying sites in need of stabilization, restoration, and protective measures (e.g. fences, surveillance 

equipment, etc.); developing research designs for selected areas/sites; designating sites/areas for 

interpretative development; identifying areas for cultural inventory where federal undertaking are 

expected to occur; and developing specific mitigation measures. The plan would designate sites, 

districts, and landmarks that would be nominated for inclusion in the National Register of Historic 

Places. 

 Conduct inventory according to professional standards commensurate with the land-use activity, 

environmental conditions, and the potential for cultural resources 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 H - 20 Appendix H 

 Pro-actively reduce hazardous fuels or mitigate the potential hazard around archaeological and cultural 

sites that are susceptible to destruction by fire 

 Reduce or eliminate imminent threats from natural or human caused deterioration or conflict with other 

resource uses 

 Identify priority geographic areas for Section 110 cultural inventories based on a probability for 

unrecorded significant resources and/or resource need 

 Ensure that all authorizations for land and resource use would comply with Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act, consistent with and subject to the objectives established in the RMP for the 

proactive use of cultural properties in the public interest 

 Provide for legitimate field research by qualified scientists and institutions 

 Allow for reconstruction, stabilization, maintenance, and interpretation of selected sites for public 

enjoyment and education 

 Should National Register eligible cultural resources be found during an inventory, impacts to them 

would be mitigated, generally through avoidance. Should it be determined the cultural resources 

cannot be avoided; consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer would be initiated. A 

program on mitigation would be developed via consultation between the Billings Field Office, the 

SHPO, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

 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 

 Establish and implement protective measures for sites, structures, objects, and traditional use areas that 

are important to Native American tribes with historical and cultural connections to the land, in order to 

maintain the viewshed, intrinsic values, and the auditory, visual, and aesthetic settings of the resources. 

Protection measures for undisturbed cultural resources and their natural setting would be developed in 

compliance with regulatory mandates and Native American consultation 

 Conduct consultation process to identify both the resource management concerns and the strategies for 

addressing them through an interactive dialogue with Native American tribes with affinity to the 

project area 

 Consult with affiliated Native American tribes for the protection of areas and items of traditional lifeways and religious significance that includes, but is not limited to burials, rock art, traditional use 

areas, religious active areas, and sacred sites 

 Limit surface disturbing activities within selected Native American traditional cultural and religious 

sites for continued use by tribes. Traditional cultural sites would be identified in consultation with 

affiliated Native American tribes 

 Protect burial sites, associated burial goods, and sacred items in accordance with the Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

Paleontological Resources 

 Ensure a paleontological inventory will be conducted prior to surface disturbance commencement in 

areas with a PFYC rating of 3 or higher. 

 When paleontological resources of potential scientific interest are encountered (including all vertebrate 

fossils and deposits of petrified wood), leave them intact and immediately bring them to the attention 

of the BLM Authorized Officer. 

 BLM APD COAs provide guidance for notifying BLM and mitigating damage to paleontological 

resources discovered during oil and gas construction activities. Limitations include restricted use of 

explosives for geophysical exploration, monitoring requirements, and work stoppages for discovered 

resources. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix H H - 21 September 2015 

 Reports of theft or damage to fossil resources would be responded to by appropriate BLM personnel 

 Conduct regular monitoring to protect areas where unauthorized use may occur 

 Where scientifically significant fossils are threatened by natural hazards or unauthorized collection, the 

BLM would work with permittees and other partners to salvage specimens and reduce future threats to 

resources at risk 

 The BLM would work with local communities, interest groups, individuals, and other agencies to 

enhance the public’s understanding and enjoyment of paleontological resources

 In areas where surface disturbance, either initiated by BLM or other land users, may threaten 

significant fossils, the BLM would follow its policy (see Manual and Handbook 8270-1) to assess any 

threat and mitigate damage. 

Wildfire Ecology and Management 

 Operators are required to comply with BLM-imposed conditions during times of high fire danger. Such 

conditions may include restrictions on types of activities allowed, hours of operation, and requirements 

for maintaining certain fire suppression equipment at the work site. Operators must maintain a current 

fire suppression plan. 

 Use appropriate management after wildland fire, including re-planting, to promote reforestation on 

forested lands which are not expected to regenerate or have not shown regeneration within 15 years. 

 Notify valid existing land users (such as mine claimants, oil and gas lessees, holders of rights-of-way, 

livestock permittees, and other BLM permitted users of the area, etc.) prior to implementation of 

prescribed fires that may affect their investments. 

 Remove vegetation, where appropriate, to protect BLM facilities (e.g. range improvements, 

communication sites, recreation sites, etc.) 

Fire Management for Sage-Grouse Conservation 

 Develop field office-specific sage-grouse tool boxes containing maps, a list of resource advisors, 

contact information, local guidance, and other relevant information 

 Provide localized maps to dispatch offices and extended attack incident commanders for use in 

prioritizing wildlife suppression resources and designing suppression tactics. 

 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. 

 On critical fire weather days, pre-position additional fire suppression resources to optimize a quick and 

efficient response in sage-grouse habitat areas. 

 During periods of multiple fires, ensure line officers are involved in setting priorities. 

 To the extent possible locate wildfire suppression facilities (i.e. base camps, spike camps, drop points, 

staging areas, heli-bases, etc.) 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. 

 Power-wash all firefighting vehicles, to the extent possible, including engines, water tenders, personnel 

vehicles, and ATVs prior to deploying in or near sage-grouse habitat areas to minimize noxious weed 

spread. 

 Minimize unnecessary cross-country vehicle travel during fire operations in sage-grouse habitat. 

 Minimize burnout operations in key sage-grouse habitat areas by constructing direct fireline whenever 

safe and practical to do so. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 H - 22 Appendix H 

 Utilize retardant and mechanized equipment to minimize burned acreage during initial attack. 

 As safety allows, conduct mop-up where the black adjoins unburned islands, dog legs, or other habitat 

features to minimize sagebrush loss. 

Fuels Management for Sage-Grouse Conservation 

 Where applicable, design fuels treatment objectives to protect existing sagebrush ecosystems, modify 

fire behavior, restore native plants, and create landscape patterns which most benefit sage-grouse 

habitat. 

 Provide training to fuels treatment personnel on sage-grouse biology, habitat requirements, and 

identification of areas utilized locally. 

 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). 

 Ensure proposed sagebrush treatments are planned with interdisciplinary input from BLM and/or state 

wildlife agency biologists and that treatment acreage is conservative in the context of surrounding 

sage-grouse seasonal habitats and landscape. 

 Where appropriate, ensure that treatments are configured in a manner (e.g., strips) that promotes use by 

sage-grouse (See Connelly et al. 2000). 

 Where applicable, incorporate roads and natural fuel breaks into fuel break design. 

 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 plants species. 

 Design vegetation treatments in areas of high fire frequency to facilitate firefighter safety, reduce the 

risk of extreme fire behavior, and to reduce the risk and rate of fire spread to key and restoration 

habitats. 

 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 a 

second priority for restoration when the sites are not adjacent to key habitat but within two miles of 

key habitat. The third priority for annual grassland habitat restoration projects are sites beyond the two 

miles of key habitat. The intent is to focus restoration outward from existing, intact habitat. 

 As funding and logistics permit, restore annual grasslands to a species composition characterized by 

perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs. 

 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. 

 Remove standing and encroaching trees within at least 100 meters of occupied sate-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. 

 Protect wildland areas from wildfire originating on private lands, infrastructure corridors, and 

recreational areas. 

 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. 

 Strategically place and maintain pre-treated strips/areas (e.g., mowing, herbicide application and 

strictly managed grazed strips) to aid in controlling wildfire should wildfire occur near key habitat or 

important restoration areas (such as where investments in restoration have already been made). 

Visual Resource Management 

 Camouflage of all structures/facilities (e.g. wellheads, com sites, etc.) constructed as a result of a BLM 

authorized undertaking in Class II and Class III Visual Resource Management Areas will be required 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix H H - 23 September 2015 

to preserve the viewshed. Camouflage will consist of placement of wellheads to reduce visual 

intrusions and painting of above-ground structures not requiring safety coloration an environmental 

color two shades darker than the surrounding environment. 

 During implementation of vegetation treatments, create irregular margins around treatment areas to 

better maintain existing scenic character of the landscape. 

 When feasible, bury utility lines on public lands when in the viewshed of residential or community 

development. 

 Bury distribution powerlines or flow lines in or adjacent to access roads 

 Use repetition of form, line, color, and texture to blend facilities with the surrounding landscape. 

 Reclaim and recontour all disturbed areas, including access roads, to the original contour or a contour 

that blends with the surrounding topography. 

 Avoid facility placement on steep slopes, ridge tops, and hilltops. 

 Reclaim unused well pads within 1 year. 

Fluid Mineral Exploration and Development 

 Reduce impacts to wildlife and visual resources by applying the following, as appropriate: 

► Directional drilling of oil and gas wells 

► Drilling of multiple wells from a single pad 

► Closed drilling systems 

► Cluster development 

► Below-ground wellheads 

► Remote well monitoring 

► Piping of produced liquids to centralized tank batteries off site to reduce traffic to individual wells 

► Transportation planning (e.g. to reduce road density and traffic volumes) 

► Compensatory mitigation 

► Noise reduction techniques and designs 

► Installation of raptor anti-perch devices in greater sage-grouse habitat 

► Avoidance of human activity between 8 pm and 8 am from March 1 through May 15 within 1⁄4 

mile of the perimeter of occupied greater sage-grouse leks 

► Onsite bioremediation of oil field wastes and spills 

► Removal of trash, junk, waste, and other materials not in current use 

 Reclaim all disturbed surface areas promptly, performing concurrent reclamation as necessary, and 

minimize the total amount of all surface disturbance. 

 Ensure all surface soil is stripped prior to conducting operations, stockpiled, and reapplied during 

reclamation, regardless of soil quality. Minimize the length of time soil remains in stockpiles and the 

depth or thickness of stockpiles. 

 Strip and separate soil surfaces horizons where feasible and reapply in proper sequence during 

reclamation. 

 Establish vegetation cover on soil stockpiles that are to be in place longer than 1 year. 

 Construct and rehabilitate temporary roads to minimize total surface disturbance, consistent with 

intended use. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 H - 24 Appendix H 

 Consider temporary measures such as silt fences, straw bales, or mulching to trap sediment in sensitive 

areas until reclaimed areas are stabilized with vegetation. 

 Reshape to the approximate original contour all areas to be permanently reclaimed, providing for 

proper surface drainage. 

Fluid Mineral Extraction 

 Applications for permit to drill would follow the best management practices as outlines in the BLM oil 

and gas Gold Book 

(http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/best_management_practices/gold_book.html), 

as well as on-shore regulations, individual surface use plans, and conditions for approval that may be 

part of the Record of Decision for EISs or Decision Records for environmental assessments/Findings 

of No Significant Impacts, Documentations of NEPA Adequacy, and Categorical Exclusions prepared 

for site-specific projects. 

 Notify the BLM Authorized Officer within 5 days of completion of reclamation work so that timely 

compliance inspections can be completed. 

 The operator will work with the BLM Authorized Officer on the containment of drilling fluids and drill 

hole cuttings. Adequately fence, post, or cover mud and separation pits, and hazardous material storage 

areas. 

Fluid Minerals: Best Management Practices 

 BMPs and standard operating procedures specific to coal bed natural gas (CBNG) can be found on 

pages 24 through 27 of the rod. Cited references are from the final SES 

 Other more general oil and gas BMPs may be found at the following website: 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/best_management_practices.html. This location 

is subject to periodic updates and should be reviewed as needed. These measures are not lease 

stipulations and can be added to permits for new activities. 

Solid Minerals: Best Management Practices 

BLM’s long term reclamation goals are to shape, stabilize, revegetate, or otherwise treat disturbed areas in order to 

provide a self-sustaining and productive use of the land in conformance with the land-use plan. Short-term 

reclamation goals are to stabilize disturbed areas and protect both disturbed and adjacent areas from unnecessary or 

undue degradation. 

Reclamation for operations conducted under 43 CFR Group 3500 for the solid leasable minerals other than coal and 

oil shale; 43 CFR Group 3600 for mineral materials; and 43 CFR Parts 3802 and 3809 for locatable minerals. The 

authority for regulating surface coal mine reclamation was given to the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement when Congress enacted the Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. 

The Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) mandates that "the public lands be managed in a 

manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, 

water resource, and archeological values." Multiple-use management is defined in FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1702(c)) and 

in regulations (43 CFR 1601.0-5(f)) as, in part, the "harmonious and coordinated management of the various 

resources without permanent impairment of the productivity of the lands and the quality of the environment with 

consideration being given to the relative values of the resources and not necessarily to the combination of uses that 

will give the greatest economic return or the greatest unit output." In addition, FLPMA mandates that activities be 

conducted so as to prevent "unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands" (43 U.S.C. 1732(b)). 

The Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a) established the policy for the Federal Government 

relating to mining and mineral development. The Act states that it is policy to encourage the development of 

“economically sound and stable domestic mining, minerals, metal and mineral reclamation industries.” The Act also 

states, however, that the Government should also promote the “development of methods for the disposal, control, 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix H H - 25 September 2015 

and reclamation of mineral waste products, and the reclamation of mined land, so as to lessen any adverse impact of 

mineral extraction and processing upon the physical environment that may result from mining or mineral activities.”

BLM exercises the authority to supervise exploration, mining, and reclamation activities on Indian lands pursuant to 

25 U.S.C. 396d and 25 CFR Parts 211, 212, and 216. The standards developed for reclamation and closure on 

Federal lands will apply to operations conducted on Indian lands. The Government's trust responsibilities for the 

various Indian tribes and entities require that BLM ensure proper reclamation and closure practices. The regulations 

governing operations on Indian lands require that "adequate measures be taken to avoid, minimize, or correct 

damage to the environment--land, water, and air--and to avoid, minimize, or correct hazards to the public health and 

safety" (25 CFR 216.1). 

The reclamation plan shall guide both the operator and the BLM toward a planned future condition of the disturbed 

area. This requires early coordination with the operator to produce a comprehensive plan. The reclamation plan will 

serve as a binding agreement between the operator and the regulatory agencies for the expected reclamation 

condition of the disturbed lands and must be periodically reviewed and modified as necessary. Because this is a 

binding agreement between the operator and the regulatory agency it must be monitored on a regular basis to ensure 

the reclamation plan is current. New information concerning the ore body, use of different mining methods than 

originally planned, etc., will require the review of the previous NEPA analysis to determine whether additional 

environmental documentation is warranted. 

Although the operator will usually develop the reclamation plan, appropriate pre-planning, data inventory, and 

involvement in the planning process by the regulatory agencies, is essential to determine the optimum reclamation 

proposal. Most determinations as to what is expected should be made before the reclamation plan is approved and 

implemented. However, the regulations provide that plans can be modified to adjust to changing conditions or to 

correct for an oversight. The operator should not conduct surface disturbing activities without an approved plan. For 

notice level activities, the notice must contain an agreement to adhere to the reclamation requirements of the 

regulations and a proposal comprehensive enough for the BLM to ensure that unnecessary or undue degradation will 

not result. A reclamation plan should provide the following: 

1. A logical sequence of steps for completing the reclamation process. 

2. The specifics of how reclamation standards will be achieved. 

3. An estimate of specific costs of reclamation. 

4. Sufficient information for development of a basis of inspection and enforcement of reclamation and 

criteria to be used to evaluate reclamation success and reclamation bond release. 

5. Sufficient information to determine if the reclamation plan is in conformance with the applicable BLM 

land-use plans, activity plans, and/or coastal zone management plans as appropriate. 

In preparing and reviewing reclamation plans, the BLM and the operator must set reasonable, achievable, and 

measurable reclamation goals which are not inconsistent with the established land-use plans. Achievable goals will 

ensure reclamation and encourage operators to conduct research on different aspects of reclamation for different 

environments. These goals should be based on available information and techniques, should offer incentives to both 

parties, and should, as a result, generate useful information for future use. 

The purposes of the reclamation plan are as follows: 

1. Reclamation plans provide detailed guidelines for the reclamation process and fulfill Federal, State, 

County and other local agencies requirements. They can be used by regulatory agencies in their 

oversight roles to ensure that the reclamation measures are implemented, are appropriate for the site, 

and are environmentally sound. 

2. Reclamation plans will be used by the operator throughout the operational period of the project and 

subsequent to cessation of exploration, mining, and processing activities. In turn, responsible agencies, 

including the BLM, will use the reclamation plan as a basis to review and evaluate the success of the 

reclamation program. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 H - 26 Appendix H 

3. Reclamation plans should provide direction and standards to assist in monitoring and compliance 

evaluations. 

Surface Disturbing Activities 

For the purposes of this Handbook, surface-disturbing activities will be separated into three broad categories. 

 Prospecting is the search for new deposits or mineral commodities. Prospecting activities may include: 

geophysical/ geochemical studies, and hand sampling of mineral specimens. 

 Exploration includes efforts to determine the presence of economic deposits of mineral commodities. 

Exploration activities may include: road-building, drilling, trenching, bulk sampling, as well as any of 

the activities cited for prospecting. 

 Development and mining or mineral processing is the process of extracting valuable minerals from the 

earth and removing impurities from these minerals. These activities may include: developmental 

drilling, road-building, underground mining (including shafts, portals, and adits), surface mining 

(including trenching, open pits, and strip mines), dredging, placer mining, construction of buildings 

and facilities, use of leaching solutions or other chemicals, and the creation of tailings disposal sites 

and waste dumps. 

See Table II-1 for a summary of activities and mineral categories/mine status. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

In accordance with the NEPA (NEPA), an environmental document will be prepared for those mineral actions which 

propose surface disturbance and have not been categorically excluded for the purpose of identifying and mitigating 

the impacts to the environment. Notices under 43 CFR 3809 are not Federal actions subject to the provisions of 

NEPA. The requirements and mitigation measures recommended in an Environmental Assessment (EA) or 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) shall be made a part of the reclamation plan. 

Requirements for Reclamation Plan Content 

The reclamation plan should be a comprehensive document submitted with the plan of operations, notice, 

exploration plan, or mining plan. It is expected that there will be changes to planned reclamation procedures over the 

life of the project. Any changes will generally be limited to techniques and methodology needed to attain the goals 

set forth in the plan. These changes to the plan may result from oversights or omissions from the original 

reclamation plan, permitted alterations of project activities, procedural changes in planned reclamation as a result of 

information developed by on-site revegetation research undertaken by the operator, results of monitoring data which 

indicates a new concern at the site and studies performed elsewhere, and/or changes in Federal/State regulations. 

Specific requirements are given in Manual Section 3042. 

BLM Review of the Reclamation Plan 

When reviewing the reclamation plan, the AO should: 

1. Immediately upon its receipt, conduct a completeness review to determine whether the reclamation 

plan is technically and administratively complete. 

2. Review the plan for content, both in the office and on-site with the operator, as necessary. 

3. Recommend revisions, if necessary, as a result of the on-site review, NEPA documentation, and 

consultation with appropriate BLM personnel and other SMA's. 

4. Ensure that the plan conforms to applicable State and Federal requirements. 

5. Approve or accept the reclamation plan within the appropriate timeframes. 

6. Set a schedule for inspection of operations and reclamation activities. Inspections must be scheduled at 

key points in the reclamation process, as well as at regular intervals. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix H H - 27 September 2015 

7. Establish criteria for evaluating the success of reclamation. 

When administering a reclamation plan, the AO should: 

1. Conduct scheduled inspections and other inspections as necessary to ensure compliance with the 

reclamation plan. It is important to inspect work while it is in progress and before it is concealed by 

further work. 

2. Document inspections in an established case file and discuss needed changes with the operator. These 

discussions with the operator should also be documented in the case file. 

3. Ensure that required interim reclamation is current and in accordance with the plan. 

4. Take appropriate action in the event of noncompliance. 

5. Require revisions of the reclamation plan as necessary. 

6. Monitor completed projects and evaluate the success of reclamation. 

7. Accept final reclamation after a reasonable monitoring period and issue a decision. A reasonable 

monitoring period should not be less than 5 years for determining vegetation and erosion control 

success. 

Mineral Material Sites: Standard Operating Procedures 

Before establishing a new community pit, free use area, collection area or exclusive sale, a Plan of Operation and a 

Reclamation Plan will be prepared. The appropriate NEPA analysis will also be completed. 

When appropriate and necessary a reclamation bond will be collected. Reclamation and management of the site will 

when appropriate consist of the following: 

 Suitable topsoil, subsoil, or underlying soil parent material that is suitable for plant growth will be 

removed and stored for site restoration. 

 Topcover stockpiles will be stabilized in order to prevent erosion and dust. 

 The area will be fenced to exclude livestock, promote revegetation, increase safety and reduce theft. 

 A weed control plan will be developed or weed control will be addressed in the Plan of Operation. 

 Purchasers of material will be warned of potential weed seeds. 

 The pit walls will not exceed a safe working angle. 

 Reclaimed slopes will not exceed 2.5:1 (h:v). 

 Disturbed areas will be reclaimed to blend as closely as possible with natural contours. 

 Final blending to natural contours should be considered and incorporated into the Plan of Operation. 

 Stockpiled topcover will be replaced as soon as practically possible. 

 Disturbed areas will be scarified (where necessary) and reseeded as soon as possible in order to reduce 

erosion, dust and visual effects. 

 Measures may need to be taken to reduce visual effects. Visual effects should be considered and 

incorporated into the Plan of Operation. 

 A seed mix approved by BLM and appropriate for the area will be used. 

 Erosion controls will be incorporated into the Plan of Operation. 

 If dust becomes excessive, measures will be taken to reduce the hazard. 

 The site will be returned to as close as possible to the “Post Mining Land Use”
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 H - 28 Appendix H 

 All remaining litter or trash shall be removed from the site. 

Realty, Cadastral Survey, and Lands 

 Corridors will be required for placement of roads, pipelines, and utility lines in a common area of 

disturbance wherever possible. 

 Utility companies will manage vegetation in their rights-of-way, permit area or lease area for safe and 

reliable operation while minimizing impacts to vegetation and wildlife habitat. 

 Keep removal and disturbance of vegetation to a minimum through construction site management e.g., 

using previously disturbed areas and existing easements, limiting equipment/materials storage and 

staging area sites, etc. 

 Re-spread weed-free vegetation removed from the right-of-way to provide protection, nutrient 

recycling, and seed source. 

 Ensure rights-of-way (ROW) and utility corridors use areas adjoining or adjacent to previously 

disturbed areas whenever possible. 

 Stabilize disturbed areas within road ROWs and utility corridors with vegetation practices designed to 

hold soil in place and minimize erosion. Reestablish vegetation cover to increase infiltration and to 

provide additional protection from erosion. 

 Construct sediment barriers when needed to slow runoff, allow deposition of sediment, and prevent 

transport from the site. Straining or filtration mechanisms may also be employed for the removal of 

sediment from runoff. 

 Property boundaries and jurisdictional boundaries will be determined in their correct location before 

they are marked and posted. Land management activities will not be conducted to an approximate or 

unknown property or jurisdictional boundary line. 

Management of Land Boundaries 

1. Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP and Cadastral Survey and Lands Program 

Background: 

a. In the area covered by this RMP is the Yellowstone River. In some townships significant river 

movement has taken place. This adds a layer of complexity in sorting out ownership. In reaches 

of the river with significant river movement the ownership and boundary lines between public 

lands and adjoining lands, and between BLM's special areas, are ill-defined and ripe for 

unintentional trespass or encroachment. Before ownership and the boundaries of the uplands 

(riparian areas, flood plain areas, access areas), islands, and the riverbed can be determine a river 

study is required. This are complex, requires the scare skills of a riparian specialist, and expensive. 

Tools available to enable the scheduling and funding of such river studies are (1) for long stretches 

of the river, Management of Land Boundary Plans to identify high risk high priority areas, set 

priorities, develop the workforce plan, and formulate necessary budget planning. and (2) for 

individual action areas, Standards for Boundary Evidence Certificates. The river that is becoming 

increasingly more popular for recreational activities such as rafting, fishing and hunting, and 

significant vegetative and habitat adjustments. 

2. The BLM currently monitor boundaries of special areas through development of Management of Land 

Boundary (MLB) Plans. 

3. MLB Plans are multi-scale; dependent on the issue(s) monitored, 

4. MLB Plans are used on special areas as (a) a risk assessment tool for unit managers to protect and monitor 

land and resources and (b) for workforce planning and out year budget planning. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix H H - 29 September 2015 

5. MLB Plans identifies the risk to resources and/or land from antiquated surveys, and errors and 

misrepresentations in the land tenure records, e.g., river movement, island formation, fraudulent or 

obliterated surveys. 

6. The Director and ASLM have pledged to develop and utilize MLB Plans as a response to a recent OIG 

Audit Report. 

7. It is recommended the first iteration MLB Plan for each Planning Area be first order (broad scale). 

8. Individual actions can be review using the Standards for Boundary Evidence process, fourth order (site 

specific). 

Livestock Grazing 

1. Water developments: 

 Place water troughs off-site from springs, streams and riparian zones. To protect this type of water 

source, fence source (when possible) with wildlife friendly fencing materials. 

 Place wildlife escape ramps in all water tanks and troughs. 

 Trough height should not exceed twenty two (22) inches. 

 Completely drain troughs and tanks at the end of the grazing season. 

 Actual work in springs and stream beds will be done by hand where possible. If machinery is needed in 

these areas, it will be selected to minimize disturbance 

 After construction of spring head boxes, troughs, pipelines, and well sites, the areas will be cleaned up 

and refuse removed. 

 Cuts, fills, and excavation will be dressed and seeded to blend with surroundings. Pipelines will be 

buried where possible. 

 Original water sources will be protected, fenced if required, and an off-stream watering supply will be 

provided near the site. 

 Size of storage tanks and troughs will be designed to accommodate expected needs of livestock and 

wildlife using each water source. 

 Water will be left at the sight for wildlife. Wells will be cased to prevent cave-ins and well sites will be 

fenced. 

 Storage structures will be designed to provide water for wildlife. Drinking ramps (wildlife ramps) will 

be installed and storage structure heights will not prohibit young wildlife from obtaining water. 

2. Fences: 

 Property and allotment fences will be determined in their correct location before they are constructed. 

No fence will be constructed to an approximate or unknown property or allotment boundary line. 

 Ensure that local wildlife needs are incorporated into any construction specifications on contract built 

fence projects. 

 Before removing, replacing, or modifying existing fences, cadastral survey will be consulted to assure 

property boundary or evidence of ownership will not be destroyed. 

 Consider removing, replacing, or modifying existing fences in sage grouse habitat. 

 In critical sage grouse habitat, mark top wire with high-visibility marking material. 

 Damaged gates and fences will be repaired or replaced according to landowner requirements at the 

operator‘s expense. When working on or near grazing lands, project-related construction equipment 

and vehicle movement will be minimized to avoid disturbance of grazing lands. Responsibilities for 

fence, gate, and cattle guard maintenance and noxious weed control will be defined in APDs, BLM 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 H - 30 Appendix H 

approvals, or right-of-way (ROW) grants. Facilities will be placed to avoid or minimize impacts on 

livestock water. 

Recreation 

 For developed recreation, construct recreation sites and provide appropriate sanitation facilities to 

minimize impacts to resource values, maximize public health and safety, and minimize user conflicts 

related to approved activities and access within an area as appropriate. 

 Use public education and/or physical barriers (such as rocks, posts, and vegetation) to direct or 

preclude uses and to minimize impacts to resource values. 

 Oil and gas exploration activities will be coordinated for timing to minimize conflicts during recreation 

peak use periods. 

 Dispersed recreation activity would be monitored to identify where this use may be impacting the 

vegetation resource. 

 Seasonal restrictions on public vehicular access will be evaluated where there are wildlife habitat 

conflict and/or conflicts with wild horses and or wild horse habitat or road damage/maintenance issues. 

 Do not allow surface or underground disturbance to occur within 100 yards (horizontally or vertically) 

of known cave resources. 

 Where appropriate, do not allow ground disturbing activities within 100 yards of cave entrances, 

drainage areas, subsurface passages, and developed recreation sites. Do not dispose of waste material 

or chemicals in sinkholes or gates by cave entrances. If during construction activities any sinkholes or 

cave openings are discovered, case construction activities and notify the BLM Authorized Officer. 

 The recreation permittee will assume liability for and clean up any and all releases of hazardous 

substances or oil (more than one quart) disposed on public lands as defined in the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (40 CFR § 300). The permittee will immediately notify the 

BLM Authorized Officer of any and all releases of hazardous substances or oil (more than one quart) 

on public land. 

Health and Safety 

 Hazardous waste site clearance surveys will be conducted prior to surface disturbance commencement. 

 Solid and hazardous wastes generated as a result of oil and gas lease operations will be disposed of in a 

manner and at a site approved by the appropriate regulating agency. 

 Areas with steep topography will be developed in accordance with the BLM Gold Book (United States 

Department of the Interior and United States Department of Agriculture 2007) requirements. Lease 

roads and constructed facilities will be located in accordance with the approved APD. In areas of 

construction, topsoil will be stockpiled separately from other material, and be reused in reclamation of 

the disturbed areas. Unused portions of the producing well site will have topsoil spread over it and will 

be reseeded. 

 Construction activities will be restricted during wet or muddy conditions and will be designed 

following BMPs to control erosion and sedimentation. If porous subsurface materials are encountered 

during pit construction, all onsite fluid pits will be lined. During road and utility ROW construction, 

surface soils will be stockpiled adjacent to the cuts and fills. 

 Stream crossings will be designed to minimize impacts and not impede stream flow. Erosion control 

measures will be maintained and continued until adequate vegetation cover (as defined by BLM on a 

case-by-case basis) is reestablished. Vegetation will be removed only when necessary. Water bars will 

be constructed on slopes of 3:1 or steeper. 

 Erosion control and site restoration measures will be initiated as soon as a particular area is no longer 

needed for exploration, production, staging, or access. Disturbed areas will be re-contoured to provide 

proper drainage. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix H H - 31 September 2015 

 The road ditches would be flat bottomed and “V” ditches not allowed. Place water turn outs where 

appropriate to lessen the water impacts upon the ditches. 

 Topsoil piles may be required to be seeded following the BLM seeding policy. 

 Take measures to isolate, control, and properly dispose of toxic and hazardous materials. 

Transportation– Travel Management (Road design and maintenance) 

 Keep access roads to a minimum and use only when necessary. 

 Design roads to minimize total disturbance, conform with topography, and minimize disruption of 

natural drainage patterns. 

 Locate roads on stable terrain, such as ridgetops; natural benches; and flatter transitional slopes near 

ridges, valley bottoms, and moderate sideslopes, and away from slumps, slide-prone areas, concave 

slopes, clay beds, and where rock layers dip parallel to the slope. Locate roads on well-drained soil 

types; avoid wet areas. 

 Construct roads for surface drainage by using outslopes, crowns, grade changes, drain dips, waterbars, 

and /or insloping, as appropriate, during road maintenance. Grade roads only as necessary. 

 Sloping the road base to the outside edge for surface drainage is normally recommended for local spurs 

or minor collector roads where low traffic volume and lower traffic speeds are anticipated. This is also 

recommended in situations where long intervals between maintenance will occur and where minimum 

excavation is wanted. Outsloping is not recommended on steep slopes. Sloping the road base to the 

inside is an acceptable practice with steep sideslopes and where the underlying soil formation is very 

rocky and not subject to appreciable erosion or failure. 

 Crown and ditching is recommended for arterial and collector roads where traffic volume, speed, 

intensity, and user comfort are considerations. Recommended gradients range from 0 percent (0%) to 

15 percent (15%) where crown and ditching may be applied, as long as adequate drainage away from 

the road surface and ditch lines is maintained. 

 Retain vegetation between roads and streams to filter runoff caused by roads. 

 Use culverts that pass, at a minimum, a 50 year storm event and/or have a minimum diameter of 13 

inches for permanent stream crossings and a minimum diameter of 18 inches for road crossdrains. 

 Strip and stockpile topsoil ahead of construction of new roads, if feasible. Reapply soil to cut and fill 

slopes prior to revegetation. 

 Use existing roads whenever possible rather than constructing new road systems. 

H.12 BLM Wind Energy Development Program 

Policies and Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

The BLM's Wind Energy Development Program will establish a number of policies and BMPs, provided below, 

regarding the development of wind energy resources on BLM administered public lands. The policies and BMPs 

will be applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered public lands. The policies address 

the administration of wind energy development activities, and the BMPs identify required mitigation measures that 

would need to be incorporated into project-specific Plans of Development (PODs) and right-of-way (ROW) 

authorization stipulations. Additional mitigation measures will be applied to individual projects, in the form of 

stipulations in the ROW authorization as appropriate, to address site-specific and species-specific issues. 

These policies and BMPs were formulated through preparation of the Final Wind Energy PElS (BLM 2005). The 

PElS included detailed, comprehensive analysis of the potential impacts of wind energy development and relevant 

mitigation measures; reviews of existing, relevant mitigation guidance; and reviews of comments received during 

scoping and public review of the Draft PElS. Also available online at: http://windeis.anl.gov/ 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 H - 32 Appendix H 

A.1 Policies 

 The BLM will not issue ROW authorizations for wind energy development on lands on which wind 

energy development is incompatible with specific resource values. Lands that will be excluded from 

wind energy site monitoring and testing and development include designated areas that are part of the 

National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) (e.g., Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, 

National Monuments, NCAs,1 Wild and Scenic Rivers, and National Historic and Scenic Trails) and 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs).2

 Additional areas of land may be excluded from 

wind energy development on the basis of findings of resource impacts that cannot be mitigated and/or 

conflict with existing and planned multiple-use activities or land use plans. 

 To the extent possible, wind energy projects shall be developed in a manner that will not prevent other 

land uses, including minerals extraction, livestock grazing, recreational use, and other ROW uses. 

 Entities seeking to develop a wind energy project on BLM-administered lands shall consult with 

appropriate federal, state, and local agencies regarding specific projects as early as in the planning 

process as appropriate to ensure that all potential construction, operation, and decommissioning issues 

and concerns are identified and adequately addressed. 

 The BLM will initiate government-to-government consultation with Indian Tribal governments whose 

interests might be directly and substantially affected by activities on BLM-administered lands as early 

in the planning process as appropriate to ensure that construction, operation, and decommissioning 

issues and concerns are identified and adequately addressed. 

 Entities seeking to develop a wind energy project on BLM-administered lands, in conjunction with 

BLM Washington Office (WO) and Field Office (FO) staff, shall consult with the U.S. Department of 

Defense (DoD) regarding the location of wind power projects and turbine siting as early in the 

planning process as appropriate. This consultation shall occur concurrently at both the installation/field 

level and the Pentagon/BLM WO level An interagency protocol agreement is being developed to 

establish a consultation process and to identify the scope of issues for consultation. Lands withdrawn 

for military purposes are under the administrative jurisdiction of the DoD or a military service and are 

not available for issuance of wind energy authorizations by the BLM. 

 The BLM will consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as required by Section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). The specific consultation requirements will be determined 

on a project-by-project basis. 

 The BLM will consult with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) as required by Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). The specific consultation requirements will 

be determined on a project-by-project basis. If programmatic Section 106 consultations have been 

conducted and are adequate to cover a proposed project, additional consultation may not be needed. 

 Existing land use plans wi1l be amended, as appropriate, to (1) adopt provisions of the BLM's Wind 

Energy Development Program, (2) identify land considered to be available for wind energy 

development, and (3) identify land that will not be available for wind energy development. 

 The level of environmental analysis to be required under NEPA for individual wind power projects 

will be determined at the FO level. For many projects, it may be determined that a tiered 

environmental assessment (EA) is appropriate in lieu of an EIS. To the extent that the PElS addresses 

anticipated issues and concerns associated with an individual project, including potential cumulative 

impacts, the BLM will tier off of the decisions embedded in the PElS and limit the scope of additional 

project-specific NEPA analyses. The site specific NEPA analyses will include analyses of project site 

configuration and micrositing considerations, monitoring program requirements, and appropriate 

mitigation measures. In particular, the mitigation measures discussed in Chapter 5 of the PElS may be 

consulted in determining site-specific requirements. Public involvement will be incorporated into all 

 

1

 Wind energy development is permitted in one NCA, the California Desert Conservation Area (COCA), in accordance with the 

provisions of the California Desert Conservation Area Plan 1980. As Amended (BLM 1999). 

2

 Although the MPDS developed for this PElS (Section 2.2.1 and Appendix 8) did not exclude all of these lands at the screening 

level, they will be excluded from wind energy development. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix H H - 33 September 2015 

wind energy development projects to ensure that all concerns and issues are identified and adequately 

addressed. In general, the scope of the NEPA analyses will be limited to the proposed action on BLMadministered public lands; however, if access to proposed development on adjacent non-BLMadministered lands is entirely dependent on obtaining ROW access across BLM-administered public 

lands and there are no alternatives to that access, the NEPA analysis for the proposed ROW may need 

to assess the environmental effects from that proposed development. The BLM's analyses of ROW 

access projects may tier off of the PElS to the extent that the proposed project falls within the scope of 

the PElS analyses. 

 Site-specific environmental analyses will tier from the PElS and identity and assess any cumulative 

impacts that are beyond the scope of the cumulative impacts addressed in the PElS. 

 The Categorical Exclusion (CX) applicable to the issuance of short-term ROWs or land use 

authorizations may be applicable to some site monitoring and testing activities. The relevant CX, 

established for the BLM in the DOI Departmental Manual 516, Chapter 11, Sec. 11.5, E(l9) (DOI 

2004), encompasses "issuance of short-term (3 years or less) rights-of-way or land use authorizations 

for such uses as storage sites, apiary sites, and construction sites where the proposal includes 

rehabilitation to restore the land to its natural or original condition." 

 The BLM will require financial bonds for all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered 

public lands to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the rights-of-way authorization and 

the requirements of applicable regulatory requirements, including reclamation costs. The amount of the 

required bond will be determined during the rights-of-way authorization process on the basis of sitespecific and project-specific factors. The BLM may also require financial bonds for site monitoring 

and testing authorizations. 

 Entities seeking to develop a wind energy project on BLM-administered public lands shall develop a 

project-specific Plan of Development (POD) that incorporates all BMPs and, as appropriate, the 

requirements of other existing and relevant BLM mitigation guidance, including the BLM's interim 

off-site mitigation guidance (BLM 2005a). Additional mitigation measures will be incorporated into 

the POD and into the ROW authorization as project stipulations, as needed, to address site-specific and 

species-specific issues. The POD will include a site plan showing the locations of turbines, roads, 

power lines, other infrastructure, and other areas of short-and long-term disturbance. 

 The BLM will incorporate management goals and objectives specific to habitat conservation for 

species of concern (e.g., sage-grouse), as appropriate, into the POD for proposed wind energy projects. 

 The BLM will consider the visual resource values of the public lands involved in proposed wind 

energy development projects, consistent with BLM Visual Resource Management (VRM) policies and 

guidance. The BLM will work with the ROW applicant to incorporate visual design considerations into 

the planning and design of the project to minimize potential visual impacts of the proposal and to meet 

the VRM objectives of the area. 

 Operators of wind power facilities on BLM-administered public lands shall consult with the BLM and 

other appropriate federal, state, and local agencies regarding any planned upgrades or changes to the 

wind facility design or operation. Proposed changes of this nature may require additional 

environmental analysis and/or revision of the POD. 

 The BLM's Wind Energy Development Program will incorporate adaptive management strategies to 

ensure that potential adverse impacts of wind energy development are avoided (if possible), 

minimized, or mitigated to acceptable levels. The programmatic policies and BMPs will be updated 

and revised as new data regarding the impacts of wind power projects become available. At the 

project-level, operators will be required to develop monitoring programs to evaluate the environmental 

conditions at the site through all phases of development, to establish metrics against which monitoring 

observations can be measured, to identify potential mitigation measures, and to establish protocols for 

incorporating monitoring observations and additional mitigation measures into standard operating 

procedures and project-specific stipulations. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 H - 34 Appendix H 

A.2 Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

The BMPs will be adopted as required elements of project-specific PODs and/or as ROW authorization stipulations. 

They are categorized by development activity: site monitoring and testing, development of the POD, construction, 

operation, and decommissioning. The BMPs for development of the POD identify required elements of the POD 

needed to address potential impacts associated with subsequent phases of development. 

A.2.1 Site Monitoring and Testing 

 The area disturbed by installation of meteorological towers (i.e., footprint) shall be kept to a minimum. 

 Existing roads shall be used to the maximum extent feasible. If new roads are necessary, they shall be 

designed and constructed to the appropriate standard. 

 Meteorological towers shall not be located in sensitive habitats or in areas where ecological resources 

known to be sensitive to human activities (e.g., prairie grouse) are present. Installation of towers shall 

be scheduled to avoid disruption of wildlife reproductive activities or other important behaviors. 

 Meteorological towers installed for site monitoring and testing shall be inspected periodically for 

structural integrity. 

A.2.2 Plan of Development Preparation 

General 

 The BLM and operators shall contact appropriate agencies, property owners, and other stakeholders 

early in the planning process to identify potentially sensitive land uses and issues, rules that govern 

wind energy development locally, and land use concerns specific to the region. 

 Available information describing the environmental and sociocultural conditions in the vicinity of the 

proposed project shall be collected and reviewed as needed to predict potential impacts of the project. 

 The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-required notice of proposed construction shall be made as 

early as possible to identity any air safety measures that would be required. 

 To plan for efficient use of the land, necessary infrastructure requirements shall be consolidated 

wherever possible, and current transmission and market access shall be evaluated carefully. 

 The project shall be planned to utilize existing roads and utility corridors to the maximum extent 

feasible, and to minimize the number and length/size of new roads, lay-down areas, and borrow areas. 

 A monitoring program shall be developed to ensure that environmental conditions are monitored 

during the construction, operation, and decommissioning phases. The monitoring program 

requirements, including adaptive management strategies, shall be established at the project level to 

ensure that potential adverse impacts of wind energy development are mitigated. The monitoring 

program shall identify the monitoring requirements for each environmental resource present at the site, 

establish metrics against which monitoring observations can be measured, identify potential mitigation 

measures, and establish protocols for incorporating monitoring observations and additional mitigation 

measures into standard operating procedures and BMPs. 

 "Good housekeeping" procedures shall be developed to ensure that during operation the site will be 

kept clean of debris, garbage, fugitive trash or waste, and graffiti; to prohibit scrap heaps and dumps; 

and to minimize storage yards. 

Wildlife and Other Ecological Resources 

 Operators shall review existing information on species and habitats in the vicinity of the project area to 

identify potential concerns. 

 Operators shall conduct surveys for federal and/or state-protected species and other species of concern 

(including special status plant and animal species) within the project area and design the project to 

avoid (if possible), minimize, or mitigate impacts to these resources. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix H H - 35 September 2015 

 Operators shall identify important, sensitive, or unique habitats in the vicinity of the project and design 

the project to avoid (if possible), minimize, or mitigate impacts to these habitats (e.g., locate the 

turbines, roads, and ancillary facilities in the least environmentally sensitive areas; i.e., away from 

riparian habitats, streams, wetlands, drainages, or critical wildlife habitats). 

 The BLM will prohibit the disturbance of any population of federal listed plant species. 

 Operators shall evaluate avian and bat use of the project area and design the project to minimize or 

mitigate the potential for bird and bat strikes (e.g., development shall not occur in riparian habitats and 

wetlands). Scientifically rigorous avian and bat use surveys shall be conducted; the amount and extent 

of ecological baseline data required shall be determined on a project basis. 

 Turbines shall be configured to avoid landscape features known to attract raptors, if site studies show 

that placing turbines there would pose a significant risk to raptors. 

 Operators shall determine the presence of bat colonies and avoid placing turbines near known bat 

hibernation, breeding, and maternity/nursery colonies; in known migration corridors; or in known 

flight paths between colonies and feeding areas. 

 Operators shall determine the presence of active raptor nests (i.e., raptor nests used during the breeding 

season). Measures to reduce raptor use at a project site (e.g., minimize road cuts, maintain either no 

vegetation or nonattractive plant species around the turbines) shall be considered. 

 A habitat restoration plan shall be developed to avoid (if possible), minimize, or mitigate negative 

impacts on vulnerable wildlife while maintaining or enhancing habitat values for other species. The 

plan shall identify revegetation, soil stabilization, and erosion reduction measures that shall be 

implemented to ensure that all temporary use areas are restored. The plan shall require that restoration 

occur as soon as possible after completion of activities to reduce the amount of habitat converted at 

any one time and to speed up the recovery to natural habitats. 

 Procedures shall be developed to mitigate potential impacts to special status species. Such measures 

could include avoidance, relocation of project facilities or lay-down areas, and/or relocation of biota. 

 Facilities shall be designed to discourage their use as perching or nesting substrates by birds. For 

example, power lines and poles shall be configured to minimize raptor electrocutions and discourage 

raptor and raven nesting and perching. 

Visual Resources 

 The public shall be involved and informed about the visual site design elements of the proposed wind 

energy facilities. Possible approaches include conducting public forums for disseminating information, 

offering organized tours of operating wind developments, and using computer simulation and 

visualization techniques in public presentations. 

 Turbine arrays and turbine design shall be integrated with the surrounding landscape. Design elements 

to be addressed include visual uniformity, use of tubular towers, proportion and color of turbines, 

nonreflective paints, and prohibition of commercial messages on turbines. 

 Other site design elements shall be integrated with the surrounding landscape. Elements to address 

include minimizing the profile of the ancillary structures, burial of cables, prohibition of commercial 

symbols, and lighting. Regarding lighting, efforts shall be made to minimize the need for and amount 

of lighting on ancillary structures. 

Roads 

 An access road siting and management plan shall be prepared incorporating existing BLM standards 

regarding road design, construction, and maintenance such as those described in the BLM 9113 

Manual (BLM 1985) and the Surface Operating Standards for Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development (RMRCC 1989) (i.e., the Gold Book). 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 H - 36 Appendix H 

Ground Transportation 

 A transportation plan shall be developed, particularly for the transport of turbine components, main 

assembly cranes, and other large pieces of equipment. The plan shall consider specific object sizes, 

weights, origin, destination, and unique handling requirements and shall evaluate alternative 

transportation approaches. In addition, the process to be used to comply with unique state requirements 

and to obtain all necessary permits shall be clearly identified. 

 A traffic management plan shall be prepared for the site access roads to ensure that no hazards would 

result from the increased truck traffic and that traffic flow would not be adversely impacted. This plan 

shall incorporate measures such as informational signs, flaggers when equipment may result in blocked 

throughways, and traffic cones to identify any necessary changes in temporary lane configuration. 

Noise 

 Proponents of a wind energy development project shall take measurements to assess the existing 

background noise levels at a given site and compare them with the anticipated noise levels associated 

with the proposed project. 

Noxious Weeds and Pesticides 

 Operators shall develop a plan for control of noxious weeds and invasive species, which could occur as 

a result of new surface disturbance activities at the site. The plan shall address monitoring, education 

of personnel on weed identification, the manner in which weeds spread, and methods for treating 

infestations. The use of certified weed-free mulching shall be required. If trucks and construction 

equipment are arriving from locations with known invasive vegetation problems, a controlled 

inspection and cleaning area shall be established to visually inspect construction equipment arriving at 

the project area and to remove and collect seeds that may be adhering to tires and other equipment 

surfaces. 

 If pesticides are used on the site, an integrated pest management plan shall be developed to ensure that 

applications would be conducted within the framework of BLM and DOI policies and entail only the 

use of EPA-registered pesticides. Pesticide use shall be limited to nonpersistent, immobile pesticides 

and shall only be applied in accordance with label and application permit directions and stipulations 

for terrestrial and aquatic applications. 

Cultural/Historic Resources 

 The BLM will consult with Indian Tribal governments early in the planning process to identify issues 

regarding the proposed wind energy development, including issues related to the presence of cultural 

properties, access rights, disruption to traditional cultural practices, and impacts to visual resources 

important to the Tribe(s). 

 The presence of archaeological sites and historic properties in the area of potential effect shall be 

determined on the basis of a records search of recorded sites and properties in the area and/or, 

depending on the extent and reliability of existing information, an archaeological survey. 

Archaeological sites and historic properties present in the area of potential effect shall be reviewed to 

determine whether they meet the criteria of eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP). 

 When any rights-of-way application includes remnants of a National Historic Trail, is located within 

the viewshed of a National Historic Trail's designated centerline, or includes or is within the viewshed 

of a trail eligible for listing on the NRHP, the operator shall evaluate the potential visual impacts to the 

trail associated with the proposed project and identify appropriate mitigation measures for inclusion as 

stipulations in the POD. 

 If cultural resources are present at the site, or if areas with a high potential to contain cultural material 

have been identified, a cultural resources management plan (CRMP) shall be developed. This plan 

shall address mitigation activities to be taken for cultural resources found at the site. Avoidance of the 

area is always the preferred mitigation option. Other mitigation options include archaeological survey 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix H H - 37 September 2015 

and excavation (as warranted) and monitoring. If an area exhibits a high potential, but no artifacts were 

observed during an archaeological survey, monitoring by a qualified archaeologist could be required 

during all excavation and earthmoving in the high-potential area. A report shall be prepared 

documenting these activities. The CRMP also shall (1) establish a monitoring program, (2) identify 

measures to prevent potential looting/vandalism or erosion impacts, and (3) address the education of 

workers and the public to make them aware of the consequences of unauthorized collection of artifacts 

and destruction of property on public land. 

Paleontological Resources 

 Operators shall determine whether paleontological resources exist in a project area on the basis of the 

sedimentary context of the area, a records search for past paleontological finds in the area, and/or, 

depending on the extent of existing information, a paleontological survey. 

 If paleontological resources are present at the site, or if areas with a high potential to contain 

paleontological material have been identified, a paleontological resources management plan shall be 

developed. This plan shall include a mitigation plan for collection of the fossils; mitigation could 

include avoidance, removal of fossils, or monitoring. If an area exhibits a high potential but no fossils 

were observed during survey, monitoring by a qualified paleontologist could be required during all 

excavation and earthmoving in the sensitive area. A report shall be prepared documenting these 

activities. The paleontological resources management plan also shall establish a monitoring program, 

(2) identify measures to prevent potential looting/vandalism or erosion impacts, and (3) address the 

education of workers and the public to make them aware of the consequences of unauthorized 

collection of fossils on public land. 

Hazardous Materials and Waste Management 

 Operators shall develop a hazardous materials management plan addressing storage, use, 

transportation, and disposal of each hazardous material anticipated to be used at the site. The plan shall 

identify all hazardous materials that would be used, stored, or transported at the site. It shall establish 

inspection procedures, storage requirements, storage quantity limits, inventory control, nonhazardous 

product substitutes, and disposition of excess materials. The plan shall also identify requirements for 

notices to federal and local emergency response authorities and include emergency response plans. 

 Operators shall develop a waste management plan identifying the waste streams that are expected to be 

generated at the site and addressing hazardous waste determination procedures, waste storage 

locations, waste-specific management and disposal requirements, inspection procedures, and waste 

minimization procedures. This plan shall address all solid and liquid wastes that may be generated at 

the site. 

 Operators shall develop a spill prevention and response plan identifying where hazardous materials and 

wastes are stored on site, spill prevention measures to be implemented, training requirements, 

appropriate spill response actions for each material or waste, the locations of spill response kits on site, 

a procedure for ensuring that the spill response kits are adequately stocked at all times, and procedures 

for making timely notifications to authorities. 

Storm Water 

 Operators shall develop a storm water management plan for the site to ensure compliance with 

applicable regulations and prevent off-site migration of contaminated storm water or increased soil 

erosion. 

Human Health and Safety 

 A safety assessment shall be conducted to describe potential safety issues and the means that would be 

taken to mitigate them, including issues such as site access, construction, safe work practices, security, 

heavy equipment transportation, traffic management, emergency procedures, and fire control. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 H - 38 Appendix H 

 A health and safety program shall be developed to protect both workers and the general public during 

construction, operation, and decommissioning of a wind energy project. Regarding occupational health 

and safety, the program shall identify all applicable federal and state occupational safety standards; 

establish safe work practices for each task (e.g., requirements for personal protective equipment and 

safety harnesses; Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA] standard practices for safe 

use of explosives and blasting agents; and measures for reducing occupational electric and magnetic 

fields [EMF] exposures); establish fire safety evacuation procedures; and define safety performance 

standards (e.g., electrical system standards and lightning protection standards). The program shall 

include a training program to identify hazard training requirements for workers for each task and 

establish procedures for providing required training to all workers. Documentation of training and a 

mechanism for reporting serious accidents to appropriate agencies shall be established. 

 Regarding public health and safety, the health and safety program shall establish a safety zone or 

setback for wind turbine generators from residences and occupied buildings, roads, rights-of-ways, and 

other public access areas that is sufficient to prevent accidents resulting from the operation of wind 

turbine generators. It shall identify requirements for temporary fencing around staging areas, storage 

yards, and excavations during construction or decommissioning activities. It shall also identify 

measures to be taken during the operation phase to limit public access to hazardous facilities (e.g. 

permanent fencing would be installed only around electrical substations and turbine tower access doors 

would be locked). 

 Operators shall consult with local planning authorities regarding increased traffic during the 

construction phase, including an assessment of the number of vehicles per day, their size, and type. 

Specific issues of concern (e.g., location of school bus routes and stops) shall be identified and 

addressed in the traffic management plan. 

 If operation of the wind turbines is expected to cause significant adverse impacts to nearby residences 

and occupied buildings from shadow flicker, low-frequency sound, or EMF, site-specific 

recommendations for addressing these concerns shall be incorporated into the project design (e.g., 

establishing a sufficient setback from turbines). 

 The project shall be planned to minimize electromagnetic interference (EMI) (e.g., impacts to radar, 

microwave, television, and radio transmissions) and comply with Federal Communications 

Commission [FCC] regulations. Signal strength studies shall be conducted when proposed locations 

have the potential to impact transmissions. Potential interference with public safety communication 

systems (e.g., radio traffic related to emergency activities) shall be avoided. 

 The project shall be planned to comply with FAA regulations, including lighting regulations, and to 

avoid potential safety issues associated with proximity to airports, military bases or training areas, or 

landing strips. 

 Operators shall develop a fire management strategy to implement measures to minimize the potential 

for a human-caused fire. 

A.2.3 Construction 

General 

 All control and mitigation measures established for the project in the POD and the resource-specific 

management plans that are part of the POD shall be maintained and implemented throughout the 

construction phase, as appropriate. 

 The number and size/length of roads, temporary fences, lay-down areas, and borrow areas shall be 

minimized. Topsoil from all excavations and construction activities shall be salvaged and reapplied 

during reclamation. 

 All areas of disturbed soil shall be reclaimed using weed-free native grasses, forbs, and shrubs. 

Reclamation activities shall be undertaken as early as possible on disturbed areas. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix H H - 39 September 2015 

 All electrical collector lines shall be buried in a manner that minimizes additional surface disturbance 

(e.g., along roads or other paths of surface disturbance). Overhead lines may be used in cases where 

burial of lines would result in further habitat disturbance. 

 Operators shall identify unstable slopes and local factors that can induce slope instability (such as 

groundwater conditions, precipitation, earthquake activities, slope angles, and the dip angles of 

geologic strata). Operators also shall avoid creating excessive slopes during excavation and blasting 

operations. Special construction techniques shall be used where applicable in areas of steep slopes, 

erodible soil, and stream channel crossings. 

 Erosion controls that comply with county, state, and federal standards shall be applied. Practices such 

as jute netting, silt fences, and check dams shall be applied near disturbed areas. 

Wildlife 

 Guy wires on permanent meteorological towers shall be avoided, however, may be necessary on 

temporary meteorological towers installed during site monitoring and testing. 

 In accordance with the habitat restoration plan, restoration shall be undertaken as soon as possible after 

completion of construction activities to reduce the amount of habitat converted at any one time and to 

speed up the recovery to natural habitats. 

 All construction employees shall be instructed to avoid harassment and disturbance of wildlife, 

especially during reproductive (e.g. courtship and nesting) seasons. In addition, pets shall not be 

permitted on site during construction. 

Visual Resources 

 Operators shall reduce visual impacts during construction by minimizing areas of surface disturbance, 

controlling erosion, using dust suppression techniques, and restoring exposed soils as closely as 

possible to their original contour and vegetation. 

Roads 

 Existing roads shall be used, but only if in safe and environmentally sound locations. If new roads are 

necessary, they shall be designed and constructed to the appropriate standard and be no higher than 

necessary to accommodate their intended functions (e.g., traffic volume and weight of vehicles). 

Excessive grades on roads, road embankments, ditches, and drainages shall be avoided, especially in 

areas with erodible soils. Special construction techniques shall be used, where applicable. Abandoned 

roads and roads that are no longer needed shall be recontoured and revegetated. 

 Access roads and on-site roads shall be surfaced with aggregate materials, wherever appropriate. 

 Access roads shall be located to follow natural contours and minimize side hill cuts. 

 Roads shall be located away from drainage bottoms and avoid wetlands, if practicable. 

 Roads shall be designed so that changes to surface water runoff are avoided and erosion is not initiated. 

 Access roads shall be located to minimize stream crossings. All structures crossing streams shall be 

located and constructed so that they do not decrease channel stability or increase water velocity. 

Operators shall obtain all applicable federal and state permits. 

 Existing drainage systems shall not be altered, especially in sensitive areas such as erodible soils or 

steep slopes. Potential soil erosion shall be controlled at culvert outlets with appropriate structures. 

Catch basins, roadway ditches, and culverts shall be cleaned and maintained regularly. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 H - 40 Appendix H 

Ground Transportation 

 Project personnel and contractors shall be instructed and required to adhere to speed limits 

commensurate with road types, traffic volumes, vehicle types, and site-specific conditions, to ensure 

safe and efficient traffic flow and to reduce wildlife collisions and disturbance and airborne dust. 

 Traffic shall be restricted to the roads developed for the project. Use of other unimproved roads shall 

be restricted to emergency situations. 

 Signs shall be placed along construction roads to identify speed limits, travel restrictions, and other 

standard traffic control information. To minimize impacts on local commuters, consideration shall be 

given to limiting construction vehicles traveling on public roadways during the morning and late 

afternoon commute time. 

Air Emissions 

 Dust abatement techniques shall be used on unpaved, unvegetated surfaces to minimize airborne dust. 

 Speed limits (e.g., 25 mph [40 kph]) shall be posted and enforced to reduce airborne fugitive dust. 

 Construction materials and stockpiled soils shall be covered if they are a source of fugitive dust. 

 Dust abatement techniques shall be used before and during surface clearing, excavation, or blasting 

activities. 

Excavation and Blasting Activities 

 Operators shall gain a clear understanding of the local hydrogeology. Areas of groundwater discharge 

and recharge and their potential relationships with surface water bodies shall be identified. 

 Operators shall avoid creating hydrologic conduits between two aquifers during foundation excavation 

and other activities. 

 Foundations and trenches shall be backfilled with originally excavated material as much as possible. 

Excess excavation materials shall be disposed of only in approved areas or, if suitable, stockpiled for 

use in reclamation activities. 

 Explosives shall be used only within specified times and at specified distances from sensitive wildlife 

or streams and lakes, as established by the BLM or other federal and state agencies. 

 Borrow material shall be obtained only from authorized and permitted sites. Existing sites shall be used 

in preference to new sites. 

Noise 

 Noisy construction activities (including blasting) shall be limited to the least noise-sensitive times of 

day (i.e., daytime only between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.) 

 All equipment shall have sound-control devices no less effective than those provided on the original 

equipment. All construction equipment used shall be adequately muffled and maintained. 

 All stationary construction equipment (i.e. compressors and generators) shall be located as far as 

possible from nearby residences. 

 If blasting or other noisy activities are required during the construction period, nearby residents shall 

be notified in advance. 

Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

 Unexpected discovery of cultural or paleontological resources during construction shall be brought to 

the attention of the responsible BLM authorized officer immediately. Work shall be halted in the 

vicinity of the find to avoid further disturbance to the resources while they are being evaluated and 

appropriate mitigation measures are being developed. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix H H - 41 September 2015 

Hazardous Materials and Waste Management 

 Secondary containment shall be provided for all on-site hazardous materials and waste storage, 

including fuel. In particular, fuel storage (for construction vehicles and equipment) shall be a 

temporary activity occurring only for as long as is needed to support construction activities. 

 Wastes shall be properly containerized and removed periodically for disposal at appropriate off-site 

permitted disposal facilities. 

 In the event of an accidental release to the environment, the operator shall document the event, 

including a root cause analysis, appropriate corrective actions taken, and a characterization of the 

resulting environmental or health and safety impacts. Documentation of the event shall be provided to 

the BLM authorized officer and other federal and state agencies, as required. 

 Any wastewater generated in association with temporary, portable sanitary facilities shall be 

periodically removed by a licensed hauler and introduced into an existing municipal sewage treatment 

facility. Temporary, portable sanitary facilities provided for construction crews shall be adequate to 

support expected on-site personnel and shall be removed at completion of construction activities. 

Public Health and Safety 

 Temporary fencing shall be installed around staging areas, storage yards, and excavations during 

construction to limit public access. 

A.2.4 Operation 

General 

 All control and mitigation measures established for the project in the POD and the resource-specific 

management plans that are part of the POD shall be maintained and implemented throughout the 

operational phase, as appropriate. These control and mitigation measures shall be reviewed and 

revised, as needed, to address changing conditions or requirements at the site, throughout the 

operational phase. This adaptive management approach would help ensure that impacts from 

operations are kept to a minimum. 

 Inoperative turbines shall be repaired, replaced, or removed in a timely manner. Requirements to do so 

shall be incorporated into the due diligence provisions of the rights-of-way authorization. Operators 

will be required to demonstrate due diligence in the repair, replacement, or removal of turbines; failure 

to do so could result in termination of the rights-of-way authorization. 

Wildlife 

 Employees, contractors, and site visitors shall be instructed to avoid harassment and disturbance of 

wildlife, especially during reproductive (e.g., courtship and nesting) seasons. In addition, any pets shall 

be controlled to avoid harassment and disturbance of wildlife. 

 Observations of potential wildlife problems, including wildlife mortality, shall be reported to the BLM 

authorized officer immediately. 

Ground Transportation 

 Ongoing ground transportation planning shall be conducted to evaluate road use, minimize traffic 

volume, and ensure that roads are maintained adequately to minimize associated impacts. 

Monitoring Program 

 Site monitoring protocols defined in the POD shall be implemented. These will incorporate monitoring 

program observations and additional mitigation measures into standard operating procedures and 

BMPs to minimize future environmental impacts. 

 Results of monitoring program efforts shall be provided to the BLM authorized officer. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 H - 42 Appendix H 

Public Health and Safety 

 Permanent fencing shall be installed and maintained around electrical substations, and turbine tower 

access doors shall be locked to limit public access. 

 In the event an installed wind energy development project results in EMI, the operator shall work with 

the owner of the impacted communications system to resolve the problem. Additional warning 

information may also need to be conveyed to aircraft with onboard radar systems so that echoes from 

wind turbines can be quickly recognized. 

A.2.5 Decommissioning 

General 

 Prior to the termination of the rights-of-way authorization, a decommissioning plan shall be developed 

and approved by the BLM. The decommissioning plan shall include a site reclamation plan and 

monitoring program. 

 All management plans, BMPs, and stipulations developed for the construction phase shall be applied to 

similar activities during the decommissioning phase. 

 All turbines and ancillary structures shall be removed from the site. 

 Topsoil from all decommissioning activities shall be salvaged and replied during final reclamation. 

 All areas of disturbed soil shall be reclaimed using weed-free native shrubs, grasses, and forbs. 

 The vegetation cover, composition, and diversity shall be restored to values commensurate with the 

ecological setting. 
Appendix I: 

Incorporating GRSG RMP Decisions into Grazing 

Authorizations 

Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix I I - 1 September 2015 

Incorporating GRSG RMP Decisions into Grazing 

Authorizations 

Purpose 

The purpose is to provide recommended language; outline the process for prioritizing the review and processing of 

grazing permits/leases to determine if modification is necessary (prior to renewal and in accordance with 

prioritization criteria); provide direction for including specific management thresholds and defined responses that 

will allow adjustments to livestock grazing within the terms and conditions of permits; and provide a process for 

prioritizing compliance monitoring within Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFAs) and Priority Habitat Management Areas 

(PHMAs). 

Background 

The BLM manages approximately 18,000 livestock grazing permits and leases on the public lands. Livestock 

grazing is an integral part of the BLM multiple-use mission and is authorized by the Taylor Grazing Act (1934), the 

Federal Land Policy Management Act (1976) and the Public Rangeland Improvement Act (1978). By statute and 

regulation, grazing leases and permits are normally issued for 10-year periods. Annually, a range of 1,200 to 3,200 

grazing permits expire and the BLM receives 500 to 1,500 grazing permit/lease transfer requests. 

The BLM currently issues permits/leases in accordance with: 

 All applicable law, regulation, policy (NEPA, consultation, proposed/final grazing decision-also 

known as a fully processed permit); or 

 Various appropriation authorities enacted between 1999 and 2014 extending terms and conditions of 

expiring or transferred permits/leases that the BLM is unable to fully process before their expiration; or 

 Section 402(c)(2) of FLPMA (as amended by Public Law 113-291, enacted December 19, 2014). 

Congress has acted to ensure that grazing permittees could continue to graze if the BLM is unable to complete the 

environmental analysis mandated by the NEPA and other applicable laws. Since 1999, a provision (“the rider”) has 

been included in the Interior Appropriations bill that, in various forms, GHMAly authorizes the BLM to renew 

grazing permits and leases under their same terms and conditions until it fully processes the permit renewal in 

compliance with NEPA, ESA, and other legal or regulatory requirements. The most recent rider is contained in 

Section 411, Public Law 113-76.1

 The FLPMA amendment to Section 402 (c) allows BLM to renew grazing 

permits and leases under the same terms and conditions. This relieves the BLM’s renewal processing workload, 

allowing the BLM to prioritize permit processing based on sensitivity of the resources at issue.2

The BLM may modify terms and conditions of a permit or lease at any time following completion of appropriate 

analysis and consultation, cooperation, and coordination with the affected lessees or permittees, the State having 

 

1 The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 includes the provision Section 411 which states: “Section 415 of division E of Public Law 112–74 

is amended by striking ‘‘and 2013’’ and inserting ‘‘through 2015.’’ The terms and conditions of section 325 of Public Law 108-108 (117 stat. 

1307), regarding permits at the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service, shall remain in effect through fiscal year 2015. A grazing 

permit or lease issued by the Secretary of the Interior for lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management that is the subject of a request 

for a grazing preference transfer shall be issued, without further processing, for the remaining time period in the existing permit or lease using the 

same mandatory terms and conditions. If the authorized officer determines a change in the mandatory terms and conditions is required, the new 

permit must be processed as directed in section 325 of Public Law 108-108.” Where a FO is unable to fully process a permit renewal in 

compliance with all applicable laws prior to the permit expiration, Section 411 extends the authority to renew the grazing permit with the same 

terms and conditions as the expiring permit. Section 325 provides the process for authorizing grazing until a permit or lease is issued in 

compliance with all applicable law and regulatory processes. 

2

 The newly amended section 402(c) of FLPMA provides permanent authority to BLM to renew expiring permits. That section states, “The terms 

and conditions in a grazing permit or lease that has expired, or was terminated due to a grazing preference transfer, shall be continued under a 

new permit or lease until the date on which the Secretary concerned completes any environmental analysis and documentation for the permit or 

lease required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and other applicable laws.”
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 I - 2 Appendix I 

lands or responsible for managing resources within the area, and the interested public. 3 Under 43 C.F.R. 4160.1, the 

BLM must serve a proposed decision on any affected applicant, permittee or lessee, any agent and lien holder of 

record. Copies of the decisions are provided to the interested publics. 

Recommended Language to be incorporated as Livestock Grazing Management Actions 

within the GRSG ADPPs: 

 The BLM will prioritize the review of grazing permits/leases, including those prior to renewal to 

determine if modification is necessary, and processing of grazing permits and leases, in Sagebrush 

Focal Areas (SFAs) followed by PHMAs outside of the SFAs. In setting workload priorities, 

precedence will be given to existing permits/leases in 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 conditions (ex., fire) and legal obligations. 

 The NEPA analysis for renewals and modifications of livestock grazing permits/leases that include 

lands within PHMAs will include specific management thresholds based on GRSG Habitat Objectives 

Table and Land Health Standards (43 CFR 4180.2) and defined responses that will allow the 

authorizing officer to make adjustments to livestock grazing without conducting additional NEPA.

 Allotments within PHMAs, and focusing on those containing riparian areas, including wet meadows, 

will be prioritized for field checks to help ensure compliance with the terms and conditions within the 

grazing permits. Field checks could include monitoring for actual use, utilization, and use supervision. 

 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.

Addressing GRSG RMP Amendments/Revisions Objectives in Grazing Permits/Leases 

BLM will develop criteria to prioritize the workload to process permits/leases (either fully processed or reauthorized 

based on the Appropriations rider, or issued under Section 402(c)(2) of FLPMA) and determine whether 

modification is necessary prior to renewal within PHMAs, beginning with those in SFAs. In setting priorities, those 

containing riparian areas and areas not meeting Land Health Standards (43 C.F.R. 4180) will take precedence. 

Potential criteria for prioritizing permit modifications could include: 

 Are there riparian areas or wet meadows in the permit/lease area? 

 Was current livestock grazing identified as a causal factor for not meeting Land Health Standards? 

 Since the last allotment/watershed evaluation, is there current monitoring information to determine that 

the watershed/allotment is currently achieving or making significant progress towards achieving land 

health standards? 

 Does the permit have terms and conditions adequate to ensure proper grazing practices to meet GRSG 

habitat objectives found in the Special Status Species section of the land use plan? 

 Is there data that indicates that the GRSG habitat objectives, including the Habitat Objectives table, 

found in the Special Status Species section of the land use plan are being met? 

 Is there a request from the permittee to modify the terms and conditions of his/her permit? 

Additionally, if an existing permit/lease within PHMAs requires modification because current grazing is a 

significant causal factor for not meeting the Land Health Standards, the BLM will prepare the appropriate NEPA 

analysis and issue the proposed/final grazing decision under 43 C.F.R. Subpart 4160, subject to administrative 

appeal and potential judicial challenge. 

 

3

 43 CFR 4130.3-3 states: Following consultation, cooperation and coordination with the affected lessees or permittees, the State having lands or 

responsible for managing resources within the area, and the interested public, the authorized officer may modify terms and conditions of the 

permit or lease when the active grazing use or related management practices are not meeting the land use plan, allotment management plan or 

other activity plan, or management objectives, or is not in conformance with the provisions of subpart 4180 (Fundamentals of Rangeland Health 

and Standards and Guidelines for Grazing Administration). 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix I I - 3 September 2015 

The NEPA analysis for renewals and modifications of livestock grazing permits/leases that include lands within 

SFAs and PHMAs will include specific management thresholds based on GRSG Habitat Objectives Table and Land 

Health Standards (43 CFR 4180.2) and defined responses that will allow the authorizing officer to make adjustments 

to livestock grazing without conducting additional NEPA. Adjustments to meet seasonal Sage-Grouse habitat 

requirements could include: 

 Season or timing of use; 

 Numbers of livestock (includes temporary non-use or livestock removal); 

 Distribution of livestock use; 

 Intensity of use; and 

 Type of livestock (e.g., cattle, sheep, horses, llamas, alpacas and goats). 

Compliance Monitoring 

The BLM will monitor grazing permits/leases renewed or modified in accordance with the direction contained in 

this guidance as follows: Allotments within SFAs, followed by those in other PHMA, and focusing on those with 

riparian areas, will be prioritized for monitoring to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions in the permits. 

The BLM will collect, at a minimum, the following monitoring data: 

 Vegetation Condition 

 Actual Use 

 Utilization 

 Use Supervision 

Concerning Voluntary Relinquishments 

All ADPPs will include the following language: 

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.

For completing this, BLM offices should use WO IM 2013-184 Relinquishment of Grazing Permitted Use or the 

most recent policy guidance. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 I - 4 Appendix I 

Range Allotments

Allotment 

Number

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Management 

Status1

Livestock 

Kind2

Land Health Status3 Threatened, Endangered, 

and Special Status Species5

Sage Grouse 

Status4

Determination/ Standard/ 

Causal Factor/ Year

1 38313 50 AUMS 

120 AML

M C

WH/B

Not Meeting / 1,2,5/wild horses/ 

2004

FM, PB, TBEB, MP, PF, 

YCT, DR, DM, MPP, LB, 

OEP, PC, SHOSH, SM, WM, 

YB

None

955 40 6 C C None WO, GB None

960 1533 213 M C None BTPD, GSG RHMA

970 640 146 C C None None

978 40 6 C C None GB None

1460 1493 192 M C None TBEB, GSG, RHW None

1555 320 72 C C Meeting 2009 BTPD, WTPD, BO, GSG PHMA

3114 40 4 C C None GSG RHMA

3155 320 45 M C None BTPD None

3195 474 81 C C None TBEB, RHW None

4100 230 48 C C SPT /1,5/ weeds/ 2008 BTPD, GSG, MS GHMA

4101 6013 1253 I C Meeting 2002 BTPD, BO, GE, GSG, MP PHMA

4103 50 15 C C SPT/1,5/weeds/2009 GSG, GSHL None

4104 540 63 C C Meeting 2010 GSG None

4105 20216 614 I C Meeting 2002 FM, PB, TBEB, BGG, BRSP, 

CCL, GSG, MP, ST, LS, 

YCT, GSHL, DR, DD, DM, 

GEM, MPP, OEP, SC, SH, 

WRM, YB

PHMA

4106 200 36 C C Meeting 2009 GSHL, YB None

4107 120 20 C C Meeting 2008 None

4108 20 5 C C Meeting 2008 None

4109 880 210 C C Meeting 2009 BTPD, GSG, MS GHMA

4110 320 21 C C Meeting 2007 TBEB, MP, DM, GEM, 

WRM, YB

None

4111 1475 228 I C Meeting 2009 GSG, GSHL, MS PHMA
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix I I - 5 September 2015 

Allotment 

Number

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Management 

Status1

Livestock 

Kind2

Land Health Status3 Threatened, Endangered, 

and Special Status Species5

Sage Grouse 

Status4

Determination/ Standard/ 

Causal Factor/ Year

4112 520 40 C C Meeting 2006 GSG, GSHL PHMA

4113 3331 453 I C Meeting 2011 BO, GSG, DM PHMA

4114 1000 161 M C Meeting 2009 WTPD, BTPD, BO, GSG PHMA

4115 17101 1767 M C Meeting 2002 TBEB, BGG, BRSP, GSG, 

BO, ST, LS, MP, YCT, 

GSHL, DD, NA, SC, SMBU, 

SH

PHMA

4116 200 37 C C Meeting 2011 None

4117 20 5 C C Meeting 2008 None

4118 1088 110 M C Meeting 2007 GSG PHMA

4119 1320 309 M C Meeting 2007 GSG, GSHL PHMA

4120 505 76 M C SPT/1,5/weeds/2009 GSG, GSHL PHMA

4122 520 132 C C Meeting 2000 None

4123 80 16 C C Meeting 2009 None

4124 280 34 M C Meeting 2002 BGG, BRSP, GSG, BO PHMA

4125 468 76 C C Meeting 2002 None

4126 1338 218 M C Meeting 2003 TBEB, GSHL, GM, PC None

4127 320 32 C C Meeting 2008 GSG, PS PHMA

4128 240 37 C C SPT/1,5/weeds/2008 GSG GHMA

4129 880 146 M C Meeting 2007 GSG, MS, PS PHMA

4131 1894 275 M C Meeting 2007 BGG, GSG, PS PHMA

4132 960 107 M C Meeting 2002 BGG, GSG, BRSP, LS, ST, 

LBC, YCT, GSHL

PHMA

4133 1380 196 M C Meeting 2002 BGG, BRSP, GSG, LBC, ST, 

LS

PHMA

4134 720 7 C C Meeting 2003 None

4135 4943 432 I C Meeting 2011 BGG, BOB, BO, GSG, ST PHMA

4136 80 28 C C Meeting 2002 BO, GSG PHMA

4137 963 288 M C Meeting 2003 FH, GE, GSG PHMA

4138 40 7 C C Meeting 2009 None

4140 1635 456 C C Meeting 1999 GE, GSG PHMA

4141 480 127 M C Meeting 2009 BTPD, GSG GHMA
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 I - 6 Appendix I 

Allotment 

Number

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Management 

Status1

Livestock 

Kind2

Land Health Status3 Threatened, Endangered, 

and Special Status Species5

Sage Grouse 

Status4

Determination/ Standard/ 

Causal Factor/ Year

4142 40 12 C C Meeting 2004 BE GHMA

4143 608 158 M C Meeting 2002 GSG PHMA

4144 2658 443 M C Meeting 2010 GSG GHMA

4145 160 55 C C Meeting 2000 None

4147 40 4 C C Fail/1,5/livestock/2009 GSG PHMA

4148 840 77 I C None CL, GB, WO, GSG, BLFG PHMA

4150 890 94 C C Meeting 2002 GSG PHMA

4151 160 46 M C Meeting 2002 GSG PHMA

4152 1818 169 M C Meeting 2002 BTPD, BE, GSG, SA, SS RHMA

4153 160 30 C C Meeting 2003 GSG RHMA

4154 200 30 C C Meeting 2003 BTPD, BE, GSG, RHW, SA, 

SS

RHMA

4156 369 58 C C Meeting 2009 GB, PF None

4157 160 16 C C Meeting 2011 None

4158 240 37 C C Meeting 2006 BTPD None

4159 640 94 M C Meeting 2004 None

4160 1440 388 I C Fail/1,5/livestock/2002 BTPD, GSG RHMA

4161 3275 281 I C Meeting 2011 GSG PHMA

4162 80 16 C C Meeting 2003 YBC None

4163 40 8 C C Meeting 2003 YBC None

4165 640 180 M C SPT/1,5/livestock/2008 None

4166 120 24 C C Meeting 2001 None

4167 7515 427 I C SPT/1,5/livestock/2005 BRSP, GE, GSG, LS, GSHL, 

YB

PHMA

4168 40 5 C C Meeting 2009 GB, WO, NG None

4169 265 44 C C Meeting 2008 GSG None

4170 320 47 C C Meeting 2010 GSG RHMA

4171 290 57 C C Meeting 2011 None

4172 40 4 C C None BE None

4173 40 5 C C None GB, WO None

4175 40 8 C C None GSG PHMA

4803 35 9 C C Meeting 2011 GSG, GSHL None
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix I I - 7 September 2015 

Allotment 

Number

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Management 

Status1

Livestock 

Kind2

Land Health Status3 Threatened, Endangered, 

and Special Status Species5

Sage Grouse 

Status4

Determination/ Standard/ 

Causal Factor/ Year

4804 300 20 M C Meeting 2011 GSG PHMA

4808 472 111 C C Meeting 2009 GE, GSG PHMA

4903 6734 1752 M C Meeting 2008 FH, GE, GSG PHMA

4904 40 10 C C Meeting 2009 GSG PHMA

4905 2160 508 M C Meeting 2006 GSG, GSHL PHMA

4907 2562 528 I C SPT/1,5/livestock/2010 BTPD, BRSP, GE, GSG, ML, 

MP

PHMA

4908 160 62 M C Meeting 2007 GSG GHMA

4911 960 275 C C Meeting 2009 BTPD, GE, GSG PHMA

4912 40 6 C C Meeting 2007 None

4913 187 31 C C Meeting 2008 BRSP, GE, GSG, LS, ST, LIB PHMA

4914 80 17 C C Meeting 2010 GSG PHMA

4915 80 12 C C Meeting 2002 BTPD, GSG PHMA

4916 40 9 C C Meeting 2006 GSG PHMA

4917 200 48 C C Meeting 2008 BTPD, BO, GSG GHMA

4919 40 12 M C Meeting 2002 BTPD, GE, GSG, GSHL GHMA

4920 1120 133 M C Meeting 2009 BTPD, GE, GSG, GSHL GHMA

4921 833 234 I C Meeting 2002 BTPD, GSG PHMA

4922 317 102 M C Meeting 2008 GSG PHMA

4924 1320 305 M C Meeting 1999 BTPD, BO, GSG PHMA

4926 1021 304 M C Fails/1,5/livestock/2009 BTPD, GE, GSG PHMA

4929 600 168 M C Meeting 2009 GSG PHMA

4930 200 45 M C Meeting 2009 GSG GHMA

4931 702 208 M C Meeting 2002 GSG GHMA

4932 160 37 M C Meeting 2006 GSG GHMA

4933 320 74 M C Meeting 2009 None

4934 2073 516 M C Meeting 2006 TBEB, GSG GHMA

4935 800 230 M C Meeting 2009 None

4936 680 69 M C SPT/1,5/weeds/2008 None

4937 640 210 M C STP/1/livestock/2005 GSG PHMA

4938 160 39 M C Meeting 2000 GSG PHMA
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 I - 8 Appendix I 

Allotment 

Number

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Management 

Status1

Livestock 

Kind2

Land Health Status3 Threatened, Endangered, 

and Special Status Species5

Sage Grouse 

Status4

Determination/ Standard/ 

Causal Factor/ Year

4939 1400 315 I C SPT/1,5/livestock/2008 None

4940 2840 580 M C Meeting 2010 None

4941 2212 649 M C Meeting 2010 BTPD, BO, GSG, MP PHMA

4942 70 12 C C Meeting 2003 SS None

4943 1759 489 M C Meeting 2009 GSG PHMA

4944 160 47 M C Meeting 2008 TBEB, GSG None

4945 1911 531 I C Meeting 2009 GSG GHMA

4947 7454 1825 M C Meeting 2009 GSG PHMA

4948 640 178 M C Meeting 2009 GSG GHMA

4949 5135 1298 M C Meeting 2008 BTPD, BRSP, BO, GE, GSG, 

ML, MP

PHMA

4950 967 259 I C STP/1/livestock/2005 GSG PHMA

4951 1800 415 I C SPT/1,5/livestock/2008 GSG PHMA

4952 160 41 M C Meeting 2008 None

4953 655 167 M C Meeting 2002 None

4954 1170 305 I C Meeting 2000 GSG GHMA

4955 40 10 C C SPT/1/livestock/2009 GSG GHMA

4968 1280 369 M C Meeting 2006 GSG PHMA

4969 960 264 I C None GSG GHMA

4970 640 137 M C Meeting 2003 GSG PHMA

4971 2561 731 I C Meeting 2002 BO, BRSP, CCL, GE, GSG, 

LBC, ML, RHW, ST

PHMA

4972 5776 1626 M C Meeting 2011 BTPD, FH, GSG PHMA

4974 1180 401 M C Meeting 1999 BTPD, GSG, FH GHMA

4975 800 288 I C Meeting 2008 FH, GSG, ML PHMA

4976 320 114 M C Meeting 2006 FH, GSG GHMA

4978 40 12 C C Meeting 2000 GSG GHMA

4979 640 245 M C Meeting 2002 BRSP, CCL, GSG, LBC, ML, 

RHW, ST

PHMA

4980 320 125 M H Meeting 1998 GSG GHMA

4981 6520 1344 I C Meeting 2004 BTPD, BO, FH, GSG, ML PHMA

4982 320 96 M C Meeting 2001 GSG GHMA
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix I I - 9 September 2015 

Allotment 

Number

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Management 

Status1

Livestock 

Kind2

Land Health Status3 Threatened, Endangered, 

and Special Status Species5

Sage Grouse 

Status4

Determination/ Standard/ 

Causal Factor/ Year

4983 200 47 M C Meeting 2002 GE, GSG PHMA

4984 664 257 M C Meeting 2006 GSG GHMA

4985 160 50 C C Meeting 2008 BRSP, CCL , GSG, ML, LBC, 

RHW, ST

GHMA

4986 40 9 C C Meeting 2002 WHNS None

4987 40 9 C C Meeting 2009 GSG, WHNS PHMA

4988 2986 734 I C Meeting 2002 BTPD, BO, FH, GSG, ML PHMA

4989 1011 193 C C Meeting 1999 BTPD, GSG PHMA

4991 800 169 M C Meeting 2002 GSG PHMA

4992 492 174 M C Meeting 2002 GE, GSG PHMA

4994 520 102 C C SPT/1/weeds/2009 BTPD, GE, GSG PHMA

4995 240 55 C C Meeting 2009 BTPD, BO ,GSG PHMA

4996 480 94 C C Meeting 2009 BTPD, GE, GSG PHMA

4997 120 22 C C Meeting 2002 GSG PHMA

4998 200 48 C C Meeting 2002 GSG, WHNS PHMA

4999 40 4 C C Meeting 2007 GSG PHMA

5000 158 41 C C Meeting 2000 BTPD, GSG PHMA

5002 512 110 C C Meeting 2007 GSG PHMA

5004 80 24 C C Meeting 2009 GSG PHMA

5006 160 36 C C Meeting 2004 BRSP, CCL, GSG, LS, ST PHMA

5007 80 12 C I Meeting 2004 BTPD, BRSP, CCL, GSG, ST PHMA

5008 160 17 C C Meeting 2009 BE, GSG PHMA

5012 160 36 C C Meeting 2009 BTPD, GSG PHMA

5020 640 150 C C Meeting 2009 BRSP, GSG, LS, ST PHMA

5200 200 40 C C SPT/1,5/weeds/2008 GE, GSHL GHMA

5201 40 7 C C None None

5202 17447 1430 I C Meeting 2003 BRSP, GE, GSG, LS PHMA

5203 9552 1021 I C Meeting 2004 CL, GB, WO, GE, GSG, LS, 

PS, BLFG, SHOSH

PHMA

5204 1340 88 M C Meeting 2009 BRSP, GSG, ST PHMA

5205 32 5 C C Meeting 2008 GSG PHMA

5206 200 20 C S SPT/1,5/weeds/2008 GSHL None
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 I - 10 Appendix I 

Allotment 

Number

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Management 

Status1

Livestock 

Kind2

Land Health Status3 Threatened, Endangered, 

and Special Status Species5

Sage Grouse 

Status4

Determination/ Standard/ 

Causal Factor/ Year

5207 80 7 C C Meeting 2002 GE, GSG, GSHL PHMA

5208 720 132 C C Meeting 2009 GSG PHMA

5209 1115 127 M C Meeting 2003 GSG PHMA

5210 10272 748 I C SPT/1,2/livestock/2006 BRSP, GE, GSG, LS, ST PHMA

5212 40 13 C S Fails/1/livestock/2008 GSG GHMA

5213 5940 481 M C SPT/1,5/livestock/1999 GSG, GSHL, MS, PS PHMA

5214 1970 151 M C SPT/1/livestock/2009 BTPD, GSG PHMA

5215 480 60 C C Fails/1,5/livestock/2009 GSG, GSHL PHMA

5217 6961 442 M C Meeting 2002 WTPD, BO, GSG, GM, OEP PHMA

5219 200 24 C C Meeting 2008 GE, GSG, GSHL PHMA

5220 80 16 C H Meeting 2009 WO None

5221 520 68 M C SPT/1,5/livestock/2003 GSG PHMA

5222 80 16 C C Meeting 2000 GSHL None

5223 35 12 C C Meeting 2006 GSG None

5224 1395 90 M C Meeting 2004 GSG PHMA

5225 15294 1295 I C Meeting 2003 GB, WO, BRSP, GE, GSG, 

LS, LBC, PF, ST, GSHL, 

BLFG,SHOSH

PHMA

5228 240 30 C C Meeting 2004 GSHL None

5229 1837 201 C C Meeting 2002 BRSP, GE, GSG, LS, LBC PHMA

5231 160 40 C H Meeting 2004 None

5232 1040 120 I C Meeting 2007 GSG GHMA

5233 255 52 M C None BRSP, GSG, LBC PHMA

5235 6369 425 I C Meeting 2004 GE, GSG, LS, GSHL, MS, 

DM

PHMA

5300 5240 856 I C Meeting 2006 BTPD, GSG RHMA

5302 2147 344 I C Meeting 2006 BTPD, BO, GSG, GSHL, MS RHMA

5304 3035 351 I C Meeting 2010 BTPD, BE, SA, SS None

5307 960 130 M C Meeting 1999 GSG None

5308 380 134 C C Meeting 2001 None

5309 400 78 C C Meeting 2009 BTPD, BO, GSG RHMA

5310 839 146 C C Meeting 2003 BTPD, BE, GSG, SA, SS RHMA
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix I I - 11 September 2015 

Allotment 

Number

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Management 

Status1

Livestock 

Kind2

Land Health Status3 Threatened, Endangered, 

and Special Status Species5

Sage Grouse 

Status4

Determination/ Standard/ 

Causal Factor/ Year

5311 3275 455 I C Meeting 2006 BE, GSG RHMA

5312 2480 300 M C Meeting 2006 TBEB, GSG RHMA

5314 1910 610 M C Meeting 2009 BTPD, GSG RHMA

5318 1355 175 M C Meeting 2008 GSG None

5320 1577 222 I C Meeting 2006 BTPD None

5322 638 89 M C Meeting 2006 BTPD, GSG RHMA

5324 80 15 C C Meeting 2011 GSG None

5326 480 70 M C Meeting 2004 BTPD, BE, GSG, SA, SS RHMA

5329 120 12 C C Meeting 2006 BTPD, BE, GSG RHMA

5330 184 24 C C Meeting 2011 None

5331 200 36 M C Meeting 2010 BTPD, GSG None

5332 960 248 M C Meeting 2002 None

5333 160 37 M C Meeting 2001 None

5335 320 36 C C Meeting 2008 None

5337 1082 111 M C Meeting 2006 TBEB, RHW None

5338 1033 166 M C Meeting 2006 BTPD, GSG RHMA

5339 1600 266 M C Meeting 2002 RHMA

5340 640 92 M C Meeting 2003 GE, GSG RHMA

5341 4000 542 M C Meeting 2006 BTPD, BE, GSG, SA, SS None

5342 80 15 C C Fails/1,5/livestock/2009 BE, BO None

5344 640 45 M C SPT/1/OHV/2009 GSG None

5345 1465 79 C C Meeting 2010 GSG RHMA

5346 320 50 C C Meeting 2001 None

5347 320 55 C C Meeting 2000 GSG RHMA

5348 1916 384 M C Meeting 2000 None

5349 136 16 C C Meeting 2000 None

5350 1980 273 I C Meeting 2006 BTPD, BE, BO, GSG RHMA

5353 1258 180 C C Meeting 2006 GE, GSG RHMA

5354 40 21 C C Meeting 2006 BTPD, GSG, LS RHMA

5355 1760 313 M C Meeting 2007 BTPD, GSG RHMA

5356 3559 483 I C Meeting 2010 BTPD, GSG RHMA
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 I - 12 Appendix I 

Allotment 

Number

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Management 

Status1

Livestock 

Kind2

Land Health Status3 Threatened, Endangered, 

and Special Status Species5

Sage Grouse 

Status4

Determination/ Standard/ 

Causal Factor/ Year

5357 37 8 C C Meeting 2008 None

5361 320 48 M C Meeting 2008 BTPD, GSG RHMA

5362 560 72 M C SPT/1,5/livestock/2010 BE, GSG, SA, SS RHMA

5363 320 53 M C Meeting 2006 GSG RHMA

5370 4039 679 M C Meeting 2006 BTPD, GSG RHMA

5371 980 169 M C Meeting 2006 BTPD, GSG RHMA

5372 640 100 M C Meeting 2006 GSG None

5375 68 24 C C Meeting 2008 GSG, GSHL RHMA

5377 233 34 C C Meeting 2002 GSG RHMA

5378 1280 213 M C Meeting 2002 RHMA

5379 1708 290 M C Meeting 2003 BTPD, GSG, GSHL RHMA

5380 1672 347 M C Meeting 2003 BTPD, BE, GSG, SA, GSHL, 

SS

RHMA

5403 80 17 C C Fail/1/livestock/2010 BE, GE None

5404 40 10 C C Meeting 2004 None

5405 132 30 C C Meeting 2010 None

5407 80 12 C C Meeting 2000 BOB None

5409 896 184 C C Meeting 2006 GSG GHMA

5414 388 75 M C Meeting 2009 CL, GB, WO None

5416 80 23 C C Meeting 2004 None

5417 80 16 C C Meeting 2004 None

5418 40 8 C C Meeting 2006 None

5419 120 24 C C Meeting 2000 None

5424 78 12 C C Meeting 2010 None

5426 97 15 C C Meeting 2003 BE, GSHL None

5427 119 24 C C Meeting 2008 GSG, PF GHMA

5432 40 10 C C Meeting 2008 None

5434 160 50 C C Meeting 2008 GB, BOB, GSG GHMA

5435 80 15 C C SPT/1,5/weeds/2008 BE, BOB None

5437 308 60 C C Meeting 2001 GB, WO, GSG None

5438 40 13 C C Meeting 2008 None

5439 360 24 C C Meeting 2009 CL, GB, WO None
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix I I - 13 September 2015 

Allotment 

Number

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Management 

Status1

Livestock 

Kind2

Land Health Status3 Threatened, Endangered, 

and Special Status Species5

Sage Grouse 

Status4

Determination/ Standard/ 

Causal Factor/ Year

5440 60 10 C C SPT/1,5/weeds/2008 BE, BOB None

5441 40 8 C C SPT/1,5/weeds/2008 None

5444 120 29 C C Meeting 2006 None

5446 40 8 C C Meeting 2006 None

5449 40 10 C C Meeting 2007 BE None

5451 414 62 C C Fail/1,5/livestock/2009 BE, GE None

5453 215 49 C C Meeting 2008 GSG GHMA

5454 320 36 C C Meeting 2003 GSG, YBC GHMA

5458 80 20 C C Meeting 2002 None

5460 80 17 C C Meeting 2008 BOB None

5461 480 24 C C Meeting 2001 GB, WO None

5466 826 72 C C Meeting 2011 GB, WO None

5467 40 14 C Y Fail/1,5/weeds and fire/2007 None

5470 160 36 C C Meeting 2008 GSG GHMA

5471 674 120 C C Meeting 2009 None

5472 40 6 C C Meeting 2008 NONE

5474 533 163 C C Meeting 2009 GSG GHMA

5476 160 20 C C Meeting 2003 FM, GB, WO None

5477 640 114 C C Meeting 2009 GSG, PF GHMA

5483 91 8 C C Meeting 2009 None

5485 80 11 C C Meeting 2008 GB, PF None

5486 40 9 C C Meeting 2008 BASP, LBC None

5488 481 70 C C SPT/1,5/weeds/2008 None

5490 567 103 C C Meeting 2009 BE, GE, PF None

5492 1197 266 C C Meeting 2003 GB, WO, YCT None

5498 240 24 C C Meeting 2010 None

5500 81 18 C C Meeting 2009 None

5501 560 14 C C Meeting 2009 CL, GB, WO None

5502 40 6 C C SPT/1,5/weeds and fire/2008 GB, WO None

5503 520 63 C C Meeting 2009 GB, WO None

5504 87 8 C C Meeting 2001 None
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 I - 14 Appendix I 

Allotment 

Number

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Management 

Status1

Livestock 

Kind2

Land Health Status3 Threatened, Endangered, 

and Special Status Species5

Sage Grouse 

Status4

Determination/ Standard/ 

Causal Factor/ Year

5505 120 24 C C Meeting 2002 GB None

5508 40 7 C C SPT/1,5/weeds/2008 BE, BOB, PF None

5510 160 35 C C Meeting 2004 WO None

5511 40 15 C C Meeting 2004 GHMA

5512 80 17 C C Meeting 2008 None

5515 80 20 C C Meeting 2008 None

5516 337 58 C C Meeting 2001 None

5517 1040 180 C C SPT/1,5/OHV/2010 YCT, GSHL, MS, SS, WHNS None

5520 609 120 C C Meeting 2010 BE None

5521 160 32 C C Meeting 2001 None

5522 843 133 C C Meeting 1999 GB, WO, BOB, GSG None

5523 480 88 C C Meeting 2009 None

5524 160 34 C C Meeting 2008 GSG GHMA

5525 40 9 C C Meeting 2006 GSG GHMA

5532 107 42 C C Meeting 2008 GSG GHMA

5533 72 28 C C Meeting 2004 BOB, GSG, PF GHMA

5534 360 58 C H Meeting 2009 None

5535 40 8 C C Meeting 2004 None

5537 30 5 C C Meeting 2006 YBC None

5539 40 8 C C Meeting 2008 None

5540 40 13 C C Meeting 2008 BOB, GSG, PF None

5543 345 75 C C Meeting 2010 GB, WO, GSG None

5544 160 20 C C Meeting 2002 GSG GHMA

5545 685 215 C C Meeting 2000 None

5546 80 16 C C SPT/1,5/weeds & livestock/2008 MS None

5547 2867 566 M C Meeting 2002 GE, GSG PHMA

5548 710 139 I C Meeting 2009 GB None

5549 40 12 C C Meeting 2008 FH, GSG GHMA

5550 140 23 C C Meeting 2003 GB, WO None

5552 802 167 C C SPT/1,5/weeds & fire/ 2008 GB, WO None

5553 79 20 C C Meeting 2008 MS None
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix I I - 15 September 2015 

Allotment 

Number

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Management 

Status1

Livestock 

Kind2

Land Health Status3 Threatened, Endangered, 

and Special Status Species5

Sage Grouse 

Status4

Determination/ Standard/ 

Causal Factor/ Year

5555 303 66 C C Meeting 2009 None

5556 120 10 C C Meeting 2003 BE None

5557 240 14 C C Meeting 2003 CL, GB, WO None

5558 320 62 C C Meeting 2010 GB None

5559 141 19 C C Meeting 2006 GSG GHMA

5560 120 24 C C Meeting 2008 None

5562 240 46 C C Meeting 2004 GB, PF None

5565 25 6 C C Meeting 2010 GSG GHMA

5566 40 8 C H Meeting 2008 GSG GHMA

5567 40 24 C C Meeting 2004 None

5568 40 5 C C None None

5569 80 24 C C Meeting 2006 GSG GHMA

5571 80 10 C C Meeting 2006 BE None

5572 640 97 C C Meeting 2008 GSG GHMA

5573 110 36 C C Meeting 1999 GSG GHMA

5580 280 39 C C Meeting 2002 None

5581 160 26 C C SPT/1,5/weeds & fire/ 2008 GB None

5582 40 10 C C Fail/3/unknown/2009 GSG GHMA

5585 480 50 C C Meeting 2003 GB, YCT None

5586 40 8 C C Meeting 2008 None

9648 40 7 C C Meeting 2009 GSG GHMA

9652 40 14 C C Meeting 2008 LBC, MP None

9654 40 13 C C Meeting 2006 None

9660 39 13 C C SPT/1,5/fire/2008 BE None

9661 440 139 C C Meeting 2008 None

9667 160 26 C C Meeting 2010 GSG GHMA

9678 205 35 C C Meeting 2008 None

9680 320 64 C C Meeting 2008 TBEB None

9682 80 13 C C Meeting 2010 None

9686 40 6 C C Meeting 2006 None

9712 200 62 C C SPT/1,5/weeds/2009 GSG, WHNS GHMA
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 I - 16 Appendix I 

Allotment 

Number

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Management 

Status1

Livestock 

Kind2

Land Health Status3 Threatened, Endangered, 

and Special Status Species5

Sage Grouse 

Status4

Determination/ Standard/ 

Causal Factor/ Year

9719 160 22 C C Fails/2/livestock/2009 SS None

9720 40 12 C C Meeting 2008 BE None

9734 213 64 C C Meeting 2006 None

9736 80 21 C C Meeting 2001 SS None

9737 80 16 C C Meeting 2009 None

9740 65 13 C C Meeting 2009 None

9744 520 121 M C Meeting 2008 None

9765 200 44 C C Meeting 2004 WO None

9768 40 8 C C Meeting 2008 WO None

9781 162 38 C C Meeting 2001 LBC None

9789 31 8 C C Meeting 2008 None

9791 1042 336 M C Meeting 2009 BTPD, GE, GSG PHMA

9792 38 10 C C Meeting 2008 LBC, MP None

9805 160 64 C C Meeting 2001 None

9824 80 15 C C Meeting 2008 GSHL None

9837 80 18 C C Meeting 2000 None

9840 169 37 C C Meeting 2008 None

9843 241 33 C C Meeting 2009 None

9844 240 54 C C Meeting 2009 GSG PHMA

9845 320 102 C C Meeting 2010 None

1003* 20968 1642 M C None WTPD, BRSP, GE, GSG, ST, 

PS

PHMA

1005* 5413 455 M C Fail/1,2,3,4/livestock/2011 WTPD, GSG, LS, PS, DD, 

GEM MC, OEP, SMBU, SH

PHMA

1011* 2660 140 C C None PB, TBEB, WTPD, BGG, 

BRSP, GSG, LS, MP, ST, 

GSHL, SH, DM

PHMA

*Allotments administered by the Cody Field Office, but contain public lands located in Montana 

1. Management Status 

“I” means that the allotment is in an “Improve Status”. Major goals and objectives are for improvement of ecological conditions. 

“M” means that the allotment is in a “Maintain Status”. Major goals and objectives are to maintain current acceptable ecological conditions. 

“C” means that the allotment is in a “Custodial Status”. Custodial allotments are typically small, isolated and unfenced parcels of public land with little or no management 

opportunity.
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix I I - 17 September 2015 

2. Livestock Kind 

 “C” = Cattle

“H” = Horses

“I” = Indigenous

“S” = Sheep

“Y” = Yearling (cattle)

“WH/B” = Wild Horse and Burro

3. Land Health Status

This column lists the results of the most recent monitoring data collected on the grazing allotment, and the year the determination was made. 

Determination 

Meeting- All standards for rangeland health are being achieved. 

SPT- All standards other than those listed are achieving standards. The standard(s) listed is making significant progress towards meeting standards. 

Fail- All standards other than those listed are achieving standards. The standard(s) listed are failing to achieve the standard. 

None- No monitoring data has been collected on this allotment. 

 

Standards 

Montana standards for rangeland health Wyoming standards for rangeland health 

1. Upland health 1. Soil health 

2. Riparian and wetlands 2. Riparian and wetland vegetation 

3. Water quality 3. Upland vegetation 

4. Air quality 4. Habitat 

5. Habitat 5. Water quality 

6. Air quality 

Causal Factor 

The influence(s) occurring or that has occurred on an allotment which has led to one or more of the standards not being achieved. 

4. Sage Grouse Status 

This column lists the Greater sage-grouse management status that an allotment occurs in. Allotments were categorized by the management status that afforded the most protection 

to the Greater sage-grouse. No consideration was made for percent acreage within a management category. For example, if an allotment had 1% of its public lands in a PHMA, 

and 99% of its public lands in GHMA habitat. The allotment was considered a PHMA. 

PHMA = Priority Habitat Management Area 

RHMA = Restoration Area 

GHMA = General Habitat Management Area 

None = No Greater sage-grouse habitat occurs on public lands 

5. Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, & Special Status Species 

This column lists the symbol for threatened, endangered, candidate, and special status species which occur on public lands within the grazing allotments. The common name, 

scientific name, and symbol used in the table above. The symbols used for these tables are not the official species codes. Rows that do not contain an entry do not have threatened, 

endangered, candidate, or special status species identified on public lands. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 I - 18 Appendix I 

Common Name Scientific Name Symbol Common Name Scientific Name Symbol

Baird’s sparrow Ammodramus bairdii BASP Miner’s candle Cryptantha scoparia MC

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BE Mountain plover Charadrius montanus MP

Beartooth large-flowered 

goldenweed

Pyrrocoma carthamoides Var. 

subsquarrosa

BLFG Nama Nama densum NA

Black-tailed prairie dog Cynomys ludovicianus BTPD Northern goshawk Accipiter gentiles NG

Blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptial caerulea BGG Obscure evening-primrose Camissonia andina OEP

Bobolink Dolichonyx orysivorus BOB Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus PB

Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri BRSP Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus PF

Burrowing owl Athene cuncularia BO Plains spadefoot Spea bombifrons PS

Canada lynx Lynx canadensis CL Platte Cinquefoil Potentilla plattensis PC

Chestnut-collared longspur Calcarius ornatus CCL Red-headed woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus RHW

Daggett rockcress Arabis demissa var. languida DR Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus ST

Dwarf mentzelia Mentzelia pumila DM Sauger Stizostendion canadense SA

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis FH Shoshonea Shoshonea pulvinata SHOSH

Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes FM Small Camissonia Camissonia parvula SC

Geyer’s Milkvetch Astragalus geyeri GEM Smooth Buckwheat Stenogonum salsuginosum SMBU

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos GE Spiney Softshell Apalone spinifera SS

Gray’s milkvetch Astragalus grayi GM Spiny hopsage Grayia spinosa SH

Greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasinus GSG Sweetwater milkvetch Astragalus aretioides SM

Greater Short Horned Lizzard Phrynosoma hernandesi GSHL Torrey’s desert dandelion Malacothrix torreyi DD

Grizzly bear Ursus arctos horribilis GB Western hog nosed snake Heterodon nasicus WHNS

Indian breadroot Pediomelum hypogaeum LIB White-tailed prairie dog Cynomys leucurus WTPD

Lesica’s Bladderpod Physaria lesicii LB Windriver Milkvetch Astragalus oreganus WM

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus LS Wolvorine Gulo gulo WO

Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus LBC Yellow beeplant Cleome lutea YB

Mat Prickley Phlox Leptodactylon caespitosum MPP Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus YBC

McCown’s longspur Calcarius mccownii ML Yellowstone cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki 

bouvieri

YCT

Milk Snake Lampropeltis triangulum MS
Appendix J: 

Fluid Minerals 

Procedures in Oil and Gas Recovery and Operations and Summary of the 

Billings Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix J J - i September 2015 

Table of Contents

J. Fluid Minerals: Procedures in Oil and Gas Recovery and Operations and Summary of the 

Billings Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario .......................................................................... J-1

J.1 Geophysical Operations .................................................................................................................... J-1

J.1.1 Geophysical Permitting Procedures and Regulations ...................................................J-1

J.2 Leasing Process ................................................................................................................................... J-2

J.2.1 Resource Management Plan Maintenance ......................................................................J-3

J.2.2 Lease Stipulations...............................................................................................................J-3

J.2.3 Controlled Surface Use ......................................................................................................J-3

J.2.4 No Surface Occupancy (NSO) ..........................................................................................J-3

J.2.5 Timing Limitation (Seasonal Restriction) .......................................................................J-3

J.2.6 Waivers, Exceptions, Modifications .................................................................................J-4

J.3 Permitting ............................................................................................................................................ J-4

J.4 Application for Permit to Drill ......................................................................................................... J-5

J.5 Conditions of Approval ..................................................................................................................... J-5

J.6 Construction ........................................................................................................................................ J-6

J.7 Environment and Safety .................................................................................................................... J-7

J.8 Informational Notice .......................................................................................................................... J-7

J.9 Production and Development .......................................................................................................... J-9

J.9.1 Production ...........................................................................................................................J-9

J.9.2 Development .......................................................................................................................J-9

J.9.3 Abandonment ...................................................................................................................J-11

J.10 Regulations, Laws, and Special Procedures ................................................................................. J-11

J.10.1 Unit and Communitization Agreements ......................................................................J-11

J.10.2 Split Estate .........................................................................................................................J-11

J.11 Summary – Billings/Pompeys Pillar Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario.......... J-12

J.11.1 Summary ...........................................................................................................................J-12

J.11.2 Background .......................................................................................................................J-13
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 J - ii Appendix J 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix J J - 1 September 2015 

J. Fluid Minerals: Procedures in Oil and Gas Recovery 

and Operations and Summary of the Billings 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

J.1 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. 

J.1.1 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, or U.S. Forest Service (USFS). Close cooperation 

between the operator and the managing agency during geophysical operations minimizes surface impacts and 

protects other resources. 

J.1.1.1 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 Billings Field 

Office, 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. 

J.1.1.2 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 dirt work or other surface disturbance is contemplated, or if there is reason to 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 J - 2 Appendix J 

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. 

J.1.1.3 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. 

J.1.1.4 State Standards 

Geophysical operators register with the state through the County Clerk and Recorder’s office. State regulations 

include requirements for permitting geophysical activities such as shothole locations, drilling techniques, plugging 

techniques, bonding, and reclamation. 

J.1.1.5 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. 

J.2 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. 

Lease rights may be subject to lease stipulations and permit approval requirements. Stipulations and permit 

requirements describe how standard 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 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix J J - 3 September 2015 

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. If the lessee establishes hydrocarbon production, the leases can be held for as long as oil or gas is produced 

in paying quantities. The royalty rate for leases issued following the 1987 Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act is 121⁄2 

percent, of which one-half of the royalty collected is disbursed to the State of Montana for collections from public 

domain lands (acquired lands have various disbursements). 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. 

J.2.1 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 would 

be required. 

J.2.2 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 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. 

J.2.3 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. 

J.2.4 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).”

J.2.5 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 would be insufficient. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 J - 4 Appendix J 

J.2.6 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 Billings Field Office. Substantial modification or waiver 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 or 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. 

J.3 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, the lessee or operator must file an Application for Permit to Drill (APD) with the BLM Miles City DO. A 

copy of the application will be posted in the DO and Billings Field Office (FO), and if applicable, in the office of the 

Surface Management Agency (SMA) 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 conducted within 15 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. 

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: 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix J J - 5 September 2015 

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 would enable BLM to issue a final decision on the 

application, with FS concurrence if appropriate. 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 or the FS, if appropriate, need 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.”

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 two years and the operator can request a two year extension. If construction does not begin 

within two years, 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. 

J.4 Application for Permit to Drill 

Applications for Permit to Drill are approved for the Billings Field Office by the supervisor of the Miles City DO. 

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. 

J.5 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 and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development” 

(USDI, BLM P-417) 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 RMP Appendix B. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 J - 6 Appendix J 

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 B, the BLM will also develop site-specific 

practices on a case-by-case basis as needed. 

J.6 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 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 would 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 would 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. Not all reserve pits are lined; however, BLM 

can require a synthetic liner stipulations and conditions attached to the approved APD and the drilling equipment is 

moved to another location. 

If the well is a producer, casing is set and cemented in place. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix J J - 7 September 2015 

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 oil and gas reserves 

from vertically fractured reservoirs, or reservoirs with directional permeability. 

J.7 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. 

J.8 Informational Notice 

The following items are from the federal oil and gas regulations (43 CFR 3160, Onshore Orders Numbers 1 and 2, 

NTLs, and other guidance). This is not a complete list of requirements but an abstract of some major requirements. 

1. General Requirements 

a. The lessee or designated operator shall comply with applicable laws and regulations; the lease 

terms, onshore oil and gas orders, NTLs; and other orders and instructions of the AO. Any 

deviation from the terms of the approved APD requires prior approval from the BLM (43 CFR 

3162.1(a)) 

b. If at any time the facilities located on public lands authorized by the terms of the lease are no 

longer included in the lease (caused by a contraction in the unit or other lease or unit boundary 

change), the BLM will process a change in authorization to the appropriate statute. The 

authorization will be subject to appropriate rental or other financial obligations determined by 

the AO. 

2. Drilling Operations (Onshore Order No. 2) 

a. Onshore Order No. 2 requires surface casing shall have centralizers on the bottom three joints of 

the casing (a minimum of one centralizer per joint, starting with the shoe joint) (BLM 1988). 

b. If drill stem tests are run, the MCFO shall be notified at least 6 hours prior to testing. All 

applicable safety precautions outlined in Onshore Order No. 2 shall be observed (BLM 1988). 

c. All indications of usable water (10,000 parts per million or less total dissolved solids) shall be 

reported to the MCFO prior to running the next string of casing or before plugging orders are 

requested, whichever occurs first. 

3. Well Abandonment (43 CFR 3162.3-4, Onshore Order No. 1, Sec. V) 

a. Approval for abandonment shall be obtained prior to beginning plugging operations. Initial 

approval for plugging operations may be verbal, but shall be followed up in writing within 30 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 J - 8 Appendix J 

days. Subsequent and final abandonment notifications are required and shall be submitted on 

SNs and Reports on Wells, Form 3160.5, in triplicate. 

4. Reports and Notifications (43 CFR 3162.4-1, 3162.4-3)

a. Within 30 days of completion of the well as a dry hole or producer, a copy of all logs, core 

descriptions, core analyses, well-test data, geologic summaries, sample descriptions, or data 

obtained and compiled during the drilling, workover, or completion operations shall be filed 

with Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log, Form 3160-4, in duplicate. 

b. In accordance with 43 CFR 3162.4-3, this well shall be reported on MMS Form 4054, “Oil and 

Gas Operations Report, starting with the month in which any operations commence, including 

drilling, and continuing each month until the well is physically plugged and abandoned. 

c. Notify this office within 5 business days of production start-up if either of the below conditions 

occur: 

i. the well is placed on production (“placed on production” means shipment or sales of 

hydrocarbons from temporary tanks, production into permanent facilities, or measurement 

through permanent facilities); or 

ii. the well resumes production after being off production for more than 90 days. 

 Notification may be written or verbal with written follow-up within 15 days and must include the 

following information: 

a. operator name, address, and telephone number; 

b. well name and number, county and state; 

c. well location, “1/4-1/4, Section, Township, Range, P.M.”;

d. date well begins or resumes production; 

e. the nature of the well’s production (crude oil, or crude oil casing gas, or natural gas and 

entrained liquid hydrocarbons); 

f. the federal or Indian lease number; 

g. as appropriate, the Unit Agreement name, number, and Participating Area name; and 

h. as appropriate, the Communitization Agreement 

5. Environmental Obligations and Disposition of Production (43 CFR 3162.5-1, 3162.7-1 and 40 CFR 

302.4) 

a. With BLM approval, water produced from newly completed wells may be temporarily disposed 

of into unlined pits for up to 90 days. During this initial period, application for the permanent 

disposal method shall be made to this office in accordance with Onshore Order No. 7 (BLM 

1993). If underground injection is proposed, a USEPA or state permit shall also be obtained. 

b. Spills, accidents, fires, injuries, blowouts, and other undesirable events must be reported to this 

office within the timeframes in NTL-3A (BLM 1979b). 

c. Gas may be vented or flared during emergencies, well evaluation, or initial production tests for a 

time period of up to 30 days or the production of 50 million cubic feet (mmcf) of gas, whichever 

occurs first. After this period, approval from this office shall be obtained to flare or vent gas in 

accordance with NTL-4A (BLM 1980b). 

6. Well Identification (43 CFR 3162.6) 

Each drilling, producing, or abandoned well shall be identified with the operator’s name, the lease 

serial number, the well number, and the surveyed description of the well (either footages or the 

quarter-quarter section, the section, township, and range). All markings shall be legible and in a 

conspicuous place. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix J J - 9 September 2015 

7. Site Security (43 CFR 3162.7.5) 

a. Oil storage facilities shall be clearly identified with a sign, and tanks must be individually 

identified (43 CFR 3162.6 (c)). 

b. Site security plans shall be completed within 60 days of production startup (43 CFR 3162.7-

5(c)). 

c. Site facility diagrams shall be filed in this office within 60 days after facilities are installed or 

modified (43 CFR 3162.7-5(d)(1)). 

8. Confidentiality (43 CFR 3162.8) 

All submitted information not marked “CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION” will be available for 

public inspection upon request. 

J.9 Production and Development 

J.9.1 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 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. 

J.9.2 Development 

New field development may be analyzed under NEPA by means of an environmental assessment (EA) or 

environmental impact statement (EIS) usually after the second or third confirmation well is drilled. 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. 

However, the reasonably foreseeable development scenario for this planning document should only forecasts two 

additional 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. 

J.9.2.1 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. 

J.9.2.2 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 Montana 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 640 acres (refer to Billings/Pompeys Pillar RFD for Oil and Gas). Wells deeper than 11,000 feet 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 J - 10 Appendix J 

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, and 640-acre unit. 

J.9.2.3 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. 

J.9.2.4 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. 

J.9.2.5 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 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. 

J.9.2.6 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. 

J.9.2.7 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 Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation. When produced water is disposed 

underground, it is introduced or injected under pressure into a subsurface horizon containing water of equal or 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix J J - 11 September 2015 

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. 

J.9.3 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 Miles City DO that the location is 

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. 

J.10 Regulations, Laws, and Special Procedures 

J.10.1 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. 

J.10.2 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 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 J - 12 Appendix J 

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. 

J.11 Summary – Billings/Pompeys Pillar Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario 

J.11.1 Summary 

The Billings Resource Management Plan will guide management for the approximately 434,158 acres of federally 

managed surface and about 690,000 subsurface (oil and gas mineral estate) acres administered by the Billings Field 

Office (BiFO) in western Big Horn, Carbon, Golden Valley, Musselshell, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Wheatland and 

Yellowstone counties. Conventional oil and natural gas occurrence and development potential ranges from Low to 

Moderate across the entire field office area. The occurrence potential for coal bed natural gas (CBNG), and gas from 

organic shales ranges from Low to High. Development potential for CBNG ranges from Low to Moderate; 

development potential for gas from organic shales ranges from Low to Moderate. 

The BLM administers approximately 690,000 acres of federal minerals (for fluid minerals) within the Billings Field 

Office. The RFD forecasts the following level of development in the entire Billings FO planning area. 

The expected Billings FO total wells drilled per year equals 20 per year with three to four federal wells per year over 

a 20-year span. These wells could be in one of the three areas identified in the table below. The RFD scenario 

classified moderate potential lands as having the potential for one to five wells drilled per township per year. Low 

potential lands have the potential for less than one well per year per township. 

Table J-1. RFD Projected Forecast Drilling Depths, and Forecast Surface Disturbance by Basin 

Location

Common Drilling 

Depth in Feet Likely Product

Size of Drill Site in 

Acres

Access and 

Ancillary Facilities 

in Acres

Central Montana 

Uplift and Bull 

Mountain Basin

5,000 Oil with associated 

gas; CBNG 2 1.5

Big Horn Basin 7,000 Oil with associated 

gas; Gas; CBNG 3 1.5

Crazy Mountain 

Basin 8,000 – 10,000 Gas 4 1.5

The RFD scenario identified these areas and contains more information about them. Total annual disturbance for 

federal wells is approximately 13.5 acres to 27 acres of short-term disturbance (several years) and 5.5 to 15.5 acres 

of long-term disturbance for federal wells drilled in the Billings FO. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix J J - 13 September 2015 

A complete copy of the Billings RMP RFD can be found at 

http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/fo/billings_field_office/rmp/docs.html. This information is presented only as a 

summary. 

J.11.2 Background 

The Billings Field Office is located in south-central Montana. There has been a long history of exploration and 

development within this area. The following information describes the historic activities associated with drilling in 

the area, with subsequent information, charts and graphs indicating the cumulative number of wells drilled, and 

notable dates. 

J.11.2.1 Drilling and Development History 

The first drilling in Montana occurred near the ‘Cruse’ oil seeps, in Carbon County, in about 1890. Drilling occurred 

along strike (northwest-southeast) to the Beartooth Mountain front. Only small volumes of low gravity oil were 

reportedly produced. 

The Elk Basin area in Carbon County experienced early development, as an extension of the Wyoming portion of 

the field. The first drilling occurred about 1915; this activity pre-dated the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. At that 

time, oil was developed as a placer mineral on mining claims located under the General Mining Act of 1872, as 

amended by the Petroleum Placers Act of 1897. Many of these petroleum placers went to patent (became private 

land). 

Further drilling occurred as operators attempted to expand the known producing area along the axis of the Elk Basin 

anticline. The field limits were extended to the northwest, with the later discoveries at Elk Basin Northwest, Clarks 

Fork, the Clarks Fork North and Clarks Fork South fields. In the same time frame (1910s-1920s), exploration 

occurred at the Dry Creek Dome in central Carbon County. Natural gas was discovered there in 1919, and extended 

into Golden Dome in 1962. 

In Big Horn County, the Soap Creek Oil Field was discovered in 1920, and expanded by new drilling as recent as 

2005. The Hardin Gas Field was discovered in 1928, and expanded by new drilling into the 1930s, with the most 

recent well drilled in 1975. 

Early prospecting for oil was concentrated around geologic structures that were exposed at the surface. These 

structures, often called “Sheepherder Anticlines”, were believed to be indicators of potential oil reservoirs within 

subsurface structures. Most of the early exploration and development occurred in proximity to these exposed 

anticlines and domes. Many oil and gas fields are still identified by these surface structures (i.e., Golden Dome, 

Gage Dome, and Dean Dome). Often, the earliest wells drilled within these structures were not drilled deep enough, 

and did not achieve a discovery. 

Many other anticlines were ‘breached’ by erosion that exposed the reservoir rock, leaving only stained or bleached 

rock as indications of the past presence of oil. This is the case on the east flank of Red Dome, in Carbon County. 

Here, the Triassic Chugwater Formation red beds have zones of sandstones that are gray; the oil, while it was in the 

rock, prevented the oxidation of the iron in the rock matrix and cement. 

The first drilling in Musselshell County was not successful, but by 1920, oil was discovered in the Heath Lime, at 

Devil’s Basin field. By the end of 1921, oil had been discovered in the Soap Creek field in Big Horn County and the 

Lake Basin field in Stillwater County. Mosser Dome field in southwestern Yellowstone County opened in 1936. 

In the 1940s, additional oil fields were discovered in Musselshell County, including Gage Dome, Ragged Point, Big 

Wall and Melstone. All were surface structures (‘Sheepherder Anticlines’), with the oil found in Mississippian 

carbonate rocks (Amsden, Kibbey, Heath and Tyler Formations). New fields were discovered in surface structures 

(Ivanhoe, Stensvad, Delphia, Hawk Creek, Hiawatha, Keg Coulee, Pole Creek, Mason Lake), and existing fields 

were expanded, into the 1960s. Similarly, exploration of the surface structure at Wolf Springs resulted in a oil 

discovery in Yellowstone County in 1955 and at Weed Creek in 1967. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 J - 14 Appendix J 

The first gas production in Sweet Grass County occurred when the Six Shooter Dome field was discovered in 1947. 

First production in Golden Valley County occurred with the discovery of gas in the Big Coulee field, in 1948. Later 

that year, oil was discovered in Golden Valley’s Woman’s Pocket and Devil’s Pocket fields.

In 1953, the Ash Creek field in southern Big Horn County was discovered, with oil produced from the Upper 

Cretaceous Shannon Formation. The Mackay Dome and Roscoe Dome fields, in southern Stillwater and Carbon 

Counties, respectively, were discovered in the late 1950s. Both produce from Lower Cretaceous sandstones. 

In the 1970s, the Rapelje gas field in Stillwater County was discovered. 

Two oil price shocks in the 1970s resulted in a quadrupling of the price of oil over a four-year period, from around 

$3.00 per barrel in mid-1973, to over $12.00 per barrel in 1977. The Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979 sent oil 

prices still higher, with the price peaking at over $38.00 per barrel in 1981. 

The rapid increase in the price of oil resulted in a rush of new prospect generation. Even prospects that had a low 

probability of finding product were drilled. Conservation and new discoveries led to in an increased supply while 

demand was falling, resulting in a price collapse, with oil in Montana falling below $10.00 per barrel in early 1986. 

For the rest of the 1980s, the BLM allowed operators to leave their wells ‘shut in’ (in a non-producing status). This 

policy allowed operators to maintain their wells without having to operate them at an economic loss. 

In 1992, the BLM terminated the above policy, and issued new regulations that provided for a reduced royalty rate 

for oil properties that averaged less than 15 barrels of oil per well per day (so-called ‘stripper wells/properties). The 

royalty rate reduction (RRR) was intended to reduce operators’ operating costs, and encourage the greatest ultimate 

recovery of oil. The BLM anticipated that operators would take advantage of this incentive and work over existing 

wells to restore or increase production within these properties. The RRR would be recalculated every year, and 

could fall further if the average production rate continued to decrease. The regulation was in effect for about 14 

years, and terminated effective February 1, 2006 (when the oil price exceeded the threshold established in the 

regulation). 

J.11.2.2 Federal Surface and Mineral Ownership within the Billings Field Office 

Charts J-1 and J-2, below, provide the distribution of surface and mineral ownership, by county, within the Billings 

Field Office. Chart J-3 presents surface and mineral ownership by Federal Agency. The data are from LR 2000, as 

of May 20, 2009. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix J J - 15 September 2015 

Chart J-1: Surface, Oil & Gas Mineral Ownership, and acres of O&G leases by County (All Surface Management Agencies) 

County

Federal Surface 

Ownership

Federal Oil & Gas 

Mineral Ownership O&G Leases Leased Acres2 Percent of O&G Leased

Big Horn10.00 3,989.29 5 3,934.47 98.6%

Carbon 552,535.16 609,950.40 99 53,575.45 8.7%

Golden Valley 31,644.63 66,550.80 17 18,062.96 27.1%

Musselshell 100,458.12 140,922.31 79 56,641.02 40.2%

Stillwater 192,196.58 243,221.64 32 24,232.23 10.0%

Sweet Grass 297,308.04 356,378.33 25 19,772.71 5.5%

Wheatland 63,604.24 84,463.43 3 1,022.52 1.2%

Yellowstone 69,725.38 105,708.45 20 9,023.20 8.5%

Totals 1,307,472.15 1,611,184.65 280 186,264.56 11.5%

Footnotes:

1. Big Horn County includes only the portion within the Billings Field Office (west of R. 39 E.)

2. Including leases sold at the Montana Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale held on January 27, 2009

Chart J-2: Surface, Oil & Gas Mineral Ownership and acres of O&G leases by County, Managed by the Billings Field Office 

County BLM-Managed Surface

BLM-Managed Oil & 

Gas Mineral Ownership O&G Leases Leased Acres2 Percent of O&G Leased

Big Horn10.00 3,989.29 5 3,934.47 98.6%

Carbon 205,156.46 260,531.10 97 51,228.80 19.7%

Golden Valley 7,844.19 42,750.36 17 18,062.96 42.3%

Musselshell392,632.23 129,108.14 793 56,401.02 43.7%

Stillwater 5,519.49 55,944.07 29 19,994.23 35.7%

Sweet Grass 15,833.58 73,584.22 25 19,772.71 26.8%

Wheatland 1,194.91 22,054.10 3 1,022.52 4.6%

Yellowstone 69,725.38 105,708.45 20 9,023.20 8.5%

Totals 397,906.24 689,680.44 275 179,439.91 26.0%

Footnotes

1. Big Horn County includes only the portion within the Billings Field Office (west of R. 39 E.)

2. Including leases sold at the Montana Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale held on January 27, 2009; 

3. There are two Federal O&G leases that include both BLM and FWS surface
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 J - 16 Appendix J 

Chart J-3: Total Surface and Oil and Gas Mineral Ownership (in acres) by County, by Surface Management Agency 

BLM FS FWS BIA NPS

County Surface

Oil & Gas 

Mineral 

Ownership Surface

Oil & Gas 

Mineral 

Ownership Surface

Oil & Gas 

Mineral 

Ownership Surface

Oil & Gas 

Mineral 

Ownership Surface

Oil & Gas 

Mineral 

Ownership

Big Horn10 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,989.29

Carbon 205,156.46 260,531.10 323,682.62 323,683.22 23,696.08 25,736.08

Golden 

Valley 7,844.19 42,750.36 23,800.44 23,800.44

Musselshell 92,632.23 129,108.14 0 0 7,825.89 11,814.17

Stillwater 5,519.49 55,944.07 185,604.65 185,885.13

Sweet Grass 15,833.58 73,584.22 281,474.46 282,794.11 1,072.44 1,392.44

Wheatland 1,194.91 22,054.10 62,409.33 62,409.33

Yellowstone 69,725.38 105,708.45 0 0

Totals 397,906.24 689,680.44 876,971.50 878,572.23 8,898.33 13,206.61 0 3,989.29 23,696.08 25,736.08

Footnotes

1. Big Horn County includes only the portion within the Billings Field Office (west of R. 39 E.).
Appendix K: 

Biological Opinion




BLM

Billings Field Office and Pompeys Pillar 

Resource Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement

Biological Assessment

May 2015 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - i September 2015

Contents

APPENDIX K: BIOLOGICAL OPINION...................................................... K-1

ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................... K-V

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

K.1 Overview of the Project ................................................................................................ K-1

K.1.1 Past Consultations/RMP Amendments ................................................................. K-1

K.2 Purpose of the Biological Assessment ......................................................................... K-1

K.3 Organization of the Document ..................................................................................... K-2

K.4 METHODS................................................................................................................... K-3

K.4.1 Effects Analysis Methodology ............................................................................... K-4

K.4.2 Black-footed ferret: ............................................................................................... K-8

K.4.3 Grizzly Bear: ......................................................................................................... K-8

K.4.4 Effects Determinations for Threatened and Endangered Species ........................ K-9

K.4.5 Coordination / Conservation Measures ................................................................ K-9

K.5 Species Accounts ........................................................................................................ K-12

K.5.1 Black-Footed Ferret – Endangered (Nonessential Experimental Population) .. K-12

K.5.2 Canada Lynx – Listed Threatened ...................................................................... K-15

K.5.3 Grizzly Bear –Threatened ................................................................................... K-17

K.5.4 Whooping crane - endangered ............................................................................ K-19

K.5.5 Red Knot– Threatened ........................................................................................ K-21

K.6 Analysis of Management Actions and Effects Determinations ................................. K-23

K.6.1 Whooping Crane and Red Knot Effects Determinations .................................... K-23

K.7 Air Quality .................................................................................................................. K-25

• Activity Description ................................................................................................... K-25

K.7.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination ........................................................ K-25

K.7.2 Endangered and Threatened Species .................................................................. K-25

K.8 Climate ....................................................................................................................... K-26

• Activity Description ................................................................................................... K-26

K.8.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination ........................................................ K-26

K.8.2 Endangered or Threatened Species .................................................................... K-26

K.9 Geology ...................................................................................................................... K-26

K.10 Soil Resources ........................................................................................................ K-27

• Activity Description ................................................................................................... K-27

K.10.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination ........................................................ K-28
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - ii Appendix K 

K.11 Water Resources ..................................................................................................... K-29

• Activity Description ................................................................................................... K-29

K.11.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination ........................................................ K-30

K.12 Vegetation Communities ........................................................................................ K-31

• Activity Description ................................................................................................... K-31

K.12.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination ........................................................ K-37

K.13 Wildlife Habitat and Special Status Species (Wildlife) .......................................... K-38

• Activity Description ................................................................................................... K-38

K.13.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination ........................................................ K-42

K.14 Fisheries Habitat and Special Status Species (Fish) ............................................... K-43

• Activity Description ................................................................................................... K-43

K.14.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination ........................................................ K-45

K.15 Wild Horses ............................................................................................................ K-46

• Activity Description ................................................................................................... K-46

K.15.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination ........................................................ K-47

K.16 Fire Ecology and Management ............................................................................... K-48

• Activity Description ................................................................................................... K-48

K.16.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination ........................................................ K-49

K.17 Cultural/Heritage Resources ................................................................................... K-50

• Activity Description ................................................................................................... K-50

K.17.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination ........................................................ K-54

K.18 Paleontological Resources ...................................................................................... K-54

• Activity Description ................................................................................................... K-54

K.18.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination ........................................................ K-55

K.19 Visual Resources .................................................................................................... K-56

• Activity Description ................................................................................................... K-56

K.19.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination ........................................................ K-56

K.20 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics................................................................... K-57

• Activity Description ................................................................................................... K-57

K.20.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination ........................................................ K-57

K.21 Cave and Karst Resources ...................................................................................... K-58

• Activity Description ................................................................................................... K-58

K.21.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination ........................................................ K-59

K.22 Energy and Mineral Resources – Oil and Gas ........................................................ K-59
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - iii September 2015

• Activity Description ................................................................................................... K-59

K.22.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination ........................................................ K-62

K.23 Energy and Mineral Resources – Solid Leasable Minerals .................................... K-64

• Activity Description ................................................................................................... K-64

K.23.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination ........................................................ K-64

K.24 Energy and Mineral Resources – Salable Minerals ................................................ K-66

• Activity Description ................................................................................................... K-66

K.24.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination ........................................................ K-67

K.25 Energy and Mineral Resources – Locatable Minerals ............................................ K-68

• Activity Description ................................................................................................... K-68

K.25.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination ........................................................ K-69

K.26 Livestock Grazing................................................................................................... K-70

• Activity Description ................................................................................................... K-70

K.26.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination ........................................................ K-72

K.27 Recreation/Visitor Services .................................................................................... K-74

• Activity Description ................................................................................................... K-74

K.27.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination ........................................................ K-76

K.28 Trails and Travel Management ............................................................................... K-77

• Activity Description ................................................................................................... K-77

K.28.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination ........................................................ K-82

K.29 Forest and Wood Products ...................................................................................... K-83

• Activity Description ................................................................................................... K-83

K.29.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination ........................................................ K-84

K.30 Lands and Realty – Land Tenure Adjustment and Access ..................................... K-85

• Activity Description ................................................................................................... K-85

K.30.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination ........................................................ K-87

K.31 Lands and Realty – Rights-Of-Way, Leases, and Permits ..................................... K-88

• Activity Description ................................................................................................... K-88

K.31.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination ........................................................ K-90

K.32 Lands and Realty - Withdrawals ............................................................................ K-90

• Activity Description ................................................................................................... K-90

K.32.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination ........................................................ K-91

K.33 Transportation Facilities and Access ...................................................................... K-91

• Activity Description ................................................................................................... K-91
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - iv Appendix K 

K.33.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination ........................................................ K-92

K.34 Renewable Energy .................................................................................................. K-94

• Activity Description ................................................................................................... K-94

K.34.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination ........................................................ K-94

K.35 Special Designations (Including National Monuments, ACECs, WSAs, 

Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Historic Trails, and Wild Horse Ranges) ....................... K-95

• Activity Description ................................................................................................... K-95

K.35.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination ...................................................... K-108

K.36 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS .................................................................................. K-109

K.37 Summary of Effects Determinations .................................................................... K-110

K.38 Literature Cited ..................................................................................................... K-113

K.39 Appendix A........................................................................................................... K-116

List of Tables

Table 1: Listed Species in the Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument 

RMP/EIS Biological Assessment ............................................................................................... K-3

Table 2: Black-tailed Prairie Dog Acreage in the Planning Area ............................................. K-13

Table 3: White-tailed Prairie Dog Acreage in the Planning Area ............................................ K-13

Table 4: Determination of Effects of Resource Programs for Listed Species ....................... K-110

Table 5: Overall Determination of Effects for Listed Species ................................................ K-112

List of Figures

Figure 1: Billings Field Office Planning Area Boundary Map ................................................ K-11

Figure 2: Lynx Critical Habitat on USFS lands within Planning Area*................................ K-119

Figure 3: Grizzly Bear Habitat – Billings Field Office........................................................... K-120

Figure 4: Yellowstone Grizzly Bear DPS Boundary and Suitable Habitat ........................... K-121

Figure 5: Whooping Crane Migration Corridor ...................................................................... K-122
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - v September 2015

ACRONYMS

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

AML Abandoned Mine Lands 

APD Application for Permit to Drill

APHIS U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspections Service

APLIC Avian Power Line Interaction Committee

AUM Animal Unit Month

BA Biological Assessment

BI Beneficial Impact

BIFO Billings Field Office

BLM U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management 

BMPs Best Management Practices

BO Biological Opinion

CFR Code of Federal Regulation

COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

CSU Controlled Surface Use 

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement

DFC Desired Future Condition 

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act

FR Federal Register

ft Foot or feet 

GHMA Greater Sage-Grouse General Habitat Management Area

GIS Geographic Information System

GRSG Greater Sage-Grouse 

HMP Habitat management plans 

IDT Interdisciplinary Team

km Kilometers

LAA May affect, likely to adversely affect

LCAS Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy 

MA May Affect

Mbf Thousand Board feet of timber 

MDEQ Montana Department of Environmental Quality 

MFWP Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 

mi Miles

mm Millimeter(s)

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

NE No Effect

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

NI No impact 

NLAA (NL) May affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect

 -b due to beneficial effects

 -d due to discountable effects 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - vi Appendix K 

 -i Insignificant effects

NOI Notice of Intent 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NSO No surface occupancy

OHV Off-highway vehicle 

PA Planning Area 

PFC Proper Functioning Condition (Riparian Areas) 

RA Greater Sage-Grouse Restoration Area 

RCA Restoration/Conservation Area 

RMP Resource Management Plan 

RMZ Riparian Management Zone

ROD Record of Decision 

ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

ROW Right-of-way 

RUP Recreation Use Permit

PHMA Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Management Area

SRA Sensitive Resource Area 

SRMA Special Recreation Management Area

T&E Threatened or endangered species

TL Timing Limitation

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDI U.S. Department of Interior 

USFS U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

USFWS U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 

VRM Visual Resource Management

WS Wildlife Services (USDA)

WSA Wilderness Study Area 

WUI Wildland Urban Interface
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 1 September 2015

K. Introduction 

K.1 Overview of the Project

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is preparing the Billings and Pompeys Pillar National 

Monument Resource Management Plan (RMP) to provide management direction to prevent or 

address potential conflicts between resource uses and resource conservation. Decisions made as a 

result of the Record of Decision on the RMP will result in a revision of the Billings RMP (1984). 

Two areas of analysis are discussed. They include the Planning Area, defined as all the land 

within the boundary of the Billings Field Office administrative unit regardless of ownership, and 

the Decision Area, which includes only the BLM-administered land (surface and mineral) within 

Carbon, Yellowstone, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Musselshell, Wheatland, Golden Valley, and 

portions of Big Horn counties, Montana, as well as Pompeys Pillar National Monument. The 

Decision Area is approximately 427,290 acres of BLM-administered public lands and 906,084 

acres of federal mineral estate in south-central Montana. The area also includes administration 

of 4,298 acres of public land inside the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range in Big Horn County, 

Wyoming. Effects determinations will be made only on the BLM-administered lands (surface 

and mineral). The Billings Field Office Planning Area boundary map is illustrated on page 11. 

K.1.1 Past Consultations/RMP Amendments 

The Billings Resource Management Plan was approved September 1984, and was amended with 

T & E Consultations by the following plans: June 1988, for Wilderness designation; November 

1996, to include Montana/Dakotas Standards and Guidelines; August 1998, for Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACEC) designation; February 1994, Miles City District Oil and Gas 

RMP/EIS Amendment; Off-Highway Vehicle use and area designations, July 2003; Montana and 

Dakotas Fire/Fuels Management Plan, October 2005; Vegetation Treatment on Bureau of Land 

Management Lands in 17 Western States, November 2005 , and BLM, Billings Field Office, 

Backlog Consultation, 2007. 

K.2 Purpose of the Biological Assessment 

Under provisions of the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 

Section 1531 et seq.), federal agencies are directed to conserve threatened and endangered 

species and the habitats in which these species are found. Federal agencies are also required to 

ensure actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of endangered and threatened species or their critical habitat. The ESA requires action 

agencies, such as the BLM, to consult or confer with the U.S. Department of Interior Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) when there is 

discretionary federal involvement or control over the action. Formal consultation becomes 

necessary when the action agency requests consultation after determining the proposed action is 

likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat, or the aforementioned federal agencies 

do not concur with the action agency’s finding (USFWS 1998). 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 2 Appendix K 

Under the 1994 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and the 2000 Memorandum of 

Agreement (MOA) among the BLM, USFWS, USDA Forest Service (USFS), and NMFS, all 

four agencies agreed to promote the conservation of candidate and proposed species and 

streamline the Section 7 consultation and coordination process. 

This programmatic biological assessment provides documentation for the proposed action to 

meet federal requirements and agreements set forth among the federal agencies listed above. It 

addresses federally listed threatened or endangered species that have the potential to occur within 

the Planning Area and has been prepared under the 1973 ESA Section 7 regulations, in 

accordance with the 1998 procedures set forth by USFWS and NMFS, and in accordance with 

the 1994 and 2000 MOU and MOA, respectively. Site-specific evaluations will be conducted for 

activities authorized under the Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS at the 

time they are proposed, and consultation or conference would occur with the Service for 

activities that may affect Threatened or endangered species. 

K.3 Organization of the Document

• A list of acronyms used is included for ease of reference. 

• The Species Accounts section follows, which includes current habitat and use in the Planning 

Area, population distribution, and threats. Species accounts are organized into mammals, 

birds, fish and plants. 

• The Methods section describes information used in the analysis, discloses how effects 

determinations were made, and defines the possible effects determinations. 

• The Analysis of Management Actions and Effects section is organized by resource 

management program as described in the Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument 

RMP/EIS. Resource programs are discussed in the same order in the biological assessment 

as they are in the EIS, with the five issues (soil, water, vegetation, wildlife and special status 

species, and fish and special status species,) first, followed by the remaining resource 

programs. The Analysis of Management Actions and Effects section has a summary of the 

management action proposed, followed by the effects analysis (direct and indirect) and a 

determination for each species, with rationale. This organization results in an effects 

determination for each species for each resource program area. The end of the section 

includes with the determination for each program by species (Table 5), along with a 

summary of the determinations by species for the RMP as a whole (Table 6). Cumulative 

Effects are discussed at the end of the document. 

• Based on the effects determinations, mitigations required to be included in the RMP are 

described. These mitigations are to be adopted and included in the RMP as part of the 

Record of Decision and implemented during program planning and evaluation. The 

mitigations identified result in reduced impacts on species or methods to ensure species 

effects are not greater than those stated.

• Finally, the References section provides full citations for literature and information sources 

used throughout the Biological Assessment.
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 3 September 2015

 Table 1 below summarizes the species considered, their status, presence and habitat in the

 Planning Area. 

Table 1: Listed Species in the Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument 

RMP/EIS Biological Assessment

Common Scientific 

Name Status*

Documented 

in Planning 

Area

Habitat

Mammals 

Blackfooted 

ferret 

Mustela 

nigripes 

Endangered 

and 

Nonessential 

Experimental 

population 

No Prairie habitats with large prairie 

dog colonies. 

Canada 

Lynx 

Lynx 

canadensis 

Threatened, 

Critical 

Habitat

Yes**

Mesic coniferous forests that have 

cold, snowy winters and provide a 

prey base of snowshoe hare 

Grizzly 

Bear

Ursus arctos 

horribilis Threatened Yes Remote forested habitats

Birds

Red Knot Calidris 

canutus rufa Threatened No Wetlands and shorelines 

Whooping 

crane

Grus 

americana Endangered Yes Wetlands and Croplands 

*Status refers to federal status in accordance with the Endangered Species Act (as of February 2013). 

**Lynx Critical habitat is available within the planning area, although it is not present within the decision area. Refer to description of “planning 

area” and “decision area” on page 4.

K.4 METHODS

Under provisions of the ESA, federal agencies are directed to conserve threatened and 

endangered species and the habitats in which these species are found. Federal agencies also are 

required to ensure actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of threatened and endangered species or their critical habitat. The ESA 

requires action agencies, such as the BLM, to consult or confer with the USFWS and/or NMFS 

when there is discretionary federal involvement or control over the action. Formal consultation 

becomes necessary when the action agency requests consultation after determining the Proposed 

Action is likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat, or the aforementioned federal 

agencies do not concur with the action agency’s finding (USFWS 1998). A BA is required under 

Section 7(c) of the ESA, if listed species or their critical habitat may be present in the area 

affected by land management activities.
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 4 Appendix K 

The Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS was reviewed to identify actions 

with the potential to affect the listed species. Available occurrence and habitat data for the listed 

species were requested. Occurrence data was obtained from Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, 

Montana Natural Heritage Database, Universities, research and other professional sources. 

Information was evaluated and potential impacts from the management actions were analyzed. 

Management actions were evaluated in terms of their potential to directly and indirectly affect 

the listed species. State, private, local, and tribal activities were also evaluated to assess their 

potential to cumulatively affect the listed species. Species recovery plans also were reviewed for 

further information on habitat, occurrences, life histories, and conservation measures. 

The BA analyzes the impacts of a proposed, discretionary federal action. A federal action is 

defined as anything authorized, funded, or carried out by the federal agency. Direct impacts are 

those effects on the species or its habitat which are caused by an action, and occur at the same 

time and place as the action. Indirect impacts are those effects on the species or its habitat 

caused by an action, occurring later in time or further removed in distance than direct impacts, 

but which are still reasonably foreseeable. The analysis of all impacts includes the effects of 

interrelated and interdependent actions.

For the purposes of effects analysis under the ESA, cumulative effects are defined as effects on a 

species from future state or private activities not involving federal activities, which are 

reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the federal action subject to consultation. 

Future federal actions will be subject to the consultation requirements established in Section 7 of 

the ESA, and therefore, are not considered cumulative to the proposed action. 

Factors considered when analyzing impacts include, among others, proximity of the action to the 

species or habitat of concern, geographic distribution of the action disturbance, timing of the 

action, nature of the action effect, action disturbance frequency, duration of the affecting action, 

action disturbance intensity, and action disturbance severity. 

The BA process is focused primarily on adverse impacts to the species of concern. Even though 

impacts may have both a beneficial and detrimental effect on the subject species in either the 

long or short term, the effects determination of the assessment will be based on and controlled by 

the likelihood of adversely affecting the species. In other words, the impacts analysis for a BA is 

not an averaging process. 

K.4.1 Effects Analysis Methodology

The BLM staff has reviewed potential actions associated with each program and the impacts to 

the individual species or their critical habitats to determine the impact to the species or their 

critical habitats, if those actions were to occur within suitable habitat for those species. 

Collectively, the lands that BLM administers (surface and mineral estate) are considered the 

“decision area.” RMP decisions apply only to BLM-administered public lands and resources, 

with the exception being Bureau of Reclamation lands where the oil and gas is under federal 

jurisdiction then the oil and gas decisions made in this RMP/EIS do apply. In this document, the 

term “planning area” applies to all lands within the nine-county area, regardless of surface 

ownership (Figure 1). It is important to note that the BLM may only make decisions that affect 

public lands and resources, but it is responsible for collaborative planning with the public and 

adjacent jurisdictions so as to consider the impacts of its actions on all resources in the region.
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 5 September 2015

This BA will describe in detail those potential actions within the decision area that may affect a 

listed species or its critical habitat. Other potential actions that have been determined to have no 

effect on a species or its critical habitat will not be further discussed in detail. No actions were 

determined to be likely to adversely affect listed species.

Programs that do not have actions located within the habitat of a listed species, or have no impact 

on that species, have been identified as having “No Effect” on that species or its critical habitats.

Cumulative Effects are summarized at the end of the document.

K.4.1.1 Description of the Billings and Pompeys Pillar RMP/EIS Preferred 

Alternative

The BLM’s Preferred Alternative is Alternative D in the Draft RMP. Alternative D is the 

alternative for which the BLM has requested to consult pursuant to section 7 of ESA. There are 

numerous sections to Alternative D; the BLM will present conservation protective measures 

applicable to some or all listed species found in the BIFO planning area. Additional 

Conservation Measures unique to each grizzly bear and Canada lynx are addressed in Appendix 

A.

K.4.1.1.1 Conservation Measures Common to All Management Actions

The following general conservation measures for all listed threatened and endangered species 

will be applied under all resource programs and are not repeated in this BA under each 

management program. Conservation measures specific to species are identified in several 

appendices including Best Management Practices, Wildlife Resources, Monitoring, 

Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-grouse Habitat” of the 

RMP. 

Tentative RMP Appendices numbers are BMP’s-Appendix B, Wildlife Resources-Appendix H, 

and Greater Sage Grouse Appendices are AA. The appendices will not change, although the 

designations may change in the Final RMP. 

Resource Program “Goals and Objectives” and “Management Common to All Alternatives” are 

summarized on Tables 2.10 through Table 2.13, as proposed management actions under the 

preferred alternative in the Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS (refer to 

RMP Chapter 2, Alternatives Table 2-6.1 on pages 2-112 through 2-128 for Wildlife Habitat and 

Special Status Species):

K.4.1.1.2 OTHER CONSERVATION MEASURES SPECIFIC TO THE BILLINGS/ 

POMPEYS PILLAR NATIONAL MONUMENT RMP/EIS INCLUDE:

• BLM rangeland health will be evaluated to meet the Standards for Healthy Rangelands 

and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Public Lands; Grazing Allotments 

within greater sage-grouse PPH habitat will be classified as “I” Intensive Allotment 

Category. 

• Coordination between BLM specialists and BLM biologists during the planning and 

implementation phases of all projects and actions to ensure adequate exchanges of 

knowledge relative to T&E species.
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 6 Appendix K 

• Develop and implement stipulations to avoid or minimize disturbance of T&E species. 

• Surveys for T&E species will be conducted prior to project initiation. 

• To avoid collision and electrocution of raptors and other avifauna, power-lines will 

continue to be constructed in accordance with the latest standards outlined in the Avian 

Protection Plan Guidelines (APLIC and USFWS 2005). Where wildlife conflicts exist, 

overhead powerlines and tall structures would follow the recommendations in the APLIC 

guidelines. When possible, perch, collision, and electrocution preventions would be 

used. 

• Wetland and riparian habitats will be maintained, enhanced, or preserved to provide 

wildlife habitat, improve water quality, and enhance forage conditions. When planting or 

seeding vegetation in areas identified as threatened and endangered or special status 

species habitat, only native species will be selected.

The BLM goals for the management of riparian areas within the Billings Field Office decision 

area center on promoting healthy wetland ecosystems, supporting physical processes and natural 

combinations of vegetation that work together to create stable stream banks, functional 

floodplains, complex fish and wildlife habitat and high water quality within site potential. 

Management actions ensure consistency with achieving or maintaining the Standards for 

Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Montana, North 

Dakota, and South Dakota (BLM 1997a) and as a minimum, all riparian areas with natural 

capability would be in proper functioning condition (PFC). The PFC is a method for assessing 

the condition of riparian wetland areas through a consistent approach, considering hydrology, 

vegetation, and erosion/deposition attributes and processes. The term PFC refers to how well the 

physical processes of the riparian area are functioning. In addition, Desired Future Conditions 

(DFCs) would be developed in some alternatives to help enhance riparian conditions beyond 

PFC. The DFCs can include, but are not limited to, riparian characteristics such as native species 

diversity and abundance, important in enhancing fish and wildlife habitat as well as riparian 

functionality. 

Invasive species management would focus on restoring native and desired non-native 

communities of riparian areas to attain DFCs.

Special status species include federally listed, proposed, or candidate species; state protected 

species; and BLM sensitive species. The BLM must follow the requirements of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended, and BLM policy to conserve federally listed threatened and 

endangered species and the habitat on which they depend. The BLM policy also states, 

“...ensure that actions requiring authorization or approval by the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM or Bureau) are consistent with the conservation needs of special status species and do not 

contribute to the need to list any special status species, either under provisions of the ESA or 

other provisions of this policy.” The Billings Field Office would manage special status species 

following the direction and guidance identified in BLM Manual 6840; recovery plans; biological 

opinions; conservation agreements, plans, and strategies; habitat conservation plans; and the 

recommendations from interagency recovery implementation teams. Special status and T & E 

species designations and lists are dynamic and subject to change based on population changes, 

habitat improvements and protections, and new data. 

Please refer to the RMP Appendices for definitions, descriptions of laws, regulations, policies, 

and guidance, Best Management Practices (BMPs), Oil and Gas leasing notices, stipulations, and 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 7 September 2015

CSU guidelines, Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan, and T&E and Special Status Species 

lists. The appendices are intended to clarify the content of the RMP. 

Manage terrestrial habitat to provide native species diversity and viability, and to sustain 

ecological, economic, and social values while providing for multiple uses of public lands. 

Manage for no net loss and connectivity of priority habitats on BLM-administered lands. The 

necessary habitat would be present to maintain, enhance, or restore priority native species 

populations. Sagebrush, native grasslands, seasonal or crucial wildlife ranges, special status 

species habitat, fisheries, cottonwood galleries, and riparian/wetlands would be priorities. 

Manage all BLM actions or authorized activities to sustain wildlife populations and their habitats 

and to avoid contributing to the listing of or jeopardizing the continued existence or recovery of 

special status species and their habitats.

Manage or restore habitat on BLM-administered lands within the planning area to facilitate the 

conservation, recovery, and maintenance of populations of native, desirable non-native, and 

special status species consistent with appropriate local, state, and federal management plans.

BLM-authorized activities would address habitat for migratory and non-migratory birds, nongame and game mammals, and reptiles, and amphibians. 

Implement conservation actions identified in Executive Order 13186 – “Responsibilities of 

Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds.” 

Implement the North American Bird Conservation initiative to restore, enhance, and maintain 

habitats for migratory birds. Include USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern for Bird 

Conservation Regions 10 and/or 17 where appropriate through project level NEPA analysis. 

Emphasize maintenance and restoration of habitats that sustain special status species with 

minimum disturbance during the breeding season. Enhance or restore habitat composition and 

structure beyond PFC in riparian habitats, where and when appropriate, for migratory bird 

habitat.

Management techniques, including but not limited to prescribed and managed wildfire, 

prescriptive livestock grazing, planting, exclusion to intense disturbance, timber harvest and 

other mechanical methods would be used to restore, maintain or improve the desired ecological 

conditions of vegetation communities for the purpose of improving forage, nesting, breeding, 

and security habitat, hiding cover and travel corridors for a wide diversity of terrestrial and 

aquatic species.

Management actions would emphasize providing habitat of sufficient quantity and quality, 

including connectivity and wildlife movement corridors, habitat complexity, forest openings, 

edges, and ecotones, to enhance biological diversity and provide quality, sustainable habitat for 

native wildlife species.

When potential wildlife conflicts are identified, the BLM would require a current year wildlife 

survey of the project area from the project proponent. 

All federally listed and BLM special status species and their habitats would be considered 

priority species and habitats.
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 8 Appendix K 

Identify distribution, key habitat areas, and special management needs for development of 

management plans and conservation measures, consistent with restoration, conservation and 

recovery plans upon designation of threatened, endangered, and other special status species, 

riparian/ wetland areas, native grasslands, sagebrush steppe, coniferous and deciduous forests, 

and seasonal ranges supporting life cycle requirements for wildlife (i.e., winter, breeding, 

parturition, etc.).

Timing restrictions would be used in special status species habitat. Surface disturbing and 

disruptive activities that impact special status species habitats during their seasons of use, 

particularly during critical life cycles would be avoided or minimized. 

Oil and gas surface occupancy and use is subject to the following operating constraints:

The lease area may now or hereafter contain plants, animals, or their habitats determined to be 

threatened, endangered, or other special status species. The 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. The 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. The BLM will not approve any ground-disturbing activity that may 

affect any such species or critical habitat until it completes its obligations under applicable 

requirements of the Endangered Species Act as amended, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq., including 

completion of any required procedure for conference or consultation. 

Assist in the restoration, reintroduction, augmentation, or re-establishment of threatened, 

endangered, and other priority or special status species populations and (or) habitats in 

coordination with MFWP and USFWS.

K.4.2 Black-footed ferret:

Black-footed ferret habitat is defined as prairie dog colonies within 1.5 km of each other and 

comprising of 1,500 acres. Surface occupancy and use for oil and gas leasing, development, and 

exploration and geophysical operations would be prohibited within 1⁄4 mile of black-footed ferret 

habitat (No Surface Occupancy-NSO).

Oil and gas surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1⁄4 mile of prairie dog colonies active 

within the past 10 years. (No Surface Occupancy-NSO).

Management of prairie dog colonies on public lands would be subject to the Conservation Plan 

for Black-tailed and White-tailed Prairie Dogs in Montana. White-tailed prairie dogs would be 

considered a priority for management due to limited and declining populations in Montana. 

K.4.3 Grizzly Bear:

Weed control using domestic sheep and/or goats in potential grizzly bear habitat would only be 

authorized after consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 9 September 2015

Roads / Travel Management: 

The BLM would manage to reduce open road densities in big game winter and calving ranges 

where they exceed 1.0 mile/square mile. 

There would be no net increase in permanent roads built in areas where open road densities are 1 

mi/mi2 or less in big game winter range habitat and parturition ranges, unless not possible due to 

conflicts with valid existing rights. All practicable measures would be taken to assure that 

important habitats with low road densities remain in that condition.

Roads would be gated during crucial seasons, closed and/ or reclaimed. Temporary roads would 

be reseeded with a native seed mixture.

K.4.4 Effects Determinations for Threatened and Endangered Species

Determination categories considered as part of this BA include the following:

No effect (NE) – The appropriate conclusion when the BLM determines its proposed action will 

not affect listed species. The principle factor for this determination is that “suitable habitat” does 

not exist for the species in the analysis area. In this situation, further consultation with the 

USFWS will be conducted on a case-by-case basis. 

May affect, but is not likely to adversely affect (NLAA-b, -i, -d) – The appropriate conclusion 

when effects on listed species are expected to be completely beneficial (-b), or insignificant (-i), 

or discountable (-d). This type of effect requires informal Section 7 consultation with the 

USFWS and concurrence with the determination. 

May affect, is likely to adversely affect (LAA) – The appropriate conclusion if any adverse effect 

to the listed species may occur as a direct or indirect result of the proposed action or its 

interrelated or interdependent actions, and the effect is not beneficial, insignificant, or 

discountable. In the event the overall effect of the proposed action is beneficial to the listed 

species, but also is likely to cause some adverse effects, then the proper effect determination for 

the proposed action is “likely to adversely affect” the listed species. A “likely to adversely 

affect” determination requires formal Section 7 consultation with the USFWS.

A summary of the Effects Determinations of this BA is shown in Tables 5 and 6. 

K.4.5 Coordination / Conservation Measures

Section 7(a)(1) of ESA requires the federal agency (i.e., BLM) to use all of its authorities in 

furthering the purposes of the Act by implementing programs for the conservation of listed 

threatened and endangered species. To meet the requirements of Section 7(a)(1), the BLM needs 

to consider conservation programs for the management of listed threatened and endangered 

species separate from any consultation requirements for actions affecting other special status 

species. Those conservation programs that are adopted need to be incorporated into the approved 

RMP.

Conservation recommendations serve several purposes. They can: 1) present ways the BLM can 

assist species conservation in furtherance of statutory responsibilities; 2) minimize or avoid the 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 10 Appendix K 

adverse impacts of a proposed action on a special status species; and 3) identify and recommend 

studies aimed at improving the understanding of a species biology or ecology. 

Listed threatened and endangered species management can be addressed in four primary ways:

• Through Conservation Actions identified as part of a species listing package, as Reasonable 

and Prudent measures recommended in the biological opinion (BO) from the USFWS in 

response to a BA, and through species protection measures determined through collaborative 

interagency and multidiscipline efforts, i.e., Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy 

(LCAS);

• Measures may include seasonal or activity limitations, or other surface management and 

occupancy constraints; 

• The Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management 

(Land Health Standards). As stated, the “Standards apply to all resource uses on public 

lands.” While the Guidelines, “apply specifically to livestock grazing management practices 

on the BLM-administered public lands.” The development and application of these standards 

and guidelines are intended to achieve the following four fundamentals of rangeland health: 

1) proper functioning of air and watersheds; 2) proper cycling of air, water, soil nutrients, and 

energy; 3) attainment of state water quality standards; and 4) sustained maintenance and 

management of the native fauna and flora of the area, including special status species. These 

fundamental goals are achieved through inventory of the natural resources, appropriate 

management actions aimed at these resources, monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness 

of these management actions, and land management adjustments as necessary.

• Special Status Species Management, BLM Manual 6840, directs field office managers to 

implement special status species programs within their area of jurisdiction by: 1) conducting 

and maintaining current inventories for special status species on public lands; 2) providing 

for the conservation of special status species in the preparation and implementation of 

recovery plans with which BLM has concurred, interagency plans and conservation 

agreements; 3) ensuring that all actions comply with the ESA, its implementing regulations, 

and other directives associated with conserving special status species; 4) coordinating field 

office activities with federal, state, and local groups to ensure the most effective program for 

special status species conservation; 5) ensuring actions are evaluated to determine if special 

status species objectives are being met; 6) ensuring all actions authorized, funded, or carried 

out by the BLM follow the interagency consultation procedures as outlined in 50 CFR, Part 

402; and 7) ensuring results of formal Section 7 consultations including terms and conditions 

in incidental take statements are implemented.
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 11 September 2015

Figure 1: Billings Field Office Planning Area Boundary Map
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 12 Appendix K 

K.5 Species Accounts

As per the species list sent to the BLM by USFWS for the RMP, and recent listing of the red 

knot, the federally listed species that must be considered in the BA include: black-footed ferret, 

Canada lynx, grizzly bear, whooping crane, and red knot. 

K.5.1 Black-Footed Ferret – Endangered (Nonessential Experimental 

Population)

K.5.1.1 Species Description

• Status

The black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) was federally listed as endangered on March 11, 1967 

(32 FR 4001) under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of October 15, 1966 (80 Stat. 926; 

16 United States Code [U.S.C.] 668aa(c)). Historically, the range of the black-footed ferret 

coincided closely with that of the prairie dog (Cynomys spp.) throughout the Great Plains and 

Rocky Mountain States of the US and two Canadian Provinces (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). The 

black-footed ferret was considered extinct by the middle of the last century until it was 

documented in South Dakota in August 1964 (Fortenbery 1972; Hillman 1968; Henderson et al. 

1969; Linder et al. 1972) and again in 1981 near Meeteetse, Wyoming (Fitzgerald et al. 1994; 

USFWS 1988). However, the South Dakota population subsequently disappeared and the 

Wyoming population declined to only a few remaining individuals. Consequently, these animals 

were captured and provided the basis for the ongoing captive breeding program (USFWS 1988). 

• Life History

Black-footed ferrets are primarily nocturnal, solitary carnivores that are obligate associates of 

prairie dogs (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Over 90 percent of the black-footed ferret’s diet is 

composed of prairie dogs, and ferrets use prairie dog burrows as their sole source of shelter 

(Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Therefore, black-footed ferrets may occur where prairie dog densities 

and distributions are relatively high. 

Black-footed ferrets typically breed from March to May (USFWS 1988). The gestation period 

ranges from 41 to 45 days, with as many as 5 young born in late May and early June. The kits 

remain underground until late June or early July; upon emerging, they may accompany the 

female during nocturnal foraging. Male ferrets are not active in rearing the young and live a 

solitary life except during the breeding season. Ferrets are most commonly observed in late 

summer or early fall (Hillman and Carpenter 1980).

• Habitat Requirements

Black-footed ferrets are almost exclusively associated with prairie dogs and prairie dog towns 

(USFWS 1988). The size and density of prairie dog towns may be the most important factors 

comprising suitable habitats for black-footed ferrets (BLM 2008). According to the USFWS 

1989 Black-footed Ferret Survey Guidelines, clearance surveys for ferrets are required within 

active black-tailed prairie dog colonies or complexes that exceed 80 acres in size and meet or 

exceed burrow densities of at least 8 burrows per acre (20 burrows per hectare) (USFWS 1989). 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 13 September 2015

• Distribution

Historically, black-footed ferrets ranged throughout the non-mountainous portion of Montana in 

areas that supported prairie dogs, their primary prey. No black-footed ferrets are currently 

known to occur outside of reintroduced populations in Montana, South Dakota, Wyoming, 

Colorado, Arizona, Kansas, and Utah. However, undocumented remnant ferret populations may 

exist in portions of its former range (Hillman and Carpenter 1980). 

• Planning Area Distribution

Reintroduced populations do not occur in the Planning Area; the closest populations are in the 

Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation. The introduction sites are about 85 miles east of 

Billings or about 65 miles southeast of Pompeys Pillar. As shown in Table 2 and Table 3, prairie 

dog town concentrations or complexes large enough to support black-footed ferret populations 

are not present in the Planning Area. Additionally, black-footed ferrets are not documented in 

this area.

In the Planning Area, black-tailed prairie dogs occur in grassland habitats, which cover 

approximately 12,159,081 acres (all ownerships) or about 47 percent of the area. There are 166 

known prairie dog towns in the Planning Area; 69 (41.6 percent) of which occur on public lands 

(Table 2). Long term trends in prairie dog abundance in the area are unknown. 

Table 2: Black-tailed Prairie Dog Acreage in the Planning Area

Year/Source BLM State Private / 

Other

National 

Wildlife 

Refuges

Total 

2004 Survey 7,098 3,364 15,412 1,399 27,273

* Percent of 2004 Survey Data Taken 

from ARCGIS data 26% 12% 57% 5% 100% 

*The values listed for the BiFO (updated with 2004 surveys) were derived from ARCGIS software to intersect each prairie dog 

colony map with land ownership maps supplied by Montana’s Natural Resource Information System. Surveys from 1999 and 

2000 were compared to the 2004 black-tailed prairie dog mapping.

White-tailed prairie dog towns located during surveys from 1975-1977 and in 2003 and 2005 are 

shown in Table 3. The list for each survey year is in no particular order. 

Table 3: White-tailed Prairie Dog Acreage in the Planning Area

Colony ID 

Colony* Size (acres)

1975-1977

(Acres)

2003

(Acres)

2005

(Acres)

1 5-10 40.5 40

2 2 13 12

3 74-84 15 23

4 20 22.5 10

5 Undocumented 18.5 18.5
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 14 Appendix K 

Colony ID 

Colony* Size (acres) 

1975-1977

(Acres)

2003

(Acres)

2005

(Acres)

6 2.5 10 14.6

7 69-99 - 4.2

8 10-20 - 72

9 79 - 6

10 49-79 - 53

11 39.5-59 - -

12 20-9 - -

13 2.5 - -

14 1-2.5 - -

15 2.5-10 - -

Total Colonies

Total Acres

15 colonies

692 

6 colonies

120 

10 colonies

253 

*”Colony” is used interchangeably with “town” when referring to prairie dog locations and size.

Sources: 1984 RMP and Backlog Consultation dated May 8, 2008 with the USFWS.

• Threats

The black-footed ferret was thought to be extirpated from virtually its entire range by the 1970s. 

The main causes of the species decline included habitat conversion for farming, intentional 

efforts to eliminate prairie dogs, and disease (USFWS 2000). 

Black-footed ferret decline and virtual extirpation in the last century stemmed from impacts to 

prairie dog complexes included habitat conversion for farming, prairie dog eradication efforts, 

sylvatic plague, recreational shooting, and distemper (BLM 2005a). These same threats, in 

addition to urbanization, remain today (USFWS 2000). 

Agricultural land use expansion included funding allocated by the U.S. Government to eliminate 

prairie dogs, seen as rodent pests during the twentieth century (BLM 2008). These massive 

prairie dog eradication efforts succeeded in eliminating prairie dogs from the vast majority of 

their historic range and therefore, reducing colony size and the potential to support black-footed 

ferrets (BLM 2008).

The sylvatic plague kills black-footed ferrets and reduces prey abundance, reducing large 

numbers of prairie dogs (BLM 2008). Black-footed ferrets also are susceptible to canine 

distemper, which can be fatal to infected individuals (BLM 2008). 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 15 September 2015

K.5.2 Canada Lynx – Listed Threatened 

K.5.2.1 Species Description

• Status

The Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) was proposed for listing as threatened under the ESA in 

1998 (Federal Register Volume 63, No. 130). On March 24, 2000, the final rule listing the lynx 

as threatened within the contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment (DPS) was issued 

(Federal Register Volume 65, No. 58). The status of lynx in Montana is as a furbearer with no 

harvest allowed and a protected nongame species. The BLM committed to mapping Lynx 

Analysis Units (LAUs), which are management areas that contain suitable lynx habitat and 

approximate the size of a female home range, as well as key linkage areas. BLM also coordinates 

with USFWS on approaches to the programmatic planning process for lynx management. 

• Life History

The lynx is a carnivore with a primary diet of snowshoe hares (35-97%) supplemented with other 

small mammals, such as squirrels, porcupines, beavers, muskrats, mice, voles, and shrews (BLM 

2008). Other occasional food sources are larger mammal carrion and fish. 

Movement between suitable habitats is essential, but poorly understood. In the southern portion 

of the species’ range, the complexity of metapopulation dynamics, a set of local populations that 

interact via dispersal of individuals moving among populations and where local extinctions and 

recolonizations occur, are assumed to function in lynx populations (BLM 2005b). Movement 

between habitat patches occurs as dispersal of subadults and in response to low hare abundance 

and functioning metapopulations require such occasional movements of individuals between 

subpopulations for species persistence (BLM 2008). Smaller scale movements occur as animals 

travel between hunting grounds within a home range (BLM 2008). Because of the patchiness of 

lynx habitats in the southern portion of the distributional range, lynx may include travel corridors 

within their home ranges (BLM 2005b). 

Multiple natal dens are typically used for Canada lynx breeding (BLM 2008). Not much is 

known about lynx breeding habits; however, the season usually occurs from April or May into 

July (BLM 2005b). 

• Habitat Requirements

In Montana, lynx are found in mountain and forest regions. Snow conditions and vegetation 

types are important habitat factors (Ruediger et al. 2000). Primary vegetation that contributes to 

lynx habitat is lodgepole pine, subalpine fir, and Engelmann spruce (Ruediger et al. 2000). East 

of the Continental Divide, the subalpine forests inhabited by lynx occur at higher elevations 

(5,413 to 7,874 feet) and are mostly species of fir. Secondary habitat is intermixed Englemann 

spruce and Douglas-fir with lodgepole pine as a major seral species (Ruediger et al. 2000). Dry 

forest types (e.g., ponderosa pine, climax lodgepole pine) do not provide lynx habitat (Ruediger 

et al. 2000). Throughout their range, shrub-steppe habitats may provide important linkage 

habitat between the primary habitats described above (Ruediger et al. 2000). The common 

component of natal den sites appears to be large woody debris, either down logs or root wads, 

located within older regenerating stands or in mature conifer or mixed conifer deciduous 

(typically spruce/fir or spruce/birch) forests (Ruediger et al. 2000). Additionally, studies show 

stand structure appears to be of more importance than forest cover type (Ruediger et al. 2000). 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 16 Appendix K 

• Distribution

The distribution of lynx in North America is direct correlated with the abundance of snowshoe 

hare (Ruediger et al. 2000). In the western US, most lynx occupy Rocky Mountain conifer 

forests (Ruediger et al. 2000). In Montana, lynx have been documented, historically and 

currently, throughout the Rocky Mountains from the Canadian border through the Yellowstone 

area (Ruediger et al. 2000). 

• Planning Area Distribution

Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Trapping Records from 1977-1990, indicated 8 records during 

the 1980s to 1990. Four records were at the headwaters of the Main Boulder River in Park and 

Sweet Grass Counties; one near Black Butte (Sweet Grass County); one between Bridger and 

Deer Creeks in Sweet Grass County, one each in Musselshell County in the Little Snowy 

Mountain area and one in Yellowstone County north of Pompeys Pillar. The last 4 outlying 

locations from tracking records from the early 1980s could have been caused by drastic changes 

in prey base (decline in snowshoe hare populations) or large increases in lynx populations where 

younger lynx were forced by territorial competition to expand their ranges in search of new 

habitat or territories ( Brian Giddings, personal communication, MTFWP, 2014). There are 

no Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) or critical habitat designated on BLM, Billings Field Office 

decision area lands, although lynx may occasionally occur in the area. Although Canada 

lynx critical habitat occurs in the general planning area, none occurs on BLM-administered lands 

or the decision area. Therefore, critical habitat will not be further analyzed in the BA. However, 

there is some potential secondary habitat above the 6,000 foot elevation in the Meeteetse Spires, 

Beartooth Front, and Pryor Mountain areas adjacent to the USFS lands. The lynx habitat area is 

identified on Figure 2. 

• Threats

Alteration of natural disturbance regimes, some forest management practices, road building, and 

some recreational activities may affect Canada lynx habitat suitability (BLM 2008). These 

activities threaten the patchiness and distribution of Canada lynx habitats that is essential for 

dispersal and lead to the vulnerability of the species (BLM 2008). The southern populations of 

Canada lynx in the United States in general are not large, and some may function as sources, 

whereas others function as sinks, with the necessity of dispersal potential between them (BLM 

2008). If a source population is put at risk, extinction in both the source and adjacent sink 

populations can occur (BLM 2008).

Threats to snowshoe hare and alternate prey habitat may directly impact Canada lynx. In aspen 

stands and high-elevation riparian willow communities, extensive grazing by domestic livestock 

or wild ungulates may reduce forage and cover availability for snowshoe hares (BLM 2008). 

This may also be true for high elevation shrub-steppe habitat that support white-tailed jackrabbits 

and other alternate prey in sagebrush habitats that lynx may need and use in highly fragmented 

forest stands (BLM 2008). 

Forest management activities may impact habitat for snowshoe hares and their prey. Retention 

of live and dead trees and coarse woody debris are important factors for maintenance of lynx, 

and habitats for lynx and their prey species (e.g., early successional habitat for snowshoe hares) 

(BLM 2005b). Timber harvest practices could increase edges and openings within forest stands, 

which may improve foraging conditions for predators and (or) competitors, such as mountain 

lions, coyotes, bobcats, and great-horned owls that compete with lynx for prey (BLM 2008). 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 17 September 2015

Wildfire suppression in the west has resulted in forests that are more homogeneous and 

composed of shade tolerant species with more canopy layers compared to historic conditions 

resulting in current forests that are more susceptible to severe fires, insects, and disease and 

provide unsuitable lynx habitats (BLM 2008). 

Recreation and other human activities impact lynx habitat and vulnerability. Recreational trails 

created by snowmobiles and even cross-country skiers create packed snow conditions that allow 

other predators and competitors into what would otherwise be exclusive lynx habitat (BLM 

2008). Even though lynx may show some tolerance to human activities, there may be impacts 

during crucial seasonal periods. For example, during denning in the spring, lynx are more 

vulnerable and require more secure habitats and fewer disturbances than might be tolerated at 

other times of year (BLM 2008). Additionally, disturbance also may be exacerbated during 

periods when food is scarce; starvation is not uncommon (BLM 2008). 

Roads into areas occupied by lynx may pose a threat to lynx from incidental harvest or poaching, 

increased access during winter for competing carnivores, especially coyotes, disturbance or 

mortality from vehicles, and loss of habitat (BLM 2005b). However, lynx are also known to 

follow road edges for considerable distances and have home ranges that encompass roads or 

sometimes use them to define the boundary (BLM 2008). The size, type, and amount of use of 

the road are all likely factors affecting the degree and types of impacts on lynx, as well as the 

increased vulnerability during denning (BLM 2008). Infrastructure associated with mineral 

extraction can be harmful to lynx, mostly as a consequence of new roads created to access areas 

for exploration and development (BLM 2005b). 

K.5.3 Grizzly Bear –Threatened 

K.5.3.1 Species Description

• Status

On July 28, 1975, the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) was designated as threatened on the 

conterminous (lower 48) United States (40 FR 31734-31736). On March 29, 2007, the USFWS 

establishment of a distinct population segment (DPS) of the grizzly bear for the Greater 

Yellowstone Area and surrounding area and removed this DPS from the List of Threatened and 

Endangered Wildlife (72 FR 14866). On September 21, 2009, the Montana District Court issued 

an order that vacated the delisting and remanded it to the USFWS. As a result, the March 26, 

2010 final rule required the correction of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population’s listing status. 

Thus, all grizzly bears in the lower 48 States are again listed as threatened (50 CFR 17.11(h)).

• Life History

Grizzly bears are opportunistic feeders and will prey or scavenge on almost any available food in

cluding ground squirrels, ungulates, carrion, and garbage (Dood et al. 2006). Roots, bulbs, 

tubers, fungi, and tree cambium are also utilized as important protein sources (Dood et al. 2006). 

High quality foods such as berries, nuts, and fish are important in some geographic areas (Dood 

et al. 2006). 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 18 Appendix K 

The breeding season occurs from late May through mid-July, with the peak in mid-June 

(USFWS 1993). Litter sizes vary from one to four cubs with two being the average (USFWS 

1993). Typically, females breed every three years (USFWS 1993). This limited reproductive 

activity may be a limiting factor for the species.

During late summer and fall, grizzlies gain weight rapidly, primarily as fat, as they prepare for 

hibernation (Dood et al. 2006). Winter denning is triggered by reduction in food source, air 

temperature, and snow depth (USFWS 1993). Generally, grizzly bears den by late October to 

mid-November and emerge in mid-March to Late April, spending on average five to six months 

in the den (Dood et. al 2006). 

Grizzly bears are solitary species with the exception of when caring for young or during 

breeding. Social interactions occur when individuals congregate at plentiful food sources, 

establishing a social hierarchy (USFWS 1993). However, males and females only tolerate each 

other during the breeding season. Family groups consist of a mother and her offspring, with 

siblings usually remaining together for several years (USFWS 1993). 

Grizzly bear density is directly correlated to the habitat condition and food availability and 

abundance. Territory sizes are unknown, but home ranges can overlap (USFWS 1993). The size 

of a home range includes factors such as food availability, weather conditions, and interactions 

with other bears (USFWS 1993). Home ranges can vary from year to year or to accommodate 

seasonal movements.

• Habitat Requirements

► In general, grizzly bear habitat requires large spatial needs for omnivorous foraging, winter 

denning, behavior, and security cover (Dood et al. 2006). Grizzly bears prefer remote forest 

habitats with low road density and minimum human disturbance. Forested habitat, closed 

timber, rock, prairie grassland, and aspen stands have all been documented as habitat with 

important elements for cover. Grizzly bears excavate their den sites at higher elevations on steep 

slopes where topography and wind allow for deep snow cover in places where it is unlikely to 

melt in warm conditions (USFWS 1993). 

• Distribution

Grizzly bear distribution within North America is primarily within but not limited to the areas 

identified as Recovery Zones including--the Yellowstone area in northwest Wyoming, eastern 

Idaho, and southwest Montana (9,200 square miles (sq. mi.)) at more than 580 bears; the 

Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem of north central Montana (9,600 sq. mi.) at more than 

400 bears; the North Cascades area of north central Washington (9,500 sq. mi.) at less than 20 

bears; the Selkirk Mountains area of northern Idaho, northeast Washington, and southeast British 

Columbia (2,200 sq. mi.) at approximately 40 to 50 bears; and the Cabinet-Yaak area of 

northwest Montana and northern Idaho (2,600 sq. mi.) at approximately 30 to 40 bears. 

• Planning Area Distribution

The planning area is not in the grizzly bear Recovery Zone, as designated by the USFWS in the 

1993 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (USFWS 1993); however the perimeter of the grizzly bear 

range is adjacent to public lands along the Beartooth Mountain foothills. Grizzly bears may be 

present as migrants throughout the planning area. Numerous sightings have occurred since 2010 

along the Beartooth Mountain front, particularly near the area south of Red Lodge to the 

Wyoming state line. Grizzly bear presence and depredation issues had been rare previous to 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 19 September 2015

2011, however, there has been a marked increase in depredation, with subsequent bear removals 

and relocations from private lands, in the last two years (2011 and 2012). In 2013, in late May 

and early June, livestock depredation occurred twice on private lands within the analysis area. In 

2014, Wildlife Services captured two male grizzlies (220 lb. and 300lb.) on one Carbon County 

private ranch due to bear damage. Both bears were transferred live to Montana Fish, Wildlife, 

and Parks and subsequently relocated. Refer to Figure 3and Figure 4 for maps of the 

“distribution or Range Extent” of grizzly bears in the Billings Field Office.

• Threats

Natural threats to grizzly bears are not well known. Bears do kill each other, but disease and 

parasites are not significant causes of mortality (USFWS 1993). Human caused mortality 

including direct confrontation, the attraction of bears into areas of available food sources (e.g., 

camps, towns, garbage dumps), livestock management conflicts, habitat degradation, and hunting 

provide greater threats to grizzly bear populations (USFWS 1993). 

Currently, BIFO only authorizes domestic sheep grazing in one grazing allotment north of 

Lavina, Montana. All remaining livestock grazing permits are either cattle or horses.

K.5.4 Whooping crane - endangered

K.5.4.1 Species Description

The adult whooping crane (Grus americana), North America’s tallest bird, has a white plumage 

with contrasting black wingtips visible only when wings are extended. Males weigh as much as 

15 pounds, have a wingspan of 87 inches and a height of 52 inches, and are larger than females. 

A reddish-black patch of bristly feathers are visible on the top and back of head. The neck is 

long, as is the bill, which is dark and pointed. Juveniles are similar to adults but largely 

cinnamon-brown in color. White feathers begin to appear on the neck and back at about 4 

months of age. Plumage is predominately white and adult-like by the following spring. 

• Status

Amid concerns with diminished populations and deteriorating habitat, in 1970 (CWS and 

USFWS 2007) the whooping crane was designated as Endangered by the USFWS. This 

designation still remains for the Wood Buffalo/Aransas population. The Florida non-migratory 

population was designated “Endangered – experimental nonessential” in 1993, as was the 

Wisconsin-Florida migratory population in 2001. In 1997 the Rocky Mountain population was 

also designated as “Endangered – experimental nonessential”; however, this designation is no 

longer relevant since the population no longer exists. 

Great declines in population occurred in the second half to the 19th century, with the bird 

reported as extirpated from the United States portion of the historic breeding range by 1890 

(Allen 1952, McNulty 1966). By the late 1930s, only two small breeding populations remained: 

a remnant non-migratory population in southwest Louisiana and a migratory population that 

nested in Canada and wintered in coastal Texas. Birds in the Louisiana population last nested in 

1939. A hurricane the following year reduced that number from 13 to 6 individuals. The last 

member of this population was taken into captivity in 1950 (Travsky and Beauvais 2004). 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 20 Appendix K 

Wild whooping cranes currently exist in 3 populations: Aransas/Wood Buffalo, Florida nonmigratory, and Wisconsin-Florida migratory. An experimental population in the Rocky 

Mountains was recently extirpated. The only self-sustaining wild population is the 

Aransas/Wood Buffalo Population. These birds winter in coastal Texas and travel to Wood 

Buffalo National Park in the Northwest Territories, Canada. The wintering population reached a 

low of 15 birds in the winter of 1941 to 42 (Boyce 1985). Birds nest almost exclusively within 

the Wood Buffalo National Park, where inaccessibility affords a level of protection. Increased 

protection of the wintering grounds and widespread public education has helped increase this 

population to 278 as of August 2011 

(http://www.bringbackthecranes.org/technicaldatabase/recovery/wcrane-nos2011.html). 

• Life History

Traveling either as individuals, pairs, family groups or small flocks, the migration from 

wintering grounds in east central Texas to Alberta, Canada, may take 2 to 6 weeks. Migration 

occurs in the daytime and the birds take regular stops for the night to feed and rest. These 

stopover sites may last for 1 night or up to 4 weeks (Travsky and Beauvais 2004). Autumn 

migration normally begins in mid-September, with most birds arriving on the Texas wintering 

grounds between late October and mid-November. Spring migration departure dates are 

normally between March 25 and April 15, with the last birds usually leaving by May 1. Refer to 

Figure 5, “Migration Corridor Map”.

While still on the wintering grounds, pairs engage in courtship displays and vocalizations. 

Breeding pairs, which are monogamous, quickly establish nesting territories once arriving on the 

breeding grounds. Nest building occurs shortly after territories have been established and two 

eggs are laid. Incubation, which both sexes participate in, lasts 33 to 35 days. Eggs hatch in late 

May or early June, with eggs hatching at different times. The second hatchling is often pushed 

out of the nest or starved. Young, which are attended by both parents, leave the nest within a day 

of hatching, can fly at roughly 3 1⁄2 months and remain with adults until the following year 

(Baicich and Harrison 2005). Three year-old birds occasionally nest but the average age of first 

egg production is 4 years and older (Travsky and Beauvais 2004). 

• Habitat Requirements

Whooping cranes use a variety of habitats during migration (Howe 1987, 1989; Lingle 1987; 

Lingle et al. 1991). They have been observed feeding in a variety of croplands and roosting in 

marshy wetlands (Howe 1987, 1989). Whooping cranes also roost in riverine habitat, most 

notably the Platte River, Middle Loup River, and Niobrara River in Nebraska; the Cimarron 

River in Oklahoma; and the Red River in Texas. Cranes roost on submerged sandbars in wide 

unobstructed channels that are isolated from human disturbance (Armbruster 1990). Large 

palustrine wetlands are used for roosting and feeding during migration. 

The principal wintering grounds (salt flats on Aransas National Wildlife Refuge and adjacent 

islands) consist of marshes dominated by salt grass, saltwort, smooth cordgrass, glasswort, and 

sea ox-eye. Inland margins of the flats are dominated by Gulf cordgrass. Whooping cranes are 

omnivorous probing the soil subsurface with their bills and taking foods from the soil surface or 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 21 September 2015

vegetation. Young chicks are fed by their parents, and gradually become more independent in 

their feeding until they separate from the parents preceding the next breeding season. Summer 

foods include large nymphal or larval forms of insects, frogs, rodents, small birds, minnows, and 

berries. Foods utilized during migration are poorly documented, but include frogs, fish, plant 

tubers, crayfish, insects, and waste grains in harvested fields. Animal foods and the plant 

wolfberry predominate in the winter diet. Most foraging occurs in brackish bays, marshes, and 

salt flats lying between the mainland and barrier islands.

• Distribution

The Aransas/Wood Buffalo Population migrates through northeastern Alberta and southwestern 

Saskatchewan, northeastern Montana, the western half of North Dakota, central South Dakota, 

Nebraska and Oklahoma, and east-central Texas, a distance of roughly 2400 miles. This corridor 

accounts for 95 percent of confirmed sightings.

• Planning Area Distribution

According to the Montana Natural Heritage Program, there have been 4 observations of 

whooping cranes since 1985 within the BIFO area. These included two observations of 2 birds, 

one observation of 1 bird, and one observation of 10-15 birds primarily along the Yellowstone 

River. One observation was north of Roundup, Montana. There is no known whooping crane stopover, roosting or nesting habitat within the Planning Area, nor is the planning area within the whooping 

crane’s principle migration corridor.

• Threats

It is thought that populations declined as a result of the destruction of wintering and breeding 

habitat, collisions with power-lines and fences, shooting, specimen collection, and human 

disturbance. Current threats are similar, and include the loss of wetlands, collisions, poaching, 

and poor reproductive success.

K.5.5 Red Knot– Threatened

K.5.5.1 Species Description

Calidris canutus rufa is the palest subspecies. The chin, throat, breast, flanks, and belly are 

characteristically brick red or salmon red, sometimes with a few scattered light feathers mixed in. 

The under-tail is white, often including scattered brick-red or salmon-red feathers, marked with 

dark, terminal chevrons (V-shaped markings) laterally. The crown (top of head) and nape (back 

of neck) are streaked with black and gray and/or salmon; prominent superciliary (above eye) 

stripe is brick red or salmon red, auricular (ear) region and lores (area between eyes and base of 

beak) are colored as in the crown, but with finer streaks. Back-feathers and scapulars have dark 

brown-black centers edged with faded salmon. Scapulars and tertials (innermost flight feathers) 

are unevenly colored, with broad, dark, irregular-shaped centers, widely edged in notched 

patterns to variable degrees, some with faded salmon and others with bright salmon-red color. 

The lower back and upper tail-coverts are barred black and white, with scattered rufous. Primary 

feathers (main flight feathers on the outer half of wing) are dark brown to black, secondaries 

(feathers along trailing edge of inner segment of wing) and remiges (longest feathers on wing) 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 22 Appendix K 

are gray. Younger males tend to be less brightly colored dorsally (on the back) and have greater 

numbers of light feathers scattered among ventral (on the belly) feathering. The underwing is 

duller than in other Calidris subspecies (Tomkovich 1992, p. 20; Harrington 2001, p. 4). 

Length: 25-28 cm. (9-11”) Adults in spring: Above finely mottled with grays, black and light 

ochre, running into stripes on crown; throat, breast and sides of head cinnamon-brown; dark gray 

line through eye; abdomen and undertail coverts white; uppertail coverts white, barred with 

black. Adults in winter: Pale ashy gray above, from crown to rump, with feathers on back 

narrowly edged with white; underparts white, the breast lightly streaked and speckled, and the 

flanks narrowly barred with gray. Adults in autumn: Underparts of some individuals show 

traces of the "red" of spring. 

• Status

On December 11, 2014, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Rufa red knot as threatened. 

• Life History

Each year red knots make one of the longest distance migrations known in the animal kingdom, 

traveling approximately 30,000 kilometers (km (18,641 miles (mi)) annually between wintering 

grounds in southern South America and breeding areas within the Canadian Arctic. Although 

small populations overwinter in Florida and northern Brazil, most red knots winter in southern 

South America along the coast of Patagonia, from approximately San Antonio Oeste, Argentina, 

southward to the eastern coast of Tierra del Fuego in Chile and Argentina (Harrington 2001, p. 6; 

Baker et al. 2004, p. 876; Morrison et al. 2001, p. 62). 

• Habitat Requirements

In wintering and migration habitats, red knots commonly forage on bivalves, gastropods, and 

crustaceans (Harrington 2001, pp. 9-11). During migration, red knots undertake long flights that 

may span thousands of kilometers without stopping. At some stages of migration, high 

proportions of entire populations may use a single migration staging site (stop along the journey 

where birds congregate) to prepare for long flights. Migrating red knots are principally found in 

marine and estuarine (partially enclosed tidal area where fresh and salt water mixes) habitats 

(Harrington 2001, pp. 8-9). Protection of these and other wetlands, especially larger wetlands 

rich with invertebrate prey, is of value to this rarely documented visitor as well as other 

migratory and nonmigratory species (Harrington 2001). 

• Distribution

The range of C. c. rufa during migration extends along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts of 

North, Central, and South America, from the Canadian arctic to the southernmost extent of South 

America. With the exception of a few key wintering areas in South America and the spring 

migratory stopover site in Delaware Bay, little comparative information is available regarding 

the historical versus current distribution of the subspecies throughout its range. 

• Planning Area Distribution

According to Montana Bird Distribution, 7th Edition, 2012, P.D. Skaar, there is no evidence of 

breeding in Montana. There has been three observations in northern and western Montana from 

2003-2011, 9 observations from 1991-2002 in the same general areas, and 6 observations in 

southern and eastern Montana prior to 1991. According to the Montana Natural Heritage 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 23 September 2015

Program, there have been 3 observations within the Billings Field Office (BIFO). Observations 

include one in Golden Valley Co. in 1995, and two in Yellowstone Co. in 1974 and 1975. 

• Threats

Commercial harvest of spawning horseshoe crabs in the Delaware Bay, which results in reduced 

availability of horseshoe crab eggs, is a modification of habitat associated with the decline of the 

red knot. Sea level rise and shoreline erosion have reduced availability of intertidal habitat that 

is used for horseshoe crab spawning and red knot foraging within the principal migration 

stopover area of the Delaware Bay. In addition, erosion has also led to loss of sites used by red 

knots for roosting (Niles et al. 2007, pp. 154-155). Oil spills are a serious threat to red knot 

habitat. Human disturbance can have an adverse effect on foraging by shorebirds at available 

suitable habitats. Climate change and warming trends may benefit Arctic shorebirds in the short 

term by increasing both survival and productivity, whereas in the long term habitat changes, both 

on the breeding grounds and non-breeding areas, may put Arctic nesting shorebirds under 

considerable pressure, bringing some to near extinction. 

K.6 Analysis of Management Actions and Effects Determinations

This section is organized by resource program. A summary of the RMP management actions for 

the program is followed by the effects and determinations for each species considered. Detailed 

information on the management actions included in the RMP can be found in Chapter 2 of the 

Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS. 

K.6.1 Whooping Crane and Red Knot Effects Determinations

Due to limited observations and habitat within the BIFO, Whooping cranes and red knots will 

only be discussed in this section and will not be analyzed further in each resource program. Both 

species appear to be occasional migrants through central Montana.

Riparian/Wetland Conservation Measures related to whooping crane and red knot habitat: 

1) Manage riparian communities to meet Health Standards to ensure riparian areas and 

wetlands are in Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) and water quality meets State of 

Montana standards. 

2) Surface disturbing activities would not be allowed within riparian areas and wetlands, 

designated 100 year flood plains and on water bodies and streams, except to benefit 

watershed health. Those activities that are not in conflict with the desired outcomes for this 

resource would be allowed. 

3) (NSO –No Surface Occupancy) Surface occupancy and use for oil and gas exploration 

(including geophysical operations) would be prohibited in riparian areas and wetlands, 

designated 100 year flood plains, water bodies and streams. 

4) (CSU-Controlled Surface Use) Surface occupancy and use would be controlled within 

300 feet of riparian and/or wetland areas. Surface-disturbing activities would require a plan 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 24 Appendix K 

with design features that demonstrate how all actions would maintain and/or improve the 

functionality of riparian/wetland areas.

K.6.1.1 Whooping crane

According to the Montana Natural Heritage Program, there have been four observations of 

whooping cranes since 1985 within the BIFO area. There is no known whooping crane stop-over, 

roosting or nesting habitat within the Planning Area, nor is the planning area within the whooping crane’s 

principle migration corridor.

K.6.1.1.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination

The status of the whooping crane is expected to be maintained as a result of implementation of 

the RMP/EIS. Protective measures, BMPs, NSO stipulations, and CSU stipulations identified 

for programs related to whooping cranes and their habitat and the prohibition of surfacedisturbing and disruptive activities within whooping crane habitat would minimize impacts to the 

species. Any future wind energy projects will have conservation measures to be determined 

through consultation with USFWS. Power-lines, communication lines, and towers with guylines constructed over or near wetlands will have bird flight diverters installed. Compliance 

with APLIC guidelines will reduce whooping crane strikes as APLIC guidelines are provided to 

utilities to reduce avian mortality. 

Based on these conservation measures, the occasional migratory presence of whooping cranes, 

and their limited habitat within public lands of the planning area (an estimated 18 miles of BLM 

shoreline within the BIFO Yellowstone River total of 160 miles or 11 percent), the BLM has 

determined that implementation of the RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative may affect, but is not 

likely to adversely affect, whooping cranes due to discountable effects (NLAA-d). 

K.6.1.2 Red Knot

There is no evidence of breeding in Montana. According to the Montana Natural Heritage 

Program, there have been 3 observations within the Billings Field Office (BIFO) in the past 30 

years. Observations include one in Golden Valley Co. in 1995, and two in Yellowstone Co. in 

1974 and 1975. 

K.6.1.2.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination

The status of the red knot is expected to be maintained as a result of implementation of the 

RMP/EIS. Protective measures, BMPs, NSO stipulations, and CSU stipulations identified for 

programs related to red knot and habitat and the prohibition of surface-disturbing and disruptive 

activities within riparian/ wetland habitat would minimize impacts to the species. Power-lines, 

communication lines, and towers with guy-lines constructed over or near wetlands will have bird 

flight diverters installed.

Based on these conservation measures, the occasional migratory presence of red knots, and their 

limited habitat within public lands of the planning area, the BLM has determined that 

implementation of the RMP/EIS Preferred Alternative may affect, but is not likely to adversely 

affect, red knots due to discountable effects (NLAA-d).
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 25 September 2015

K.7 Air Quality

• Activity Description

In general air quality management ensures authorizations and management activities comply 

with local, state, and federal air quality regulations and requirements. The Billings and Pompeys 

Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS focuses on managing all BLM-authorized activities to 

maintain air quality within the thresholds established in the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards under the Clean Air Act (amended 1977), and the Montana Air Quality Standards and 

the State of Montana Implementation Plan. The Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument 

RMP/EIS would minimize the impact of management actions in the planning area on air quality 

by complying with all applicable air quality laws, rules and regulations and managing BLMauthorized activities to meet or exceed visual standards.

The following management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings 

and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS: 

• Utilize methods and mitigations as practicable that reduce fugitive dust and help meet or 

exceed Federal and Montana and Wyoming State Standards where applicable. 

• Coordinate smoke management with the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group and Montana 

Department of Environmental Quality.

• Coordinate with the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Air Quality 

Division, along the Montana Wyoming boundary.

• Coordinate smoke management with the Yellowstone County Air Quality Unit in 

Yellowstone County. 

• Management of the non-attainment area(s) within the Planning Area would be the 

responsibility of the State of Montana.

• Land uses would not be permitted or authorized if the land uses would cause or contribute to 

violation of ambient air quality standards; increase frequency of existing violations, and/or 

impede the State progress in meeting air quality goals.

K.7.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination

Measures taken by the BLM to ensure air quality standards will not have an adverse effect on 

any listed species. As air quality affects all habitats, the appropriate determination is “may 

affect, not likely to adversely affect” rather than “no effect” for listed species. 

K.7.2 Endangered and Threatened Species 

Actions associated with air quality management will not directly impact threatened, endangered, 

or any potential habitats. Air quality management will exclude some actions and structures from 

designated viewsheds and may have a beneficial impact of limiting disturbance in habitats 

suitable for threatened or endangered species. Implementing air quality management actions 

may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the threatened or endangered species due to 

beneficial effects (NLAA-b). This determination is based on the potential of these management 

actions to preserve or minimize disturbance to habitats suitable for threatened and endangered 

species.
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 26 Appendix K 

K.8 Climate

• Activity Description

In general, climate management would maintain or improve the ability of BLM lands to reduce 

(sequester) atmospheric greenhouse gases. Under the Billings and Pompeys Pillar National 

Monument RMP/EIS, no activities would be authorized that would result in the Billings Field 

Office becoming a net greenhouse gas emitter.

The following management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings 

and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS: 

• Promote vegetative capture and storage of carbon, with consideration for resource objectives, 

by using Rangeland Standards and Montana Forestry/Rangeland BMP guidelines at the 

project planning and implementation level. 

• Identify opportunities for geophysical carbon sequestration on federal lands where federal 

mineral ownership exists as outlined in national guidance. 

• BLM authorized actions would consider reductions of GHGs. 

• Priority would 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.

K.8.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination

The BLM will implement appropriate management decisions to ensure climate management 

standards are met and in turn will not have an adverse effect on any listed species. As climate 

affects all habitats, the appropriate determination is “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” 

rather than “no effect” for listed species. 

K.8.2 Endangered or Threatened Species 

Actions associated with climate management will not directly impact threatened or endangered, 

species or any potential habitats. Climate management will exclude some actions and structures 

from designated areas and may have a beneficial impact of limiting disturbance in habitats 

suitable for threatened or endangered species. Implementing climate management actions may

affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the Threatened or endangered species due to 

beneficial effects (NLAA). This determination is based on the potential of these management 

actions to preserve or minimize disturbance to habitats suitable for threatened and endangered 

species.

K.9 Geology 

See Energy and Minerals section.
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 27 September 2015

K.10 Soil Resources

• Activity Description

In general, soil management focuses on maintaining soil integrity, reclaiming disturbed soils, 

minimizing erosion and, in some cases, improving soil health. The Billings and Pompeys Pillar 

National Monument RMP/EIS would emphasize maintaining or improving soil health and 

productivity (e.g., chemical, physical, and biotic properties) by implementing Standards for 

Rangeland Health and other soil protection measures. Management actions would focus on 

minimizing accelerated soil erosion and compaction and maintain surface soil water infiltration 

based on site specific conditions. BLM-authorized activities would be managed to minimize soil 

mass movement (primarily from accelerated water/wind erosion) resulting from burned areas, 

above-ground disturbances and accelerated stream bank erosion and to prevent or minimize flood 

and sediment damage, as needed, to creeks, streams and standing bodies of water (lakes, ponds, 

reservoirs, etc.). Finally, soil management actions would be utilized to establish desirable plant 

communities, maintain existing desirable vegetative ground cover composition consistent with 

the ecological site characteristics, and sustain other ground cover including biotic soil crusts and 

litter to increase or maintain surface soil stability and nutrient cycling.

The following management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings 

and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS: 

• BLM-authorized surface-disturbing activities would include plans for reclamation. Sitespecific reclamation actions should reflect the complexity of the project, environmental 

concerns and the reclamation potential of the site, giving consideration to soils susceptible to 

erosion and compaction when assessing projects. 

• The Standards for Rangeland Health would be used to assess compaction and erosion issues. 

• Respond in a timely manner to assess soil and mitigate potential soil damage after wildland 

or management ignited fire, in accordance with BLM Emergency Stabilization and 

Rehabilitation standards. 

• Identify opportunities to construct water flow, sediment control and watershed stabilization 

projects in partnership with local, state and federal programs.

• Authorization would be allowed in areas where erosion would be effectively controlled or 

mitigated with a BLM approved design plan. 

• Surface disturbing activities would not be allowed soils with steep slopes >35% and soils 

with low reclamation potential and highly erodible characteristics. A mitigation plan would 

be required (399,215 acres). Use Rangeland Health Standards and BMPs to assess and 

mitigate disturbance of soils (e.g., erosion, re-vegetation, fiber mats and other restoration 

measures, etc.).

• No surface occupancy on slopes >30% for oil and gas development and leasing (NSO). 

47,784 acres. 

• Use BMPs and Rangeland Health Standards at the project level to assess and mitigate 

impacts to fragile and unstable soils prone to slumping. 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 28 Appendix K 

K.10.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination

K.10.1.1 Black-footed ferret 

No black-footed ferrets are known to exist within the planning area. Additionally, soil resource 

activities are not likely to affect black-footed ferrets due to the site specific nature of soil 

management activities. Some disturbance may occur if surface disturbing activities were to 

occur within suitable black-footed ferret habitat. Surface disturbing activities, including 

reclamation activities, and human disturbance may result in short-term impacts to black-footed 

ferret habitat. However, the proposed soil management activities will likely result in the 

maintenance of soil health and improved habitat quality in the long term. Therefore, soil 

management activities may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the black-footed ferret 

due to discountable effects (NLAA-d). This determination is based on the current absence of 

black-footed ferrets; presence of suitable habitat within the planning area; and the 

implementation of conservation measures for ferrets that will preclude any adverse effects to the 

species or its habitat. 

The following is a summary of the stipulation to protect black-footed ferret habitat: Blackfooted ferret habitat is defined as prairie dog colonies within 1.5 km of each other and 

comprising of 1,000 acres. Surface occupancy and use for oil and gas leasing, development, and 

exploration and geothermal operations would be prohibited within 1⁄4 mile of black-footed ferret 

habitat (No Surface Occupancy -NSO).

K.10.1.2 Canada Lynx

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for Canada Lynx on page 13 for a Summary of 

Occurrence in BIFO. There are no Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) or critical habitat designated on 

BLM, Billings Field Office decision area lands, although lynx may occasionally occur in the 

area.

Lynx may be an occasional migrant on higher elevation public lands near the U.S. Forest Service 

boundary. Suitable linkage habitat exists and soil management activities may include short term 

impacts including human disturbance and some surface disturbance. However, the proposed soil 

management activities will likely result in the maintenance of soil health and improved habitat 

quality in the long term. Therefore, soil management activities may affect, but are not likely to 

adversely affect, the Canada lynx due to discountable effects (NLAA-d). This determination is 

based on the current absence of lynx and the presence of occasional migratory lynx habitat 

within the planning area. 

K.10.1.3 Grizzly Bear

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for grizzly bears on page 15 for a Summary of Occurrence 

in BIFO. 

Suitable habitat exists and soil management activities may include short term impacts including 

human disturbance and some surface disturbance. However, the proposed soil management 

activities will likely result in the maintenance of soil health and improved habitat quality in the 

long term. Therefore, soil management activities may affect, but are not likely to adversely 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 29 September 2015

affect, the grizzly bear due to discountable effects (NLAA-d). This determination is based on the 

current activity of grizzly bears; presence of limited suitable grizzly habitat within the planning 

area; and the implementation of conservation measures for grizzly bears that will preclude any 

adverse effects to the species or its habitat. Weed control using domestic sheep and/or goats in 

potential grizzly bear habitat would only be authorized after consultation with U.S. Fish Wildlife 

Services.

K.11 Water Resources

• Activity Description

The BLM is responsible for managing surface lands and federal mineral estate in a manner that 

maintains or enhances water quality and quantity for other uses and complies with state and 

federal water quality standards. The BLM coordinates with state and other federal agencies to 

ensure compliance with required water resource management responsibilities. The Billings and 

Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS would emphasize maintaining and/or improving 

surface water and groundwater resources, maintain compliance with applicable federal and state 

water quality standards, and improve water quality where practical within the scope of the 

BLM’s authority. Management actions would include restoring and/or maintaining the chemical, 

physical, and biological integrity of water resources to protect designated beneficial uses and 

achieve water quality standards. This includes minimizing erosion and subsequent sedimentation 

for improved stream and watershed health, maintaining or improving morphological conditions 

to a stable state that can fully support beneficial uses, and protecting water quality for municipal, 

industrial, agricultural, recreation, and residential purposes by adopting protective measures to 

meet federal, tribal, state, and local water quality requirements. The BLM management activities 

are aimed at ensuring floodplains are properly functioning allowing for aquifer recharge, wildlife 

habitat, and flood water retention; and that stream channel conditions are representative of the 

site capacity and dimension and moderate flows to allow floodplain aquifer recharge and 

safeguard floodplains. 

The following management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings 

and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS: 

• BLM would participate in the development, implementation, and monitoring of water quality 

restoration plans/TMDL plans.

• Use rangeland Health guidelines and other management strategies to meet the Standards for 

Rangeland Health (Standards 2, 9 &12). 

• Use BMPs and other practical management strategies to meet water quality standards set 

forth by the above agencies and rules/laws. 

• Acquire in-stream water rights where appropriate, to ensure water availability for multipleuse management and proper functioning riparian and upland areas.

• Cooperate with Montana State DEQ and local communities to implement Source Water 

Protection Programs (SWPPs) and preserve source water.

• Restrict or limit BLM-authorized activities that contribute to deteriorating watershed 

conditions and/or excessive erosion. Use Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines and 

BMPs to mitigate impacts from activities that are contributing to excessive erosion.
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 30 Appendix K 

• Monitor route conditions and temporarily/permanently close roads, and/or apply mitigation 

measures where runoff contributes to accelerated decline in water quality and/or habitat, 

and/or reclaim route conditions. 

• Avoid the discharge of oil and gas- produced water from point sources to public lands, 

including stream channels and uplands, as a means of disposal. Any allowed discharge 

would be in compliance with Montana DEQ requirements. 

• Surface disturbing activities would not be allowed within riparian areas and wetlands, 

designated 100 year flood plains and on water bodies and streams, except to benefit 

watershed health and those activities that are not in conflict with the desired outcomes for 

this resource. 

• Surface occupancy and use for oil and gas exploration (including geophysical operations) 

would be prohibited within 300 feet of riparian areas and wetlands, water bodies, perennial 

streams, and flood plains of perennial streams. (no surface occupancy stipulations - NSO 

stipulations) 

K.11.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination

K.11.1.1 Black-footed ferret 

No black-footed ferrets are known to exist within the planning area. Additionally, water 

resource management activities do not generally occur within potential black-footed ferret 

habitat. Buffers for surface disturbing activities within riparian areas, wetlands, and 100 year 

floodplains could benefit prairie dog towns located in close proximity to these features. 

Additionally, actions that include the stabilization of watershed conditions may benefit 

grasslands adjacent to riparian areas. Impacts associated with surface disturbing activities within 

prairie dog towns may be limited to a small component of these habitats. Therefore, water 

management activities may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the black-footed ferret 

due to discountable effects (NLAA-d). This determination is based on the current absence of 

black-footed ferrets and management activities not occurring with potential habitat or limited to 

a small portion of suitable habitat within the planning area. 

K.11.1.2 Canada Lynx

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for Canada Lynx on page 13 for a Summary of 

Occurrence in BIFO. There are no Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) or critical habitat designated on 

BLM, Billings Field Office decision area lands, although lynx may occasionally occur in the 

area.

Additionally, water resource management activities would occur in a small portion of suitable 

lynx habitat and actions that include the stabilization of watershed conditions may benefit lynx 

habitat. Impacts could include adverse short term affects such as disturbance caused by human 

presence, noise, and vehicle traffic. Long term impacts to riparian and wetland areas from oil 

and gas leasing are possible within suitable lynx habitat, but leases are subject to no surface 

occupancy (NSO) stipulations. Therefore, water management activities may affect, but are not 

likely to adversely affect, the Canada lynx due to discountable effects (NLAA-d). This 

determination is based on the current absence of lynx and lynx habitat in the field office area. 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 31 September 2015

K.11.1.3 Grizzly Bear

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for grizzly bears on page 15 for a Summary of Occurrence 

in BIFO. 

Additionally, water resource management activities would occur in a small portion of suitable 

grizzly habitat and actions that include the stabilization of watershed conditions may benefit 

grizzly bear habitat. Impacts could include short term affects such as disturbance caused by 

human presence, noise, and vehicle traffic. Long term impacts to riparian and wetland areas 

from oil and gas leasing are possible within suitable grizzly habitat, but leases are subject to no 

surface occupancy (NSO) stipulations. Therefore, water management activities may affect, but 

are not likely to adversely affect, the grizzly bear due to discountable effects (NLAA-d). This 

determination is based on the current occurrences of grizzly bear, the minimal public lands 

occurring in the Beartooth foothills, and the implementation of conservation measures that will 

preclude any adverse effects to the species or its habitat.

K.12 Vegetation Communities

• Activity Description

There are numerous vegetation cover types in the BiFO planning area. These broad vegetation 

types are an expression of the wide range of climatic and soil conditions found throughout the 

planning area. Vegetation cover types in the planning area consist primarily of shrubland and 

rangeland communities and cover approximately 320,691 acres (87 percent) of the total BLM 

managed surface acreage. Forest/woodlands and riparian/wetland vegetation cover types, 

comprise approximately 47,035 acres (11 percent) and are a biologically diverse and important 

resource in the planning area. Urban and agricultural cover types comprise the remaining 8,552 

acres (two percent) in the planning area. 

The desired outcome of management activities for vegetative communities include the 

restoration, maintenance or enhancement of vegetation community health, habitat, composition 

and diversity to provide a mix of successional stages that incorporate diverse structure and 

composition in the desired vegetation types. Additionally, BLM management actions strive to 

maintain, improve, enhance, or restore habitat to facilitate the conservation, recovery, and 

maintenance of populations of native and desirable nonnative plant and animal species. 

• Forests and Woodlands

The Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS would emphasize the restoration 

and/or maintenance of the health and productivity of public forests and woodlands, to provide a 

balance of forest and woodland resource benefits to present and future generations. Forests and 

woodlands management goals and objectives would consider factors such as species, density, 

basal area, canopy cover, age class, stand health and understory components, to restore vitality, 

health and diversity. The BLM management actions for forests and woodlands would promote 

forest vegetation recovery on forested lands after wildland fire events and use fire and fuels 

treatments as an integrated approach to meet forest health objectives. To return forests toward a 

more natural forest condition class and fire regime, the implementation of treatments that move 

the forest conditions toward condition class I would be utilized. Natural disturbance regimes 

would be maintained or mimicked so that plant communities are resilient to climate change and 

periodic outbreaks of insects, disease, and wildland fire. 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 32 Appendix K 

Management of forest and woodland resources includes management of a wide range of 

ecological system communities within the planning area. Quaking aspen stands would be 

managed to promote vigor and resilience and to promote expansion within its historic range. 

Rocky Mountain juniper and limber pine would continue to be managed to promote vigor and 

resilience. Currently, Douglas fir forests are healthy and contain site appropriate species. 

Lodgepole pine and spruce/fir stands are represented by a diversity of age classes and structure 

and exhibit health and vigor. Ponderosa pine stands occupy historic range and are in stable or 

improving condition. Ponderosa pine stands contain multi-aged stems and occur in association 

with vigorous understory shrubs and grasses. Low intensity fire can be accommodated without 

excessive loss of trees and insect and disease occurrences are at endemic levels. 

The following management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings 

and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS: 

• An inventory and health assessment of stands within the forested areas in the planning area 

would be completed during the life of the plan. 

• Monitoring forest health indicators, including populations of insects, and apply forest 

management methods which promote the appropriate level of stocking and function based on 

the forest type.

• Managing vegetation structure, density, species composition, patch size, pattern, and 

distribution in a manner which reduces the occurrence of unnaturally large and severe 

wildland fires and forest insect outbreaks. The amount of vegetation to be treated may vary 

and would be based on inventory and monitoring to meet the objectives.

• Treatment of stands with characteristics indicating a substantial risk of developing epidemic 

levels of forest insects and/or disease as a high priority to reduce risk.

• Conducting forest and woodland health management activities using a prescription based on 

the best available science. At a minimum, prescriptions would require current stand 

descriptions and desired future conditions.

• Maintaining the health of curl leaf mountain mahogany and promote expansion within its 

historic range, with an emphasis on the appropriate stocking level, structure and understory. 

• Managing stands of limber pine to maintain and promote stand composition, age class, vigor 

and understory diversity. 

• Emphasis on forest structures with large trees appropriate to the forest type, snag 

management, and large diameter trees for cavity nesters where appropriate.

• Use of adaptive management strategies that address climate change in order to maintain or 

enhance forest based ecosystems.

• Wheeled and tracked vehicle operation would not be allowed on sustained slopes greater

35%. 

• Emphasis would be placed on retention and acquisition of forested lands. Disposal, retention 

or acquisition of forested lands would consider the value of the forest type, habitat diversity 

and potential for carbon sequestration.

• Cutting for density management, forest health and fuels reduction would be allowed unless 

otherwise restricted. Large trees would be retained in numbers and species as appropriate for 

the forest type and successional stage, consistent with wildlife requirements and other 

resource values.
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 33 September 2015

• Rangelands 

The Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS, rangeland management actions 

would manage vegetative resources to maintain a diversity of ecological conditions on 

rangelands while providing for a variety of multiple uses that are economically feasible, and 

based on sound biological principles and the best available science. BLM management actions 

would be designed to promote recovery and restoration of sagebrush communities after wildland 

fire events.

The following management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings 

and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS: 

• Manage rangelands to meet health standards consistent with the Standards for Rangeland 

Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management and apply appropriate guidelines 

where not meeting the standards.

• Treatment methods, including prescribed burning and mechanical treatments, would be used 

to eliminate conifer encroachment and stimulate vegetative re-growth in grassland/shrubland 

habitats; and to reduce fuels, thin under-stories, recycle nutrients, and create small openings 

in forested vegetation types. 

• Identify and maintain areas containing high quality native vegetation for use as seed 

collection sites.

• Identify priority treatment areas for conifer encroachment, including big game winter range, 

WUIs, current and historic sagebrush habitat, forest meadows and bighorn sheep habitat. 

• To manage cheatgrass and annual bromes, use the best available vegetation treatments, 

including but not limited to early spring grazing, prescribed fire, interim farming practices, 

and herbicide use.

• A variety of treatment methods, including mechanical, chemical, biological and prescribed 

fire (including wildland fire), would be used if the treatment would achieve a diversity of age 

classes in sagebrush communities.

• Eight percent (12,000 acres) of crested wheatgrass acreage would be converted to native 

sagebrush/ grassland over the life of the plan. Preferred treatment areas would be areas that 

are not currently being used in a grazing system to provide early spring grazing and reduce 

grazing pressure from other areas within a grazing allotment. 

• Riparian and Wetlands 

The Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS, riparian and wetlands 

management actions would promote healthy wetland ecosystems, supporting physical processes 

and natural combinations of vegetation that work together to create stable streambanks, 

functional floodplains, complex fish and wildlife habitat and high water quality within site 

potential. Riparian vegetation would be managed to achieve or sustain desired future conditions 

(DFCs). The DFCs would be developed by an interdisciplinary team, giving consideration to 

restoring and/or promoting natural communities and complex riparian conditions valuable to 

water quality and wildlife habitat. Invasive species management would focus on restoring native 

and desired non-native communities to riparian areas to attain DFCs.

The following management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings 

and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS:

• Forest treatments would comply with the Montana Streamside Management Zone law to 

protect riparian resources.
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 34 Appendix K 

• Manage riparian communities on a prioritized basis, to meet Standards or Desired Future 

Conditions (DFCs).

• Manage riparian communities to meet Health Standards to ensure riparian areas and wetlands 

are in Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) and water quality meets State of Montana 

standards. 

• Restrict or limit BLM-authorized activities in riparian areas not rated as PFC or FAR- UP. 

Riparian Areas not rated as PFC, would be monitored and managed to ensure movement 

towards PFC. 

• The following priority recovery areas would be established: 

• High priority areas would include riparian areas adjacent to perennial streams. Existing 

cottonwood galleries would be designated priority recovery areas. 

• Moderate priority areas would include intermittent drainages with riparian habitat.

• Project planning and monitoring efforts would emphasize recovery of high priority areas, 

followed by moderate priority areas. 

• High priority riparian areas would be managed towards DFCs. 

• Surface disturbing activities would not be allowed within riparian areas and wetlands, 

designated 100 year flood plains and on water bodies and streams, except to benefit 

watershed health. Those activities that are not in conflict with the desired outcomes for this 

resource would be allowed. 

• (NSO –No Surface Occupancy) Surface occupancy and use for oil and gas exploration 

(including geophysical operations) would be prohibited in riparian areas and wetlands, 

designated 100 year flood plains, water bodies and streams. 

• (CSU-Controlled Surface Use) Surface occupancy and use would be controlled within 300 

feet of riparian and/or wetland areas. Surface-disturbing activities would require a plan with 

design features that demonstrate how all actions would maintain and/or improve the 

functionality of riparian/wetland areas. (NSO/CSU Combined = 15,653 acres) 

• (NSO- No Surface Occupancy) Surface occupancy and use for oil and gas exploration 

(including geophysical operations) would be prohibited within 1/2 mile of class 1 (Blue 

Ribbon) streams and Yellowstone Cutthroat trout populations. (8,441 acres) 

• Invasive Species and Noxious Weeds

The Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS, invasive species and noxious 

weeds management actions would manage for healthy native plant communities by reducing, 

preventing expansion of, or eliminating the occurrence of undesirable invasive, nonnative 

species, undesirable, nonnative, or noxious weeds (predatory plant pests or disease) by 

implementing management actions consistent with national guidance, state and local weed 

management plans. The BLM management actions would use Integrated Weed Management to 

make progress towards a healthy plant community, while meeting multiple land use objectives. 

Baseline data would be maintained to evaluate effectiveness of management actions and assess 

progress toward meeting invasive species management goals/objectives. Buffer zones would be 

created to protect and/or restore fish and wildlife habitat and neighboring agricultural fields. 

Invasive and non-native weed species would be controlled to and prevent the introduction of new 

invasive species, including aquatic nuisance species, by implementing a comprehensive weed 

program including: coordination with key partners, prevention and early detection, education, 

inventory and monitoring, and using principles of Integrated Weed Management (IWM) and 

creating weed management areas (WMAs).
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 35 September 2015

The following management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings 

and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS: 

• Reclamation/stabilization and maintenance materials used would be from weed free seed 

source.

• Invasive species, including aquatic invasives, would be managed in cooperation with other 

agencies, organizations and landowners in accordance to EO 13112 (1999). 

• Biological control would be applied where appropriate and approved by APHIS. The BLM 

would consider adapting new or updated biological control techniques, as supported by 

research.

• Domestic sheep and goats used for weed control would only be authorized where 

mechanisms are in place to achieve effective separation from wild sheep. 

• Visitor protection during herbicide treatments at developed recreation areas would include 

posting signs to prevent public entry. To the extent practicable, herbicide treatments would 

occur only during low recreation use. 

• Require the use of certified weed free seed forage and feeds to prevent establishment of new 

weed species. Forage subject to this rule would include hay, grains, cubes, pelletized feeds, 

straw and mulch. 

• Require the use of weed free seed and mulch for BLM-authorized activities and projects.

• Treatment priorities would be established consistent with State of Montana Noxious Weed 

guidance. 

− High Treatment Priority: eradication of new species; new infestations, areas of special 

concerns, riparian corridors or sensitive plant populations where there is a high threat to 

species of concern (such as Russian olive and salt cedar treatments); areas where 

partnership/cooperative agreements are in place; treatment and prevention in special 

designations and weed management areas.

− Moderate/Low Treatment Priority: areas that contain existing large infestations with a 

focus on boundaries of infestations, travel routes, trails, trailheads, and access points 

leading to areas of concern, control existing large infestations and suppression of existing 

large infestations when eradication/control or containment is likely not to be successful. 

• Remove invasive species from cottonwood galleries and take actions to maintain the 

appropriate stand composition, structure and understory diversity to promote the expansion 

of galleries.

• Aerial application of non-aquatic label herbicides would not be allowed within 500 feet of 

wetlands, riparian areas, and aquatic habitats. Specific buffer strip widths indicated on 

pesticide labels or by state regulations must be followed. This also applies to cropland and 

ornamentals. Exceptions would be applied when managing riparian noxious/invasive species 

and following aquatic approved herbicide labels. 

• Land base application methods would not be allowed within 25 feet (by vehicle) or 10 feet 

(by hand) of fish-bearing water bodies during periods when fish are in life stages most 

sensitive to the herbicide(s) used. Exceptions would be applied when managing riparian 

noxious/invasive species and following aquatic approved herbicide labels. 

• Vehicle and hand application of herbicides would not be allowed within 25 feet (by vehicle) 

or 10 feet (by hand) of wetlands, riparian areas, aquatic habitats, dwellings and cropland. 

Exceptions would be applied when managing riparian noxious/invasive species and 

following aquatic approved herbicide labels.
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 36 Appendix K 

• Mix herbicides with non-aquatic label at a minimum of 500 feet away from riparian areas, 

water sources, floodplains, and known special status plant species populations. 

• Aerial application of herbicides would not be allowed within 1⁄2 mile of special status plant 

species. Vehicle and hand application of herbicides near special status plant species would 

be allowed only when the treatment would benefit special status plant species (to be 

determined during site-specific analysis).

• Native plant species common to the site’s natural plant community would be used to restore 

disturbed ground. Introduced species would be considered based on site-specific analysis 

where difficult site stabilization or wildlife concerns prevail. 

• Special Status Plants

The Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS, special status plant management 

actions would conserve and recover special status plant species and the ecosystems on which 

they depend to prevent the need to list any of these species as threatened or endangered. The 

BLM management actions would be aimed at protecting or enhancing areas of ecological 

importance for special status plant species; managing for no net loss of habitat for any special 

status plant species; conserving and recovering special status plant species by determining and 

implementing strategies, restoration opportunities, use restrictions, and management actions; and 

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

special status plant species health.

The following management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings 

and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS: 

• BLM-authorized activities should maintain or improve habitat for federally listed threatened, 

endangered, and special status plants.

• Conduct inventory and monitoring to determine extent and trend of special status plant 

populations. 

• Habitats of special status plants would be managed to meet or exceed the Montana Standard 

for Rangeland Health (Standard 5). 

• Increase public awareness of special status plants through outreach, tours, and brochures.

• Consider the high public value of special status plants and their habitat in land exchanges, 

purchases or disposals in which public ownership of such habitat would be affected.

• Evaluate all BLM-authorized activities for potential effects on special status plants. Conduct 

on-site inventory if potential special status plant habitat is present.

• On-site examination would be required prior to oil and gas leasing, exploration and/or 

development surface disturbing activities (CSU).

• Mineral material sales would be allowed on a case-by-case basis by permit only. Mitigation 

may be required as appropriate. 

• No supplement or salt placement within 1⁄4 mile of known special status plant sites, unless 

livestock is otherwise excluded (fence or barrier).
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 37 September 2015

K.12.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination

K.12.1.1 Black-footed Ferret 

No black-footed ferrets are known to exist within the planning area. Vegetation treatments 

within rangelands and to manage invasive species and noxious weeds that include the use of 

biological controls (insects and livestock grazing), chemical controls, mechanical control 

(including cutting and thinning with hand tools and machinery), and prescribed fire are not 

expected to adversely impact potential black-footed ferret habitats. Where used, the long-term 

goal of these programs would be to improve habitat quality. Implementing vegetative 

management actions may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the black-footed ferret due 

to beneficial effects (NLAA-b). This determination is based on the potential for improvements to 

prairie dog and potential ferret habitats if vegetative treatments are used and existing 

conservation measures.

K.12.1.2 Canada Lynx

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for Canada Lynx on page 13 for a Summary of 

Occurrence in BIFO. There are no Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) or critical habitat designated on 

BLM, Billings Field Office decision area lands, although lynx may occasionally occur in the 

area.

Implementing actions associated with vegetation management programs would include habitat 

disturbance or loss. Habitat manipulations would include temporary, localized surface 

disturbance. However, improvements to vegetation would have long-term beneficial impacts on 

Canada lynx habitat. Implementing vegetation management actions may affect, but are not likely 

to adversely affect, the lynx due to beneficial effects (NLAA-b). This determination is based on 

the potential for improvements to potential lynx habitats if vegetative treatments are used and 

existing conservation measures are applied. In the long term, vegetation management actions 

will benefit the lynx by improving habitats for prey species. 

K.12.1.3 Grizzly Bear

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for grizzly bears on page 15 for a Summary of Occurrence 

in BIFO. 

Implementing actions associated with vegetation management programs would include habitat 

disturbance or loss. Habitat manipulations would include temporary, localized surface 

disturbance Vegetation treatments that may occur in suitable grizzly bear habitat would be 

expected to improve habitat in the long term. Implementing vegetation management actions may 

affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the grizzly bear due to beneficial effects (NLAA-b). 

This determination is based on the potential for improvements to grizzly bear habitats if 

vegetative treatments are used and existing conservation measures in place to protect the species. 

In the long term, vegetation management actions will benefit the grizzly by improving suitable 

habitats.
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 38 Appendix K 

K.13 Wildlife Habitat and Special Status Species (Wildlife)

• Activity Description

Wildlife species in the planning area include big game animals, raptors, upland game birds, and 

other species. These populations are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MTFWP). The BLM works cooperatively with these 

agencies to manage wildlife habitats on public lands. Therefore, the BLM is directly responsible 

for managing fish and wildlife habitat on public lands and is indirectly responsible for the health 

and well-being of fish and wildlife populations supported by habitats on public lands. 

The Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS would emphasize managing 

terrestrial habitat to provide native species diversity and viability, and sustain their ecological, 

economic, and social values while providing for multiple uses of public lands. Wildlife program 

actions would manage for no net loss and connectivity of priority habitats on BLM-administered 

lands. The necessary habitat would be present to maintain, enhance, or restore priority native 

species populations. Sagebrush, native grasslands, seasonal or crucial wildlife ranges, special 

status species habitat, fisheries, cottonwood galleries, and riparian/wetlands would be priorities. 

All BLM actions or authorized activities would be managed to sustain wildlife populations and 

their habitats and to avoid contributing to the listing of or jeopardizing the continued existence or 

recovery of special status species and their habitats. 

The BLM-administered lands within the planning area would be managed or restored to facilitate 

the conservation, recovery, and maintenance of populations of native, desirable non-native, and 

The BLM actions would support MFWP in the attainment of big game herd unit objectives and 

well-distributed, healthy populations of wildlife species consistent with the MTFWP’s Strategic 

Habitat Plan, Montana’s Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy, and strategic 

population plans, and to achieve the stated purpose of designated State of Montana Wildlife 

Management Areas.

Other wildlife management actions include minimizing fragmentation of wildlife habitat; 

managing environmental risks such as, parasites, diseases, insect outbreaks, catastrophic fires, 

contamination, pesticides, rodenticides, herbicides, climate, and other hazards; providing for the 

long-term conservation, enhancement, and restoration of the sagebrush steppe/mixed-grass 

prairie complex in a manner that supports sustainable sage grouse populations and a healthy 

diversity and abundance of wildlife species; and coordinating with other agencies to prevent or 

control diseases, pests and species that threaten the health of humans, wildlife, livestock, and 

vegetation. 

The following management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings 

and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS: 

• The BLM-authorized activities would address habitat for migratory and non-migratory birds, 

non-game and game mammals, and reptiles and amphibians. 

• Implement conservation actions identified in the Executive Order Executive Order 13186 – 

“Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds”. Implement the North 

American Bird Conservation initiative to restore, enhance, and maintain habitats for 

migratory birds. Include USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern for Bird Conservation 

Regions 10 and/or 17 where appropriate through project level NEPA analysis. Emphasize 

maintenance and restoration of habitats that sustain sensitive species with minimum 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 39 September 2015

disturbance during the breeding season. Enhance or restore habitat composition and structure 

beyond PFC in riparian habitats, where and when appropriate, for migratory bird habitat. 

• Retaining important blocks of hiding, security, and thermal cover for big game would be 

considered during project planning. The BLM would emphasize habitat improvements in 

areas where there is limited or fragmented security habitat through vegetation treatments and 

route limitations (including seasonal closures).

• Assist in the restoration, reintroduction, augmentation, or re-establishment of priority species 

and other populations and (or) habitats in coordination with MFWP. 

• Fences identified as barriers to wildlife movement on BLM-administered lands would be 

modified to accommodate wildlife passage, unless the fences were built specifically to keep 

native ungulates out of an area. Fence indicators or markers would be added to the top wire 

of new fences near sage-grouse concentration areas or where mortality has occurred.

• Conditions of Approval (COAs) would be applied to all Applications for Permit (APDs) to 

Drill for all species of concern.

• Utilize appropriate offsite compensatory mitigation to reduce impacts to wildlife habitat. 

This would be necessary if (1) all onsite mitigation has been accomplished and adverse 

effects have not been mitigated; or (2) if onsite mitigation is not feasible. Off –site 

mitigation would be applied as close to the affected area as possible and for the same or 

similar impacted species or habitats.

• Manage siting of facilities to minimize impacts on wildlife habitat function and quality, to 

minimize impacts on vegetation resources for all uses, and to minimize wildlife mortality 

during the life of the facility.

• Management actions are subjected to Waivers, Exceptions and Modifications (WEMs) and 

are available for use on any surface disturbing or disruptive activity (Refer to Appendix D, 

page D-5 for WEM definitions).

• Overhead powerlines, where authorized, would follow the recommendations in Avian 

Protection on Powerlines, State of the Art in 2006 (APLIC). Power poles and other tall 

structures would be designed to prevent raptors from perching on the poles and reflectors 

attached.

• Functional wildlife escape ramps would be installed on all water tanks on BLM-administered 

public lands. 

• Management techniques, including but not limited to prescribed and managed wildland fire, 

prescriptive livestock grazing, planting, exclusion to intense disturbance, timber harvest and 

other mechanical methods would be used to restore, maintain or improve the desired 

ecological conditions of vegetation communities for the purpose of improving forage, 

nesting, breeding, and security habitat, hiding cover and travel corridors for a wide diversity 

of terrestrial and aquatic species.

• Management actions would emphasize providing habitat of sufficient quantity and quality, 

including connectivity and wildlife movement corridors, habitat complexity, forest openings, 

edges, and ecotones, to enhance biological diversity and provide quality, sustainable habitat 

for native wildlife species.

• When potential wildlife conflicts are identified, the BLM could require a current year 

wildlife survey of the project area from the project proponent.

• Caves and abandoned mines would be inventoried for bat habitation. The BLM would 

determine the need for closures or seasonal closures for activities affecting caves and 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 40 Appendix K 

abandoned mines. Hibernacula and maternity cave closure dates would be determined when 

the inventory is completed. 

• Bat gates or other suitable measures would be used to protect bat habitat. Public health and 

safety could take precedence over protection of bat habitat if hazardous mine openings 

cannot be remediated.

• Clearing of vegetation, would not be allowed within 250 feet of the entrance of caves and 

abandoned mines with populations of bats except for public safety. Vegetation would be 

removed for installing bat gates, noxious weed control, or when it becomes an obstruction to 

bat movement. 

• Areas that would be targeted for conversion from crested wheatgrass to native 

sagebrush/grasslands would be areas that have high wildlife habitat value, particularly for 

sage grouse, big game, and other sagebrush obligate species, and are currently monocultures 

with little vegetation diversity. 

• Predator control would be permitted subject to the stipulations outlined in the annual Animal 

Damage Control (ADC) Memorandum of Understanding between BLM and USDA-Animal 

Plant Health Inspection Service. Predator control in non-USDA ADC areas would be subject 

to the same stipulations as applied to those counties where predators are managed by USDAAPHIS.

• Raptor timing restrictions would be dependent on the species according to BLM Tech. Note 

TN-316, Nesting Habitats and Surveying Techniques for Common Western Raptors, Mayo 

W. Call, 5/78. Nesting phenology can vary from year to year based on elevation, climate, 

and nesting attempt. The BLM could seasonally limit/close rock climbing activities in areas 

with active raptor nests and would educate the public about the importance of avoiding such 

locations. 

• Where environmental analysis and monitoring demonstrate a continued need for mitigation 

or insufficient mitigation measures are present for impacts to wildlife, stipulations would be 

applied to the operation and maintenance of production facilities or other projects. 

• BLM would not authorize above-ground power-lines, unless burying the power-line is 

technologically unfeasible, then power-lines would be authorized in a manner that ensures 

habitat is maintained (e.g. line location) (CSU).

• Oil and gas leasing, development and exploration would be allowed with NSO in designated 

State Wildlife Management Areas, Fishing Access Sites, and State Parks (NSO). 

• Surface disturbance and disruptive activities would be prohibited from April 1 to June 15 

within established big game parturition habitat would be prohibited from December 1 to 

March 31 within big game winter range with a CAPS Score of 2 as designated by MFWP. 

• Within big game winter range with a CAPS Score of 1, a Lease Notice would be issued 

requiring the proponent to conduct big game inventories in the project area prior to 

conducting any operations. If big game concentrations are found, the operator would be 

required to submit a plan of development to maintain the habitat, avoid habitat loss, and 

minimize disturbance. The mitigation plan would be approved by the authorized officer. 

• Surface disturbance and disruptive activities would be prohibited within 1⁄2 mile of raptor nest 

sites that have been active in the past two years and from March 1 to June 15 in sharp-tailed 

grouse nesting habitat within two miles of a lek. 

• Activity in bighorn sheep habitat would be allowed if the activity does not conflict with the 

desired outcomes for this resource and would require mitigation. 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 41 September 2015

• Oil and gas leasing and development and geophysical exploration would be prohibited with 

NSO in designated WMAs. Oil and gas leasing and development and geophysical 

exploration in big game parturition areas would be allowed with the exception that the 

operator may submit a plan of development to maintain the habitat, avoid habitat loss and 

minimize disturbance. Oil and gas leasing and development (including geophysical 

exploration) and geothermal operations would be prohibited from December 1 to March 31 

within big game winter range with a CAPS Score of 2 as designated by MFWP. Within big 

game winter range with a CAPS Score of 1, a Lease Notice would be issued requiring the 

proponent to conduct big game inventories in the project area prior to conducting any 

operations. If big game concentrations are found, the operator would be required to submit a 

plan of development to maintain the habitat, avoid habitat loss, and minimize disturbance. 

The mitigation plan would be approved by the authorized officer. 

• Oil and gas leasing and development and geophysical exploration would be prohibited within 

designated bighorn sheep range (approximately 15,621 acres), within 1⁄4 mile of sharp-tailed 

grouse leks (approximately 1,964 acres), from March 1 to June 15 in sharp-tailed grouse 

nesting habitat within 2 mile of a lek (approximately 67,101 acres), and from March 1 to 

August 1 within 1⁄2 mile of raptor nests that have been active within the past two 

(approximately 25,967 acres). 

• Manage road densities at 1 mile/square mile or less compared to 0.5 mile/square mile and 

within big game winter range designated with a MFWP CAPS Score of 2. 

• 1⁄4 mile buffer would be maintained around unoccupied nests for 5 years. 

• Oil and gas leasing, development and exploration and geothermal activities would be 

prohibited within 1⁄4 mile of prairie dog colonies and control measures would be permitted in 

areas impacting public lands. 

• No surface disturbing and oil and gas activities would be implemented from April 1 through 

July 31 in mountain plover habitat within 1⁄4 mile of a nest. 

• A timing restriction of March 1 and July1 would be implemented for peregrine falcon nests, 

unless the activity does not conflict with the desired outcomes for this resource. 

• A timing restriction of February 1 to August 15 would be implemented for bald eagle nest 

sites with a 1⁄2 mile around active nests. 

• A 1/8 mile buffer around lek sites for continuous noise restrictions and a 1⁄4 mile buffer 

around lek sites for temporary noise would be implemented. 

• All power-lines within 3 miles of a lek and winter occurrence points and in sage-grouse 

winter concentration areas would be buried unless the power-lines could be sited or designed 

in a manner that maintains suitable habitat, reducing adverse impacts from avian predators 

perching on power-lines. 

• Vegetation treatments would be conducted in areas of medium to high sage grouse 

populations to convert crested wheatgrass to native sagebrush/grassland habitat over the life 

of the plan. 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 42 Appendix K 

K.13.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination

K.13.1.1 Black-footed Ferret 

No black-footed ferrets are known to exist within the planning area. Wildlife habitat 

management may influence potential habitats for black-footed ferrets. Protection of greater 

sage-grouse breeding areas and big game crucial winter range could benefit ferret prey by 

protecting associated prairie dog habitats. Limiting access to specific areas for OHVs, horseback 

riding, and pedestrians; prohibiting surface development; and imposing road closures would 

benefit by protecting prairie dog habitats and reducing human access, which could in turn reduce 

recreational shooting. Implementing wildlife management actions may affect, but are not likely 

to adversely affect, the black-footed ferret due to beneficial effects (NLAA-b). This 

determination is based on the potential for improvements to prairie dog and potential ferret 

habitats.

K.13.1.2 Canada Lynx

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for Canada Lynx on page 13 for a Summary of 

Occurrence in BIFO. There are no Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) or critical habitat designated on 

BLM, Billings Field Office decision area lands, although lynx may occasionally occur in the 

area.

Actions associated with wildlife habitat management have potential impacts that depend on 

several factors, including the number of people involved with each habitat enhancement effort, 

the time of year, duration of field activities, use of heavy machinery versus hand tools, and type 

of Canada lynx habitat affected. Canada lynx have a reasonable tolerance for human presence 

and, as a consequence, may not alter how they use the landscape. Precautionary measures for 

endangered species should provide additional protection. The implementation of these actions 

will likely have positive effects by maintaining or improving existing habitat conditions, 

especially riparian areas, which will benefit lynx and their prey. In some cases, however, lynx 

will likely avoid areas where activities are taking place due to the temporary disturbance created 

by these activities. Implementing of wildlife habitat management actions may affect, but are not 

likely to adversely affect, the lynx due to insignificant effects (NLAA-i). This determination is 

based on the low probability that lynx will be disturbed by specific management actions, the low 

potential for these actions to alter lynx behavior, and the fact that many of these actions may 

actually improve lynx habitat. 

K.13.1.3 Grizzly Bear

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for grizzly bears on page 15 for a Summary of Occurrence 

in BIFO. 

Wildlife management actions that may occur in suitable grizzly bear habitat would include 

habitat disturbance or loss. Habitat manipulations would include temporary, localized surface 

disturbance. However, wildlife habitat improvements would have long-term beneficial impacts 

on grizzly bear habitat. Implementing appropriate wildlife management actions may affect, but 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 43 September 2015

are not likely to adversely affect, the grizzly bear due to beneficial effects (NLAA-b). This 

determination is based on the potential for improvements to grizzly bear habitats if wildlife 

habitat management actions are used and existing conservation measures are in place to protect 

the species. 

K.14 Fisheries Habitat and Special Status Species (Fish)

• Activity Description

In general, fisheries habitat management includes managing aquatic habitat to provide native and 

desirable non-native species diversity and viability, and sustain ecological, economic, and social 

values while providing for multiple uses of public lands. This includes managing fisheries 

habitat to support Montana Fish, Wildlife and Park’s Strategic Habitat Plan and the Montana 

Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Management activities would 

emphasize restoration and/or maintenance of riparian structure, composition, and processes, 

including physical integrity of riparian ecosystems, amount and distribution of woody debris to 

sustain physical and biological complexity, adequate summer and winter thermal regulation, 

water quality and hydrologic processes, distribution and diversity of riparian vegetative 

communities and source habitats for riparian dependent species. 

The Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS would emphasize using 

cooperative efforts to minimize negative impacts to, or enhance aquatic ecosystems on adjacent 

private lands, while coordinating with other agencies to prevent or control diseases, pests and 

species that threaten the health of humans, wildlife, livestock, and vegetation. 

Lastly, the Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS is designed to manage or 

restore habitat on BLM-administered lands within the planning area to facilitate the 

conservation, recovery and maintenance of populations of native and special status species 

(BLM sensitive species, Candidate species, USFWS listed, proposed, or petitioned species) 

consistent with appropriate local, state, and federal management plans. Yellowstone Cutthroat 

Trout bearing waters and associated riparian habitat would be managed to protect all ecological 

values necessary to maintain or enhance YCT populations (using guidelines outlined in 

the Conservation Strategy for Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout in the States of Idaho, Montana, 

Utah, Nevada, and Wyoming). 

The following management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings 

and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS: 

• Manage riparian areas and wetlands supporting fisheries toward PFC, as required through 

Standards and Guidelines. 

• Roads would be located, designed and maintained, to the extent practical, to reduce 

sedimentation, identify and remove unnatural barriers, eliminate fish passage barriers (when 

desired), and restore or maintain riparian vegetation.

• Manage siting of facilities to minimize impacts on fish habitat function and quality, to 

minimize impacts on vegetation resources for all uses, and to minimize fish mortality during 

the life of the facility.

• If natural barriers cannot be used, in-channel barriers (including selective barriers) would be 

constructed downstream of the native fish populations at risk from invasion. 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 44 Appendix K 

• Management activities would consider the guidelines listed in the Inland Native Fish Strategy 

as they relate to timber, road, grazing, recreation, minerals, fisheries, riparian, watershed, and 

fish and wildlife management, to enhance and maintain habitat. 

• Impacts beyond the riparian zone would be considered as part of YCT habitat management. 

Project-level activities would mitigate impacts on water quality, in-stream habitat, channel 

morphology, and riparian areas to benefit YCT populations. 

• Habitat-improvement techniques would be used where appropriate to provide missing habitat 

components or improve existing habitats. 

• The BLM will continue to partner with MTFWP in the establishment of fishing access sites.

• Land and water management decisions likely to affect YCT populations would include both 

pre- and post-project evaluation and monitoring to ensure that the habitat elements for YCT 

are protected. 

• Use restoration to enhance YCT habitat and riparian function where habitat conditions are 

determined to be degraded. 

• Opportunistically enhance or restore habitat for and populations of YCT. 

• Establish high priority YCT habitat zones and increase monitoring on YCT bearing streams 

to ensure no significant degradation to water quality and fish habitat. 

• Develop and maintain a prairie fish and fish habitat inventory and identify potential or 

suitable habitat.

• Surface disturbing activities would not be allowed within riparian areas and wetlands, 

designated 100 year flood plains and on water bodies and streams, except to benefit 

watershed health, except those activities that are not in conflict with the desired outcomes for 

this resource would be allowed. 

• Oil and gas leasing, exploration and/or development would be closed within riparian areas 

and wetlands, designated 100 year flood plains and on water bodies and streams, except to 

benefit watershed health (NSO) (6,002 acres) 

• Oil and gas leasing, exploration and/or development would be closed within 1⁄2 mile of Class 

I (Blue Ribbon) streams, WSR- eligible segments and YCT habitat (NSO). 

• Oil and gas leasing, exploration and/or development would not be allowed within 1⁄2 mile of 

streams with High Restoration Potential for native fish species (NSO).

• New spring developments would be authorized and fenced if the development would 

maintain the integrity and functionality of the associated riparian area/wetland. 

• Habitat conditions would be monitored on fish-bearing streams (approx. 7 miles) with 

existing or potential threats, where grazing or human-caused impacts are likely. 

• Livestock grazing would be excluded from YCT- bearing or other T&E or candidate species 

streams/riparian habitat. 

• Fencing around the riparian zone, or at least 50’ from the water’s edge or using drift fence to 

exclude livestock from the riparian zone.

• Development of existing or potential reservoirs would be considered to promote recreational 

fisheries and riparian/aquatic habitat enhancement.
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 45 September 2015

K.14.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination

K.14.1.1 Black-footed Ferret 

No black-footed ferrets are known to exist within the planning area. Fisheries management 

actions within black-footed ferret habitat (i.e., prairie dog colonies) are not expected to adversely 

impact potential black-footed ferret habitats. Where used, the long-term goal of these programs 

would be to improve habitat quality, which may in turn improve black-footed ferret habitat. 

Therefore, implementing fisheries management actions may affect, but are not likely to adversely 

affect, the black-footed ferret due to beneficial effects (NLAA-b). This determination is based on 

the potential for improvements to prairie dog and potential ferret habitats if fisheries 

management actions are used in conjunction with existing conservation measures.

K.14.1.2 Canada Lynx

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for Canada Lynx on page 13 for a Summary of 

Occurrence in BIFO. There are no Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) or critical habitat designated on 

BLM, Billings Field Office decision area lands, although lynx may occasionally occur in the 

area.

Implementing actions associated with fisheries management programs would include habitat 

disturbance or loss. Habitat manipulations would include temporary, localized surface 

disturbance. However, improvements to fish habitats would have long-term beneficial impacts 

on Canada lynx habitat. In addition, management actions that protect YCT habitat through 

restrictions on road placement and maintenance as well as facility siting, would also protect 

habitat used by Canada lynx. Therefore, implementing fisheries management actions may affect, 

but are not likely to adversely affect, the Canada lynx due to beneficial effects (NLAA-b). This 

determination is based on the potential for improvements to potential Canada lynx habitat as a 

result of fisheries habitat management in conjunction with existing conservation measures. 

K.14.1.3 Grizzly Bear

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for grizzly bears on page 15 for a Summary of Occurrence 

in BIFO. 

Implementing actions associated with fisheries management programs would include habitat 

disturbance or loss. Habitat manipulations would include temporary, localized surface 

disturbance. However, improvements to fish habitats would have long-term beneficial impacts 

on grizzly bear habitat. In addition, management actions that protect YCT habitat through 

restrictions on road placement and maintenance as well as facility siting, would also protect 

habitat used by grizzly bears. Therefore, implementing fisheries management actions may affect, 

but are not likely to adversely affect, the grizzly bear due to beneficial effects (NLAA-b). This 

determination is based on the potential for improvements to potential grizzly bear habitat as a 

result of fisheries habitat management in conjunction with existing conservation measures. 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 46 Appendix K 

K.15 Wild Horses 

• Activity Description

In general, wild horse and burro management includes maintaining, protecting, and controlling a 

healthy wild horse herd inside the herd management area within the appropriate management 

level to ensure a thriving natural ecological balance while preserving multiple use relationships 

with other uses and resources and making progress towards standards for rangeland health. The 

Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS would emphasize maintaining a wild 

horse herd that exhibits a diverse age structure, genetic diversity and any characteristics unique 

to the Pryor horses, while managing wild horse habitat within a balanced program which 

considers all values without impairment to the productivity of the land. 

The following management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings 

and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS: 

• Initially, the wild horse population would be managed within a population range of 90 to 120 

wild horses. 

• Unless otherwise specified, implementation level planning through a Herd Management Area 

Plan (HMAP) or other activity level plans would identify and set objectives for, but not 

limited to, the following: herd composition, animal characteristics, genetics and habitat 

development needs; soil, vegetation and watershed characteristics; and establishment and 

adjustment to appropriate management level (AML). 

• Appropriate management levels would be adjusted as needed to ensure a thriving natural 

ecological balance through monitoring and data collection including but not limited to: 

forage utilization, trend, ecological condition, precipitation data, rangeland health 

assessments, population inventory, climate or habitat changes and range availability. 

• Herd Management Area Establishment

− Manage wild horses on approximately 27,094 acres of BLM-administered lands (39,994 

acres all ownerships). 

− Designate the closed portions of the Herd Area known as the administrative pastures to be 

included in the Herd Management Area. 

− Due to private property conflicts, the “buffer” area would remain closed. 

• Herd Characteristics

− Within an HMAP, herd structure would be managed for all representations in the herd, not 

allowing specific colors or bloodlines to dominate from management manipulation. 

• Appropriate Management Levels

− AML determination would be made within the context of having the maximum amount of 

wild horses the range can sustain while preventing deterioration. 

• Wild Horse Habitat

− Maximize the amount of acres available for vegetation treatments and/or water 

developments that potentially increase forage availability for wild horses that is compliant 

with other multiple-use decisions and restrictions.
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 47 September 2015

K.15.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination

K.15.1.1 Black-footed Ferret 

No black-footed ferrets are known to exist within the planning area. Wild horse and burro 

management actions are not expected to adversely impact potential black-footed ferret habitats. 

Where used, the long-term goal of these programs would be to improve habitat quality. 

Adjusting AMLs to ensure a natural ecological balance would maintain sufficient forage levels 

so that competition among wild horses and burros, livestock, and prairie dogs can be reduced and 

habitat quality would be improved for the black-footed ferret. Implementing wild horse and 

burro management actions may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the black-footed 

ferret due to beneficial effects (NLAA-b). This determination is based on the potential for 

improvements to prairie dog and potential ferret habitats if wild horse and burro management 

actions are used in conjunction with existing conservation measures.

K.15.1.2 Canada Lynx

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for Canada Lynx on page 13 for a Summary of 

Occurrence in BIFO. There are no Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) or critical habitat designated on 

BLM, Billings Field Office decision area lands, although lynx may occasionally occur in the 

area.

Wild horse and burro management actions that may occur in suitable Canada lynx habitat would 

be expected to improve habitat in the long term. Adjusting AMLs to ensure a natural ecological 

balance would maintain sufficient forage levels so that competition among wild horses and 

burros, livestock, and wildlife species would be reduced and habitat quality would be improved 

for the Canada lynx. Implementing wild horse and burro management actions may affect, but 

are not likely to adversely affect, the lynx due to beneficial effects (NLAA-b). This determination 

is based on the potential for improvements to potential Canada lynx habitat if wild horse and 

burro management actions are used in conjunction with existing conservation measures. In the 

long term, wild horse and burro management actions will benefit the Canada lynx by improving 

habitats for prey species. 

K.15.1.3 Grizzly Bear

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for grizzly bears on page 15 for a Summary of Occurrence 

in BIFO. 

Wild horse and burro management actions that may occur in suitable grizzly bear habitat would 

be expected to improve habitat in the long term. Adjusting AMLs to ensure a natural ecological 

balance would maintain sufficient forage levels so that competition among wild horses and 

burros, livestock, and wildlife species would be reduced and habitat quality would be improved 

for the grizzly bear. Implementing wild horse and burro management actions may affect, but are 

not likely to adversely affect, the grizzly bear due to beneficial effects (NLAA-b). This 

determination is based on the potential for improvements to potential grizzly bear habitat if wild 

horse and burro management actions are used in conjunction with existing conservation 

measures. In the long term, wild horse and burro management actions will benefit the grizzly 

bear by improving habitats for prey species. 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 48 Appendix K 

K.16 Fire Ecology and Management

• Activity Description

In general, fire ecology and management would focus on managing wildland fire and fuels for 

the protection of public health, safety, property, and resource values while managing hazardous 

fuels in areas of urban and industrial interface to reduce potential loss due to catastrophic fire. 

The Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS would emphasize maintaining a 

desired mix of seral stages within vegetation communities, including desert shrublands, forest 

and woodlands, grasslands, mountain shrublands, sagebrush (all sub-species), riparian/wetlands 

and aspen. In addition, the Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS would 

manage vegetation communities through cooperative efforts by restoring natural fire regimes and 

frequency to the landscape, where appropriate and maintaining partnerships with the public and 

interagency cooperators to strengthen coordination of all fire management activities and 

encourage the creation of fire-safe communities. Lastly, fire ecology and management would 

utilize an integrated management technique unless otherwise restricted (defined as prescribed 

fire, mechanical, chemical, or biological, followed by desired reseeding) to reduce fuels to 

protect high priority areas or resource values. 

The following management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings 

and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS: 

• National fire suppression guidelines and the current Fire Management Plan would be utilized 

to guide fire suppression techniques on public lands. 

• In the course of fire suppression, a resource advisor would be consulted or assigned to 

wildland fires that involve or threaten public lands. 

• The use of fire suppression chemicals would be limited around areas with rock art and 

standing structures and other areas with significant cultural resources (including ACECs). 

• Use of wildland fire suppression chemicals within 300 feet of waterways would be 

prohibited. 

• Fuels treatments would be designed to protect or improve resource values. 

• Emergency stabilization and rehabilitation of burned areas would be conducted according to 

current policy to protect and sustain ecosystems, public health and safety. 

• Response to wildfires will be based on ecological, social, economic and legal consequences 

of the wildfire.

• Fire management strategies and tactics would be determined by (but not limited to) the 

following: 

− Firefighter and public safety

− Resource values at risk

− Proximity to private land

− Firefighting resource availability

• Heavy equipment would not be used to construct fire lines in crucial winter range, habitat of 

listed, proposed, candidate or sensitive species, riparian/wetlands or in areas of cultural 

resource sensitivity or other designated areas (e.g., ACECs, WSAs). Exceptions would be 

permitted for protection of human life, property or other resource values. 

• Cultural Resource Specialists or Resource Advisors would be consulted for locations of 

identified areas before use of or anticipated use of heavy equipment.
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 49 September 2015

• If heavy equipment is used, rehabilitation work on lines would begin immediately after 

containment. 

• Wildland fires (natural ignitions) that occur within or adjacent to an area identified for 

vegetation or fuels treatment would be managed to meet the desired management objectives.

• Wildland fire management (natural ignitions) for resource benefit would be considered for 

the following areas: 

− East Pryor ACEC (11,122 acres) 

− Grove Creek ACEC (8,251 acres) 

− Meeteetse Spires ACEC (1,523 acres)

− Pryor Foothills RNA ACEC (2,606 acres) 

− Weatherman Draw ACEC (12,277 acres)

− Big Horn Tack-on WSA (2,689 acres) 

− Burnt Timber Canyon WSA (3,516 acres) 

− Pryor Mountain WSA 15,590 (acres) 

− Twin Coulee WSA (6,836 acres) 

− Total 70,926 acres 

• Prescribed fire would be allowed in Greater Sage-Grouse RAs if the activity would benefit 

sagebrush communities (ex: achieve a diversity of age class).

K.16.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination

K.16.1.1 Black-footed Ferret 

No black-footed ferrets are known to exist within the planning area. Wildland fires are not 

expected to directly affect the black-footed ferret because such fires typically do not occur in 

prairie dog towns where vegetation and fuels to support a fire are limited. Heavy machinery 

associated with fire suppression and fire prevention could potentially destroy habitats and 

burrows; however, because wildland fires in prairie dog towns are rare events, this type of 

impact is unlikely to occur. Implementing wildland fire management actions may affect, but are 

not likely to adversely affect, the black-footed ferret due to insignificant effects (NLAA-i). This 

determination is based on the current absence of ferrets in the planning area and the unlikely 

event of fire or fire suppression activities in prairie dog towns.

K.16.1.2 Canada Lynx

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for Canada Lynx on page 13 for a Summary of 

Occurrence in BIFO. There are no Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) or critical habitat designated on 

BLM, Billings Field Office decision area lands, although lynx may occasionally occur in the 

area.

Fire management actions, particularly actions associated with wildfire suppression and 

prescribed fire, whether planned or unplanned, have the potential to occur in habitats occupied 

by Canada lynx. Road construction associated with fire suppression can lead to increased access 

into higher altitude sites by generalist predators, such as coyotes, wolves, and bobcats. These 

species can be predators of and competitors with lynx. In addition, fire can result in removal of 

excess dead and dying trees, reducing hiding cover for prey species, potential thermal cover in 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 50 Appendix K 

the winter months, and lynx denning and rearing habitat. However, in the long term, fire would 

increase denning habitat by increasing horizontal cover with log and limb fall. Additional 

understory growth after a fire would generally improve habitat conditions for a variety of fish 

and wildlife species, including the Canada lynx’s main prey item, snowshoe hares. 

Implementing wildlife fire management actions may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, 

the Canada lynx due to insignificant effects (NLAA-i). This determination is based on the 

implementation of conservation measures for Canada lynx that will preclude any adverse effects 

to the species or its habitat; and the potential for improvements to Canada lynx habitats if 

wildland fire management actions are used in conjunction with existing conservation measures. 

K.16.1.3 Grizzly Bear

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for grizzly bears on page 15 for a Summary of Occurrence 

in BIFO. 

Fire management actions, particularly actions associated with wildfire suppression and 

prescribed fire, whether planned or unplanned, have the potential to occur in habitats occupied 

by the grizzly bear. Fire can result in removal of excess dead and dying trees, reducing hiding 

cover for prey species, potential thermal cover in the winter months, and grizzly bear denning 

and rearing habitat. However, in the long term, fire would increase denning habitat by increasing 

horizontal cover with log and limb fall. Additional understory growth after a fire would 

generally improve habitat conditions for a variety of fish, wildlife, and plant species. This in turn 

would cause an increase in food sources for the grizzly bear. Implementing wildland fire 

management actions may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the grizzly bear due to 

insignificant effects (NLAA-i). This determination is based on the potential for improvements to 

grizzly bear habitats if wildland fire management actions are used in conjunction with existing 

conservation measures in place to protect the species. In the long term, wildland fire 

management actions will benefit the grizzly by improving suitable habitats. 

K.17 Cultural/Heritage Resources

• Activity Description

In general, cultural/heritage resources are managed to identify, preserve, and protect significant 

cultural resources and ensure that they are available for appropriate uses by present and future 

generations (FLPMA, Section 103 (c), 201(a) and (c); National Historic Preservation Act, 

Section 110(a); Archaeological Resources Protection Act, Section 14(a)). The Billings and 

Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS seeks to reduce imminent threats and resolve 

potential conflicts from natural or human-caused deterioration, or potential conflicts with other 

resource uses (FLPMA Section 203(c), NHPA 106, 110(a) (2)), by ensuring that all 

authorizations for land use and resource use would comply with the NHPA Section 106. 

Cultural resources on BLM-administered land would be protected and maintained in stable 

condition. Appropriate management actions would be determined after evaluation and allocation 

of cultural resource use categories through cultural resource project plans. The Billings and 

Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS would focus on maintaining viewsheds of 

important cultural resources whose settings contribute significantly to their scientific, public, 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 51 September 2015

traditional or conservation values and provide research opportunities that would contribute to our 

understanding of the ways humans have used and influenced the landscape. It would also focus 

on managing historic trails to realize their educational, recreational, and scientific values and 

enhance public understanding of, and appreciation for, cultural resources through educational 

outreach and heritage tourism opportunities. 

The following management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings 

and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS:

• Evaluate cultural resources according to National Register criteria (36 CFR Part 60.4) and 

assign cultural resources to appropriate use categories as the basis for management decisions.

• All sites determined eligible to the National Register of Historic Places would be allocated 

and managed for Scientific, Public, Traditional, Experimental, and/or Conservation for 

Future Use. However, if another use becomes evident or proposed after use allocation has 

occurred, the use allocation may be changed without a plan amendment. 

• All sites determined not eligible to the National Register of Historic Places and not 

containing antiquities or archaeological resources would be allocated and managed as 

Discharged from Management Use.

• Cremains scattering would not be permitted on prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, 

buildings, or structures, Native American burials, sacred sites, or traditional cultural use 

areas.

• Implement protection measures to stop, limit, or repair damage to sites. A variety of 

protection measures described in BLM Manual 8140 may be used to protect the integrity of 

sites at risk , such as signs, fencing or barriers, trash removal, target shooting closures, 

erosion control, backfilling, repairing, shoring up, or stabilizing structures, restricting uses 

and access, and closures.

• Design and maintain facilities to preserve the visual integrity of cultural resources, settings, 

and cultural landscapes consistent with VRM objectives established in the RMP.

• Where feasible, 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. 

• Nominate eligible sites, districts, landscapes and traditional cultural properties for inclusion 

on the National Register of Historic Places. 

• Encourage public/volunteer involvement in the management of cultural resources through 

participation of established site steward programs and other programs.

• Specific plans would be developed for each site type unless included in other integrated 

activity plans. Such plans would include protective measures, Native American consultation, 

and regulatory compliance. These plans would also include but not be limited to developing 

a site monitoring system; identifying sites in need of stabilization, restoration, and protective 

measures (e.g. fences, surveillance equipment,); developing research designs for selected 

areas/sites; designating sites/areas for interpretative development; identifying areas for 

cultural inventory where federal undertaking are expected to occur; and developing specific 

mitigation measures. The plan would designate sites, districts, and landmarks that would be 

nominated for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.

• Conduct inventory according to professional standards commensurate with the land-use 

activity, environmental conditions, and the potential for cultural resources.
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 52 Appendix K 

• Pro-actively reduce hazardous fuels or mitigate the potential hazard around archaeological 

and cultural sites that are susceptible to destruction by fire.

• Reduce or eliminate imminent threats from natural or human caused deterioration or conflict 

with other resource uses. 

• Identify priority geographic areas for Section 110 cultural inventories based on a probability 

for unrecorded significant resources and/or resource need.

• Ensure that all authorizations for land and resource use would comply with Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act, consistent with and subject to the objectives 

established in the RMP for the proactive use of cultural properties in the public interest.

• Provide for legitimate field research by qualified scientists and institutions.

• Allow for reconstruction, stabilization, maintenance, and interpretation of selected sites for 

public enjoyment and education. 

• Should National Register eligible cultural resources be found during an inventory, impacts to 

them would be mitigated, generally through avoidance. Should it be determined the cultural 

resources cannot be avoided; consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer would 

be initiated. A program on mitigation would be developed via consultation between the 

Billings Field Office, the SHPO, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 

• 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. 

• Establish and implement protective measures for sites, structures, objects, and traditional use 

areas that are important to Native American tribes with historical and cultural connections to 

the land, in order to maintain the viewshed, intrinsic values, and the auditory, visual, and 

aesthetic settings of the resources. Protection measures for undisturbed cultural resources 

and their natural setting would be developed in compliance with regulatory mandates and 

Native American consultation.

• Conduct consultation process to identify both the resource management concerns and the 

strategies for addressing them through an interactive dialogue with Native American tribes 

with affinity to the project area.

• Consult with affiliated Native American tribes for the protection of areas and items of 

traditional life-ways and religious significance that includes, but is not limited to burials, 

rock art, traditional use areas, religious active areas, and sacred sites.

• Limit surface disturbing activities within selected Native American traditional cultural and 

religious sites for continued use by tribes. Traditional cultural sites would be identified in 

consultation with affiliated Native American tribes.

• Protect burial sites, associated burial goods, and sacred items in accordance with the Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and the Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act.

• A lease notice (consistent with the Montana guidance for cultural resource protection related 

to oil and gas) would continue to be issued to ensure that leased lands are examined to 

determine if cultural resources are present and to specify mitigation measures.

• NSO for oil and gas leasing, development and/or exploration on the following sites, districts, 

or areas:

− Steamboat Butte (803 acres) 

− Bruder-Janich Site (579 acres) 

− Paul Duke Site (40 acres) 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 53 September 2015

− Demi-John Flat NR District (1,925 acres) 

− Bighorn Mouth North Cliffs Rock Art Site (160 acres) 

− Gyp Springs Site (320 acres) 

− Hoskins Basin Archaeological District (2,611 acres) total acres 6,538

• Oil and gas leasing, exploration and development would be allowed within 1⁄4 mile of the 

following historic trails with stipulations (CSU):

− Bridger Cut-Off Trail, Meeteetse Trail (Total acres =5,746 acres) 

• Parameter – Cultural Resource Use Allocation – Rock Art Sites

− Allocate and manage all National Register eligible sites for Conservation, Scientific, 

Traditional, and /or Public Use. 

− Interpretative sites would be developed as appropriate.

• Parameter – Cultural Resource Use Allocation – Rockshelter/Cave Sites

− Allocate and manage all National Register eligible sites for Conservation, Scientific, 

Traditional, and /or Public Use. Interpretative sites would be developed as appropriate. 

− Parameter – Cultural Resource Use Allocation – Aboriginal Occupation Sites and 

Structures (prehistoric & protohistoric)

− Allocate and manage all National Register eligible sites to Scientific Public, Traditional, 

and/or Conservation Use. 

− Interpretative sites would be developed as appropriate.

• Parameter – Cultural Resource Use Allocation – Open Sites 

− Allocate and manage all National Register eligible sites to Conservation Use.

• Parameter – Cultural Resource Use Allocation – Buffalo Jumps/Buffalo Kill/Processing 

Areas

− Allocate and manage all National Register eligible sites to Conservation, Scientific, and/or 

Public Use. Interpretative sites would be developed as appropriate.

• Parameter – Cultural Resource Use Allocation – Aboriginal trails

− Allocate and manage all National Register eligible sites to Conservation, Traditional, 

and/or Public Use. 

− Interpretative sites would be developed as appropriate.

• Parameter – Cultural Resource Use Allocation – Historic Industrial/Development (mines, 

oil/gas, etc.)

− Allocate and manage all National Register eligible sites to Conservation and/or Scientific 

Use. 

• Parameter – Cultural Resource Use Allocation – Historic Features

− Allocate and manage all National Register eligible sites to Conservation and/or Scientific 

Use.

• Parameter – Cultural Resource Use Allocation – Historic Roads/Trails

− Allocate and manage all National Register eligible resources for Scientific, Conservation, 

and/or Public Use. 

− Interpretative sites would be developed as appropriate.

• Parameter – Cultural Resource Use Allocation – Historic Structures and Homesteads

− Allocate and manage all National Register eligible sites to Scientific, Conservation, and/or 

Public Use.

− Interpretative sites would be developed as appropriate.
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 54 Appendix K 

• Parameter – Cultural Resource Use Allocation – Toolstone Sources. 

− Allocate and manage all National Register eligible toolstone sources to Conservation, 

Traditional, and/or Scientific Use.

• Parameter – Cultural Resource Use Allocation – Vision Quest Sites/Sacred 

Sites/TCPs/Ethnohistoric Sites.

− Allocate and manage all National Register eligible sites to Conservation and/or Traditional 

Use.

K.17.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination

K.17.1.1 Threatened or endangered species 

Actions associated with cultural/heritage resources management will not directly impact 

Threatened or endangered species or any potential habitats. Cultural/heritage resources 

management will exclude some actions and structures from designated areas and may have a 

beneficial impact of limiting disturbance in habitats suitable for Threatened or Endangered 

species. Implementing cultural/heritage resources management actions may affect, but are not 

likely to adversely affect, the Threatened or endangered species due to beneficial effects (NLAAb). This determination is based on the potential of these management actions to preserve or 

minimize disturbance to habitats suitable for threatened and endangered species.

K.18 Paleontological Resources 

• Activity Description

In general, paleontological resources identifies, manages, and monitors at-risk paleontological 

resources (scientific values); and preserving and protecting vertebrate fossils through best 

science methods; and promoting public and scientific use of invertebrate and paleo-botanical 

fossils. The Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS focuses on managing 

fossil locales with high scientific value in a stable condition, while allowing appropriate 

scientific and public use and locating, evaluating, and managing paleontological resources and 

protecting them where appropriate. In addition, the Billings and Pompeys Pillar National 

Monument RMP/EIS emphasizes facilitating suitable scientific, educational, and recreational 

uses of fossils and ensuring that significant fossils are not inadvertently damaged, destroyed, or 

removed from public ownership as a result of surface disturbance or land tenure adjustments. 

The following management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings 

and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS: 

• The Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) system would be used to assess possible 

resource impacts and mitigation needs for Federal actions involving surface disturbance, land 

tenure adjustments, and land-use planning. 

• Recreational collectors may collect and retain reasonable amounts of common invertebrate 

and plant fossils for person, non-commercial use. Surface disturbance must be negligible and 

mechanized tools may not be used. 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 55 September 2015

• Vertebrate fossils may be collected only under a permit issued to qualified individuals. 

Vertebrate fossils include bones, teeth, eggs, and other body parts of animals with backbones, 

such as dinosaurs, fish, turtles, and mammals. Vertebrate fossils also include trace fossils 

such as footprints, burrows, gastroliths, and coprolites. 

• Fossils collected under a permit remain the property of the federal government and must be 

placed in a suitable repository which would be identified at the time of permit issuance.

• Lands identified for disposal or exchange would be evaluated to determine whether such 

actions would remove significant fossils from federal ownership. 

• In areas where surface disturbance, either initiated by BLM or other land users, may threaten 

significant fossils, the BLM would follow its policy (see Manual and Handbook 8270-1) to 

assess any threat and mitigate damage. The BLM Washington Office IM-2008-009, 

Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) System for Paleontological Resources on Public 

Lands, dated October 15, 2007, revised the classification system of Handbook 82790-1. 

• The BLM would work with local communities, interest groups, individuals, and other 

agencies to enhance the public’s understanding and enjoyment of paleontological resources.

• Where scientifically significant fossils are threatened by natural hazards or unauthorized 

collection, the BLM would work with permittees and other partners to salvage specimens and 

reduce future threats to resources at risk.

• Conduct regular monitoring to protect areas where unauthorized use may occur. 

• Reports of theft or damage to fossil resources would be responded to by appropriate BLM 

personnel. 

• For all surface disturbing activities occurring within PFYC Class 3 or higher units, a 

stipulation would be included on the permitting document. Assessment, inventory, and/or 

mitigation would be required based on PFYC class. 

• Written and web-based information would be developed, maintained, and provided about 

fossils and to promote visitor education 

• Paleontological Resource Use permits would be issued for scientific study.

• BLM would support investigations in lesser known areas and in areas where surface 

disturbance is occurring or anticipated.

• Collection of common invertebrate and plant fossils would be allowed for personal, noncommercial use. 

• Areas with vertebrate fossils would be closed to common invertebrate and plant fossil hobby 

collecting unless collection activity is authorized by the BLM. 

K.18.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination

K.18.1.1 Threatened or endangered species 

Actions associated with paleontological resources management will not directly impact 

Threatened or endangered species or any potential habitats. Paleontological resources 

management will exclude some actions and structures from designated areas and may have a 

beneficial impact of limiting disturbance in habitats suitable for Threatened or endangered 

species. Implementing paleontological resources management actions may affect, but are not 

likely to adversely affect, the Threatened or endangered species due to beneficial effects (NLAA-
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 56 Appendix K 

b.) This determination is based on the potential of these management actions to preserve or 

minimize disturbance to habitats suitable for threatened and endangered species. 

K.19 Visual Resources

• Activity Description

In general, visual resource management would emphasize managing public lands for their scenic 

values while providing for the overall multiple-use and quality of experience to visitors of public 

lands. The Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS would establish visual 

management objectives to minimize adverse impacts to the visual resources on the landscape, as 

well as maintain the overall integrity of VRM classes, while allowing for modifications to 

landscapes in those classes, consistent with the established management objectives.

The following management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings 

and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS: 

• Manage visual resources according to established guidelines for VRM classes. 

• Use the visual resource contrast rating system during project level planning to determine 

whether or not proposed activities would meet VRM objectives. Identify mitigation 

measures to reduce visual contrasts.

• Manage WSAs under VRM Class I objectives to maintain an undeveloped landscape and 

preserve their natural values.

• Prepare rehabilitation plans to address landscape modifications on a case-by-case basis.

• Manage BLM public lands according to the following VRM class designations:

− VRM Class I 28,861 acres 

− VRM Class II 13,648 acres 

− VRM Class III 391,179 acres

− VRM Class IV 0 acres

− VRM Class I & II Total 42,509 acres 

• Surface disturbing activities and construction of semi-permanent and permanent facilities in 

VRM Class II – IV areas would require special design including location, painting, and 

camouflage to blend with the natural surroundings and meet the visual quality objectives for 

each respective class (CSU).

K.19.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination

K.19.1.1 Threatened or Endangered Species 

Actions associated with VRM will not directly impact Threatened or endangered species or any 

potential habitats. VRM will exclude some actions and structures from designated viewsheds and 

may have a beneficial impact of limiting disturbance in habitats suitable for Threatened or 

endangered species. Implementing VRM actions may affect, but are not likely to adversely 

affect, the Threatened or endangered species due to beneficial effects (NLAA-b). These 

determinations are based on the potential of these management actions to preserve or minimize 

disturbance to habitats suitable for Threatened or endangered species.
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 57 September 2015

K.20 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

• Activity Description

In general, lands with wilderness characteristic would be managed to protect, preserve and 

maintain wilderness characteristics in areas identified as non-WSA lands with wilderness 

characteristics. Areas managed for wilderness characteristics would be managed to maintain: a

high degree of naturalness (where lands and resources are affected primarily by the forces of 

nature and where the imprint of human activity is substantially unnoticeable); outstanding 

opportunities for solitude (when the sights, sounds, and evidence of other people are rare or 

infrequent and where visitors can be isolated, alone or secluded from others), and outstanding 

opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation: Where the use of the area would be 

through non-motorized, non-mechanical means, and where no or minimal developed recreation 

facilities are encountered. Lastly, areas managed for wilderness characteristics would be 

ecologically sustainable and resilient to natural and human caused disturbances.

The following management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings 

and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS: 

• Lands with Wilderness Characteristics would be managed according to the following 

management: 

− VRM Class II

− Closed to motorized OHV use 

− Closed to oil and gas leasing, exploration and development (NL) 

− Closed to solid mineral leasing

− Closed to disposal of mineral materials

− Closed and recommend for withdrawal from mineral entry

− Exclusion area for ROWs 

− Closed to permitted commercial and personal use wood cutting and seed collection 

− Vegetation and fuel treatments using prescribed fire would be allowed 

− Surface disturbing and disruptive activities would be allowed if the activity does not 

impair the resource values and/or wilderness characteristics.

• Manage 3,833 acres outside of the Bighorn Tack-on and Pryor Mountain WSAs as 

wilderness (this includes an additional 3,160 acres contiguous to the north - excludes Penn’s 

Cabin, an existing communications site and cherry-stemmed road to the site).

K.20.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination

K.20.1.1 Threatened or Endangered Species

Actions associated with the management of lands with wilderness characteristics will not directly 

impact threatened or endangered species or any potential habitats. Managing lands with 

wilderness characteristics would also provide protection to wildlife and special status species 

through restrictions on surface disturbances and minerals developments as well as OHV use. 

This would have a beneficial impact of limiting disturbance in habitats suitable for Threatened or 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 58 Appendix K 

Endangered. Implementing management actions associated with lands with wilderness 

characteristics may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the threatened or endangered 

species due to beneficial effects (NLAA-b.) These determinations are based on the potential of 

these management actions to preserve or minimize disturbance to habitats suitable for threatened 

or endangered species.

K.21 Cave and Karst Resources

• Activity Description

In general, cave and karst resources management activities would manage significant cave 

resources as mandated by the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988 to protect unique, 

nonrenewable and fragile biological, geological, hydrological, cultural, paleontological, 

scientific and recreational values for present and future users. The Billings and Pompeys Pillar 

National Monument RMP/EIS would emphasize providing opportunities for scientific research, 

educational study, and recreational experiences which are compatible and consistent with 

protection of all biologic and non-biologic resources associated with caves and karst landforms.

The following management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings 

and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS: 

• Manage for non-impairment of natural cave features and conditions.

• Geo-caching would not be allowed in caves or at cave entrances.

• Manage recreational use of caves under a cave management plan and address: protecting and 

maintaining cave resources, including wildlife species and habitat in and around caves, by 

interpreting, restricting, and/or prohibiting nonconforming uses; enhancing user experiences 

and opportunities by managing use at levels compatible with resource carrying capacity and 

protection. 

• Mystery Cave is located near the Big Horn Tack-On WSA and would be managed consistent 

with non-impairment criteria and recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry and NL 

for oil and gas leasing, exploration and/or development. 

• Mystery Cave would be managed as a significant cave. A cave management plan would be 

developed for Mystery Cave. 

• Surface disturbing or disruptive activities within 1⁄4 mile of cave entrances may be allowed if 

the activity benefits the desired outcome of this resource. 

• Cave and karst areas would be inventoried prior to oil and gas leasing, exploration and/or 

development. An approved mitigation plan would be required to avoid impacts to cave 

resources (CSU) (20,440 acres). 

• Inventory of cave and karst areas would be required prior to surface-disturbing activities. 

Cave and karst resources would be open to mineral development with an approved mitigation 

plan that protects resource values. 

• Cave and karst areas would be managed as ROW avoidance areas. 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 59 September 2015

K.21.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination

K.21.1.1 Black-footed Ferret 

No black-footed ferrets are known to exist within the planning area. Management of cave and 

karst resources would not adversely affect the black-footed ferret. Protection buffers or 

avoidance areas may be set up to protect cave or karst resources, which in turn may protect 

prairie dog and potential black-footed ferret habitat. Therefore, implementing cave and karst 

management actions may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the black-footed ferret due 

to beneficial effects (NLAA-b). This determination is based on the potential for protection of 

prairie dog and black-footed ferret habitats if avoidance areas are implemented around cave and 

karst resources.

K.21.1.2 Canada Lynx

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for Canada Lynx on page 13 for a Summary of 

Occurrence in BIFO. There are no Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) or critical habitat designated on 

BLM, Billings Field Office decision area lands, although lynx may occasionally occur in the 

area.

Management of cave and karst resources would not adversely impact the Canada lynx. 

Protection buffers or avoidance areas may be set up to protect cave or karst resources, which in 

turn may protect Canada lynx habitat. Implementing cave and karst management actions may 

affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the Canada lynx due to beneficial effects (NLAA-b). 

This determination is based on the potential for protection of lynx habitat if avoidance areas are 

implemented around cave and karst resources along with existing conservation measures.

K.21.1.3 Grizzly Bear

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for grizzly bears on page 15 for a Summary of Occurrence 

in BIFO. 

Management of cave and karst resources would not adversely impact the grizzly bear. Protection 

buffers or avoidance areas may be set up to protect cave or karst resources, which in turn may 

protect grizzly bear habitat. Implementing cave and karst management actions may affect, but 

are not likely to adversely affect, the grizzly bear due to beneficial effects (NLAA-b). This 

determination is based on the potential for protection of grizzly bear habitat if avoidance areas 

are implemented around cave and karst resources along with existing conservation measures. 

K.22 Energy and Mineral Resources – Oil and Gas

• Activity Description

In general, oil and gas management activities would provide opportunities for exploration and 

development of fluid mineral resources on available public lands. The Billings and Pompeys 

Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS would emphasize providing opportunities for exploring, 

leasing, and developing conventional oil and gas, coal bed natural gas, and geothermal resources 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 60 Appendix K 

while applying the appropriate lease stipulations and conditions of approval to mitigate 

environmental impacts from development. These opportunities for geophysical (e.g. seismic) 

exploration for oil and gas would be subject to appropriate mitigating measures. 

The following management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings 

and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS:

• Federal oil and gas leasing authority for public lands is found in the Mineral Leasing Act of 

1920, as amended; and for acquired lands in the Acquired Lands Leasing Act of 1947, as 

amended. Leasing of federal oil and gas is affected by other acts such as the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, FLPMA 

(1976), the Wilderness Act of 1964, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and 

the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987. Regulations and other 

guidance governing federal oil and gas leasing and lease operations are contained in 43 CFR 

Group 3100, Onshore Operating Orders, Notices to Lessees, and BLM handbooks manuals 

and instruction memorandums. Regulations governing geophysical exploration are found at 

43 CFR 3150. 

• All public lands available for oil and gas leasing would be offered first by competitive bid at 

an oral auction.

• Appropriate stipulations would be applied at the time of leasing. 

• Areas where oil and gas development would coexist with other resource uses would be open 

to leasing under standard lease terms or with added stipulations. Stipulations are a part of the 

lease only when environmental and planning records show the need for them. Three types of 

stipulations describe how lease rights are modified: no surface occupancy, timing limitation 

(seasonal restriction), and controlled surface use. (For descriptions, see Leasing Process in 

the Oil and Gas section of Appendix D – Fluid Minerals) Stipulations may be changed by 

application of waivers, exceptions, or modifications. The decision whether to grant waivers, 

exceptions, or modifications generally occurs during the Application for Permit to Drill 

approval process. If the authorized officer determines the change to be substantial, the 

preferred alternative would be subject to a 30-day public review period. Waivers are a 

permanent exemption from a lease stipulation. This occurs when the resource does not 

require the protection of stipulation. Exceptions are granted on a case-by-case basis. Each 

time the lessee applies for an exception, the resource objective of the stipulation must be met. 

Modifications are fundamental changes to the provisions of a lease stipulation either 

temporarily or for the term of the lease.

• An oil and gas lease grants the lessee the right to explore for, extract, remove, and dispose of 

oil and gas deposits that may be found on the leased lands. The lessee may exercise the 

rights conveyed by the lease, subject to lease terms and any lease stipulations (modifications 

of the lease), and permit approval requirements. 

• The terms of existing oil and gas leases cannot be changed by the decisions in this document. 

When the lease expires, the area would be managed for oil and gas according to the decisions 

reached in this document. 

• For federal oil and gas where the surface is managed by another federal agency, the BLM 

would consult with that agency before issuing leases. In areas where oil and gas 

development may conflict with other resources, the areas may be closed to leasing in 

accordance with decisions made from this document. Regulations at part 43 CFR 3100.0-

3(d); the Secretary’s general authority to prevent the waste and dissipation of public 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 61 September 2015

property; and the Attorney General’s Opinion of April 2, 1941 (Vol. 40 Op. Atty. Gen 41) 

allow the BLM to lease lands that are otherwise unavailable for leasing if oil and gas is being 

drained from such lands. If the unavailable lands were under the jurisdiction of another 

agency, leasing of such lands would only occur following consultation, and consent if 

necessary, from the surface managing agency.

• On Bureau of Reclamation or Corps of Engineers lands, in addition to the resource specific 

stipulations under each alternative (e.g., wildlife, recreation); stipulations that are 

recommended by the Bureau of Reclamation or Corps of Engineers would be used (see Oil 

and Gas section in Appendix C – Fluid Minerals).

• Unavailable lands for this RMP (Table 2-4) would be leased only if a state or fee well is 

proposed or completed within the same spacing unit, or if the lands are within a producing 

unit. These lands would be leased with a no surface occupancy and no subsurface occupancy 

stipulation with no waiver, modification or exception provisions. There would only be a 

paper transaction with no physical impacts on the unavailable lands. There would be no 

exploration or development (drilling or production) within the unavailable lands. After 

issuance of a lease, the lease would be committed to a communitization agreement and the 

United States would then receive revenue in proportion to its acreage interest as it bears to 

the entire acreage interest committed to the agreements.

• Additional information can be provided to the lessee in the form of a lease notice. This 

notice does not place restrictions on lease operation, but does provide information about 

applicable laws and regulations, and the requirements for additional information to be 

supplied by the lessee. 

• After lease issuance, the lessee may conduct lease operations with an approved permit. 

Proposed drilling and associated activities must be approved before beginning operations. 

The operator must file an Application for Permit to Drill or Sundry Notice that must be 

approved according to (1) lease stipulations, (2) Onshore Oil and Gas Order, and (3) 

regulations and laws. (See Permitting in the Oil and Gas section of Appendix D – Fluid 

Minerals).

• Follow interim management policy and guidance for mineral leasing in WSAs as appropriate. 

All WSAs would be closed to new oil and gas leases.

• Oil and gas geophysical activity which is administered by the BLM is governed by 

regulations found at 43 CFR Subparts 3150, 3151 and 3154. Additional guidance is found in 

BLM Manual Section 3150 and Handbook 3150. For additional information on geophysical 

operations and the BLM’s procedures and regulations see the Geophysical Operations 

portion of the oil and gas section of the Appendix D – Fluid Minerals.

• The BLM would review Notices of Intent to Conduct Geophysical Exploration in the 

planning area and develop appropriate mitigation measures so as not to create undue and 

unnecessary degradation. A site-specific environmental analysis would be prepared for each 

NOI filed.

• Lands in the planning area would be available for geothermal leasing, unless located within 

wilderness or WSAs or in instances where it is determined that issuing the lease would cause 

unnecessary or undue degradation to public lands or resources. Other areas that would be 

made unavailable are listed in the Record of Decision and RMP Amendments for Geothermal 

Leasing in the Western United States (December, 2008) which is incorporated in this RMP. 

A site-specific environmental analysis would be prepared as needed should interest be 

expressed in exploring for or developing geothermal resources in the planning area. This 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 62 Appendix K 

analysis would address the application of stipulations and develop any additional mitigating 

measures over and above the lease stipulations required. 

• Stipulations developed in this document for oil and gas leases would be applied to any 

geothermal lease issued if appropriate. If geothermal exploration and production activity is 

sufficiently different from oil and gas, the stipulations developed would be modified. 

• Oil and Gas

− Manage 6,158 acres as open to leasing, subject to standard lease terms. 

− Manage 336,753 acres as open to leasing subject to moderate constraints (CSU/TL 

stipulations). 

− Manage 263,185 acres as open to leasing subject to major constraints (NSO). 

− Manage 65,891 acres as closed to leasing in the following areas (NL): 

− Non-Discretionary (28,682 acres): 

 Pompeys Pillar NM-51 acres, Big Horn Tack-on WSA-2,689 acres, Burnt Timber 

Canyon WSA-3,516 acres, Pryor Mountain WSA-15,590 , Twin Coulee-6,836 acres 

− Discretionary (37,209 acres): 

 East Pryor ACEC -11,122 acres, Four Dances ACEC-784 acres, Meeteetse Spires 

ACEC -965 acres, Weatherman Draw ACEC-4,986 acres, PMWHR-24,595 acres, 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics-1,709 acres 

• Geophysical Exploration 

− Geophysical exploration would not be allowed in the following areas: 

 Pompeys Pillar ACEC 432 acres, East Pryor Mountain ACEC 11,122 acres, Four 

Dances ACEC 784 acres, Meeteetse Spires ACEC 965 acres, Petroglyph Canyon 

ACEC 240 acres, Pryor Foothills RNA ACEC 2,606 acres, Stark Site ACEC 799 acres, 

Weatherman Draw ACEC 12,277 acres

 Within 1⁄2 mile of bald eagle nest sites which have been active within the past 7 years 

and within bald eagle nesting habitat in riparian areas.

 Within 1⁄2 mile of ferruginous hawk nest sites which have been active within the past 2 

years.

 Within 1 mile of peregrine falcon nesting sites (distance may be reduced if natural 

barriers reduces line of site).

 Within 1⁄2 mile of raptor nests (peregrine, ferruginous and bald eagles noted above) 

from March 1 to August 1 which have been active in the last 2 years (distance may be 

reduced).

 Bighorn Sheep Habitat. 

K.22.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination

K.22.1.1 Black-footed Ferret 

No black-footed ferrets are known to exist within the planning area. However, if prairie dogs 

and black-footed ferrets were present in an oil and gas development area, they may be displaced, 

or their habitats degraded by the extraction of these resources. It is conceivable that any blackfooted ferrets present could be run over by vehicles, though being nocturnal by nature decreases 

the chances of this event. A slight increase in avian predation is possible in developed areas 

where structures provide raptor perches near prairie dog colonies. Oil and gas development may 

result in the reduction of potential future reintroduction sites due to habitat loss and alteration 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 63 September 2015

and changes in prey abundance, thus compromising successful recovery of the black-footed 

ferret. Implementing management actions associated with oil and gas development may affect, 

but are not likely to adversely affect, the black-footed ferret due to discountable effects (NLAAd). This determination is based on the current absence of black-footed ferrets in the planning 

area, the USFWS’ prairie dog colony pre-clearance requirements, overall project review, and 

existing conservation measures.

K.22.1.2 Canada Lynx

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for Canada Lynx on page 13 for a Summary of 

Occurrence in BIFO. There are no Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) or critical habitat designated on 

BLM, Billings Field Office decision area lands, although lynx may occasionally occur in the 

area.

Human activity associated with oil and gas development can adversely impact Canada lynx 

behavior by causing them to avoid or abandon these development areas. Construction of roads, 

pads, and other facilities associated with development or access by OHVs during exploration 

may alter or destroy existing terrestrial habitats that may be suitable for Canada lynx foraging or 

as travel linkages between suitable habitats. Increased vehicle traffic associated with mineral 

and geology exploration, development, and operation may lead to increases in vehicle collisions 

with Canada lynx and increased intrusion by competing predators, such as bobcats, coyotes, and 

wolves. Additional impacts are a consequence of increased human access into habitat and 

fragmentation, loss of snowshoe hare and red squirrel habitats, associated noise and human 

activity, associated hazards (such as chemical toxins), and temporal and spatial project 

considerations. However, by implementing Canada lynx conservation measures oil and gas 

management action may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the Canada lynx due to 

insignificant effects (NLAA-i). This determination is based on the conservation measures in place 

that will preclude, minimize, or remove adverse effects to the Canada lynx and its habitat. 

K.22.1.3 Grizzly Bear

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for grizzly bears on page 15 for a Summary of Occurrence 

in BIFO. 

Human activity associated with oil and gas development can adversely impact grizzly bear 

behavior by causing them to avoid or abandon these development areas. Construction of roads, 

pads, and other facilities associated with development or access by OHVs during exploration 

may alter or destroy existing terrestrial habitats that may be suitable for grizzly bear foraging or 

as travel linkages between suitable habitats. Increased vehicle traffic associated with mineral and 

geology exploration, development, and operation may lead to increases in vehicle collisions with 

grizzly bear and increased intrusion by competing predators, such as bobcats, coyotes, and 

wolves. Additional impacts are a consequence of increased human access into habitat and 

fragmentation, loss of prey/forage habitats, associated noise and human activity, associated 

hazards (such as chemical toxins), and temporal and spatial project considerations. However, by 

implementing grizzly bear conservation measures oil and gas management action may affect, but 

are not likely to adversely affect, the grizzly bear due to insignificant effects (NLAA-i). This 

determination is based on the conservation measures in place that will preclude, minimize, or 

remove adverse effects to the grizzly bear and its habitat.
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 64 Appendix K 

K.23 Energy and Mineral Resources – Solid Leasable Minerals

• Activity Description

In general, solid leasable mineral management would make federal solid mineral resources 

available for exploration and acquisition consistent with other resource goals. The Billings and 

Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS would identify the public lands open to solid 

minerals leasing in accordance with existing laws and regulations (43 CFR 3400 and 3500).

The following management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings 

and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS: 

• The BLM would consider proposals for developing leasable minerals (coal, phosphate, 

sodium, potash, sulfur, oil shale, native asphalt, and solid and semi-solid bituminous rock) 

under the administration of the federal government on a case by case basis. Site specific 

environmental analysis would be required to lease these minerals. 

• The BLM would allow exploration and development of solid minerals as authorized under 

the 1920 and 1947 Mineral Leasing Acts.

• Prospecting permits would be available for all land not closed to mineral leasing in 

conformance with 43 CFR 3500. 

• The following areas would be closed to solid mineral leasing and development (200,539 

acres):

− Big Horn Tack-On WSA (2,689 acres), Burnt Timber Canyon WSA (3,516 acres), Pryor 

Mountain WSA (15,590 acres), Twin Coulee WSA (6,836 acres). If Twin Coulee WSA is 

released from further consideration, the area may be open for solid mineral leasing and 

development. Lands with Wilderness Characteristics ( 3,833 acres), Bridger Fossil Area 

ACEC (577 acres), East Pryor ACEC (11,122 acres), Four Dances ACEC (784 acres), 

Grove Creek ACEC (8,251 acres), Meeteetse Spires ACEC (965 acres), Petroglyph 

Canyon ACEC (240 acres), Pompeys Pillar NM and ACEC (432 acres), Pryor Foothills 

RNA/ACEC (2,606 acres), Weatherman Draw ACEC (4,986 acres). 

• Greater Sage-Grouse RPAs (60,165 acres). Leasable mineral development using surface 

methods would not be allowed. In situ mining may be allowed. 

• Remainder of Planning Area: Process lease by application (LBAs) for new coal leases by 

applying the coal screening process to the application. The coal screening process results 

would determine which lands may be available for further consideration for coal leasing and 

development. Appropriate NEPA analysis would be required prior to leasing. If any of the 

existing RMP (BLM 1984) coal-screening management decisions are current and relevant to 

the application area, they would be applied. 

K.23.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination 

K.23.1.1 Black-footed Ferret 

No black-footed ferrets are known to exist within the planning area. However, if prairie dogs 

and black-footed ferrets were present in a solid leasable minerals development area, they may be 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 65 September 2015

displaced, or their habitats degraded by the extraction of these resources. It is conceivable that 

any black-footed ferrets present could be run over by vehicles, though being nocturnal by nature 

decreases the chances of this event. A slight increase in avian predation is possible in developed 

areas where structures provide raptor perches near prairie dog colonies. Solid leasable minerals 

development may result in the reduction of potential future reintroduction sites due to habitat 

loss and alteration and changes in prey abundance, thus compromising successful recovery of the 

black-footed ferret. Implementing management actions associated with solid leasable minerals 

development may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the black-footed ferret due to 

discountable effects (NLAA-d). This determination is based on the current absence of blackfooted ferrets in the planning area, the USFWS’ prairie dog colony pre-clearance requirements, 

overall project review, and existing conservation measures. 

K.23.1.2 Canada Lynx

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for Canada Lynx on page 13 for a Summary of 

Occurrence in BIFO. There are no Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) or critical habitat designated on 

BLM, Billings Field Office decision area lands, although lynx may occasionally occur in the 

area.

Human activity associated with solid leasable minerals development can adversely impact 

Canada lynx behavior by causing them to avoid or abandon these development areas. 

Construction of roads and other facilities associated with development or access by OHVs during 

exploration may alter or destroy existing terrestrial habitats that may be suitable for Canada lynx 

foraging or as travel linkages between suitable habitats. Increased vehicle traffic associated with 

mineral and geology exploration, development, and operation may lead to increases in vehicle 

collisions with Canada lynx and increased intrusion by competing predators, such as bobcats, 

coyotes, and wolves. Additional impacts are a consequence of increased human access into 

habitat and fragmentation, loss of snowshoe hare and red squirrel habitats, associated noise and 

human activity, associated hazards (such as chemical toxins), and temporal and spatial project 

considerations. However, by implementing Canada lynx conservation measures solid leasable 

minerals management actions may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the Canada lynx 

due to insignificant effects (NLAA-i). This determination is based on the conservation measures 

in place that will preclude, minimize, or remove adverse effects to the Canada lynx and its 

habitat.

K.23.1.3 Grizzly Bear

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for grizzly bears on page 15 for a Summary of Occurrence 

in BIFO. 

Human activity associated with solid leasable minerals development can adversely impact 

grizzly bear behavior by causing them to avoid or abandon these development areas. 

Construction of roads and other facilities associated with development or access by OHVs during 

exploration may alter or destroy existing terrestrial habitats that may be suitable for grizzly bear 

foraging or as travel linkages between suitable habitats. Increased vehicle traffic associated with 

mineral and geology exploration, development, and operation may lead to increases in vehicle 

collisions with grizzly bears and increased intrusion by competing predators, such as bobcats, 

coyotes, and wolves. Additional impacts are a consequence of increased human access into 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 66 Appendix K 

habitat and fragmentation, loss of prey/forage habitats, associated noise and human activity, 

associated hazards (such as chemical toxins), and temporal and spatial project considerations. 

However, by implementing grizzly bear conservation measures solid leasable minerals 

management actions may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the grizzly bear due to 

insignificant effects (NLAA-i). This determination is based on the conservation measures in place 

that will preclude, minimize, or remove adverse effects to the grizzly bear and its habitat.

K.24 Energy and Mineral Resources – Salable Minerals

• Activity Description

In general, salable minerals management would provide land-use opportunities contributing to 

economic benefits and meet local infrastructure needs while protecting or minimizing adverse 

impacts to other resources and resource uses. The Billings and Pompeys Pillar National 

Monument RMP/EIS would emphasize identifying the public lands open to minerals materials 

disposal in accordance with existing laws and regulations (43 CFR 3600). 

The following management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings 

and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS: 

• BLM would dispose of saleable minerals on unpatented mining claims only for a public 

purpose when no reasonable alternative exists. Saleable mineral sites would have an 

approved mining and reclamation plan and an environmental analysis prior to being opened. 

Mineral material would be sold at a fair market value to the public, but would be free to state, 

county, or other local governments when used for public projects. Mineral material sales 

would be processed on a case-by-case basis.

• Valid, existing mineral rights, within the planning area would not be changed by any decision 

in this document. None of the alternatives give BLM the discretion to prohibit mineral 

exploration or development on valid leases or mining claims. 

• The BLM would continue to provide for the exploration and development of mineral 

materials unless withdrawn.

• New mineral material sites would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. With the exception 

of lands withdrawn from all mineral entry, the planning area would be available for 

establishment of future sites, pending site-specific analysis. Terms and conditions to protect 

public land and resource values would be applied on a case-by-case basis.

• The following areas are closed to mineral material disposals:

− Four Dances ACEC (784 acres), Petroglyph Canyon ACEC (240 acres), Pompeys Pillar 

NM and ACEC (432 acres), Pryor Foothills RNA/ACEC (2,606 acres), Stark Site ACEC 

(799 acres), Weatherman Draw ACEC (12,277 acres), Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics (3,833 acres), Big Horn Tack-On WSA (2,689 acres), Burnt Timber 

Canyon WSA (3,516 acres), Pryor Mountain WSA (15,590 acres), Twin Coulee WSA 

(6,836 acres). If Twin Coulee WSA is released from further consideration, the area may 

be open to mineral material disposals. Shepherd Ah-Nei Recreation Area, Acton 

Recreation Area, Asparagus Point.

• Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs (77,947 acres). Closed to new salable minerals; existing 

permits would be renewed with no increase in the permitted boundary.
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 67 September 2015

K.24.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination

K.24.1.1 Black-footed Ferret 

Salable mineral mining actions, surface disturbance, and developing roads and ancillary facilities 

could occur in occupied prairie dog habitats. However, no black-footed ferrets are presently 

known to exist within the planning area. Mining actions could result in habitat loss and 

alteration. New road development could result in increased human access and, thereby, create a 

potential increase in recreational shooting and the probability of distemper being transferred 

from domestic dogs. An increase in avian predation on prairie dogs and black-footed ferrets 

could occur due to the use of extraction and ancillary facilities as perches by raptors. However, 

these impacts are anticipated to be minimal due to the stipulations and conservation measures 

that limit surface disturbing activities. Implementing salable mineral management actions may 

affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the black-footed ferret due to discountable effects 

(NLAA-d). This determination is based on the unlikely event for new or existing BLM-approved 

salable mineral development actions to impact black-footed ferrets directly by mortality from 

collisions with vehicles or mortality by distemper and the stipulations and conservation measures 

associated with surface-disturbing activities.

K.24.1.2 Canada Lynx

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for Canada Lynx on page 13 for a Summary of 

Occurrence in BIFO. There are no Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) or critical habitat designated on 

BLM, Billings Field Office decision area lands, although lynx may occasionally occur in the 

area.

Human activity associated with mineral development can adversely impact Canada lynx 

behavior by causing them to avoid or abandon habitats. Construction of roads and other facilities 

may alter or destroy existing suitable Canada lynx foraging habitats or travel linkages between 

suitable habitats. Increased vehicle traffic associated with salable mineral development and 

operation may lead to increases in vehicle collisions with Canada lynx and increased intrusion by 

competing predators, such as bobcats, coyotes, and wolves. Additional impacts may result from 

increased human access into habitats and fragmentation, loss of snowshoe hare and red squirrel 

habitat, associated noise and human activity, associated hazards (such as chemical toxins), and 

temporal and spatial project considerations. Implementing salable mineral management actions 

may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the Canada lynx due to insignificant effects 

(NLAA-i). This determination is based on the conservation measures in place that will preclude, 

minimize or remove adverse effects to the Canada lynx or its habitat.

K.24.1.3 Grizzly Bear

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for grizzly bears on page 15 for a Summary of Occurrence 

in BIFO. 

Human activity associated with mineral development can adversely impact grizzly bear behavior 

by causing them to avoid or abandon habitats. Construction of roads and other facilities may 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 68 Appendix K 

alter or destroy existing suitable grizzly bear foraging habitats or travel linkages between suitable 

habitats. Increased vehicle traffic associated with salable mineral development and operation 

may lead to increases in vehicle collisions with grizzly bear and increased intrusion by 

competing predators, such as bobcats, coyotes, and wolves. Additional impacts may result from 

increased human access into habitats and fragmentation, loss of prey and foraging habitat, 

associated noise and human activity, associated hazards (such as chemical toxins), and temporal 

and spatial project considerations. Implementing salable mineral management actions may 

affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the grizzly bear due to insignificant effects (NLAA-i). 

This determination is based on the conservation measures in place that will preclude, minimize 

or remove adverse effects to the grizzly bear or its habitat.

K.25 Energy and Mineral Resources – Locatable Minerals

• Activity Description

In general, locatable minerals management would encourage and facilitate development of 

locatable minerals in the manner to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation. Provide land use 

opportunities contributing to economic benefits while protecting or minimizing adverse impacts 

to other resources. The Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS would 

emphasize identifying public lands open to locatable mineral entry in accordance with existing 

laws and regulations (43 CFR 3700 and 3800).

The following management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings 

and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS: 

• Standard management practices in the public land administration of locatable minerals would 

continue across all alternatives. The BLM would coordinate with MT DEQ during the 

review, approval, inspection and reclamation of mining operations. At a minimum, conduct 

an annual compliance inspection on each active notice. Requirements of all state and federal 

laws would be met in the management of mining operations. 

• In cases involving valid mining claims, exploration would occur under all alternatives. 

Administration of locatable minerals on public lands would continue as required by law and 

regulation (43 CFR 3809) by taking the following steps: 

− Review and process notices to ensure the proposed action does not create unnecessary or 

undue degradation of the environment. 

− Review and process plans of operation to ensure the proposed action does not create 

unnecessary or undue degradation of the environment. 

− Conduct at a minimum, annual compliance inspections on each active notice and plan of 

operation. 

− Allow casual use where work is done by hand and no explosives are used. Refer inquiries 

to appropriate agencies for further guidance on other permit requirements. 

• Terms and conditions would be applied to mining activities (within the constraints of the 

mining law) to meet land health standards for uplands, riparian and wetlands, water quality, 

air quality, and native plant and animal species. Note: All withdrawal actions (including 

mineral withdrawals) are processed in the lands and realty program.
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 69 September 2015

• The following areas would be closed and recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry 

(54,761 acres): 

− Britton Springs Administrative Site ,Crooked Creek Natural Area (WY) , Bridger Fossil 

Area ACEC ,

5) East Pryor ACEC , Four Dances ACEC, Meeteetse Spires ACEC, Petroglyph 

Canyon , Pompeys Pillar NM and ACEC, Pryor Mountain RNA/ACEC, Stark Site 

ACEC, Weatherman Draw, Big Horn Tack-On WSA, Burnt Timber Canyon WSA, 

Pryor Mountain WSA, Twin Coulee WSA, and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics. 

K.25.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination

K.25.1.1 Black-footed Ferret 

Locatable mineral mining actions, surface disturbance, and developing roads and ancillary 

facilities could occur in occupied prairie dog habitats. However, no black-footed ferrets are 

presently known to exist within the planning area. Mining actions could result in habitat loss and 

alteration. New road development could result in increased human access and, thereby, create a 

potential increase in recreational shooting and the probability of distemper being transferred 

from domestic dogs. An increase in avian predation on prairie dogs and black-footed ferrets 

could occur due to the use of extraction and ancillary facilities as perches by raptors. However, 

these impacts are anticipated to be minimal due to the stipulations and conservation measures 

that limit surface disturbing activities. Implementing locatable mineral management actions may 

affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the black-footed ferret due to discountable effects 

(NLAA-d). This determination is based on the unlikely event for new or existing BLM-approved 

locatable mineral development actions to impact black-footed ferrets directly by mortality from 

collisions with vehicles or mortality by distemper and the stipulations and conservation measures 

associated with surface-disturbing activities.

K.25.1.2 Canada Lynx

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for Canada Lynx on page 13 for a Summary of 

Occurrence in BIFO. There are no Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) or critical habitat designated on 

BLM, Billings Field Office decision area lands, although lynx may occasionally occur in the 

area.

Human activity associated with locatable mineral development can adversely impact Canada 

lynx behavior by causing them to avoid or abandon habitats. Construction of roads and other 

facilities may alter or destroy existing suitable Canada lynx foraging habitats or travel linkages 

between suitable habitats. Increased vehicle traffic associated with locatable mineral 

development and operation may lead to increases in vehicle collisions with Canada lynx and 

increased intrusion by competing predators, such as bobcats, coyotes, and wolves. Additional 

impacts may result from increased human access into habitats and fragmentation, loss of 

snowshoe hare and red squirrel habitat, associated noise and human activity, associated hazards 

(such as chemical toxins), and temporal and spatial project considerations. Implementing 

locatable mineral management actions may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 70 Appendix K 

Canada lynx due to insignificant effects (NLAA-i). This determination is based on the 

conservation measures in place that will preclude, minimize or remove adverse effects to the 

Canada lynx or its habitat. 

K.25.1.3 Grizzly Bear

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for grizzly bears on page 15 for a Summary of Occurrence 

in BIFO. 

Human activity associated with locatable mineral development can adversely impact grizzly bear 

behavior by causing them to avoid or abandon habitats. Construction of roads and other facilities 

may alter or destroy existing suitable grizzly bear foraging habitats or travel linkages between 

suitable habitats. Increased vehicle traffic associated with locatable mineral development and 

operation may lead to increases in vehicle collisions with grizzly bear and increased intrusion by 

competing predators, such as bobcats, coyotes, and wolves. Additional impacts may result from 

increased human access into habitats and fragmentation, loss of prey and foraging habitat, 

associated noise and human activity, associated hazards (such as chemical toxins), and temporal 

and spatial project considerations. Implementing locatable mineral management actions may 

affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the grizzly bear due to insignificant effects (NLAA-i). 

This determination is based on the conservation measures in place that will preclude, minimize 

or remove adverse effects to the grizzly bear or its habitat.

K.26 Livestock Grazing

• Activity Description

In general, livestock grazing management would provide opportunities for livestock grazing as a 

part of multiple-use that improves and/or maintains rangeland health standards. The Billings and 

Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS would emphasize maintaining existing desirable 

(allotment categorization) rangeland conditions or improve rangeland health utilizing best 

grazing management practices while monitoring and evaluating rangeland health to determine 

appropriate management actions. In addition, the Billings and Pompeys Pillar National 

Monument RMP/EIS would identify strategies for implementation of vegetation improvements 

that maintain the number of AUMs available for livestock grazing to support and sustain local 

communities. Lastly, the Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS would 

integrate livestock use and associated management practices with other multiple-use needs and 

objectives to maintain, protect, and improve rangeland health. 

The following management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings 

and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS: 

• Monitor and evaluate grazing allotments to maintain or improve rangeland productivity. 

• AUM levels would be sustained on an allotment-by-allotment basis for livestock grazing, 

providing Montana Standards for Healthy Rangelands are being met. 

• Maintain current allotment categories (M, I and C – refer to glossary). Throughout the life of 

the plan, re-categorize allotments based on assessments and evaluations. 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 71 September 2015

• Adjust permit terms and conditions (e.g., increased/decreased permitted use, season of use, 

and kind and class of livestock) when grazing permits are renewed, transferred, or as 

otherwise deemed necessary by site-specific evaluation of monitoring data and 

environmental analysis. 

• Use livestock grazing to enhance ecosystem health, wildlife habitat, or mitigate resource 

issues (e.g., noxious/invasive weed control and hazardous fuel reduction) where supported by 

site-specific environmental analysis.

• During periods of drought, adjust livestock numbers based on estimates of the available 

forage. 

• Exclude livestock grazing from small areas (such as springs) within allotments that cannot 

meet Rangeland Health Standards with livestock grazing. 

• Site-specific management actions that protect riparian areas would be addressed at the project 

level.

• Grazing treatments and systems would be adaptive to new research, science and 

methodologies. 

• Range improvements would be designed to meet rangeland health standards and not 

necessarily forage demand. 

• Newly acquired lands would be evaluated for livestock grazing during the acquisition 

process, and subject to 43CFR 4110.1-1. 

• Areas open to Grazing, AUM Allocation and Monitoring 

− The planning area would be open to livestock grazing. 

− PMWHR would be closed to livestock grazing (excluding the Bad Pass Trail allotment 

(149 acres)).

− The following areas would only be open to livestock grazing, on a temporary basis, for the 

treatment of noxious weeds, or as a prescription to meet site specific vegetation or other 

resource management goals: 

 Pompeys Pillar ACEC ( 432 acres)

 Bundy Island (78 acres) 

 Sundance Lodge ( 387 acres) 

 Four Dance Lodge ( 784 acres) 

 Asparagus Point ( 158 acres) 

 Meeteetse Spires (558 acre acquisition area)

− Maintain current available AUMs (up to 54,873). Adjustments to permitted use would be 

authorized, based on allotment specific standards and conformance reviews. 

− Consider adjusting (increase or decrease) suspended AUMs, based on monitoring data and 

range conditions. 

− Priority Allotments for monitoring and evaluation would be allotments which: 

 Are not meeting standards for rangeland health 

 Contain special status species habitat (including sage grouse PHMAs / RAs)

 Contain impaired streams

 Contain non-functional or functioning at risk downward trend riparian areas. 

 Contain invasive plant species.

 Allotments that have established and implemented management plans during the life of 

the plan. 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 72 Appendix K 

− Assess PFC on all fish bearing streams on a 3 year rotation, with the exception of areas 

that are free of existing or potential threats (approx. 30 miles). (ex: Piney and Crooked 

Creek are the current exceptions).

− If standards are not being met, and grazing is a causal factor, management actions would 

be taken to make progress toward meeting the standard before the next grazing season. 

− No supplement or salt placement within 1⁄4 mile of known special status plant sites, unless 

livestock is otherwise excluded (fence or barrier).

• Permit and Lease Renewal and Relinquishments

− Grazing permits/leases would be transferred or renewed for C and M category grazing 

allotments where the new grazing authorization: 

 (1)Contains the same mandatory terms and conditions (kind of livestock, the active use 

previously authorized is not exceeded, and grazing does not occur more than 14 days 

earlier or later than as specified on the previous permit/lease). 

 (2)Have evaluation reports documenting that they are meeting land health standards. A 

screening criteria checklist (Appendix PDQ) would be reviewed prior to renewal. If the

answer to each of the questions is “NO”, the renewal is within scope and NEPA 

compliance can be achieved by preparing a Documentation of NEPA Adequacy (DNA) 

form which references this RMP/EIS. If the answer to any question is “YES”, the 

proposed action represents an exception, and site-specific analysis would be prepared.

− Category I allotments would not meet the criteria for this type of action.

− Relinquished AUMs would be transferred or managed as reserve allotments. 

− Areas with active surface disturbance would be available to livestock grazing. 

− The AUMs for these areas would be suspended during surface disturbance activities until 

at such time grazing would continue in a manner which supports the standards for 

rangeland health. 

− No change in livestock conversions from cattle to domestic sheep or goats would be 

allowed in allotments within occupied wild sheep habitat.

− New sheep and goat allotments or conversions from cattle to sheep or goats would be 

permitted a minimum of 14.3 miles from known bighorn sheep habitat. This distance 

would be greater if deemed necessary through site specific analysis.

− Domestic sheep and goat grazing operators would be required to promptly notify the BiFO 

if interaction between wild sheep and domestic sheep/goats occur.

K.26.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination

K.26.1.1 Black-footed Ferret 

No black-footed ferrets are known to exist within the planning area. If an undiscovered 

population of black-footed ferrets is found on an allotment, the use of vehicles or OHVs for 

livestock management could result in a collision with a black-footed ferret; however, the 

nocturnal nature of black-footed ferrets will likely preclude such an event. Dogs used in 

livestock operations could carry distemper and potentially transmit the disease to an unknown 

black-footed ferret population. Fences used in livestock grazing could provide additional 

perches for raptors, which could prey on prairie dogs and black-footed ferrets. Livestock grazing 

generally is compatible with prairie dog habitats and can provide a positive effect if managed 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 73 September 2015

correctly. Grazing reduces vegetation height, thereby improving habitat for prairie dogs. 

Implementing livestock grazing management actions may affect, but are not likely to adversely 

affect, the black-footed ferret due to insignificant effects (NLAA-i). This determination is based 

on the current absence of the black-footed ferret in the planning area, the unlikely event of a 

black-footed ferret colliding with a vehicle or becoming infected by canine distemper from a 

dog, the small number of prairie dogs that will be consumed by perching raptors, the potential 

benefit of livestock grazing in prairie dog habitats, and the incorporation of existing conservation 

measures.

K.26.1.2 Canada Lynx

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for Canada Lynx on page 13 for a Summary of 

Occurrence in BIFO. There are no Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) or critical habitat designated on 

BLM, Billings Field Office decision area lands, although lynx may occasionally occur in the 

area.

Domestic livestock grazing in riparian areas can alter the structure and composition of aspen and 

riparian shrubs that snowshoe hares—the primary prey of the Canada lynx—depend on. Cattle 

and sheep grazing in excess of the designated amount of forage may create competition for 

forage and reduction in escape cover for snowshoe hares and other small mammals. Grazing in 

shrubsteppe communities within the elevational range of Canada lynx also may have impacts on 

lynx prey species. Predator control activities conducted by permittees on the range they graze, 

such as shooting, trapping, and poisoning to control coyotes, mountain lion, bear, and bobcat, 

may lead to incidental Canada lynx mortality, especially in the higher-elevation allotments. 

Improper grazing also may lead to other adverse environmental effects, including increased soil 

erosion, degradation of stream bank conditions, and the introduction of invasive/noxious weeds. 

Modifications in grazing to improve riparian habitats, including a reduction in grazing, fencing 

of riparian areas, weed control, and other improvements in riparian ecological function, may 

benefit the Canada lynx. Implementation of livestock grazing management actions may affect, 

but are not likely to adversely affect, the Canada lynx due to insignificant effects (NLAA-i). This 

determination is based on the small likelihood of improper grazing within the suitable Canada 

lynx habitat in this planning area, the low percentage of public land in lynx habitat, and the 

conservation measures in place that will preclude adverse effects to the Canada lynx or its 

habitats.

K.26.1.3 Grizzly Bear

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for grizzly bears on page 15 for a Summary of Occurrence 

in BIFO. Also, additional conservation measures for the protection of grizzly bears from 

livestock grazing influences are included in Appendix A.

Domestic livestock grazing in riparian areas can alter the structure and composition of vegetation 

communities that grizzly bears depend on. Cattle and sheep grazing in excess of the designated 

amount of forage may create competition for forage and reduction in escape cover for small 

mammals. Grazing in shrub-steppe communities within the elevational range of grizzly bears 

also may have impacts on forage and prey species. Predator control activities conducted by 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 74 Appendix K 

permittees on the range they graze, such as shooting, trapping, and poisoning to control coyotes, 

mountain lion, bear, and bobcat, may lead to incidental grizzly bear mortality, especially in the 

higher-elevation allotments. Improper grazing also may lead to other adverse environmental 

effects, including increased soil erosion, degradation of stream bank conditions, and the 

introduction of invasive/noxious weeds. Modifications in grazing to improve riparian habitats, 

including a reduction in grazing, fencing of riparian areas, weed control, and other improvements 

in riparian ecological function, may benefit the grizzly bear. Implementation of livestock 

grazing management actions may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the grizzly bear 

due to insignificant effects (NLAA-i). This determination is based on the small likelihood of 

improper grazing within the suitable grizzly bear habitat in this planning area, and the 

conservation measures in place that will preclude adverse effects to the grizzly bear or its 

habitats.

K.27 Recreation/Visitor Services

• Activity Description

In general, recreation/visitor services management would manage recreation resources on BLM 

public lands to provide a diverse array of benefits to the public, including economic, 

environmental, personal, and social benefits. The Billings and Pompeys Pillar National 

Monument RMP/EIS would emphasize developing and maintaining cooperative relationships 

with national, state, and local recreation providers, tourism entities, and local recreational 

groups. In addition, it would develop and maintain appropriate recreational facilities, balancing 

public demand, protection of public land resources, and fiscal responsibility, while emphasizing 

and supporting collaborative public outreach, awareness events, and programs that promote 

public service and stewardship. Lastly, the Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument 

RMP/EIS would encourage sustainable travel and tourism development with local communities 

and provide community-based conservation support for visitor services. Emphasis would be 

placed on providing interpretive and informational signs and materials for public lands visitors, 

maintaining facilities to a high standard consistent with the recreational setting, and limiting 

development of additional facilities to those areas where public recreational use of surrounding 

public lands requires them.

The following management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings 

and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS: 

• Identify portions of the planning area not delineated as an SRMA as Extensive Recreation 

Management Area (ERMA). ERMAs would be provided custodial management to protect 

resources and visitor health and safety, and minimize user conflicts. Activity-level, 

interdisciplinary plans would be developed when and where necessary to address emerging 

issues affecting public lands users or resources. 

• Conduct periodic accessibility, safety, and condition assessments in accordance with Bureau 

policy at developed recreation sites. Prioritize available funds to resolve deferred and 

corrective maintenance needs.

• Allow non-commercial dispersed camping subject to length of stay limitations, without a 

permit on BLM-administered lands in the planning area, except where prohibited. 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 75 September 2015

• Mineral exploration activities would be coordinated for timing to minimize conflicts during 

peak use periods (e.g., weekends, holidays, summer use season, etc.). 

• Cooperate with FWP, private landowners and other partners to improve hunter access and the 

availability of public lands for hunting in accordance with EO13443. 

• Use off-site interpretation, education and outreach as a means to protect public resources. 

• NSO for oil and gas leasing, exploration and development within agency-designated fishing 

access sites.

• Special Recreation Management Areas

− The following areas would be managed as SRMAs (9 SRMAs - 117,832 acres): 

 Sundance Lodge Recreation Area (387 acres), Four Dances Natural Area ACEC (784 

acres), Shepherd Ah-Nei Recreation Area (4,680 acres), Acton Recreation Area (3,697 

acres), Yellowstone River Corridor (1/2 mile corridor from centerline) (13,281 acres), 

Asparagus Point (158 acres), South Hills TMA (1,357 acres), Pryor Mountain TMA

(81,227 acres), Horsethief TMA (12,261 acres). 

− Surface disturbing activities related to facility development and maintenance would be 

subject to mitigation guidelines.

− Oil and gas leasing, exploration and development would be allowed with an NSO 

stipulation in the following SRMAs: 

 Sundance Lodge Recreation Area , Four Dances Natural Area ACEC , Shepherd AhNei Recreation Area, Acton Recreation Area, Yellowstone River Corridor: 1⁄2 mile 

corridor .

− Oil and gas leasing, exploration and development allowed with a CSU: 

 Asparagus Point (158 acres), Pryor Mountain TMA (81,227 acres), Horsethief TMA 

(12,261 acres), South Hills TMA (1,357 acres). 

• Special Recreation Permits

− Establish a Mill Creek/Bundy Road Outfitter Permit Area (OPA) to meet public demand 

for guided hunting opportunities through an activity level plan. The plan would develop 

criteria and monitoring prescriptions to determine the allowable number of permitted 

guides and client participants (34,239 acres). 

− An Outfitter Permit Area (OPA) would be established in the PMWHR in order to protect 

the wild horses and fragile resources within the range. 

− Visitor use days for both commercial and non-commercial permits would be analyzed and 

identified through site-specific analysis and would also consider other commercial 

permitted uses.

− Issue special recreation permits outside of Outfitter Permit Areas, as appropriate, in an 

equitable manner for specific recreational uses of public lands and related waters as a 

means to minimize user conflicts, control visitor use, protect recreation resources, and 

provide for private and commercial recreation use. “Activity level planning will be 

developed through an environmental review process with public involvement. This 

management approach will identify the necessary indicators to monitor all permit 

conditions of approval that include the standards and stipulations necessary to change 

operations in the future.” 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 76 Appendix K 

K.27.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination

K.27.1.1 Black-footed Ferret 

No black-footed ferrets are known to exist within the planning area. Recreational sites, trails, and 

actions do not typically occur in or near prairie dog complexes. The BLM’s philosophy is that 

prairie dog shooting should not be encouraged and no SRPs will be issued for organized prairie 

dog shooting events (BLM 2006). Unorganized recreational shooting of prairie dogs is not a 

BLM discretionary action. Implementing recreation/visitor services management actions may 

affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the black-footed ferret due to discountable effects 

(NLAA-d). This determination is based on the current absence of the black-footed ferret in the 

planning area, the unlikely choice of prairie dog towns for recreation/visitor services 

development, and the conservation measures in place to protect the species.

K.27.1.2 Canada Lynx

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for Canada Lynx on page 13 for a Summary of 

Occurrence in BIFO. There are no Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) or critical habitat designated on 

BLM, Billings Field Office decision area lands, although lynx may occasionally occur in the 

area.

Actions associated with recreation/visitor services management have the potential to impact 

Canada lynx behavior and habitats. Activities that create compacted snow conditions, such as 

snowshoeing and cross-country skiing, reduce the special advantage that lynx have to move 

through deep snow with their large paws. This allows for the intrusion of less-specialized 

predators, such as bobcats, wolves, and coyotes, into areas that would otherwise be the exclusive 

domain of the Canada lynx. These other predators compete for prey and can prey on Canada 

lynx. An increase in human activity associated with management actions or use may cause 

Canada lynx to avoid or abandon otherwise suitable habitats. Recreational use is often 

concentrated in riparian areas. Impacts to these habitats may reduce or eliminate foraging 

habitats for snowshoe hares. Implementing recreation/visitor services management actions may 

affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the Canada lynx due to insignificant effects (NLAAi). This determination is based on the conservation measures in place that will preclude adverse 

effects to Canada lynx or their habitat. 

K.27.1.3 Grizzly Bear

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for grizzly bears on page 15 for a Summary of Occurrence 

in BIFO. 

Actions associated with recreation/visitor services management have the potential to impact 

grizzly bear behavior and habitats. An increase in human activity associated with management 

actions or use may cause grizzly bears to avoid or abandon otherwise suitable habitats. However, 

in some cases, grizzly bears may become habituated to humans and highly dangerous humanbear conflicts could result. Recreation/visitor services management actions would be designed to 

limit human-bear interactions while emphasizing safety and responsible recreation in grizzly 

bear habitat. Implementing recreation/visitor services management actions may affect, but are 

not likely to adversely affect, the grizzly bear due to insignificant effects (NLAA-i). This 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 77 September 2015

determination is based on the conservation measures) in place that will preclude adverse effects 

to grizzly bear or their habitat.

K.28 Trails and Travel Management

• Activity Description

In general, trails and travel management activities are designed to manage access to balance 

public use, protect public land resources, promote safety for all public land users, and minimize 

conflicts among OHV users and other uses of public lands. In addition, these management 

activities promote the management the use of OHVs in partnership with other land-managing 

agencies, local governments, communities, and interest groups through a balanced approach, so 

as to protect public lands by minimizing impacts and resources while providing opportunities for 

the safe use and enjoyment of OHVs. The Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument 

RMP/EIS emphasizes integrating concepts of habitat connectivity into OHV planning to 

minimize habitat fragmentation and the use of a systematic process that considers the unique 

resource issues and social environments within each individual TMA. Lastly, the Billings and 

Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS promotes cooperation to develop public outreach 

programs to promote trail etiquette, environmental ethics and a responsible-use stewardship ethic 

(e.g., Tread Lightly, Leave No Trace, etc.).

The following management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings 

and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS: 

• Motorized and mechanized modes of travel on BLM-administered land (outside of 

established TMAs) would be limited to existing roads and trails. Measureable limits of 

change that would occur to the resource as a result of these travel modes would include 

indicators based on Land Health Standards, accelerated soil erosion and/or other resource 

concerns and potential for natural rehabilitation. Site specific travel planning would be 

initiated if those limits are exceeded.

• Modifications to a transportation network (routes, re-routes or closures) in the planning area 

where travel is limited to existing roads and trails may be made through activity-level 

planning. 

• BLM would continue to coordinate with MFWP in the Block Management program, or other 

access agreements with other landowners, as appropriate. Designated motorized routes 

would conform with seasonal travel limitations, based on annual block management 

agreements, as determined by the authorized officer on a case-by-case basis. 

• Administrative access would limit motorized use to BLM-authorized use only. The BLM 

employees, permittees, contractors, personnel from other agencies and other motorized 

access needs authorized by the authorized officer, would be allowed for resource 

management, maintenance, inventory, monitoring, or compliance purposes. Public use on 

administrative access routes would be limited to non-motorized access. 

• Motorized wheeled cross-country travel to conduct BLM-authorized activities would require 

authorization. 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 78 Appendix K 

• Upon project completion, roads used for commercial or administrative access on BLMadministered lands would be reclaimed, unless the route provides specific benefits for public 

access, minimizes impacts to the resource and would be considered on a case-by-case basis.

• The BLM may close or restore unauthorized, user created roads and trails to prevent resource 

damage.

• Motorized off-road travel would be allowed for any military, fire, search and rescue, or law 

enforcement vehicle for emergency operations. 

• Special recreation permits for motorized events, competitive events or organized group 

activities would be considered and addressed through site-specific analysis.

• Non-motorized recreational trails would be considered during the development of SRMA 

management plans (refer to Recreation/Visitor Services section). 

• Motorized off-road big game retrieval would be authorized for individuals with a disabled 

hunter access permit (issued by FWP). Stipulations or limitations would be included in the 

authorization. 

• BLM would manage to reduce open road densities in big game winter and calving ranges 

where they exceed 1.0 Mile per square mile. 

• Snowmobile use in the planning area would be allowed, except where restricted, and would 

subject to the following restrictions: avoid locations where wind or topographic conditions 

may have reduced snow depth and create situations where damage to vegetation or soils 

would occur, or where vegetation is taller than the protective snow cover. Ecologically 

sensitive areas would be closed to snowmobiling if resource damage caused or exacerbated 

by snowmobile activity is found to be occurring in these areas. 

• Where off-highway vehicles are causing or would cause considerable adverse effects upon 

soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, cultural resources, historical resources, Threatened 

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

affected areas would be immediately closed to the type(s) of vehicle causing the adverse 

effect until the adverse effects are eliminated and measures implemented to prevent 

recurrence. 

• Dispersed Camping

− Motorized wheeled cross-country travel to a campsite would be limited to a maximum of 

100 feet from the centerline of an open route. 

− Ecologically sensitive areas or other areas restricted to motorized use would be closed to 

dispersed camping if resource damage is found to be occurring in these areas. 

• Game Retrieval

− Motorized off-road big game retrieval would not be allowed for the general public. 

• Travel Management Areas (TMAs)

− Establish 11 Travel Management Areas (TMAs) to minimize impacts and provide a 

spectrum of motorized and non-motorized recreational opportunities.

− Motorized and mechanized travel in TMAs would be limited to designated roads and 

trails, except in designated open areas (ex: South Hills OHV Area). 

− An implementation and monitoring plan would be initiated for the TMAs within 3-5 years 

of the ROD. The plan would include signing, mapping, information and education, and 

monitoring of impacts associated with continued use on designated open routes, etc. 

Implementation plan would also identified criteria for route variances specific to each 

TMA. 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 79 September 2015

− Upon project completion, roads used for commercial or administrative access on BLMadministered lands would be reclaimed, unless the route provides specific benefits for 

public access, minimizes impacts to the resource and would be considered on a case-bycase basis.

− The BLM may close or restore unauthorized, user created roads and trails to prevent 

resource damage.

− Variances to travel plan or route designations may be issued based on essential agency 

administrative actions, data variances due to route inventory, boundary adjustments, etc., 

as determined by the authorized officer. 

− Travel management planning is not intended to provide evidence bearing on or addressing 

the validity of any R.S. 2477 assertions. R.S. 2477 rights are adjudicated through a 

separate administrative process. The travel planning process analyzed resources, resource 

uses and associated access to public lands and waters. At such time as a decision is made 

on any R.S. 2477 assertions, the BLM would adjust its travel routes accordingly (refer to 

Appendix O – Travel Management). 

− The following route designations were used in each TMA (note: not every route 

designation code may appear in each TMA). Travel Management Areas -Route 

designation definitions –refer to RMP Glossary, pages 44 and 45.

 Open to All Vehicles – 

 Open with Additional Management 

 Open with Restrictions – Seasonal

 Open with Restrictions – Conditional 

 Open to Technical 4WD by permit only 

 Open to Motorcycles Only 

 Open to Vehicles 50” or less 

− Administrative Use Only: Administrative access routes designated in TMAs would limit 

motorized use to BLM-authorized use only. The BLM employees, permittees, contractors, 

personnel from other agencies and other motorized access needs authorized by the 

authorized officer, would be allowed for resource management, maintenance, inventory, 

monitoring, or compliance purposes. Public use on administrative access routes would be 

limited to non-motorized access. 

 Closed to All Vehicles

 Non-motorized use only 

• Gage Dome/Colony Road TMA (35,894 acres) – 96 miles of routes 

− Management objectives: reduce road density to minimize impacts to sage grouse habitat 

and other resource values. Manage the TMA to provide recreational opportunities and 

access while protecting sage grouse habitat.

− The following routes would be designated in the Gage Dome/Colony Road TMA: 

 Open (additional mgmt): 67 miles 

 Admin Use Only: 29 miles 

• Horsethief TMA (12,261 acres) –38 miles of routes 

− Management objectives: provide a range of recreational and access opportunities while 

minimizing impacts to cultural and heritage values and other resources. This TMA was 

expanded to include Stark Site ACEC. 

− The following routes would be designated in the Horsethief TMA: 

 Open: 8.4 miles 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 80 Appendix K 

 Open (additional mgmt): 14 miles 

 Admin Use Only: 14 miles 

 Closed: 0.1 mile 

− A rock crawl area would not be designated. Special recreation permits for motorized 

events or organized group activities would be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

• Acton TMA (3,697 acres) – 8.6 miles 

− Management Objectives: provide a range of recreational and access opportunities while 

minimizing impacts to cultural properties and other resource values. 

− The following routes would be designated in the Acton TMA: 

 Open (seas/cond restriction) 6.8 miles 

 Admin Use Only: 1 mile

 Closed: 0.8 mile 

• Shepherd Ah-Nei TMA (4,680 acres) 

− This TMA is delineated into three sub-regions, based on landscape patterns, use and 

resource considerations. 

− Management objectives: minimize user conflicts and impacts to resources while 

providing opportunities for both motorized and non-motorized activities through three 

distinct management zones.

− The following routes would be designated in the Shepherd Ah-Nei TMA: 

 Open (conditional and vehicle (less than 50” wide) restrictions apply): 53 miles

 Shepherd Ah-Nei Area II: Administrative Use only : 11 miles

 Shepherd Ah-Nei Area III: Limited to motorized use (by permit only).

• Mill Creek/Bundy TMA (34,239 acres) – 141 miles

− Management objectives: improve access and provide a range of recreational 

opportunities. Protect cultural and resource habitat values within the Castle Butte ACEC 

boundaries. Emphasis would be placed on minimizing impacts to cultural properties and 

other resource values while providing access for the public, permittees, non-federal 

landowners, and administrative needs. 

− The following routes would be designated in the Mill Creek/Bundy TMA: 

 Open: 8 miles 

 Open (additional mgmt): 61 miles 

 Admin Use Only: 67 miles 

 Closed: 5 miles

• South Hills TMA (1,357 acres) 

− Management objectives: minimize user conflicts and impacts to resources while 

providing opportunities for both motorized and non-motorized activities.

− The following routes would be designated in the South Hills TMA: 

 Open to cross country travel - Motorcycles only. 

 982 acres Motorcycle Use only. 

 375 acres Buffer area - Closed to Motorized Use (adjacent to residential area).

• Tin Can Hill TMA(643 acres)-3 miles of routes 

− Manage to provide a range of recreational and access (public and administrative) 

opportunities. Minimize impacts to cultural properties and other resource values and 

minimize conflicting uses.

− The following routes would be designated in the Tin Can Hill TMA: 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 81 September 2015

 Open (seasonal restrictions): 1.5 miles

 Admin Use Only: 0.5 miles 

 Closed: 1 mile

• Cottonwood/Weatherman Draw TMA (76,294 acres) – 309 miles of routes assessed

− This area would be delineated into three sub-regions to address varying resource issues, 

access and recreational opportunities. 

− Sub-Region I - Weatherman Draw/Castle Coulee. Management objectives: protect 

cultural values and resources within the ACEC. Minimize impacts to cultural values, 

fragile and erosive soils and other resources within the sub-region. 

− Sub-Region II - Hollenbeck. Management objectives: provide recreational opportunities 

with emphasis on minimizing impacts to sage-grouse habitat, fragile and erosive soils, and 

other resource values.

− Sub-Region III - Silver Tip. Management objectives: provide for motorized recreational 

opportunities with emphasis on minimizing impacts to fragile and erosive soils, and other 

resource values.

− The following routes would be designated in the Cottonwood/Weatherman TMA: 

 Open: 103 miles 

 Open (to motorcycles only): 3 miles

 Open (vehicles 50” or less): 10 miles 

 Open (additional management): 104 mi 

 Admin Use Only: 75 miles 

 Closed: 14 miles 

• Warren TMA (12,170 acres)- 34 miles of routes 

− Manage to provide recreational opportunities with emphasis on protecting key sage grouse 

habitat while minimizing impacts to other resources values. Maintain current level of 

access.

− The following routes would be designated in the Warren TMA: 

 Open: 1 mile 

 Open (additional mgmt): 9 miles

 Admin Use Only: 23 miles 

• Pryor Mountain TMA (81,227 acres) – 225 miles of routes 

− Protect wilderness values, cultural/heritage/paleontological resources, visual 

characteristics, sensitive plants, fragile and erosive soils, wild horses, and wild horse 

habitat.

− The following routes would be designated in the Pryor Mountain TMA: 

 Open: 39 miles 

 Open (vehicles 50” or less): 2.5 miles

 Open (additional mgmt): 88 miles 

 Open (seasonal restrictions): 0.5 miles

 Admin Use Only: 60 miles 

 Closed: 35 miles 

• Grove Creek TMA (19,823 acres) – 73 miles of routes 

− Minimize impacts to geologic and visual resources, sensitive plants, and cultural and 

wildlife values while providing casual, non-commercial public recreational access. 

− The following routes would be designated in the Grove Creek TMA: 

 Open: 12 miles 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 82 Appendix K 

 Open (additional mgmt): 25 miles

 Admin Use Only: 32 miles 

 Closed: 4 miles

− Routes may provide non-commercial access to private property; however, even though 

route has been designated as part of the official BLM travel management network, such 

designation does not constitute or afford the rights of a legally or officially recognized 

easement or ROW.

K.28.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination

K.28.1.1 Black-footed Ferret 

No black-footed ferrets are known to exist within the planning area. Closing roads would benefit 

black-footed ferrets by reducing access and associated disturbance, such as recreational shooting. 

Any new access roads, easements, or land exchanges through prairie dog colonies could provide 

additional human access. However, given the BLM-committed conservation measures prairie 

dog colonies would be avoided, thereby avoiding impacts to the black-footed ferret or potential 

recovery sites. Implementing travel management actions may affect, but are not likely to 

adversely affect, the black-footed ferret due to discountable effects (NLAA-d). This 

determination is based on no black-footed ferrets existing within the planning area and the 

avoidance of prairie dog colonies as specified in the conservation measures.

K.28.1.2 Canada Lynx

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for Canada Lynx on page 13 for a Summary of 

Occurrence in BIFO. There are no Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) or critical habitat designated on 

BLM, Billings Field Office decision area lands, although lynx may occasionally occur in the 

area.

Additional roads can be a source of fragmentation of Canada lynx habitat resulting in reduced 

opportunity for dispersement and mobility and in increased mortality to Canada lynx from 

collisions with vehicles. Any improved access may open new areas to human activity that may 

cause Canada lynx to avoid or abandon otherwise occupied habitats. The degree of these 

impacts is correlated with traffic volume and speed, as well as road width. The construction of 

roads within established ROW decreases adverse effects. Implementing transportation 

management actions may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the Canada lynx due to 

insignificant effects (NLAA-i). This determination is based on the unlikely event that actions 

associated with transportation would result in impacts to Canada lynx occupied habitat and the 

localized nature of the actions. 

K.28.1.3 Grizzly Bear

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for grizzly bears on page 15 for a Summary of Occurrence 

in BIFO. 

Additional roads can be a source of fragmentation of grizzly bear habitat resulting in loss of 

security habitat, possible reduced dispersement and mobility and increased mortality to grizzly 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 83 September 2015

bears from collisions with vehicles. Any improved access may open new areas to human activity 

that may cause grizzly bears to avoid or abandon otherwise occupied habitats. The degree of 

these impacts is correlated with traffic volume and speed, as well as road width. The 

construction of roads within established ROW decreases adverse effects. Implementing 

transportation management actions may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the grizzly 

bear due to insignificant effects (NLAA-i). This determination is based on the unlikely event that 

actions associated with transportation would result in impacts to grizzly bear occupied habitat 

and the localized nature of the actions.

K.29 Forest and Wood Products

• Activity Description

In general, forest and wood products management promote the management of forestry resources 

to provide a sustained flow of local economic benefits and protect non-market economic values,

consistent with other resource objectives. The Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument 

RMP/EIS emphasizes providing forest products while maintaining a balance between public 

demand and the health and productivity of native and desired vegetation communities. Forest 

product sales include over the-counter sales of firewood, Christmas trees or other products for 

personal use, small amounts of materials removed as a result of other authorizations such as 

rights-of-way, road use agreements, grazing leases or other land uses. Lastly, the Billings and 

Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS is designed to provide management guidance on 

forest and woodland products (including, but not limited to, saw logs, pulp, post/poles, fuel 

wood, biomass and green biomass) on a sustainable basis.

The following management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings 

and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS: 

• Commercial harvest of forest products would normally be associated with vegetative 

restoration (including forest health) and fuels treatments and would be designed to meet 

objectives for forest management, wildlife habitat management, fire hazard reduction, hazard 

tree removal, special status species management, visuals, recreation, and travel management.

• Provide forest products as practical, where forests have been damaged by wildland fire. 

• Biomass and small diameter materials associated with forest/fuels treatments would be made 

available for use. 

• Forest products would be managed according to sustainability limits and where consistent 

with other resource management objectives. 

• Removal of dead or down trees would be allowed for firewood gathering for personal use, 

unless otherwise restricted (ACECs, riparian areas, etc.). Cutting of live trees for firewood 

gathering for personal use or commercial purposes would be authorized, on a case by case 

basis after review and compliance with NEPA. Personal, casual use allowed except where 

prohibited. 

• Accommodate the demand for forest products (PSQ) (125 mbf/year; (1,000 mbf short term (8 

years); 3,125 mbf long term (25 years)). (33 acres / year) 

• PSQ values may be adjusted, based on monitoring evaluations, due to unforeseen events such 

as wildland fires, current inventories, disease or climate conditions.
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 84 Appendix K 

• Restrict permits for other forest products (including commercial harvest of mushrooms), 

when other forest product use would conflict with other resource values. 

• Other forest products include, but are not limited to: Christmas trees, juniper, wildings and 

mushrooms. 

• New roads would be built where multiple entries would be necessary to meet objectives. 

• New road construction would be kept to a minimum. Some new roads would be left open to 

the public if travel plan objectives for the area are met. 

• Temporary road construction would be kept to a minimum and decommissioned and 

reclamation initiated within 1 year of project completion. 

• When salvage is proposed in dead and dying forests, contiguous acres of undisturbed 

standing and down woody material would be retained, consistent with current scientific 

research to support wildlife species and forest health. 

K.29.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination

K.29.1.1 Black-footed Ferret 

No black-footed ferrets are known to exist within the planning area. Actions associated with 

forest and wood products generally occur on forested lands. Black-footed ferrets and prairie dogs 

occur on lower-elevation short-grass prairie and semi-desert shrublands and, therefore, will not 

be disturbed by actions associated with forest and wood products management. Implementing 

forest and wood products actions management action has no effect (NE) on the black-footed 

ferret. This determination is based on the absence of the species in forested areas.

K.29.1.2 Canada Lynx

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for Canada Lynx on page 13 for a Summary of 

Occurrence in BIFO. There are no Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) or critical habitat designated on 

BLM, Billings Field Office decision area lands, although lynx may occasionally occur in the 

area.

Forest and wood products management actions occur in all forest types, including the aspen and 

coniferous habitats used by Canada lynx. Forest management can reduce habitat quality and 

quantity for Canada lynx and their prey, and may reduce large woody debris, which may 

eliminate potential denning sites, reduce kitten survival, and reduce availability of snowshoe 

hares and red squirrels. Pre-commercial thinning has a direct adverse effect on snowshoe hare 

habitats, at least in the short-term. Clear-cutting, logging operations, road and landing 

construction, shearing, helicopter logging, and disease-treatment sprayings all have the potential 

to disturb Canada lynx by eliminating Canada lynx and snowshoe hare habitats and cover, or by 

causing heavy disturbance in habitats used by Canada lynx and their prey. Conservation 

measures in place include the assessment of habitats in suitable and unsuitable conditions and 

ensuing limitations on percentage of disturbance allowable to habitats, as well as restrictions on 

pre-commercial thinning, salvage, harvest prescriptions in aspen stands, improvement harvests, 

and the protection of linkages and connectivity. These measures will provide protection for 

Canada lynx and their habitats. Implementing forest and wood products management actions 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 85 September 2015

may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the Canada lynx due to insignificant effects 

(NLAA-i). 

Also, additional conservation measures for the protection of Canada lynx from Forestry and 

Wood Practices are included in Appendix A. 

K.29.1.3 Grizzly Bear

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for grizzly bears on page 15 for a Summary of Occurrence 

in BIFO. 

Forest and wood products management actions occur in all forest types, including the aspen and 

coniferous habitats used by grizzly bears. Forest management can reduce habitat quality and 

quantity for grizzly bears and their prey and forage by manipulating vegetation characteristics. 

Clear-cutting, logging operations, road and landing construction, shearing, helicopter logging, 

and disease-treatment sprayings all have the potential to disturb grizzly bears by eliminating 

foraging habitats and cover, or by causing heavy disturbance in habitats used by grizzly bears. 

Conservation measures in place include the assessment of habitats in suitable and unsuitable 

conditions and ensuing limitations on percentage of disturbance allowable to habitats, as well as 

restrictions on pre-commercial thinning, salvage, harvest prescriptions in aspen stands, 

improvement harvests, and the protection of habitat linkages and connectivity. These measures 

will provide protection for grizzly bears and their habitats. Implementing forest and wood 

products management actions may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the grizzly bear 

due to insignificant effects (NLAA-i). 

K.30 Lands and Realty – Land Tenure Adjustment and Access

• Activity Description

In general, lands and realty management actions promote the management of acquisitions, 

disposals, withdrawals, and use of public lands to meet the access needs of internal and external 

customers and to preserve important resource values. The Billings and Pompeys Pillar National 

Monument RMP/EIS emphasizes maintaining the availability of public lands to meet the 

habitation, cultivation, trade, mineral development, recreation, and manufacturing needs of 

external customers and the general public. In addition, it also emphasizes acquiring or retaining 

access to public lands to improve management efficiency, to facilitate multiple uses and public 

enjoyment of BLM public lands in coordination with private landownership, local, state or 

federal entities.

The following management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings 

and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS: 

• Newly acquired lands would be managed for the highest potential purpose and greatest 

public benefit for which they are acquired and would be managed similar to adjacent and/or 

surrounding lands. 

• Lands or interest in lands would 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 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 86 Appendix K 

adjustments would be based on a willing buyer, willing seller basis and would be managed as 

similar lands are under the approved RMP.

• Evaluate the proposed disposal tracts using the land tenure criteria (refer to Appendix X). 

• Parcels of land administered by BLM and discovered through land status updates and 

corrections would be managed as similar lands are under the approved RMP. 

• Lands acquired within administratively designated special management areas, such as 

ACECs and SRMAs, which have unique or fragile resources, would be managed the same as 

the special management area.

• Acquisition of patented mining claims would be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Patented 

claims so acquired would be withdrawn from mineral entry. 

• Use all methods available to acquire access: easements from land or land exchange with 

willing parties would be the preferred methods of access acquisition.

• Where BLM administrative access is held through a permanent easement, commercial use 

would require a ROW.

• Retain existing access to BLM-administered lands in conveyance documents. 

• Upon project completion, roads used for commercial access on public lands would be 

reclaimed, unless, based on site-specific analysis, the route provides specific benefits for

public access and does not contribute to resource conflicts. 

• Pursue reciprocal rights for public access when granting a BLM right-of-way, as appropriate. 

• ACECs, WSAs, Lands with Wilderness Characteristics, archeological sites/historic districts, 

and lands acquired through Land Water Conservation Funds would be managed as Category 

I – Retention. 

• Land ownership adjustments would be considered through site-specific analysis, based on 

retention, acquisition and disposal criteria (Appendix X). 

• Establish three (3) adjustment categories based on BLM land tenure adjustment classes:

− Category 1 – Retention: Lands managed in Category I – Retention would include all 

ACECs, WSAs, Lands with Wilderness Characteristics, National Register-eligible 

archeological sites/historic districts, 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/Limited Land Ownership Adjustment: 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 (land ownership adjustments, including sales): These lands 

generally have low or unknown resource values or 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 listing of the legal 

descriptions of these disposal parcels can be found by alternative in Appendix J. These 

parcels have been found to potentially meet the sale criteria of section 203(a)(1) of 

FLPMA and would be made available for sale, however, exchange would have priority 

over disposal by FLPMA sale. 

• Maintain the 1984 list of public lands identified for disposal – those lands still fall under the 

BLM’s sale authority of the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA) of 2000). 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 87 September 2015

• Manage 80,060 acres in Category I – Retention

• Manage 353,796 acres in Category II - Retention/Limited Land Ownership Adjustment (no 

land disposals through sale). 

• Manage 302 acres in Category III – Disposal (land ownership adjustments, including sale). 

• Consider applications for R&PP leases/patents and airport grants only in Category II and 

Category III (354,098 acres). 

• BLM public lands would be available for state grants, agricultural entries, or Indian 

allotments only in Category III (302 acres).

K.30.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination

K.30.1.1 Black-footed Ferret 

No black-footed ferrets are known to exist within the planning area. Lands and realty 

management may adversely impact black-footed ferret habitats if such actions occur near 

suitable prairie dog towns. Although possible, the BLM rarely conveys properties with high 

resource value, such as those with known threatened, endangered, or sensitive species. 

Conversely, land acquisitions and protective withdrawals may provide benefits to black-footed 

ferrets by acquiring additional land around prairie dog complexes that could contribute to 

reintroduction sites for black-footed ferrets. Implementing actions associated with lands and 

realty may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the black-footed ferret due to 

discountable effects (NLAA-d). This determination is based on the low potential for land 

disposal of suitable prairie dog habitats, the existing safeguards in the conservation strategies for 

protection and avoidance of prairie dog towns, and the low potential for other land and realty 

management actions to disturb or remove black-footed ferret habitats. 

K.30.1.2 Canada Lynx

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for Canada Lynx on page 13 for a Summary of 

Occurrence in BIFO. There are no Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) or critical habitat designated on 

BLM, Billings Field Office decision area lands, although lynx may occasionally occur in the 

area.

Current BLM land holdings would be evaluated prior to disposal, including suitability and use by 

Canada lynx. Lands identified as important travel corridors would not likely be available for 

disposal. Lands not under BLM jurisdiction that are suitable or occupied Canada lynx habitats 

may be targeted for acquisition and subsequent management by BLM, which would provide 

benefits to Canada lynx that may not be afforded under nonfederal ownership. Disposal or 

transfer of public lands may affect the Canada lynx’s ability to utilize suitable habitats and travel 

corridors linking desirable habitats. The acquisition of access easements and issuance of ROWs 

and leases for utility corridors may affect the Canada lynx if the associated construction is within 

the vicinity of travel corridors. This may cause short-term behavioral avoidance of these areas 

by the Canada lynx due to the presence of human activity. The establishment of withdrawals, 

acquisition of conservation easements, and road closures/rehabilitation would close areas to 

certain activities that could have a beneficial effect on Canada lynx. Implementation of lands 

and realty management actions may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the Canada lynx 

due to insignificant effects (NLAA-i).
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 88 Appendix K 

K.30.1.3 Grizzly Bear

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for grizzly bears on page 15 for a Summary of Occurrence 

in BIFO. 

Current BLM land holdings would be evaluated prior to disposal, including suitability and use by 

grizzly bear. Lands identified as important travel corridors would not likely be available for 

disposal. Lands not under BLM jurisdiction that are suitable or occupied grizzly bear habitats 

may be targeted for acquisition and subsequent management by BLM, which would provide 

benefits to grizzly bears that may not be afforded under nonfederal ownership. Disposal or 

transfer of public lands may affect the grizzly bear’s ability to utilize suitable habitats and travel 

corridors linking desirable habitats. The acquisition of access easements and issuance of ROWs 

and leases for utility corridors may affect the grizzly bear if the associated construction is within 

the vicinity of travel corridors. This may cause short-term behavioral avoidance of these areas 

by the grizzly bear due to the presence of human activity. The establishment of withdrawals, 

acquisition of conservation easements, and road closures/rehabilitation would close areas to 

certain activities that could have a beneficial effect on grizzly bears. Implementation of land 

resource management actions may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the grizzly bear 

due to insignificant effects (NLAA-i).

K.31 Lands and Realty – Rights-Of-Way, Leases, and Permits

• Activity Description

In general, lands and reality management promotes the management of public lands to meet 

transportation and rights-of-way (ROW) needs while protecting resources. The Billings and 

Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS emphasizes addressing the needs of industry, 

utilities, the public, or government entities for land use authorizations while minimizing impacts 

to other resource values and maintain and/or acquire access across state/private lands to public 

lands for recreational opportunities and management of public land resources.

The following management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings 

and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS: 

• Analyze requests for land use authorizations and apply mitigation measures (Appendix X) as 

appropriate. 

• Land use authorizations would not be issued for uses that involve the disposal or storage of 

materials which would contaminate the land (hazardous waste disposal sites, landfills, rifle 

ranges, etc.). 

• New ROW facilities would be located within or adjacent to existing rights-of-way to the 

extent practical. 

• New communication site users would be encouraged to locate within existing communication 

site buildings or within boundaries defined by communication site plans. 

• Reclamation of sites would be required where documented resource damage has occurred 

from unauthorized use. 

• ROW exclusion or avoidance areas would be subject to valid existing rights. 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 89 September 2015

• Terms and conditions for ROWs, corridors and development areas would incorporate best 

management practices.

• A lease notice for oil and gas would be provided so that operations can be planned to avoid 

the areas where interference with authorized surface uses may occur.

• Issues in connection with RS2477 roads would be subject to the current guidance 

• The following four ROW areas are designated for communication sites: Wall Creek, north of 

Pompeys Pillar, Bridger, and Tin Can Hill. Applicants are encouraged to utilize existing 

communication site facilities to minimize disturbance.

• Carbon geo-sequestration would be allowed in the planning area in accordance with the goals 

and objectives for resources in the RMP. The BLM would comply with policy for issuing 

ROWs for the purpose of carbon geo-sequestration.

• Corridors

− A multi-modal (pipeline and electrical transmission) corridor (identified as Segment 79-

216) would continue to be a designated corridor and is 5.2 miles in length, 3,500 feet in 

width, located in Carbon County. 

− Silver Tip Road in Carbon County would be designated as a ROW corridor (1⁄2 mile from 

the center line of Silver Tip Road). 

− Applicants would be encouraged, but not required, to use designated corridors; ROW 

requests would be considered on a case by case basis. 

• ROW Exclusion Areas 

− ROW Exclusion Areas – ACECs

 Bridger Fossil Area ACEC (577 acres), Meeteetse Spires ACEC (2,173 acres), 

Petroglyph Canyon (240 acres), Pompeys Pillar ACEC – Zone A and B (83 acres), 

except those necessary to service the site facilities, Portion of Weatherman Draw 

ACEC (4,986 acres: original ACEC and acquisition). 

− ROW Exclusion Areas – WSAs and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

 Big Horn Tack-On WSA (2,689 acres) , Burnt Timber Canyon WSA (3,516 acres), 

Pryor Mountain WSA (15,590 acres), Twin Coulee WSA (6,836 acres). In addition, if 

not designated by Congress as Wilderness, the WSAs would continue to be managed as 

ROW exclusions areas. Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (1,709 acres).

− ROW Exclusion Areas – Cave and Karst Areas

 Cave and karst areas would be managed as ROW avoidance areas. 

− ROW Exclusion Areas – Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Areas

 Greater Sage-Grouse PPAs would be ROW avoidance areas (77,947 acres). 

 Utilities and similar facilities would be located adjacent to other facilities where 

practical and only when habitat functionality can be maintained. 

• ROW Avoidance Areas

− ROW Avoidance Areas – ACECs

 Castle Butte ACEC (184 acres), East Pryor ACEC (11,122 acres), Four Dances ACEC 

(784 acres), Grove Creek ACEC (8.251 acres), Pompeys Pillar ACEC (Zone C - 349 

acres and restricts ROW to a 500’ wide path paralleling the southern boundary of the 

public lands along Highway 312) , Pryor Foothills RNA/ACEC (2,606 acres), Stark 

Site ACEC (799 acres), Weatherman Draw (7,291 acres – expansion area)

− ROW Avoidance Areas – Cave/Karst

 Cave and karst areas would be managed as a ROW avoidance areas
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 90 Appendix K 

− ROW Avoidance Areas – National Historic Trails

 L&C NHT and NP NHT would be avoidance areas 

− ROW Avoidance Areas – Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Areas

 ROWs may be allowed in Greater Sage-Grouse PPAs (214,038 acres) and RPAs 

(68,564 acres) if habitat functionality would be maintained. 

− ROW Avoidance Areas – Other Areas

 Asparagus Point, Steamboat Butte, Red Dome, Red Valley, Portion of Acton, Portion 

of Shepherd Ah-Nei, Bad Canyon, East and Red Pryor Mountains, Hoskins Basin 

Archeological District, Demi-John Flat Archeological District, Beartooth Mountain 

Front (2 mile strip bordering the eastern boundary of the Custer National Forest) 

 Avoidance areas would be considered in the future, based on resource protection 

concerns or resource values.

K.31.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination

K.31.1.1 Black-footed Ferret 

Impacts would be the same as discussed under black-footed ferret in Lands and Realty – Land 

Tenure Adjustment and Access.

K.31.1.2 Canada Lynx

Impacts would be the same as discussed under Canada lynx in Lands and Realty – Land Tenure 

Adjustment and Access.

K.31.1.3 Grizzly Bear

Impacts would be the same as discussed under grizzly bear in Lands and Realty – Land Tenure 

Adjustment and Access.

K.32 Lands and Realty - Withdrawals

• Activity Description

In general, the withdrawals portions of Lands and Realty protects significant resources or 

significant government investments. The Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument 

RMP/EIS uses withdrawal actions with the least restrictive measures and minimum size 

necessary to accomplish the required purposes of the withdrawal. 

The following management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings 

and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS: 

• Withdrawals no longer needed, in whole or in part, for the purpose for which they were 

withdrawn would be revoked or modified. 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 91 September 2015

• Consider other agency requests for withdrawal relinquishments, extensions or modifications 

on a case-by-case basis with consideration given to determining if the lands would be 

suitable for return to BLM public domain. 

• All Classification and Multiple Use classifications in the planning area have been terminated. 

• The following areas would be closed and recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry 

(54,761 acres): 

− Britton Springs Administrative Site (20 acres), Crooked Creek Natural Area (WY) (160 

acres), Bridger Fossil Area ACEC (577 acres), East Pryor ACEC (11,122 acres), Four 

Dances ACEC (784 acres), Meeteetse Spires ACEC (965 acres), Petroglyph Canyon (240 

acres), Pompeys Pillar NM and ACEC (432 acres), Pryor Mountain RNA/ACEC (2,606 

acres), Stark Site ACEC (799 acres), Weatherman Draw (4,386 acres), Big Horn Tack-On 

WSA (2,689 acres), Burnt Timber Canyon WSA (3,516 acres), Pryor Mountain WSA 

(15,590 acres), Twin Coulee WSA (6,836 acres), Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

(3,833 acres). 

K.32.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination

K.32.1.1 Black-footed Ferret 

Impacts would be the same as discussed under black-footed ferret in Lands and Realty – Land 

Tenure Adjustment and Access.

K.32.1.2 Canada Lynx

Impacts would be the same as discussed under Canada lynx in Lands and Realty – Land Tenure 

Adjustment and Access.

K.32.1.3 Grizzly Bear

Impacts would be the same as discussed under grizzly bear in Lands and Realty – Land Tenure 

Adjustment and Access.

K.33 Transportation Facilities and Access

• Activity Description

In general, transportation facilities and access focuses on managing roads, primitive roads and 

trails for public access or administrative needs, while maintaining or protecting resource values, 

in coordination with other federal agencies, state and local governments and private landowners. 

The Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS ensures BLM facilities are 

maintained to meet public health and safety requirements.

The following management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings 

and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS: 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 92 Appendix K 

• Roads included in the transportation system would be assigned maintenance levels, as 

needed. Roads would be managed in accordance with objectives identified in the travel 

management areas (TMAs), assigned maintenance levels and in consideration of resources 

issues and available funding. 

• Roads and trails would be inspected on an established schedule in accordance with the 

Bureau’s Condition Assessment guidance. 

• BLM authorized recreation sites, administrative sites, buildings and bridges would be 

maintained within Bureau standards to reduce deferred maintenance costs; meet public health 

and safety requirements; provide universal accessibility as appropriate and to enhance visitor 

experiences. These activities would be coordinated with other federal, state and local 

government agencies, private landowners and the general public as needed. 

• New roads and trails determined to be necessary for permanent or long-term use as part of 

BLM’s transportation system would be constructed subject to NEPA and approved 

engineering standards. Consideration would be given to use demands, location, safety and 

resource constraints when determining the level of road necessary, in accordance with BLM 

Manual 9113. 

• Lands available or suitable for transportation facilities within the planning area would be 

identified. Road repair, road rehabilitation, road construction and maintenance standards 

appropriate to specific areas would be identified as well as any limitations.

• If an existing road, primitive road or trail is substantially contributing to resource impacts, 

the road would be considered for re-design, re-routing, closure, or decommissioning to 

minimize the adverse impacts.

• Provide adequate administrative and other facilities to accommodate management needs, 

based on management analysis, to maintain, replace, construct, lease; including asset 

disposal. 

K.33.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination

K.33.1.1 Black-footed Ferret 

No black-footed ferrets are known to exist within the planning area. Potential impacts associated 

with transportation facilities and access would include long-term adverse impacts such as habitat 

loss and fragmentation. Habitat loss is caused by road construction and road use. Areas with 

many access roads and surface disturbances could disturb prairie dog colonies that may provide 

habitat for black-footed ferrets. Increasing the number of transportation routes could also 

increase public access to areas that previously had been relatively inaccessible to vehicles during 

the winter and spring and therefore potentially increase opportunities for recreational shooting of 

prairie dogs. However, the goals of transportation facilities and access management would be to 

limit disturbance to sensitive habitat types. Implementing transportation facilities and access 

management actions may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the black-footed ferret due 

to beneficial effects (NLAA-b). This determination is based on the potential for improvements to 

prairie dog and potential ferret habitats if transportation facilities and access management actions 

are used in conjunction with existing conservation measures.
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 93 September 2015

K.33.1.2 Canada Lynx

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for Canada Lynx on page 13 for a Summary of 

Occurrence in BIFO. There are no Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) or critical habitat designated on 

BLM, Billings Field Office decision area lands, although lynx may occasionally occur in the 

area.

Impacts to Canada lynx as a result of implementing actions associated with transportation 

facilities and access would include long-term adverse impacts such as habitat loss and 

fragmentation. Habitat loss is caused by road construction and road use. Areas with many 

access roads and surface disturbances could disrupt travel corridors that link suitable habitats. 

Travel routes could be altered or eliminated, changing some traditional Canada lynx use patterns 

on a regional level. Increasing the number of transportation routes could also increase public 

access to areas that previously had been relatively inaccessible to vehicles during the winter and 

spring. Seclusion areas for Canada lynx would become smaller and more dispersed in these 

areas, which could lead to a decrease in populations as a result of habitat loss. However, the 

goals of transportation facilities and access management would be to limit disturbance to 

sensitive habitat types. Implementing transportation facilities and access management actions 

may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the Canada lynx due to beneficial effects 

(NLAA-b). This determination is based on the potential for improvements to potential Canada 

lynx habitats if transportation facilities and access management actions are used in conjunction 

with existing conservation measures. 

K.33.1.3 Grizzly Bear

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for grizzly bears on page 15 for a Summary of Occurrence 

in BIFO. 

Impacts to grizzly bears as a result of implementing actions associated with transportation 

facilities and access would include long-term adverse impacts such as habitat loss and 

fragmentation. Habitat loss is caused by road construction and road use. Areas with many 

access roads and surface disturbances could disrupt travel corridors that link suitable habitats. 

Travel routes could be altered or eliminated, changing some traditional grizzly bear use patterns 

on a regional level. Increasing the number of transportation routes could also increase public 

access to areas that previously had been relatively inaccessible to vehicles during the winter and 

spring. Seclusion areas for grizzly bears would become smaller and more dispersed in these 

areas, which could lead to a decrease in populations as a result of habitat loss. However, the 

goals of transportation facilities and access management would be to limit disturbance to 

sensitive habitat types. Implementing transportation facilities and access management actions 

may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the grizzly bear due to beneficial effects (NLAAb). This determination is based on the potential for improvements to potential grizzly bear 

habitats if transportation facilities and access management actions are used in conjunction with 

existing conservation measures.
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 94 Appendix K 

K.34 Renewable Energy

• Activity Description

In general, renewable energy management provides opportunities for the development of 

renewable energy resources from sources such as wind, biomass, and solar, while minimizing 

adverse impacts to other resource values. The Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument 

RMP/EIS makes lands available for renewable energy development, consistent with goals and 

objectives of other resources, while cooperating with project proponents to promote and enhance 

scientific knowledge of renewable energy resources in the planning area.

The following management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings 

and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS: 

• Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

− The following would be closed to renewable energy exploration and facility development: 

 Bridger Fossil Area ACEC, Castle Butte ACEC, East Pryor ACEC, Four Dances 

ACEC, Grove Creek ACEC, Meeteetse Spires ACEC, Petroglyph Canyon ACEC, 

Pompeys Pillar ACEC and NM, Pryor Foothills RNA ACEC, Stark Site ACEC, 

Weatherman Draw ACEC

• Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

− WSAs would be closed to renewable energy exploration and facility development: 

 Big Horn Tack-On WSA (2,689 acres) , Burnt Timber Canyon WSA (3,516 acres), 

Pryor Mountain WSA (15,590 acres), Twin Coulee WSA (6,836 acres) 

 If not designated by Congress as Wilderness, the WSAs would be closed to wind 

energy development. 

 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (1,709 acres)

• Cultural Sites

− The following would be closed to renewable energy exploration and facility development: 

 Steamboat Butte (800 acres) , Bruder-Janich Site (320 acres) , Paul Duke Site (40 

acres) , Demi-John Flat NR District (200 acres) , Bighorn Mouth North Cliffs Rock Art 

Site (212 acres) , Hoskins Basin Archaeological District (2,611 acres)

• Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Areas

− Greater Sage-Grouse PPAs (77,947 acres) would be closed to commercial renewable 

energy exploration and facility development. 

K.34.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination

K.34.1.1 Black-footed Ferret 

No black-footed ferrets are known to exist within the planning area. Wind farm development 

results in habitat loss, degradation, fragmentation, and species displacement from associated 

aboveground and linear features (e.g., turbines, powerlines, substations, and roads). These 

developments could also include injury and death to prairie dogs and potentially black-footed 

ferrets as a result of vehicle collisions during construction and maintenance of facilities. 

However, the long-term goal of these programs would be to improve/maintain habitat quality and 

the BLM would be required by the USFWS to take precautionary measures to avoid impacts to 

black-footed ferrets (e.g., pre-clearance surveys). Therefore, implementing renewable energy 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 95 September 2015

management actions may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the black-footed ferret due 

to insignificant effects (NLAA-i). This determination is based on maintaining prairie dog and 

potential ferret habitats if renewable energy management actions are using in conjunction with 

existing conservation measures.

K.34.1.2 Canada Lynx

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for Canada Lynx on page 13 for a Summary of 

Occurrence in BIFO. There are no Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) or critical habitat designated on 

BLM, Billings Field Office decision area lands, although lynx may occasionally occur in the 

area.

 Wind farm development results in habitat loss, degradation, fragmentation, and wildlife 

displacement from associated aboveground and linear features (e.g., turbines, powerlines, 

substations, and roads). These developments could also displace Canada lynx from otherwise 

suitable habitats. Increased development and human presence would act to increase stress levels 

of Canada lynx during sensitive time periods. Implementing renewable energy management 

actions may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the Canada lynx due to insignificant 

effects (NLAA-i). This determination is based on maintaining potential lynx habitats if renewable 

energy management actions are used in conjunction with existing conservation measures. 

K.34.1.3 Grizzly Bear

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for grizzly bears on page 15 for a Summary of Occurrence 

in BIFO. 

Wind farm development results in habitat loss, degradation, fragmentation, and wildlife 

displacement from associated aboveground and linear features (e.g., turbines, powerlines, 

substations, and roads). These developments could also displace grizzly bears from otherwise 

suitable habitats. Increased development and human presence would act to increase stress levels 

of grizzly bears during sensitive time periods. Implementing renewable energy management 

actions may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the grizzly bear due to insignificant 

effects (NLAA-i). This determination is based on maintaining potential grizzly bear habitats if 

renewable energy management actions are used in conjunction with existing conservation 

measures. 

K.35 Special Designations (Including National Monuments, ACECs, 

WSAs, Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Historic Trails, and

Wild Horse Ranges)

• Activity Description

• Pompeys Pillar National Monument (NM) and ACEC 

Pompeys Pillar would be managed to protect the historical, cultural and biological values, 

including its outstanding viewsheds and unique resources, while providing opportunities for 

interpretation, education and enjoyment of the area for present and future generations. 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 96 Appendix K 

The following management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings 

and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS: 

• Manage Pompeys Pillar NM (51) acres to protect the historical and cultural objects for which 

it was nominated a National Monument. 

• All federal lands and interest in lands within the boundaries of the PPNM (51 acres) are 

withdrawn from all forms of entry, location, selection, sale or leasing or other disposition 

under the public land laws, subject to valid existing rights. Consider acquiring minerals from 

willing sellers for the monument and ACEC. 

• Promote partnerships and coordination efforts with other agencies and organizations to 

enhance the overall management of Pompeys Pillar. 

• Zone A (25 acres). Objective: Provide visitor access to Clark’s signature and other historic 

inscriptions/rock art, and enhance the visitors’ experience through providing landscapes that 

appear similar to the natural setting Clark viewed in 1806. 

• Zone B (58 acres). Objective: Provide a setting where most facilities would be placed. 

Facilities would be designed to enhance visitor experiences and services. 

• Zone C (349 acres). Objective: Improve and/or maintain wildlife habitat, enhance 

recreational opportunities, visitor services, and wildlife viewing. Priority may be given to 

visitor service needs, including facility development, if needed. 

• Exclusion area - Zone A and B (83 acres), except those necessary to serve the site facilities. 

• Avoidance (1) Area - Zone C (349 acres), and restricts ROW to a 500’ wide path paralleling 

the southern boundary of the public lands along Highway 312). 

• Land disposals are not allowed. 

• Limited OHV use to designated roads and trails (2). Administrative use or other authorized 

use allowed on a case-by-case basis.

• Limit BLM road maintenance to 4 roads. 

• NHL (6 acres) managed as VRM Class II. Remainder of ACEC managed as VRM Class III.

• Plant collecting not allowed in the Zone A and Zone B. Limited in Zone C (3). 

• Monument (51 acres) closed to oil and gas leasing, subject to valid existing rights. NSO for 

the remainder of the ACEC. 

• Monument (51 acres): close and continue to recommend withdrawal for locatable minerals, 

subject to valid existing rights. Remainder of ACEC (381 acres): close and recommend 

withdrawal from mineral entry, subject to valid existing rights.

• Monument (51 acres) and ACEC (381acres): close and recommend withdrawal from mineral 

entry for solid leasable minerals, subject to valid existing rights. 

• Monument (51 acres): Mineral materials sales and permit not allowed. Remainder of ACEC 

(381 acres): Not allowed.

• Closed to commercial renewable energy facilities and development.

• Geophysical exploration not allowed. 

• For fire suppression activities, water use only within monument (51 acres). No heavy 

equipment in riparian area. Appropriate fire management (full protection strategies and 

management tactics) in remainder of ACEC.

• Fuels management and prescribed fire may be allowed in the entire ACEC. 

• Fuelwood cutting/wood product sales not allowed. 

• Livestock grazing may be allowed on a temporary basis, for the treatment of noxious weeds, 

or as a prescription to meet site specific vegetation or other resource management goals.
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 97 September 2015

• Range improvements and noxious/invasive weed treatments allowed.

• Animal trapping/traplines allowed in Zone C by authorization only. Allowed for 

administrative purposes in the entire ACEC.

• Hunting would be allowed in Zone C only. Management restrictions would be implemented 

in the future to ensure public safety. 

• Target shooting not allowed. 

• Non-commercial collection of common invertebrate and plant fossils not allowed. 

• Cremains scattering not permitted.

• Special recreation permits allowed.

• Transportation management allowed to meet road condition standards. 

• Other management activities and/or uses would be considered in subsequent site-specific 

analysis, and would consider the values for which the ACEC is designated (5). 

• Bridger Fossil Area ACEC

Bridger Fossil Area ACEC would be managed to protect paleontological values. The following 

management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings and Pompeys 

Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS:

• Land use authorization, including ROWs would have exclusion areas. 

• No land tenure disposals.

• OHVs limited to designated roads and trails (refer to Warren TMA).

• BLM road maintenance would be limited (4). 

• Visual resources would be managed as class III.

• Plant collecting would be allowed. 

• Oil and gas leasing would include NSOs with no Waivers, Exceptions, or Modifications. 

• Locatable and solid leasable minerals are closed.

• Mineral materials sales and permit are allowed.

• Geophysical exploration for oil and gas allowed (5) if no damage to paleontological 

resources. If monitoring indicates fossil damage, this activity would not be allowed. 

• Use of explosives for geophysical exploration for oil and gas not allowed. 

• Fire suppression would allow for appropriate fire management, no heavy equipment use. Fire 

management would emphasize fuels be removed where there would be threat of loss of 

resource (8).

• Fuelwood cutting/wood product sales not allowed. 

• Livestock grazing, range improvements, noxious/invasive weed management allowed if no 

conflicts with ACEC values (5). 

• Animal trapping/traplines allowed. 

• Target shooting allowed if monitored to ensure no conflicts with resource values. 

• Non-commercial collection of common invertebrate and plant fossils allowed (5) by BLM 

authorization only. 

• Cremains scattering, special recreation permits, and other permitted activities allowed.

• Transportation would not allow new permanent road or trail development for motorized 

vehicles.

• Other management activities and/or uses would be considered in subsequent site-specific 

analysis, and would consider the values for which the ACEC is designated (5). 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 98 Appendix K 

• Castle Butte ACEC

Castle Butte ACEC would be managed to protect unique cultural values. The following 

management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings and Pompeys 

Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS:

• Land use authorizations would have avoidance areas. 

• No land tenure disposals. 

• Off-highway vehicle use would be limited to designated routes (refer to Mill Creek TMA). 

• BLM road maintenance would be limited (4). 

• Visual resource management would be managed as Class III.

• Plant collecting would be allowed. 

• There are no federal minerals in this ACEC.

• Closed to renewable energy development. 

• Geophysical exploration for oil and gas not allowed. 

• Use of explosives for geophysical exploration for oil and gas not allowed. 

• Fire suppression would emphasize appropriate fire management; no heavy equipment use; no 

retardant or foam use on Castle Butte, allowed in remaining ACEC. 

• Fuels management would remove fuels where there would be the threat of a loss of resource 

(8).

• Fuelwood cutting/wood product sales not allowed. 

• Livestock grazing available in ACEC. 

• Range improvements allowed if no conflicts with ACEC values (5). 

• Noxious/Invasive weed treatments allowed.

• Animal trapping/traplines not allowed. 

• Target shooting not allowed.

• Non-commercial collection of common plant fossils allowed. 

• Cremains scattering not allowed.

• Special Recreation Permits not allowed.

• Other permitted activities allowed.

• Transportation would not allow for any new road or trail development. 

• Other management activities and/or uses would be considered in subsequent site-specific 

analysis, and would consider the values for which the ACEC is designated (5). 

• East Pryor ACEC

East Pryor ACEC would be managed to protect wildlife habitat, historical/cultural resources, 

sensitive plant species, and paleontological values. The following management actions are 

proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument 

RMP/EIS:

• Land use authorizations would have avoidance areas. 

• No land tenure disposals. 

• Off-highway vehicle use would be limited to designated routes (refer to Pryor TMA). 

• BLM road maintenance would be limited (4). 

• Visual resource management would be managed as Class II.

• Plant collecting allowed.

• Closed to oil and gas leasing and development (NL) (11,122 acres). 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 99 September 2015

• Locatable minerals: Close and recommend withdrawal from mineral entry, subject to valid 

existing rights. 

• Solid leasable minerals: Closed, subject to valid existing rights.

• Mineral materials sales and permits allowed.

• Closed to renewable energy. 

• Geophysical exploration for oil and gas not allowed. 

• Use of explosives for geophysical exploration for oil and gas not allowed. 

• Wildland fire management (natural ignitions) would be designed for resource benefit. 

• Appropriate fire management in response to human-ignited fires.

• Fuels management allowed.

• Casual collection of dead and down allowed for personal use only while recreating. 

• Livestock grazing closed within PMWHR boundary, except Bad Pass Trail Allotment (149 

acres). Available outside PMWHR (7). 

• Wild Horses managed only within the PMWHR 

• Range improvements allowed. 

• Noxious/Invasive weed treatments allowed.

• Animal trapping/trap lines allowed.

• Target shooting not allowed on 8S 28E. Allowed in remainder of ACEC 

• Non-commercial collection of common invertebrate and plant fossils allowed.

• Cremains scattering not permitted.

• Special Recreation Permits allowed.

• Other permitted activities allowed. 

• Transportation management would result in a no net increase in road density. 

• Other management activities and/or uses would be considered in subsequent site-specific 

analysis, and would consider the values for which the ACEC is designated (5). 

• Four Dances Natural Area ACEC

Four Dances Natural Area ACEC would be managed to protect significant historic, cultural and 

scenic values, peregrine falcon nesting habitat, and managed for the natural hazards of the cliffs. 

The following management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings 

and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS: 

• Land use authorization would have avoidance areas. Uses and practices would be consistent 

with the Deed of Conservation Easement. 

• No land tenure disposals.

• Closed to motorized and mechanized (bicycle, etc.) public use. 

• BLM road maintenance would be limited. 

• Visual resource management would be managed as Class III.

• Plant collecting allowed.

• Closed to oil and gas leasing, exploration and development. 

• Locatable minerals: Closed and continue withdrawal from mineral entry. 

• Solid leasable minerals: Closed and continue withdrawal from mineral entry.

• Mineral materials sales and permits not allowed.

• Closed to renewable energy development. 

• Geophysical exploration for oil and gas not allowed. 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 100 Appendix K 

• Use of explosives for geophysical exploration for oil and gas not allowed. 

• Appropriate fire management would include use of natural barriers and hand constructed fire 

lines. Use of heavy equipment and retardant would be avoided unless approved by the 

authorized officer. No heavy equipment use near vision quest site, no retardant use within 

100 feet of Will James cabin or rock art. 

• Fuels management allowed.

• Wood product sales and commercial timber harvest would not be allowed. Timber 

management for the safety and enhancement of other values would be allowed in the woody 

draws, on the islands, and along the Yellowstone River bottom. 

• Buffalo grazing not permitted. Livestock grazing would be allowed. 

• Range improvements allowed if no conflicts with ACEC objectives. 

• Noxious/Invasive weed treatments allowed.

• Animal trapping/trap lines not allowed.

• No discharging of firearms. Archery hunting may be allowed, if deemed necessary by FWP 

(authorization from BLM required).

• Cremains scattering not allowed.

• Authorizations would be required or timing and locations would be specified for events, such 

as cross country races. Some limitations on use by the general public may be required to 

facilitate Native American religious activities. These would be limited to specific time 

periods and specific portions of the property. 

• Other permitted activities allowed.

• Transportation management would be designed to not increase the road network density. 

• Recreation would be limited to day use area only. Closed to horseback riding (with the 

exception of authorized Native American religious ceremonies), hang gliding, rock climbing, 

paint ball, and discharging of fire arms. Pets must be leashed within parking area. 

• Special management and priority would be given to protecting falcon eyries by restricting 

human activity along the rims that might adversely affect the nesting birds. Non-ACEC 

values may be adjusted as necessary. 

• Other management activities and/or uses would be considered in subsequent site-specific 

analysis, and would consider the values for which the ACEC is designated. 

• Grove Creek ACEC

Grove Creek ACEC would be managed to protect significant archaeological and traditional 

cultural values and special status plants. The following management actions are proposed under 

the preferred alternative in the Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS:

• Land use authorizations would have avoidance areas. 

• No land tenure disposals. 

• Off-highway vehicle use would be limited to designated routes (refer to Grove Creek TMA).

• BLM road maintenance would be limited. 

• Visual resource management would be managed as Class III.

• Plant collecting allowed.

• No surface occupancy for Oil & Gas leasing . Conditions of Approval for existing leases. 

• Open for locatable minerals development.

• Solid leasable minerals: Closed and recommend withdrawing from mineral entry.

• Mineral materials sales and permits allowed.
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 101 September 2015

• Closed for renewable energy development. 

• Geophysical exploration for oil and gas allowed. 

• Use of explosives for geophysical exploration for oil and gas not allowed. 

• Wildland fire management (natural ignitions) would be designed for resource benefit. 

Appropriate fire management in response to human-ignited fires. No heavy equipment use 

within ACEC.

• Fuels management allowed. 

• Fuelwood cutting and wood product sales allowed if no conflicts with ACEC values. 

• Livestock grazing available. 

• Range improvements allowed if no conflicts with ACEC values (5) 

• Noxious/Invasive weed treatments allowed.

• Animal trapping/traplines allowed.

• Target shooting allowed. 

• Cremains scattering allowed.

• Special Recreation Permits allowed.

• Other permitted activities allowed.

• Transportation management would not allow for increase in road network density. 

• Other management activities and/or uses would be considered in subsequent site-specific 

analysis, and would consider the values for which the ACEC is designated. 

• Meeteetse Spires ACEC

Meeteetse Spires ACEC would be managed to protect and enhance unique vegetation (rare 

plants) and conserve scenic values. The following management actions are proposed under the 

preferred alternative in the Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS:

• Land use authorization would be managed with exclusion areas. 

• No land tenure disposals. 

• Off-highway vehicles would be limited to designated routes (refer to Grove Creek TMA).

• BLM road maintenance would not be allowed. 

• Visual resource management would be managed as Class II.

• Plant collecting allowed for scientific use or range/forestry studies. No collection of sensitive 

species without a permit.

• Oil & Gas leasing: Closed (NL) (965 acres – original ACEC). Manage remainder of ACEC 

for no surface occupancy (no federal minerals).

• Locatable minerals: Closed and recommended for withdrawal (965 acres – original ACEC). 

Remainder of ACEC would be open. 

• Open for solid leasable minerals.

• Mineral materials sales and permits allowed.

• Closed for renewable energy development. 

• Geophysical exploration not allowed. 

• Use of explosives for geophysical exploration for oil and gas not allowed. 

• Wildland fire management (natural ignitions) would be designed for resource benefit. 

Appropriate fire management in response to human-ignited fires. No heavy equipment use 

within ACEC.

• Fuels management allowed.

• Fuelwood cutting not allowed. 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 102 Appendix K 

• Wood product sales allowed if no conflicts with ACEC values. 

• Livestock grazing permitted, except for sheep on 965 acres (original ACEC). The 558 acre 

acquisition is not suitable for livestock grazing. 

• Range improvements allowed if no conflicts with ACEC values.

• Noxious/Invasive weed treatments allowed.

• Animal trapping/traplines allowed.

• Target shooting not allowed. 

• Cremains scattering not permitted.

• Special Recreation Permits allowed.

• Other permitted activities allowed.

• Transportation management would not allow for increase in road network density. 

• Other management activities and/or uses would be considered in subsequent site-specific 

analysis, and would consider the values for which the ACEC is designated. 

• Petroglyph Canyon ACEC

Petroglyph Canyon ACEC would be managed to protect unique cultural values. The following 

management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings and Pompeys 

Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS:

• Land use authorization would be managed with exclusion areas.

• No land tenure disposals. 

• Off-highway vehicle use would be limited to designated routes only (refer to Pryor TMA).

• BLM road maintenance would be limited. 

• Visual resource management would be managed as Class II.

• Plant collecting allowed. 

• No surface occupancy for Oil & Gas leasing (no WEMs).

• Locatable minerals: Closed and continue to withdraw from mineral entry

• Solid leasable minerals: Closed.

• Mineral materials sales and permits not allowed.

• Closed for renewable energy development. 

• Geophysical exploration for oil and gas not allowed. 

• Use of explosives for geophysical exploration for oil and gas not allowed. 

• No heavy equipment use, no retardant or foam use for fire suppression activities. 

• Fuels management allowed.

• Fuelwood cutting/wood product sales not allowed. 

• Livestock grazing available. 

• Range improvements allowed if no conflicts with ACEC values. 

• Noxious/Invasive weed treatments allowed.

• Animal trapping/traplines not allowed. 

• Target shooting not allowed. 

• Cremains scattering not allowed.

• Special Recreation Permits allowed.

• Other permitted activities allowed.

• Transportation management would not allow for increase in road network density. 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 103 September 2015

• Other management activities and/or uses would be considered in subsequent site-specific 

analysis, and would consider the values for which the ACEC is designated. 

• Pryor Foothills Research Natural Area (RNA) ACEC

Pryor Foothills RNA ACEC would be managed to protect unique vegetation (a large 

concentration of Bureau sensitive plant species and rare plant communities) and to protect 

significant historic and cultural values in the Gyp Springs area. The following management 

actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings and Pompeys Pillar National 

Monument RMP/EIS:

• Land use authorizations would have avoidance areas, subject to valid existing rights. 

• No land tenure disposals. 

• Off-highway vehicles would be limited to designated routes (refer to Pryors TMA).

• BLM road maintenance would be limited. 

• Visual resource management would be managed as Class III.

• Plant collecting allowed for scientific use or range/forestry studies. No collection of sensitive 

species without a permit.

• Oil & Gas leasing: NSO 1⁄4 mile buffer on known plant sites (2,606 acres). Inventory must 

be conducted prior to surface disturbing activities (CSU).

• Locatable minerals: Closed and recommend withdrawing from mineral entry, subject to valid 

existing rights. 

• Solid leasable minerals: Closed, subject to valid existing rights.

• Mineral materials sales and permits not allowed.

• Closed for renewable energy development. 

• Geophysical exploration not allowed. 

• Wildland fire management (natural ignitions) would be designed for resource benefit. 

Appropriate fire management in response to human-ignited fires. No heavy equipment use 

within ACEC.

• Fuels management allowed.

• Fuelwood cutting/wood product sales allowed periodically to protect resource values. 

• Livestock grazing available. 

• No range improvements would be allowed that would result in a net increase in livestock use 

in the ACEC.

• Noxious/Invasive weed treatments allowed to protect rare plant values.

• Animal trapping/traplines allowed.

• Target shooting allowed. 

• Cremains scattering not permitted.

• Special Recreation Permits allowed.

• Other permitted activities allowed.

• Transportation management would not allow for increase in road network density. 

• Other management activities and/or uses would be considered in subsequent site-specific 

analysis, and would consider the values for which the ACEC is designated. 

• Stark Site ACEC

Stark Site ACEC would be managed to protect unique cultural values. The following 

management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings and Pompeys 

Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS:
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 104 Appendix K 

• Land use authorizations would have avoidance areas. 

• No land tenure disposals.

• Motorized travel limited to designated routes (refer to Horsethief TMA).

• The BLM road maintenance would be limited. 

• Visual resource management would be managed as Class III.

• Plant collecting allowed.

• No surface occupancy for Oil & Gas leasing. 

• Locatable minerals: Closed and recommend withdrawing from mineral entry

• Solid leasable minerals: Closed.

• Mineral materials sales and permits not allowed.

• Closed for renewable energy development. 

• Geophysical exploration for oil and gas not allowed. 

• Use of explosives for geophysical exploration for oil and gas not allowed. 

• Fire suppression would implement appropriate fire management. No heavy equipment use, 

no retardant or foam use. 

• Fuels management allowed.

• Fuelwood cutting/wood product sales not allowed.

• Livestock grazing available. 

• Range improvements allowed if no conflicts with ACEC values. 

• Noxious/Invasive weed treatments allowed.

• Animal trapping/traplines allowed.

• Target shooting not allowed. 

• Cremains scattering not allowed.

• Special Recreation Permits allowed.

• Other permitted activities allowed.

• Transportation management would not allow for increase in road network density. 

• Other management activities and/or uses would be considered in subsequent site-specific 

analysis, and would consider the values for which the ACEC is designated. 

• Weatherman Draw ACEC

Weatherman Draw ACEC would be managed to protect unique cultural values. The following 

management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings and Pompeys 

Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS: 

• Land use authorizations would have exclusion areas, subject to valid existing rights. 

• No land tenure disposals. 

• Off-highway vehicle use would be limited to designated routes (refer to Weatherman Draw 

TMA).

• The BLM road maintenance would be limited.

• Visual resource management would be managed as Class II: 4,986 acres (original and 

acquisition) and Class III: 7,291 acres (expansion). 

• Plant collecting allowed.

• Oil & Gas leasing: Closed (NL) (4,986 acres original and acquisition) and NSO (7,291 acres 

- expansion). 

• Locatable minerals: Close and recommend for withdrawal from mineral entry (4,386 acres) 

and Open (7,291 acres – expansion). 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 105 September 2015

• Solid leasable minerals: Closed from mineral entry (4,986 acres) and Open with NSO (7,291 

acres – expansion) 

• Mineral materials sales and permits not allowed.

• Closed for renewable energy development. 

• Geophysical exploration for oil and gas not allowed. 

• Wildland fire management (natural ignitions) would be designed for resource benefit. 

Appropriate fire management in response to human-ignited fires. No heavy equipment, no 

retardant or foam use

• Fuels management would remove fuels where there would be threat or loss of resource.

• Fuelwood cutting/wood product sales not allowed: (4,986 acres). Allowed by permit only 

(7,291 acres). 

• Livestock grazing available. 

• Range improvements allowed if no conflicts with ACEC values. 

• Noxious/Invasive weed treatments allowed.

• Animal trapping/traplines not allowed: (4,986 acres). Allowed: (7,291 acres). 

• Target shooting not allowed. 

• Cremains scattering not permitted.

• Special Recreation Permits allowed.

• Other permitted activities allowed.

• Transportation management would not allow for increase in road network density. 

• Other management activities and/or uses would be considered in subsequent site-specific 

analysis, and would consider the values for which the ACEC is designated. 

• Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs)

Manage Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) in a manner that does not impair their suitability for 

designation as wilderness in accordance with FLPMA Section 603 and the Interim Management 

Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review. The following management actions are proposed 

under the preferred alternative in the Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS:

• Wilderness Study Areas would be managed according to the Interim Management Policy 

(IMP) (BLM)-H-8550-1). The BLM is statutorily (FLPMA Section 603) required to manage 

these areas to protect their suitability for congressional designation to the National 

Wilderness Preservation System unless and until Congress either designates an area as 

wilderness or releases it from further consideration.

• Surface disturbing and disruptive activities may be allowed if the activity does not impair the 

resource values and/or wilderness characteristics.

• Vegetation and fuels treatments, including prescribed fire, would be allowed. 

• Allow for habitat manipulations in WSAs on a case-by-case basis using methods which 

protect areas from weed infestations resulting from human influence.

• WSA lands would be closed to permitted commercial and personal use wood cutting, seed 

and plant collection. 

• WSAs would be managed as VRM Class I.

• WSAs would be managed closed to motorized use. Is this for wheeled use or all motorized? 

i.e. aircraft. Aircraft may not land in a WSA, nor may air deliveries be made.

• WSAs would be closed to oil and gas leasing and development, subject to valid existing 

rights. 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 106 Appendix K 

• Mineral material sales would not be allowed in WSAs

• WSAs would be managed as a ROW exclusion area.

• Manage the following WSAs for non-impairment of wilderness values: 

− Big Horn Tack-On WSA (2,689 acres), Burnt Timber Canyon WSA (3,516 acres), Pryor 

Mountain WSA (15,590 acres) , Twin Coulee WSA (6,836 acres) 

• The area within the current boundaries of all WSAs is closed to motorized use.

• If Congress acts on designation, and Big Horn Tack-On, Burnt Timber Canyon and Pryor 

Mountain WSAs are not selected as wilderness, the land area within these current WSA 

boundaries would be managed as an ACEC. 

• If Congress acts on the designation and Twin Coulee WSA is released from further 

consideration, the area would be managed a VRM Class II. 

• The WSAs would be closed and recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry except if 

Congress acts on designation, and Big Horn Tack-On, Burnt Timber Canyon and Pryor 

Mountain WSAs are not selected as wilderness, the land area within these current WSA 

boundaries would continue to be closed and recommended for withdrawal from mineral 

entry. 

• If Congress acts on the designation and Twin Coulee WSA is released from further 

consideration, the area would be open for mineral entry and leasing. 

• Wildland fire management (natural ignitions) for resource benefit. Appropriate fire 

management in response to human-ignited fires. 

• Wild and Scenic Rivers

Manage to protect the outstandingly remarkable values, tentative classifications and the freeflowing nature of eligible/suitable river segments. The following management actions are 

proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument 

RMP/EIS:

• Management would be conducted in a manner to protect and enhance the outstandingly 

remarkable values for each suitable river segment.

• The following segments would be recommended as suitable for inclusion in the National 

Wild and Scenic River System:

• Crooked Creek (above fish barrier) – 1.59 miles; tentative management class would be Wild.

• Crooked Creek (below fish barrier) – 1.56 miles; tentative management class would be 

Scenic.

• NSO for oil and gas leasing, exploration and development within 1⁄2 mile of WSR- eligible 

and suitable segments (NSO).

• National Historic Trails

In general, management protects National Historic Trails for long-term heritage and educational 

values and to enhance the public experience. The Billings and Pompeys Pillar National 

Monument RMP/EIS is designed to enhance public experiences through interpretation and 

support of heritage tourism and maintain compatible recreational use with historic trail values. 

The following management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings 

and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS: 

• The setting for the Lewis and Clark and Nez Perce NHTs segments would be maintained 

where setting is an aspect of integrity by utilizing viewshed management tools. 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 107 September 2015

• Manage NHTs as VRM Class III. Minimize changes that would result in degradation of 

resource values or opportunities for sharing the experience of the original users of the NHTs. 

• An inventory and evaluation would be maintained for the trail segments and include this data 

in a trails management plan.

• Surface disturbing activities would be subject to mitigation guidelines. 

• No surface occupancy for oil and gas development and exploration within 1⁄2 mile of the L&C 

and NP NHTs (NSO) (12,395 acres). 

• Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range 

In general, the Pryor Mountain herd management area would continue to be designated as the 

Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range and would be managed principally, but not necessarily 

exclusively, for the benefit of wild horses. Management activities for other resources and 

programs within the PMWHR would be designed in a manner to minimize impacts without 

limiting the ability to protect wild horses and their habitat. Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range 

would be managed to enhance wild horse protection, wild horse habitat, and for public health 

and safety.

The following management actions are proposed under the preferred alternative in the Billings 

and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP/EIS: 

• Wild horse protection - public feeding: Only allowed for management purposes 

• Wild horse protection – harassment: Interrupting their behavior or disruption of their daily 

activities, outside of management activities, such as moving animals to take photos or 

filming, feeding or touching or attempting to do these things would not be allowed. 

• Wild Horse Protection - seasonal road closures: Motorized routes within the PMWHR would 

be designated according to the Pryor Mountain TMA. Burnt Timber Road from the East 

Pryor Mine (the abandoned uranium mine) to the USFS boundary and Sykes Ridge Road 

from the horse trap to USFS boundary would be closed to wheeled vehicles and motorized 

vehicles to protect wild horse foaling and their habitat (April 15 to June 15) providing 

consistency with the USFS seasonal closures.

• Wild Horse Protection - fencing exclusion: Fences for study, range improvements, riparian 

protection or rehabilitation would be allowed through site-specific analysis. 

• Wild Horse Protection - wild horse health: Domestic horse use would be limited to day use 

only. 

• Recreational domestic horse use would require a free-use permit to ensure animals have 

health certifications to protect wild horses from disease transmission.

• Wild Horse Habitat Enhancement: Maximize the amount of acres for vegetation treatment 

and water developments that would increase forage availability for wild horses, to maximize 

and/or increase wild horse numbers within other multiple uses and restrictions.

• Target shooting not allowed on T8S R28E Memorial day weekend through Labor day 

weekend. 

• Speed limits for mechanized and motorized vehicles not to exceed 15 miles per hour within 

T8S R28E 

• Livestock grazing Bad Pass Trail would be managed as a livestock grazing allotment for 

trailing use only (158 acres). The remainder of the PMWHR would be closed to livestock 

grazing. 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 108 Appendix K 

• Special Recreation Permits SRPs for wild horse viewing would initially be limited to existing 

SRPs. Additional (new) wild horse centered SRPs would be permitted only when determined 

not to result in congestion, wild horse displacement or cause an adverse experience for 

members of the public viewing wild horses outside of an SRP experience through monitoring 

of existing SRPs and visitation. 

• Land use authorization would be managed for avoidance. 

• Land tenures would be managed with no disposals.

• OHV use limited to designated routes (refer to Pryor Mountain TMA).

• Limited BLM road maintenance would be allowed. 

• Plant collecting would be allowed. 

• Closed to oil and gas leasing and development (NL) (11,122 acres). 

• Locatable minerals: Close and recommend withdrawal from mineral entry, subject to valid 

existing rights. 

• Solid leasable minerals: Closed, subject to valid existing rights.

• Mineral materials sales and permits allowed.

• Renewable energy closed.

• Geophysical exploration for oil and gas not allowed. 

• Use of explosives for geophysical exploration for oil and gas not allowed. 

• Wildland fire management (natural ignitions) would focus on benefit to the resources. 

• Implement appropriate fire management in response to human-ignited fires.

• Fuels management, range improvements, noxious/invasive weed management, animal 

trapping/traplines, and non-commercial collection of common invertebrate and plant fossils 

allowed. 

• Casual collection of dead and down allowed for personal use only while recreating. 

• Routes for commercial or other BLM authorized activities may be considered on a case-bycase basis if the route meets public access needs.

• Other management activities and/or uses would be considered in subsequent site-specific 

analysis, and would consider the values for which the PMWHR is designated (5).

K.35.1 Impact Analysis and Effects Determination

K.35.1.1 Black-footed Ferret 

No black-footed ferrets are known to exist within the planning area. Management actions for 

special designations would also provide protection for prairie dog colonies and black-footed 

ferrets through restrictions on surface disturbances and minerals developments as well as OHV 

use. However, the presence of important values in these areas may also result in increased 

human presence, resulting in short-term displacement of prairie dogs and ferrets, depending on 

the amount and timing of such activity. Implementing management actions for special 

designations may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the black-footed ferret due to 

insignificant effects (NLAA-i). This determination is based on maintaining and protecting prairie 

dog and potential ferret habitats if management actions for special designations are used in 

conjunction with existing conservation measures. 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 109 September 2015

K.35.1.2 Canada Lynx

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for Canada Lynx on page 13 for a Summary of 

Occurrence in BIFO. There are no Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) or critical habitat designated on 

BLM, Billings Field Office decision area lands, although lynx may occasionally occur in the 

area. All Canada lynx critical habitat is on adjacent U.S. Forest Service lands.

Management actions for special designations would also provide protection of Canada lynx 

habitat through restrictions on surface disturbances and minerals developments as well as OHV 

use. However, the presence of important values in these areas may also result in increased 

human presence, resulting in short-term displacement of Canada lynx, depending on the amount 

and timing of such activity. Implementing management actions for special designations may 

affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the Canada lynx due to insignificant effects (NLAAi). This determination is based on maintaining and protecting Canada lynx habitats if 

management actions for special designations are used in conjunction with existing conservation 

measures.

K.35.1.3 Grizzly Bear

Refer to “Planning Area Distribution” for grizzly bears on page 15 for a Summary of Occurrence 

in BIFO. 

Management actions for special designations would also provide protection of grizzly bear 

habitat through restrictions on surface disturbances and minerals developments as well as OHV 

use. However, the presence of important values in these areas may also result in increased 

human presence, resulting in short-term displacement of grizzly bears, depending on the amount 

and timing of such activity. Implementing management actions for special designations may 

affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the grizzly bear due to insignificant effects (NLAA-i). 

This determination is based on maintaining and protecting grizzly bear habitats if management 

actions for special designations are used in conjunction with existing conservation measures.

K.36 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

For the purposes of effects analysis under the ESA, cumulative effects are defined as effects on a 

species from future state, tribal, local, or private activities which are reasonably certain to occur 

in the planning area. Future federal actions will be subject to the consultation requirements 

established in Section 7 of the ESA, and therefore, are not considered cumulative to the proposed 

action. 

The BLM is the majority landowner in the southern portion (Carbon County) and northeastern 

portion (Musselshell County) of BIFO, but is a minority landowner in the western and 

southeastern portions. The BLM does control the majority of land and public access in the 

southern and northeastern areas of the field office while it only controls limited lands and access 

in the western and southeast portion. The BLM has little management opportunity and influence 

in the scattered land ownership (minority landowner) areas of the field office. These areas are 

subject to greater cumulative effects from activities on other ownerships. 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 110 Appendix K 

In areas where BLM is a minority landowner, the cumulative impacts of BLM actions that would 

be taken under these alternatives are minor in proportion to potential impacts from actions on 

state, tribal, and private lands. The wildlife habitat values of the public land parcels are important 

as undeveloped areas, usable by certain wildlife species that are located mostly on the BLM 

parcels.

The exact cumulative effect on T&E species is not known because of the lack of specific 

information on future state, local, or private actions. Since most impacts to T & E Species are 

human-related or the result of human activities (e.g., livestock management, mineral 

development,), and the human pressures in the field office area may be expected to change over 

the foreseeable future, the scope and scale of the impacts are not known. Human factors include 

access, roads, trails, noise, disturbance, subdivision development, recreational use, increased 

noxious weed spread, and other resource uses that contribute to habitat fragmentation and 

reduced habitat quality. 

Potential projects that could be developed on non-Federal ownership areas, include the Mud 

Springs Wind Farm, an increase in hydraulic fracturing operations, and bentonite mine 

expansions. The Mud Springs Wind Farm proposal is proposed for development entirely on 

private lands about 12 miles southeast of Bridger, MT. It is proposed to be constructed on 

18,000 acres with 120 turbines that are 454 feet tall at the blade tips. In 2014, an unsuccessful 

private land hydraulic fracking well was drilled west of Belfry, MT. These projects could 

increase if oil prices are profitable. Two bentonite companies have proposed mine expansions 

between Bridger, MT and the Wyoming state boundary. Mine expansions may occur on either 

private or public lands. 

The cumulative effects of actions under these BLM programs and their activities may have local 

impacts to populations. A determination of “May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect” for any 

listed species, or for any impact including cumulative impacts, would require formal consultation 

with USFWS. This would result in a request for consultation with the Service to ensure that 

appropriate analysis is conducted to minimize impacts to a species. 

K.37 Summary of Effects Determinations

Table 4 summarizes the effects of determinations by resource program from the above 

discussion. Table 5 summarizes the effects determination for each species considered from the 

RMP as a whole, based on the resource program effects discussed above.

Table 4: Determination of Effects of Resource Programs for Listed Species

Resource 

Program 

Blackfooted 

Ferret

Canada 

Lynx

Grizzly 

Bear

Whooping 

Crane Red Knot

Air Quality NLAA-b NLAA-b NLAA-b NLAA-d NLAA-d

Climate NLAA-b NLAA-b NLAA-b NLAA-d NLAA-d

Geology NLAA-d NLAA-i NLAA-i NLAA-d NLAA-d

Soil Resources NLAA-d NLAA-d NLAA-d NLAA-d NLAA-d
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 111 September 2015

Resource 

Program 

Blackfooted 

Ferret

Canada 

Lynx

Grizzly 

Bear

Whooping 

Crane Red Knot

Water Resources NLAA-d NLAA-d NLAA-d NLAA-d NLAA-d

Vegetative 

Communities

NLAA-b NLAA-b NLAA-b NLAA-d NLAA-d

Wildlife including 

Special Status 

Species

NLAA-b NLAA-i NLAA-b NLAA-d NLAA-d

Fisheries 

including Special 

Status Species

NLAA-b NLAA-b NLAA-b NLAA-d NLAA-d

Wild Horse and 

Burro

NLAA-b NLAA-b NLAA-b NLAA-d NLAA-d

Wildland Fire 

Ecology and 

Management

NLAA-i NLAA-i NLAA-i NLAA-d NLAA-d

Cultural/Heritage 

Resources

NLAA-b NLAA-b NLAA-b NLAA-d NLAA-d

Paleontological 

Resources

NLAA-b NLAA-b NLAA-b NLAA-d NLAA-d

Visual Resources NLAA-b NLAA-b NLAA-b NLAA-d NLAA-d

Lands with 

Wilderness 

Characteristics

NLAA-b NLAA-b NLAA-b NLAA-d NLAA-d

Energy and 

Minerals

NLAA-d NLAA-i NLAA-i NLAA-d NLAA-d

Livestock 

Grazing

NLAA-i NLAA-i NLAA-i NLAA-d NLAA-d

Recreation/Visitor 

Services

NLAA-d NLAA-i NLAA-i NLAA-d NLAA-d

Travel 

Management

NLAA-d NLAA-i NLAA-i NLAA-d NLAA-d

Forest and Wood 

Products 

NE NLAA-i NLAA-i NLAA-d NLAA-d

Lands and Realty NLAA-d NLAA-i NLAA-i NLAA-d NLAA-d

Transportation 

Facilities and 

NLAA-b NLAA-b NLAA-b NLAA-d NLAA-d
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 112 Appendix K 

Resource 

Program 

Blackfooted 

Ferret

Canada 

Lynx

Grizzly 

Bear

Whooping 

Crane Red Knot

Access

Renewable 

Energy 

NLAA-i NLAA-i NLAA-i NLAA-d NLAA-d

Special 

Designations 

NLAA-i NLAA-i NLAA-i NLAA-d NLAA-d

Threatened and Endangered Species: NLAA-b, -I, -d = may effect, but is not likely to adversely affect discountable (-d), 

insignificant (-i), completely beneficial (-b), NE = No Effect

Table 5: Overall Determination of Effects for Listed Species

Species Scientific Name Determination

Black-footed Ferret Mustela nigripes NLAA

Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis NLAA

Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos horribilis NLAA

Whooping Crane Grus americana NLAA

Red Knot Calidris canutus rufa NLAA

NLAA = may effect, but is not likely to adversely affect.

NLLV = may impact individuals, but not likely to adversely impact population viability
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 113 September 2015

K.38 Literature Cited

Armbruster, M.J. 1990. Characterization of Habitat Used by Whooping Cranes during Migration. 

 Biological Report 90(4):1-16.

Baicich, P.J., and C.J. Harrison. 2005. Nests, Eggs, and Nestlings of North American Birds. 

 Princeton University Press. Princeton, New Jersey, USA. 

Baker, A.J., P.M. González, T. Piersma, L.J. Niles, I. de Lima Serrano do Nascimento, P.W. 

 Atkinson, N.A. 

Boyce, M.S. and R.S. Miller. 1985. Ten year periodicity in whooping crane census. 

Auk 102:658-660. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2008. Final Biological Assessment for the Kemmerer Field 

Office Proposed Resource Management Plan. Kemmerer Field Office. September 2008. 

______. 2005a. Final Statewide Programmatic Biological Assessment: Black-footed Ferret 

(Mustela nigripes). Submitted to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management. Wyoming State Office. Cheyenne, Wyoming. August. 

______. 2005b. Final Statewide Programmatic Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) Biological 

Assessment. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Wyoming 

State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming. July 20. 

______. 2013. Biological Assessment for the Beartooth Front Grazing Permit Renewal, USDI, 

Bureau of Land Management, Billings Field Office, Billings, Montana McKenzie, E., 

Sept. 9. 

Clark, C.D.T. Minton, M.K. Peck, and G. Aarts. 2004. Rapid population decline in red knots: 

fitness consequences of decreased refueling rates and late arrival in Delaware Bay. 

Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B271: 875-882. 

Dood, A. R., Atkinson, S. J. and V. J. Boccadori (2006) Grizzly Bear Management Plan for 

Western Montana: Final

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 2006‐

2016. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena, Montana. 163 pp. 

Federal Register. 1967. Endangered Species - 1967. Federal Register 32(48):4001. 

Fitzgerald, J. P., C. A. Meaney, and D. M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver 

Museum of Natural History and University Press of Colorado. 467 pp. 

Fortenbery, D. K. 1972. Characteristics of the Black-Footed Ferret. US Department of the 

Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Resource 

Publication 109. 8 pp. 

Harrington, B.A. 2001. Red knot (Calidris canutus). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds 

of North America, No. 563. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology and The Academy of 

Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Pp. 1-32. 

Henderson, F. R., P. F. Springer, and R. Adrian. 1969. The Black-Footed Ferret in South Dakota. 

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks. Technical Bulletin No. 4:137. 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 114 Appendix K 

Hillman, C. N. 1968. Life History and Ecology of the Black-Footed Ferret. M.S. Thesis. South 

Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota. 28 pp. 

Hillman, C. N. and J. W. Carpenter. 1980. Breeding Biology and Behavior of Captive BlackFooted Ferrets. International Zoo Yearbook 23:186191. 

Howe, M.A. 1987. Habitat Use by Migrating Whooping Cranes in the Aransas-Wood Buffalo

 Corridor. Pages 303-311 in Proceedings of the 1985 Crane Workshop (J.C. Lewis and 

 J.W. Ziewitz, eds.). Platte River Whooping Crane Habitat Maintenance Trust and 

 USFWS. Grand Island, Nebraska. 

Howe, M.A. 1989. Migration of Radio-marked Whooping Cranes from the Aransas-Wood 

 Buffalo Population: Patterns of Habitat Use, Behavior, and Survival. USFWS Technical 

 Report 21. 

Jones, S. L. 2010. Sprague’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii) conservation plan. U.S. Department of 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

Linder, R. L., R. B. Dahlgren, and C. N. Hillman. 1972. Black-Footed Ferret Prairie Dog 

Interrelationships. Reprint from Symposium on Rare and Endangered Wildlife of the 

Southwestern United States. Albuquerque, New Mexico. New Mexico Department of 

Game and Fish, Santa Fe. 37 pp. 

Lingle, G.R. 1987. Status of Whooping Crane Migration Habitat within the Great Plains of North 

 America. Pages331-340 in Proceedings of the 1985 Crane Workshop (J.C. Lewis and J. 

 Zewitz, eds.). Platte River Whooping Crane Habitat Maintenance Trust. and USFWS. 

 Grand Island, Nebraska.

Lingle, G.R., G.A. Wingfield, and J.W. Ziewitz. 1991. The Migration Ecology of Whooping 

 Cranes in Nebraska, U.S.A. Pages 395-401 in Proceedings of the 1987 International 

 Crane Workshop (J. Harris, eds.). International Crane Foundation, Baraboo, Wisconsin. 

Montana Bird Distribution Committee. 2012. P.D.Skaar’s Montana Bird Distribution, 7th 

Edition, Montana Audubon, Helena, Montana. 208 pp. 

Morrison, R.I.G., R.E. Gill, Jr., B.A. Harrington, S. Skagen, G.W. Page, C.L. Gratto-Trevor, and 

S.M. Haig. 2001. Estimates of shorebird populations in North America. Occasional Paper 

No. 104. Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario. 64 pp. 

Niles, L.J., H.P. Sitters, A.D. Dey, P.W. Atkinson, A.J. Baker, K.A. Bennett, K.E. Clark, N.A. 

Clark, C. Espoz, P.M. Gonzalez, B.A. Harrington, D.E. Hernandez, K.S. Kalasz, R. 

Matus, C.D.T. Minton, R.I.G.Morrison, M.K. Peck, and I.L. Serrano. 2007. Status of the 

red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) in the Western Hemisphere. Report to the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Fish 

and Wildlife, Endangered and Nongame Species Program, Trenton, New Jersey. 236 pp. 

+ Appendix. 

Ruedinger, B. et al. 2000. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy. USDA Forest 

Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA Bureau of Land Management. 

Tomkovich, P.S. 1992. An analysis of the geographic variability in knots, Calidris canutus, 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 115 September 2015

based on museum skins. Wader Study Group Bulletin 64 (Suppl): 17-23. 

Travsky, A and G.P. Beauvais. 2004. Species assessment for the whooping crane (Grus 

Americana) in Wyoming. 

Online: http://www.uwyo.edu/wyndd/_files/docs/reports/speciesassessments/whoopingcrane-oct2004.pdf 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS):

______.2011. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Red Knot. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form, Region 5, Oct. 2011. 

______. 2000. Black-footed ferret; Mustela nigripes. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [Online} 

http://www.fws.gov. 

______. 1998. Endangered Species Consultation Handbook. Procedures for Conducting 

Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. March 1998. 

______. 1993. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan. Missoula, 

Montana. 181 pp. 

______. 1989. Black-footed Ferret Survey Guidelines for Compliance with the Endangered 

Species Act. Denver, Colorado, and Albuquerque, New Mexico. April 1989. 10 pp. 

______. 1988. Black-Footed Ferret Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, 

Colorado. 154 pp. 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 116 Appendix K 

K.39 Appendix A

ADDITIONAL CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS for T&E Species:

Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument Resource Management Plan (RMP) 

Biological Assessment Conservation Measures and Mitigation

Grizzly Bear: 

Activities in Potential Grizzly Habitat:

Conservation measures for actions in potential grizzly habitat will include the following Terms 

and Conditions that will be followed. Potential grizzly bear habitat in the field office is primarily 

the scattered public land tracts in the foothills of the Beartooth Mountains from Red Lodge west 

to Sweet Grass –Park county line. These terms and conditions were developed to help reduce the 

potential of grizzly bear/livestock/human issues. The terms and conditions would be as follows: 

• Grazing Permits would state that depredation loss from grizzly bears is possible.

• Grazing Permittees must notify the BLM, MTFWP, or Wildlife Services, as soon as is 

practical, of any grizzly bear depredation on livestock or conflicts between grizzly bears 

and livestock, even if the conflict does not result in the loss of livestock. (We expect that 

this early notification to the state of Montana and the Service and the resulting course of 

action would likely reduce the chance of livestock depredation and the possible removal 

of the grizzly bear). 

• To avoid potential conflicts, all livestock carcasses, or parts of carcasses, should be either 

packed, dragged, or otherwise transported to a location a minimum of 1/2 mile from any 

inhabited dwelling, sleeping area or tent, road, trail or recreation site and be moved at 

least 100 yards from live water. 

• All human and prepared livestock and pet food, garbage, and other odorous substances 

should be stored, handled and disposed of in such a manner as to make it unavailable to 

bears. Uneaten horse feed should not be left on the ground after feeding livestock. 

• Burying food, garbage, refuse, or grease is prohibited. 

• Any livestock carcass found on BLM land will be properly treated or disposed of, so as to 

eliminate any potential attractant for bears. The BLM will include guidance to permittees 

to contact FWP if they need carcass disposal assistance.

The BLM will monitor grizzly bear/livestock conflicts occurring on grazing allotments and will 

look for other opportunities to reduce/minimize the potential for conflicts. 

Projects and Other Development Actions: 

Project features would be designed to reduce potential human-grizzly bear conflicts in the project 

area such as: temporary roads would be closed to public motorized access and reclaimed upon 

completion of project. 

Field work would be restricted to one disturbance or work location between April 1 to June 30 to 

reduce conflicts with grizzly bears emerging from dens. 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix K K - 117 September 2015

Sight distances would be implemented to provide security cover for grizzly bears along primary 

or permanent access roads. 

Canada Lynx: 

Forestry /Timber/ Fuels Management:

Design features of timber treatments will include stipulations to provide habitat for lynx prey 

species. Treatments would improve foraging habitat by allowing understory shrub development 

with removal of some of the timber canopy. 

Treatments would focus on small patch cuts, or larger cuts with selected leave trees or groups of 

trees. In addition, a minimum of 10% of any specific treatment unit would be left in “islands” to 

provide wildlife habitat in the forms of hiding, bedding, and thermal cover. Standing, large 

snags would also be targeted for retention to provide wildlife habitat. 

SNAG MANAGEMENT Guidelines:

All Treatment Units: 

• Snags and recruitment snags are to provide for nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat for 

small mammals and birds such as bats, woodpeckers, owls, songbirds, etc. Clumping (versus 

even spacing) of snags is preferable if desired snag species and larger dbh (diameter at breast 

height) snags are available for the snag retention clump.

• In forested areas, maintain greater than or equal to 40 snags/recruitment trees per 5-acre 

average; retain the largest size class available pretreatment in all stages of development. These 

should consist of at least 30 snags per 5 acres and 10 recruitment snags (green trees) per 5 acres. 

Guidelines for snags include: 

1. Retain all soft snags (class 3, 4, and 5) that are not a safety hazard to meet the 

above targets. 

2. Retain hard snags (when they are present) in the largest size class available (pretreatment) to meet the above targets.

3. Tree species selected for snag and recruitment tree retention shall be determined 

with coordination between the Wildlife Biologist, Silviculturist, and others as 

necessary to ensure proper species composition and snag habitat is maintained for 

cavity dependent species.

4. If above existing snag levels are not available, provide for green recruitment snag 

trees sufficient to bring snag/recruitment snag levels up to the above mentioned 

target levels in a well distributed manner of both clumps and individual trees, of 

largest available trees. Trees with defects (e.g. “wolfy” appearance, dead tops, 

forked tops, cankers, heart-rot, knarls, diseases, broken tops and large limbs) 

would be selected when possible as follows:

a. Target basal areas (BA) for each unit and will not include "wildlife reserve", 

"recruitment trees", or dead trees (snags) in their calculation.

b. Paint or affix a “wildlife tree sign” on all leave snags and recruitment trees at dbh 

level and a butt mark at the base of each with timber marking paint. Record the 

number and size class of all snags and recruitment trees painted/marked within the 

treatment area and maintain records in the project file.

c. Create new snags by burn plan design, or other means, as necessary to achieve 

target numbers of snags. 
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 K - 118 Appendix K 

d. Protect snags from fuelwood cutting, mechanical treatment, and prescribed fire 

treatment.

LOGS/ COURSE WOODY DEBRIS (CWD) Guidelines:

All Treatment Units: In forested areas, maintain at least 200 linear feet average per acre of 12-

inch DBH or greater at the large end and at least 10 feet in length (or the largest size class 

available). Retain logs/CWD in all stages of development. Guidelines for logs/CWD include: 

If above existing logs/CWD levels are not available, leave logs/CWD necessary to bring 

them up to the above mentioned target levels in a well distributed manner of largest 

available size classes. Orient the logs perpendicular to the slope.

 

1. Protect existing down logs /CWD from fuelwood cutting. 

6)

Note: These guidelines may require amendment based on the timber stand characteristics. For 

example, if insufficient snags are not available in the existing stand, the snag number per unit 

area requirement may need to be reduced.
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan

Appendix K K - 119 September 2015

Figure 2: Lynx Critical Habitat on USFS lands within Planning Area*

**Lynx Critical habitat is available within the planning area, although it is not present within the decision area. Refer to description of “planning 

area” and “decision area” on page 4.
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 K - 120 Appendix K 

Figure 3: Grizzly Bear Habitat – Billings Field Office
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan

Appendix K K - 121 September 2015

Figure 4: Yellowstone Grizzly Bear DPS Boundary and Suitable Habitat
Billings Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 K - 122 Appendix K 

Figure 5: Whooping Crane Migration Corridor 
Appendix L: 

Wildlife Resources 

Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

Appendix L L - i September 2015

Table of Contents 

Appendix L: Wildlife Resources.............................................................................................................. L-1

L.1. Threatened and Endangered Species, Special Status Species Plants and Animals................... L-1

L.2. US Fish and Wildlife Consultation Memorandum.................................................................... L-3

L.3. SAMPLE Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan .............................................................. L-12

L.4. Requirements and/or Guidelines for Wildlife Controlled Surface Use Stipulations or 

Exceptions to No Surface Occupancy Stipulations................................................................. L-37

L.5. Crucial Areas Planning System (CAPS)................................................................................. L-38
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 L - ii Appendix L

This page intentionally left blank.
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

Appendix L L - 1 September 2015

Appendix L –Wildlife Resources 

L.1. Threatened and Endangered Species, Special Status Species 

Plants and Animals

Special status species include species listed, proposed for listing, or candidate species under the 

Endangered Species Act and sensitive species identified by the BLM

Species USFWS Status BLM Status

Mammals

White-tailed prairie dog None Sensitive

Black-tailed prairie dog None Sensitive

Black-footed ferret* Endangered

Gray wolf Threatened 

(experimental pop.)

Grizzly Bear Threatened

Canada Lynx Threatened

Wolverine Candidate

Townsend’s big-eared bat Sensitive

Spotted bat Sensitive

Fringe-tailed myotis bat Sensitive

Long-legged myotis bat Sensitive

Long-eared myotis bat Sensitive

Pallid bat Sensitive

Birds

Whooping crane Endangered

Mountain plover Proposed Sensitive

Greater sage-grouse Candidate Sensitive

BLM sensitive raptors (peregrine falcon, burrowing owl, ferruginous 

hawk, Swainson’s hawk)

None Sensitive

Migratory birds None Sensitive

Reptiles/Amphibians

Greater short-horned lizard Sensitive

Milk snake Sensitive

Northern leopard frog Sensitive

Spiny softshell turtle Sensitive

Western hog-nosed snake Sensitive

Fish

Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout Sensitive

Sauger
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 L - 2 Appendix L

Special Status Plants in the Billings Field Office Planning Area

Common Name1 Scientific Name1 Global/State Status

Nodding rock cress Arabis demissa v. languid (Boechera demissa) G5S1S3

Cushion milkvetch Astragalus aretioides (Orophaca aretioides) G4S2

Geyer’s milkvetch Astragalus geyeri G4S2

Gray’s milkvetch Astragalus grayi G4?S2

Oregon milkvetch Astragalus oreganus G4?S1

Blackfoot River eveningprimrose

Camissonia andina (Oenothera andina) G4S2

Lewis River suncup Camissonia parvula (Oenothera parvula) G5S1

Yellow spiderflower Cleome lutea G5S1

Pinyon Desert cryptantha Cryptantha scoparia G4S1

Spiny hopsage Grayia spinosa G5S2

Mat prickly phlox Leptodactylon caespitosum G4S2

Pryor Mountain bladderpod Lesquerella lesicii (Physaria lesicii) G1S1

Torrey’s desert dandelion Malacothrix torreyi (M. sonchoides v. torreyi) G4S1

Dwarf mentzelia Mentzelia pumila G4S2

Leafy nama Nama densum G5S1

Wasatch bluegrass Poa arnowiae (P. curta) G4S1

Platte River cinquefoil Potentilla platensis G4S1

Largeflower goldenweed Pyrrocoma carthamoides v. subsquarrosa 

(Haplopappus carthamoides var. subsquarrosus)

G4G5T2T3S2

Persistent sepal yellowcress Rorippa calycina G3S1

Shoshone carrot Shoshonea pulvinata G2G3S1

Salty buckwheat Stenogonum salsuginosum (Eriogonum s.) G4?S1

The international network of Natural Heritage Programs employs a standardized ranking system to denote global (G) (rangewide) and State (S) (Nature-Serve 2006) status. Species are assigned numeric ranks ranging from 1 (highest risk, greatest 

concern) to 5 (demonstrably secure), reflection the relative degree of risk to the species’ viability, based upon available 

information. 

G1 S1 At high risk because of extremely limited and/or rapidly declining numbers, range, and/or habitat, making it highly 

vulnerable to global extinction or extirpation in the state.

G2 S2 At risk because of very limited and/or declining numbers, range, and/or habitat, making it vulnerable to global 

extinction or extirpation in the state.

G3 S3 Potentially at risk because of limited and/or declining numbers, range, and/or habitat, even though it may be abundant 

in some areas.

G4 S4 Uncommon but not rare (although it may be rare in parts of its range), and usually widespread. Apparently not 

vulnerable in most of its range, but possibly cause for long-term concern.

G5 S5 Common, widespread, and abundant (although it may be rare in parts of its range). Not vulnerable in most of its range.

Sub-rank 

T# Rank of a subspecies or variety. Appended to the global rank of the full species, e.g. G4T3

? Inexact Numeric Rank - Denotes uncertainty; inexactness. 1

Species nomenclature consistent with the USDA PLANTS database (USDA 2009).
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

Appendix L L - 3 September 2015

L.2. US Fish and Wildlife Consultation Memorandum
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 L - 4 Appendix L
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

Appendix L L - 5 September 2015
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 L - 6 Appendix L
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

Appendix L L - 7 September 2015
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 L - 8 Appendix L
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

Appendix L L - 9 September 2015
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 L - 10 Appendix L
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

Appendix L L - 11 September 2015
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 L - 12 Appendix L

L.3. SAMPLE Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

The following document is a SAMPLE of the kind and type of measures that could be 

implemented in the event that the Billings Field Office was to receive a proposal for intensive 

development on public lands. This example was written specifically for coal bed natural gas 

development, but can be easily adapted to new types of development and site specific resources. 

The information is presented here to help guide future development proponents as to the level 

of detail that may be required. Many of the measures contained herein serve as examples of 

Conditions of Approval and future monitoring requirements. 

Table of Contents

Introduction .................................................................................................13 

Plan Purpose .................................................................................................13 

Area and Objectives ........................................................................................14 

Implementation Protocol ....................................................................................15 

Annual Reports and Meetings ...............................................................................15 

Annual Inventory and Monitoring..........................................................................16 

Big Game......................................................................................................17 

General Wildlife...............................................................................................17 

Aquatic Species................................................................................................17 

Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Other Species of Concern.................................19 

Protection Measures..........................................................................................22 

Lease Stipulations and Mitigation Measures.............................................................23 

Programmatic Guidance for the Development of Project Plans.......................................28 

References.....................................................................................................36 

List of Tables: 

Table 1. Summary of General Wildlife Reporting, Inventory, and Monitoring, Billings Resource 

Management Plan. ...................................................................................33 

Table 2. Summary of Survey and Protection Measures, Billings Resource Management Plan

...................................................................................................................34 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

Appendix L L - 13 September 2015

Introduction 

This Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan (WMPP) has been revised and updated from the 

Statewide Oil and Gas Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Amendment of the 

Powder River and Billings Resource Management Plans (RMPs) (BLM, 2001) for the Final 

Billings RMP/ EIS. The DEIS and Amendment addressed future exploration and development of 

BLM and State of Montana managed CBNG resources and conventional oil and gas resources. 

The WMPP will be implemented on federal lands, including split estate, in cooperation with state 

agencies, federal agencies, operators, tribal representatives and landowners. If owners and 

managers of state and private mineral development are willing to incorporate this guidance into 

management of their activities, they may become a partner by entering into a Cooperative 

Agreement. 

The goal of the WMPP is to avoid or minimize impacts to wildlife and serve as a communication 

tool to foster cooperative relationships among project proponents, the public, resource 

management agencies, landowners and adjacent tribal governments. Because this plan addresses 

a large geographic area composed of diverse wildlife habitats and unique situations, it must be 

programmatic in nature. However, the need to provide management recommendations and 

guidance to conserve species and habitats remains. Regional or site specific monitoring and 

protection plans which follow the guidance provided in this programmatic document will be 

required as part of each Project Plan. Implementation of this plan during the course of project 

development and operations should promote wildlife conservation and allow land managers and 

project personnel to maintain wildlife populations and productivity levels simultaneously with 

development. It also allows for adaptation of the project plan to ensure the protection of wildlife 

habitat and species affected. 

Plan Purpose

The WMPP was prepared to acquire baseline wildlife information, monitor populations, and 

assess stipulations or other protection measures for effectiveness. Wildlife stipulations attached 

to leases provide protective measures: 1) for certain species or habitats, 2) during a particular 

time period. These stipulations may not address other concerns related to special status species or 

water/habitat related issues caused by direct and indirect impacts from project development. 

Because it is purely speculative to predict how all wildlife will react or how development will 

proceed, it is difficult to develop prescriptive mitigation standards across the entire planning 

area. Although, BLM has some adaptive management strategies in place (e.g., COAs and 

compliance inspections), these mechanisms do not give us the information necessary to 

understand cause and effect relationships. Inventory and monitoring data will be used in adaptive 

management for improving wildlife management techniques and processes. Therefore, the 

purpose of this plan is to acquire baseline wildlife information, monitor populations, and assess 

the effectiveness of stipulations or other protective measures. The WMPP will facilitate our 

ability to pinpoint problems (including the evaluation of other contributing factors), design 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 L - 14 Appendix L

project plans which include conservation for declining species, monitor the effectiveness of 

decisions, and make recommendations to adjust management to address specific situations. 

Project Plans would be required in areas where multiple separate and distinct land disturbing 

activities may be taking place at different times on different schedules but under one plan. These 

areas would typically be larger scale and longer term project proposals with potentially 

significant resource impacts as determined through NEPA analysis. Smaller scale projects with 

minimal resource impacts would not require Project Plans.

Area and Objectives 

The WMPP document is the framework for wildlife monitoring and protection in the Billings 

RMP area and provides a template for regional and/or project specific WMPP development. The 

BLM, MFWP, and FWS will work cooperatively to implement portions of the WMPP over the 

planning area. 

As energy or project development begins, development specific WMPPs, following the same 

template as this document, will be written in cooperation with other agencies, operators, 

landowners and other interests. The development analysis will include wildlife impacts from the 

affected area, and also the cumulative impacts from other developments (including those of other 

companies) as well as other activities in the area. The objectives of the program are to:

• Establish a framework for cooperation among agencies, operators, landowners, tribal 

governments and interest groups; 

• Provide a process for data collection, data management and reporting; 

• Determine needs for inventory, monitoring and protection measures; 

• Provide guidance and recommendations for the conservation of wildlife species and 

habitats;

• Establish protocols for biological clearances or inventories of Special Status Species;

• Meet the terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion; 

• Determine if management practices to conserve wildlife species and habitat in 

stipulations and conservation measures contained in the BLM Record of Decision, are 

meeting specified objectives;

• Develop recommendations to adjust management actions based on field observations 

and monitoring results.

Implementation of the WMPP will begin with the issuance of the Record of Decision and will 

remain in effect for the life of a project (up to 25 years). Guidance for the conservation of 

special status species will be incorporated into the Project Plan. Signatories on an Interagency 

Cooperative Agreement will serve as the “Steering Committee (Interagency Working Group).” A 

“Core Team” (i.e., agency biologists) will oversee the implementation of the programmatic 

elements of the WMPP. As development is initiated, operator-funded biologists, approved by the 

BLM, will write area-specific monitoring and protection plans. These plans will be reviewed by 

the BLM resource specialists for completeness and content. 

Initially, the programmatic template will undergo an annual review for effectiveness. A major 

review will be conducted every 5 years, or as determined by members of the Core Team, 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

Appendix L L - 15 September 2015

Wildlife, and Aquatic Task Groups. The various cooperators will meet annually (or more often as 

needed) to evaluate the progress of the various POD inventory and monitoring efforts. 

Implementation Protocol

This section provides preliminary wildlife inventory, monitoring, and protection protocol. 

Required actions for inventory, monitoring and protection vary by species and development 

intensity. In development areas, Wildlife Reporting, Inventory, and Monitoring requirements are 

summarized in Table 1. Standard protocol for Survey and Protection Measures way (ROW) for 

the application of field reviews are provided in Table 2. Alternative measures and protocols will 

be developed as determined by Core Team members in response to specific needs identified in 

annual reports. This document provides methods for a number of wildlife species/categories. 

Additional species/categories may be added based on needs identified in annual wildlife reports. 

The wildlife species/categories for which specific inventory, monitoring, and protection 

procedures will be applied were developed based on input provided by the public, other agencies, 

and the BLM. 

Considerable efforts will be required by agency and operator personnel for plan implementation. 

Many of the annually proposed agency data collection activities are consistent with current 

agency activities. Additionally, agency cost-sharing approaches will be considered such that 

public demands and statutory directives are achieved. 

Annual Reports and Meetings

State and federal agencies will cooperate to implement the programmatic elements of inventory, 

monitoring and protection actions associated with development in the Billings RMP area. The 

Montana participants in the Interagency Working Group will oversee implementation across the 

planning area and summarize information from work achieved in various PODs. 

During project development (up to 25 years), to include habitat restoration or rehabilitation 

efforts, operators will annually provide an updated inventory and description of all existing 

project features (i.e., location, size, and associated level of human activity at each feature), as 

well as those tentatively proposed for development during the next 12 months. These data will be 

coupled with annual wildlife inventory, monitoring, and protection data obtained for the previous 

year and included in annual reports. Annual reports will be prepared by the BLM. Annual 

wildlife inventory, monitoring, and protection data gathered by parties other than the BLM (e.g., 

operators, MFWP) should provide data/summaries to the BLM using current format standards. 

Upon receipt of this information, annual reports will be completed in draft form by the BLM and 

submitted to the operators, FWS, MFWP, and other parties. A meeting of the Core Team will be 

organized by the BLM and held annually to discuss and modify, as necessary, proposed wildlife 

inventory, monitoring, and protection protocol for the subsequent year. Additional meetings will 

be scheduled as necessary.

Discussions regarding annual operator-specific financing and personnel requirements will occur 

at these meetings. A formula for determining these requirements will be developed at the first 

year’s meeting (i.e., size of development, anticipated impacts, amount of public land, etc.). A 

protocol regarding how to accommodate previously unidentified development sites will also be 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 L - 16 Appendix L

determined during the annual meeting. Final decisions will be made by the BLM based on the 

input of all affected parties.

A final annual report will be issued by BLM to all potentially affected individuals and groups by 

early February of each year. Annual reports will summarize annual wildlife inventory and 

monitoring results, note any trends across years, identify and assess protection measures 

implemented during past years, specify monitoring and protection measures proposed for the 

upcoming year, and recommend modifications to the existing WMPP based on the effectiveness 

and/or ineffectiveness of past years (i.e., identification of additional species/categories to be 

monitored). Where possible, data presented in reports will be used to identify potential 

correlations between development and wildlife productivity and/or abundance. The BLM will be 

the custodian of the data and stored in BLM’s Geographic Information System (GIS) for retrieval 

and planning unless otherwise agreed to by BLM, MFWP and FWS. Raw data collected each 

year will be provided to other management agencies (e.g., FWS, MFWP) at the request of these 

agencies. In addition, sources of potential disturbance to wildlife will be identified, where 

practical (e.g., development activities, weather conditions, etc.). Inventory and monitoring data 

will be shared on a timely basis by all cooperating agencies.

Additional reports may be prepared in any year, as necessary, to comply with other relevant 

wildlife laws, rules, and regulations (e.g., black-footed ferret survey reports, mountain plover, 

sage-grouse lek counts and bald eagle habitat loss reports). 

Annual Inventory and Monitoring

This document outlines the inventory and monitoring protocol for a number of selected wildlife 

species/categories. Protocol will be unchanged except as authorized by the BLM or specified in 

this plan. Additional wildlife species/categories and associated surveys may be added or wildlife 

species/categories and surveys may be omitted in future years, depending on the results 

presented in the coordinated review of annual wildlife reports. MFWP will be contacted during 

the coordination of survey and other data acquisition phases. Opportunistic wildlife observations 

may be made throughout the year by agency and operator personnel. 

 The frequency of inventory and monitoring will be dependent upon the level of development. In 

general, inventory and monitoring frequency will increase with increased levels of development. 

The level of effort should also be determined by species presence and development projection. 

Inventory and monitoring results may lead to further currently unidentifiable studies (i.e., cause 

and effect). The following sections identify the level of effort required by the WMPP. Site and 

species-specific surveys will continue to be conducted in association with application or project 

field reviews.

Big Game

Elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer, and pronghorn are the common big game species that may 

occur within parts or all of the project planning area. Annual big game seasonal habitat use data 

will be collected and made available to operators, Tribes and landowners. Big game use of 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

Appendix L L - 17 September 2015

seasonal habitats is highly dependent upon a combination of environmental factors including 

terrain, forage quality and snow depth. Therefore, it is difficult to attribute changes in habitat use 

to a single factor. Comparisons in trends between big game seasonal habitat reference areas and 

seasonal habitats associated with project development may provide some insight into the 

response of big game to development. 

General Wildlife

Wildlife mortality from project related development or activities will be documented and 

reported to the BLM and FWS, and measures will be taken to prevent future mortality. If the 

mortalities are birds, they will be collected and kept for identification by someone with an 

appropriate salvage permit. Also, the facilities or activities would need to be “spot checked” by 

appropriate BLM or FWS personnel to ensure compliance. In no cases would operators or other 

workers be allowed to be in possession of migratory bird carcasses. Access roads and other roads 

with project-related traffic increases will be monitored for wildlife mortality so that specific 

mitigation can be designed and implemented as deemed necessary by BLM, in consultation with 

MFWP. 

Aquatic Species

Prior to development, baseline aquatic inventories will be conducted in potentially affected areas 

with operator financial assistance, in an effort to determine occurrence, abundance, and 

population diversity of the aquatic community. These inventories should be repeated as 

necessary in selected intermittent/perennial streams associated with produced water discharge, as 

well as selected intermittent/perennial streams associated with no produced water discharge 

(control sample site).

Natural fluctuations in species occurrence, abundance, and population diversity will be 

determined by comparing changes in control sample sites to baseline inventories. Changes in 

occurrence, abundance, and population diversity of the aquatic community in streams associated 

with produced water discharge may then be possible by comparing to the natural fluctuations. 

Detection of a retraction in the range of a species, a downward trend in abundance, or reduced 

population diversity in systems with produced water discharge shall warrant a review of Project 

Plans and possible recommendations for adjustment of management to address the specific 

problems. 

Aquatic groups to be inventoried and monitored will include: 

• Benthic macroinvertebrates - Determine population diversity using Hess/kick net 

sampling protocol to measure species abundance and establish a diversity index. 

• Amphibians and aquatic reptiles - Determine population diversity and abundance 

utilizing sampling methodologies being developed for prairie species. 

• Non-game fish - Determine population diversity using electrofishing and seining. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 L - 18 Appendix L

• Algae (periphyton) – Determine population diversity. 

Raptors 

Raptor inventories will be conducted in the project area every 5 years, with financial assistance 

being provided by proponents. In potentially affected areas, baseline inventory should be 

conducted by the BLM (with operator financial assistance) prior to the commencement of 

development, to determine the location of raptor nests/territories and their activity status. These 

inventories should be repeated every 5 years (in areas with 1 or less well locations/section) for 

the life of the project to monitor trends in habitat use. These surveys may be implemented 

aerially or from the ground. Operators may provide financial assistance for some work. Data 

collected during the surveys (both inventory and monitoring) will be recorded on BLM approved 

data sheets and entered into the BLM GIS database. BLM should be contacted prior to 

commencement of wildlife surveys to insure proper survey protocols are being utilized.

Nest productivity monitoring will be conducted by the BLM or a BLM-approved biologist. 

Active nests located within 1 mile of project-related disturbance areas will be monitored between 

March 1 and mid-July to determine nesting success (i.e., number of nestlings/fledglings per 

nest). These surveys generally will be conducted from the ground. However, some nests may be 

difficult to observe from the ground due to steep and rugged topography and may require aerial 

surveys. Operators may provide financial assistance for aircraft rental as necessary. Attempts 

will be made to determine the cause of any documented nest failure (e.g., abandonment, 

predation). 

Additional raptor nest activity and productivity monitoring measures will be applied in areas 

with development (i.e., areas with greater than 1 well locations/section) on and within 1 mile of 

the project area. Inventory/monitoring efforts in these areas, as well as selected undeveloped 

reference areas will be conducted annually during April and May, followed by nest productivity 

monitoring. Site and species-specific nest inventories will also continue to be conducted as 

necessary in association with all application and project field reviews. 

All raptor nest/productivity surveys will be conducted using procedures that minimize potential 

adverse effects to nesting raptors. Specific survey protocol for reducing detrimental effects are 

listed in Grier and Fyfe (1987) and Call (1978) and include the following: 

• Nest visits will be delayed for as long as possible during the nesting season. 

• Nests will be approached cautiously, and their status (i.e., number of 

nestling/fledglings) will be determined from a distance with binoculars or a spotting 

scope.

• Nests will be approached tangentially and in an obvious manner to avoid startling 

adults. 

• Nests will not be visited during adverse weather conditions (e.g., extreme cold, 

precipitation events, windy periods, or during the hottest part of the day). 

• Visits will be kept as brief as possible.

• Inventories will be coordinated by the BLM. 

• The number of nest visits in any year will be kept to a minimum. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

Appendix L L - 19 September 2015

Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Other Species of Concern

Operators must identify and map the presence of cottonwood riparian, herbaceous riparian or wet 

meadows, permanent water or wetlands, prairie dog towns, or rock outcrops, ridges or knolls on 

their application. The presence of sensitive habitat may not indicate a species is present. It does, 

however, alert the proponent and BLM that a field review and surveys may be required to 

process the permit or initiate action. The level of effort associated with the inventory and 

monitoring required for threatened, endangered, candidate, and other species of concern 

(TEC&SC) will be commensurate with established protocol for the potentially affected species. 

Methodologies and results of these surveys will be included in annual reports or provided in 

separate supplemental reports. As TEC&SC species are added to or withdrawn from FWS and/or 

BLM lists, appropriate modifications will be incorporated to this plan and specified in annual 

reports. 

TEC&SC data collected during the surveys will be provided only as necessary to those requiring 

the data for specific management and/or project development needs. Site- and species-specific 

TEC&SC surveys will continue to be conducted as necessary in association with all APD and 

ROW application field reviews. Data will be collected on BLM approved data sheets and entered 

into the BLM GIS database.

Ferruginous Hawk 

Timing of surveys is very important in documenting the territory, occupancy, success and 

productivity of ferruginous hawk populations. The accepted survey and monitoring guidelines 

for ferruginous hawk are taken from the Survey and Monitoring Guidelines for Ferruginous 

Hawks in Montana, 1995. 

Bald Eagle 

Inventory and monitoring protocol for the bald eagle will be as described for raptors, with the 

following additions. 

• Operators will indicate the presence of eagle habitat (nesting, foraging, roosting, winter) 

as previously defined on their application. 

• Prior to development or construction, surveys of the wooded riparian corridors within 1.0 

mile of a project area will be conducted in the winter and/or spring by BLM biologists 

and/or BLM-approved biologists to determine the occurrence of winter bald eagle roost 

sites/territories. 

• Surveys will be conducted from daybreak to 2 hours after sunrise and/or from 2 hours 

before sunset to 1 hour after sunset by fixed-wing aircraft. Follow-up ground surveys, if 

necessary, will be conducted during the same time frame. 

• Surveys will be at least 7 days apart. The location, activity, number, and age class 

(immature, mature) of any bald eagles observed will be recorded. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 L - 20 Appendix L

• If a roost or suspected roost is identified, BLM, FWS, and MFWP will be notified and a 

GPS record of the roost/suspected roost will be obtained and entered into the BLM GIS 

database. There will be No Surface Occupancy within 0.5 miles of any identified bald 

eagle roost site/territories.

• Nest productivity will be conducted by the BLM or a BLM-approved biologist in areas 

with one or more well locations per section and within 1 mile of the project area. 

• Active nests located within one mile of project-related disturbance areas (well sites, 

pipelines, roads, compressor stations, and other infrastructure) will be monitored on an 

annual basis between March 1 and mid-July to determine nesting success (i.e., number of 

nestlings/fledglings per nest).

Burrowing Owl

Operators should indicate the presence of prairie dog towns on their application. The presence of 

sensitive habitat does not indicate burrowing owls are present. It does, however, alert the 

proponent and BLM that a field review and surveys may be required to process the permit or 

initiate action. In association with APD and ROW application field reviews, prairie dog colonies 

within 0.5 miles of a proposed project or any other suitable habitat within a 0.5 mile radius area, 

will be surveyed for western burrowing owls by BLM biologists or a BLM-approved operatorfinanced biologist twice yearly from June through August to determine the presence/absence of 

nesting owls. Efforts will be made to determine reproductive success (number of fledglings per 

nest).

Black-footed Ferret

Operators should indicate the presence of prairie dog towns on their application. The presence of 

sensitive habitat does not necessarily indicate suitable black-footed ferret habitat is present. It 

does, however, alert the company and BLM that a field review and surveys may be required to 

process the permit or initiate action. BLM biologists and/or BLM-approved operator-financed 

biologists will determine the presence/absence of prairie dog colonies within 0.5 miles of 

proposed activity during APD and ROW application field reviews. Prairie dog colonies on the 

area will be mapped to determine overall size following the approved methodology. Colony 

acreage will be determined using GIS applications. Colonies that meet FWS size criteria as 

potential black-footed ferret habitat (FWS 1989) will be surveyed to determine active burrow 

density using the methods described by Biggins et al. (1993) or other BLM- and FWS-approved 

methodology. 

Project activity will be located to avoid impacts to prairie dog colonies that meet FWS criteria as 

black-footed ferret habitat (FWS 1989). If avoidance is not possible, all colonies meeting the 

FWS size criteria and any colonies for which density estimates are not obtained will be surveyed 

for black-footed ferrets by an operator-financed, FWS-certified surveyor prior to, but no more 

than 1 year in advance of disturbance to these colonies. Black-footed ferret surveys will be 

conducted in accordance with FWS guidelines (FWS 1989) and will be conducted on a sitespecific basis, depending on the areas proposed for disturbance in a given year as specified in the 

annual report. If a black-footed ferret or its sign is found during a survey, all development 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

Appendix L L - 21 September 2015

activity would be subject to recommendations from the Montana Black-footed Ferret Survey 

Guidelines, Draft Managing Oil and Gas Activities in Prairie Dog Ecosystems with Potential for 

Black-footed ferret Reintroduction and re-initiation of Section 7 Consultation with FWS. 

Black-tailed and White-tailed Prairie Dog

The BLM will determine the acreage of occupied black-tailed and/or white-tailed prairie dog 

habitat within suitable mountain plover habitat on federally managed surface acres and federal 

mineral estate lands. Further, a reasonable effort should be made to estimate actual impacts, 

including habitat loss, project development will have on occupied black-tailed and white-tailed 

prairie dog acres within suitable mountain plover habitat over the entire project area.

Prairie dog towns on BLM lands within 0.5 miles of a specific project area will be identified, 

mapped, and surveyed as described in the black-footed ferret section. On an annual basis, the 

BLM and/or a BLM-approved operator-financed biologist will survey, at least a portion of, the 

prairie dog colonies, including the reference colonies. Prairie dog populations are subject to 

drastic population fluctuations primarily due to disease (plague). Therefore, efforts will be made 

to compare the data from the reference colonies with that obtained from the project areas, in 

order to monitor the response of prairie dog populations to project development. 

Mountain Plover 

Surface use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of active mountain plover nest sites. Disturbance to 

prairie dog towns will be avoided where possible. Any active prairie dog town occupied by 

mountain plover will have Controlled Surface Use between April 1 and July 31, which may be 

reduced to Controlled Surface Use within 1/4 mile of an active nest, once nesting has been 

confirmed. An exception may be granted by the authorized officer after the BLM consults with 

the FWS on a case-by-case basis and the operator agrees to adhere to the new operational 

constraints. 

On federally managed surface acres, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog towns greater than 

80 acres in size within suitable mountain plover habitat will have a no surface use stipulation 

from May 1 through June 15. Prior to permit approval, habitat suitability will be determined. The 

BLM, FWS and MFWP will estimate potential mountain plover habitat across the project area 

using a predictive habitat model. Over the next 5 years, information will be refined by field 

validation using most current FWS mountain plover survey guidelines (FWS 2002c) to 

determine the presence/absence of potentially suitable mountain plover habitat. In areas of 

suitable mountain plover habitat, surveys will be conducted prior to ground disturbance activities 

by the BLM or a BLM-approved operator biologist, using the FWS protocol at the project area, 

plus a 0.5 mile buffer. Efforts will be made to identify mountain plover nesting areas not subject 

to development, to be used as reference sites. Comparisons will be made of the trends in 

mountain plover nesting occupancy between these reference areas and areas experiencing 

development. 

The BLM shall monitor loss of mountain plover habitat associated with all portions of this action 

(operators will indicate the presence of prairie dog towns or other mountain plover habitat 

indicators on their application). Suitable mountain plover habitat has been defined under ‘critical 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 L - 22 Appendix L

habitat’ for the mountain plover in FWS’ Statewide Biological Opinion. The actual measurement 

of disturbed habitat will be the responsibility of the BLM or their agent (consultant, contractor, 

etc) with a written summary provided to the FWS’ Montana Field Office, upon project 

completion or immediately, if the anticipated impact area is exceeded.

Sage-Grouse

Sage-grouse lek inventories will be conducted over the project area every 5 years to determine 

lek locations. Surveys of different areas may occur during different years with the intent the high 

potential project areas will be covered at least once every 5 years. Inventories and protocol will 

be consistent with the Montana Sage Grouse Conservation Plan, coordinated by the BLM and 

MFWP. In areas with development, aerial inventories will be conducted annually on affected 

sections, 3 mile buffers, and selected undeveloped reference areas. Surveys may be conducted 

aerially or on the ground, as deemed appropriate by the BLM and MFWP. Operator may provide 

financial assistance.

Reference leks, identified by BLM and MFWP, are leks located in similar habitat and within 

close proximity to areas currently being developed. 

Aerial surveys will be used for determining lek locations. BLM, MFWP or a BLM-approved 

operator-financed biologist will monitor sage-grouse lek attendance within 3 miles of areas 

having development such that all leks on these areas are surveyed at least once every 3 years. 

Data collected during these surveys will be recorded on BLM and MFWP approved data sheets 

and entered into the approved database. An effort should also be made to compare trends of the 

number of males per lek to reference leks.

Sage-grouse winter use surveys of suitable winter habitat within 4 miles of a project area will be 

coordinated by the BLM and implemented during November through February as deemed 

appropriate by these agencies. Results will be provided in interim and/or annual reports. 

Historical information of winter sage-grouse locations will be useful in focusing efforts in areas 

suspected of providing winter habitat. Sage-grouse winter habitat use surveys will be conducted 

when suitable conditions exist. 

Protection Measures

Wildlife protection measures have been put in place through lease stipulations and project 

design. Stipulations or mitigation that will be approved in the Final Billings RMP/EIS restrict 

activities are designed to reduce the likelihood of “take” of a federally listed species. For all 

stipulations and mitigation measures that include protection of specific habitats (e.g., sage-grouse 

winter habitat), identification of the specific habitat areas will be based on the best available 

science. This may include BLM surveys or information from other sources. For example, 

researchers have developed sage-grouse habitat models that should provide better information on 

sage-grouse habitat areas than is currently available.
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

Appendix L L - 23 September 2015

Lease Stipulations and Mitigation Measures

The lease stipulations will be approved in the Final Billings RMP/EIS. These are mandatory 

measures or actions developed as a result of wildlife research and input from agencies and 

operators. Avoidance of important breeding, nesting, and seasonal habitats is the primary 

protection measure that will reduce the possibility of development having an impact on wildlife 

populations, productivity, or habitat use. Additional conservation measures will be incorporated 

through the Project Plan design or as Conditions of Approval. Data collected during monitoring 

efforts and analyzed will be used to determine the appropriateness and the effectiveness of these 

measures throughout the project area. Based on the results of the monitoring data, these measures 

will be reviewed by the Core Team. As monitoring data are collected over time, it is likely some 

protection measures will be added, while others will be modified or removed in cooperation with 

other agencies and the Core Team. All changes in these protection measures will be reported, 

with a justification for the change, in annual reports. An RMP amendment may be required 

depending on the recommended change. 

Waivers, Exceptions and Modifications (WEMs)

“Waivers” A lease stipulation may be waived by the Authorized Officer if a determination is 

made by the BLM, in consultation with MFWP and/or FWS, that the proposed action will not 

adversely affect the species in question.

 “Exceptions” to protection measure may be granted by the Authorized Officer, in coordination 

with FWS for T&E species and MFWP, if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates impacts 

from the proposed action will not be significant, or can be adequately mitigated. 

“Modifications” may be made by the Authorized Officer if it is determined portions of the area 

do not include habitat protected by the stipulation. 

Stipulations will be developed and approved for the following species through the Billings RMP 

process: Raptors, Bald Eagle, Peregrine Falcon, Big Game, Sage-Grouse, Sharp-tailed grouse, 

Prairie dogs, Mountain Plover, Sprague’s Pipit and associated black-footed ferret habitat, 

waterbird colonies, and Yellowstone cutthroat trout.

Terms and Conditions from Section 7 Consultation

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of Section 9 of the ESA, the Bureau must comply 

with the following terms and conditions, which will implement the reasonable and prudent 

measures described and outlined in the Biological Opinion. These terms and conditions are 

nondiscretionary.

All Species

In the event, dead or injured wildlife species are located during construction and operation, the 

FWS, Montana Field Office, Helena, Montana (406-449-5225) will be notified within 24 hours. 

If the mortalities are birds, they will be collected and kept for identification by someone with an 

appropriate salvage permit. Also, the project areas would need to be “spot checked” by 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 L - 24 Appendix L

appropriate BLM or FWS personnel to insure compliance. In no cases would operators or other 

workers be allowed to be in possession of migratory bird carcasses. The responsible agency must 

provide for monitoring the actual number of individuals taken. Because of difficulty in 

identification, all small birds found dead should be stored in a freezer for the FWS to identify. 

The Bureau shall monitor all loss of TEC&SC habitat associated with all actions. TEC&SC 

habitat will be defined under “habitat use” and “critical habitat” respectively, for each species in 

the Biological Opinion. The actual measurement of disturbed habitat can be the responsibility of 

the BLM or their agent (consultant, contractor, etc.), with a written summary provided to the 

FWS’ Montana Field Office upon project completion. The report will include the location and 

acres of habitat loss, field survey reports, what stipulations were applied, and a record of any 

variance granted to timing and/or spatial buffers. The monitoring of habitat loss for these species 

will commence from the date the Record of Decision (ROD) is signed. The actual measurement 

of disturbed habitat can be the responsibility of the Bureau’s agent (consultant, contractor, etc.) 

with a written summary provided to the FWS’ Montana Field Office semi-annually, or 

immediately if the Bureau determines the action (i.e. APD, pipeline, compressor station) will 

adversely affect a listed species. It is the responsibility of the Bureau to ensure the semi-annual 

reports are complete and filed with the FWS in a timely manner. The semi-annual report will 

include field survey reports for endangered, threatened, proposed and candidate species for all 

actions. The semi-annual reports will include all actions completed under this Biological Opinion 

up to 30 days prior to the reporting date. The first report will be due 6 months from the signing 

of the ROD and on the anniversary date of the signing of the ROD. Reporting will continue for 

the life of the project.

All new roads required for the proposed project will be appropriately constructed, improved, 

maintained, and signed to minimize potential wildlife/vehicle collisions. Appropriate speed 

limits will be adhered to on all project area roads, and operators will advise employees and 

contractors regarding these speed limits. 

Bald Eagle

The Bureau shall require implementation of all conservation measures/mitigation measures 

identified in the Biological Assessment and the Biological Opinion, including the wildlife 

inventory, monitoring, and protection protocol identified in the WMPP. The Bureau shall 

monitor for compliance with the measures and protocol. They are as follows: 

• The appropriate standard seasonal or year-long stipulations for raptors or no surface 

occupancy for bald eagles as identified in the Final Billings RMP will be applied. 

• Inventory and monitoring protocol for the bald eagle will be as described for raptors, 

with the following additions. Operators will indicate the presence of eagle habitat as 

previously defined, on their application. Prior to development or construction, 

surveys of the wooded riparian corridors within 1.0 mile of a project area will be 

conducted in the winter and/or spring by BLM biologists and/or BLM-approved 

biologists to determine the occurrence of winter bald eagle roosts. Surveys will be 

conducted from daybreak to 2 hours after sunrise and/or from 2 hours before sunset to 

1 hour after sunset by aircraft. Follow-up ground surveys, if necessary, will be 

conducted during the same time frame. Surveys will be at least 7 days apart. The 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

Appendix L L - 25 September 2015

location, activity, number, and age class (immature, mature) of any bald eagles 

observed will be recorded and if a roost or suspected roost is identified, BLM, FWS, 

and MFWP will be notified and a GPS record of the roost/suspected roost will be 

entered into the approved database. No Surface Occupancy will be applied within 0.5 

miles of any identified bald eagle roost sites.

• Nest productivity will be conducted by the BLM or a BLM approved biologist in 

areas with development (i.e., areas with greater than 1 well locations/section) and 

within 1 mile of the project area. Active nests located within one mile of projectrelated disturbance areas will be monitored between March 1 and mid-July to 

determine nesting success (i.e., number of nestlings/fledglings per nest). 

• No new above-ground power line should be constructed within 1⁄2 mile of an active 

eagle nest or nest occupied within the recent past. No surface occupancy or use is 

allowed within 0.5 miles of known bald eagle nest sites which have been active 

within the past 5 years. All other actions will be consistent with the Montana Bald 

Eagle Management Plan - July 1994. 

• Power lines will be built to standards identified by the Power Line Interaction 

Committee (2006) to minimize electrocution potential. The FWS has more specific 

recommendations that reaffirm and complement those presented in the Suggested 

Practices. It should be noted these measures vary in their effectiveness to minimize 

mortality, and may be modified as they are tested. Local habitat conditions should be 

considered in their use. The FWS does not endorse any specific product that can be 

used to prevent and/or minimize mortality; however, we are providing a list of Major 

Manufacturers of Products to Reduce Animal Interactions on Electrical Utility 

Facilities.

New Distribution Lines and Facilities

• The following represents areas where the raptor protection measures will be applied when 

designing new distribution line construction:

• Bury distribution lines where feasible.

• Raptor-safe structures (e.g., with increased conductor-conductor spacing) are to be 

used (i.e., minimum 60" for bald eagles would cover all species). 

• Equipment installations (overhead service transformers, capacitors, reclosers, etc.) are 

to be made raptor safe (e.g., by insulating the bushing conductor terminations and by 

using covered jumper conductors). 

• Jumper conductor installations (e.g., corner, tap structures, etc.) are to be made raptor 

safe by using covered jumpers or providing adequate separation. 

• Employ covers for arrestors and cutouts. 

• Lines should avoid high avian use areas such as wetlands, prairie dog towns, and 

grouse leks. If not avoidable, use anti-perching devices to discourage perching in 

sensitive habitats such as grouse leks, prairie dog towns and wetlands to decrease 

predation and decrease loss of avian predators to electrocution.
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 L - 26 Appendix L

Modification of Existing Facilities

Raptor protection measures to be applied when retrofitting existing distribution lines in an effort 

to reduce raptor mortality. Problem structures may include dead ends, tap or junction poles, 

transformers, reclosers and capacitor banks or other structures with less than 60" between 

conductors or a conductor and ground. The following modifications will be made: 

• Cover exposed jumpers. 

• Gap any pole top ground wires. 

• Isolate grounded guy wires by installing insulating link. 

• On transformers, install insulated bushing covers, covered jumpers, cutout covers and 

arrestor covers.

• When raptor mortalities occur on existing lines and structures, raptor protection 

measures are to be applied (e.g., modify for raptor-safe construction, install perches, 

perching deterrents, nesting platforms, nest deterrent devices, etc).

• Use anti-perching devices to discourage perching in sensitive habitats such as grouse 

leks, prairie dog towns and wetlands to decrease predation, and decrease loss of avian 

predators to electrocution.

• In areas where midspan collisions are a problem, install effective line-marking 

devices. All transmission lines that span streams and rivers or in known or discovered 

raptor migration areas, should maintain proper spacing and have markers installed. 

• These additional standards to minimize migratory bird mortalities associated with 

utility transmission lines will be incorporated into the Terms and Conditions for all 

APDs and stipulations for ROW applications. 

Mountain Plover

The Bureau shall require implementation of the conservation measures for mountain plover as 

identified in the Biological Assessment dated October 2006, and the wildlife inventory, 

monitoring, and protection protocol addressed in the WMPP. The Bureau shall monitor for 

compliance with the measures and protocol. They are as follows: 

• Surface use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of active mountain plover nest sites. 

Disturbance to prairie dog towns will be avoided where possible. Any active prairie 

dog town occupied by mountain plovers will have a Controlled Surface Use 

stipulation applied between April 1 and July 31. This area may be reduced to No 

Surface Use within 1/4 mile of an active nest once nesting has been confirmed. An 

exception may be granted by the authorized officer after the BLM consults with the 

FWS and the operator agrees to adhere to the new operational constraints. 

• Due to the declining status of mountain plover in the analysis area and the need to 

retain the most important and limited nesting habitat, all active prairie dog colonies 

on federal surface within suitable mountain plover habitat will have No Surface 

Occupancy applied. This No Surface Occupancy may be modified through an 

amendment to the biological opinion after analysis of impacts to this preferred nesting 

habitat is completed.
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

Appendix L L - 27 September 2015

• BLM will determine the acreage of occupied black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog 

habitat within suitable mountain plover habitat on federally managed surface and 

mineral estate lands. Further, a reasonable effort should be made to estimate the 

actual impacts, including habitat loss, development will have on occupied black-tailed 

and white-tailed prairie dog acres within suitable mountain plover habitat over the 

entire project area. The BLM, FWS, and cooperators will develop a survey protocol 

that may include prioritization of subsets of the project area to be analyzed. Based on 

the results of such analysis, No Surface Occupancy on active prairie dog habitat 

within suitable mountain plover habitat may be modified utilizing an amendment to 

the biological opinion. 

• Prior to permit approval, habitat suitability will be determined. The BLM, FWS or 

MFWP will estimate potential mountain plover habitat across the project area using a 

predictive habitat model. Over the next 5 years, information will be refined by field 

validation using most current FWS mountain plover survey guidelines (FWS 2002c) 

to determine the presence/absence of potentially suitable mountain plover habitat. In 

areas of suitable mountain plover habitat, surveys will be conducted prior to ground 

disturbance activities by the BLM or a BLM-approved biologist using the FWS 

protocol at a specific project area plus a 0.5 mile buffer. Efforts will be made to 

identify mountain plover nesting areas not subject to development as reference sites. 

Comparisons will be made of the trends in mountain plover nesting occupancy 

between these reference areas and areas experiencing project development.

• BLM shall monitor all loss of mountain plover habitat associated with this action 

(operators will indicate the presence of prairie dog towns or other mountain plover 

habitat indicators on their application). Suitable mountain plover habitat has been 

defined under ‘critical habitat’ for the mountain plover in the Biological Opinion. The 

actual measurement of disturbed habitat can be the responsibility of the BLM, its 

agent (consultant, contractor, etc) with a written summary provided to the FWS’ 

Montana Field Office upon completion or immediately if the anticipated impact area 

is exceeded relative to the estimated surface disturbances defined in the SEIS.

• If suitable mountain plover habitat is present, surveys for nesting mountain plovers 

will be conducted prior to ground disturbance activities, if ground disturbing activities 

are anticipated to occur between April 10 and July 10. Disturbance occurring outside 

this period is permitted, but any loss of mountain plover suitable habitat must be 

documented. Sites must be surveyed 3 times between the April 10 and July 10 period, 

with each survey separated by at least 14 days. The earlier date will facilitate 

detection of early-breeding plovers. A disturbance-free buffer zone of 1/4 mile will be 

established around all mountain plover nesting locations between April 1 and July 31. 

If an active nest is found in the survey area, the planned activity should be delayed 37 

days, or seven days post-hatching. If a brood of flightless chicks is observed, 

activities should be delayed at least seven days (FWS 2002). Exceptions and/or 

waiver to stipulations can be made by the BLM through consultation with the FWS.
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 L - 28 Appendix L

• Roads will be located outside of nesting plover habitat where possible. Apply 

mitigation measures to reduce mountain plover mortality caused by increased vehicle 

traffic. Construct speed bumps, use signing or post speed limits as necessary to 

reduce vehicle speeds near mountain plover habitat.

• Creation of hunting perches will be minimized within 1⁄2 mile of occupied nesting 

areas. Utilize perch inhibitors (perch guards) to deter predator use.

• Native seed mixes will be used to re-establish short grass vegetation during 

reclamation. 

• There will be No Surface Occupancy of ancillary facilities (e.g., compressor stations, 

processing plants) within 1/4 mile of known nesting areas. Variance may be granted 

after consultation with the FWS.

• In habitat known to be occupied by mountain plover, no dogs will be permitted at 

work sites to reduce the potential for harassment of plovers.

• The FWS will provide operators and the BLM with educational material illustrating 

and describing the mountain plover, its habitat needs, life history, threats, and 

development activities that may lead to incidental take of eggs, chicks, or adults. This 

information will be required to be posted in common areas and circulated in a 

memorandum among all employees and service providers.

Programmatic Guidance for the Development of Project Plans

Guidance for developing Project Plans and/or conservation measures applied as COAs provide a 

full range of practicable means to avoid or minimize harm to wildlife species or their habitats. 

Operators will minimize impacts to wildlife by incorporating applicable WMPP programmatic 

guidance into project plans. Not all measures may apply to each site-specific development area 

and means to reduce harm are not limited to those identified in the WMPP. This guidance may 

change over time if new conservation strategies become available for Special Status Species or if 

monitoring indicates the measure is not effective or unnecessary. 

BLM and MFWP will work together to collect baseline information about wildlife and sensitive 

habitats possibly containing special status species. During the project development phase, 

operators will identify potentially sensitive habitats and coordinate with BLM to determine 

which species or habitats are of concern within or adjacent to the project area. In areas where 

required site-specific wildlife inventories have not been completed, operators and BLM will 

work cooperatively to achieve this. BLM’s responsibilities under NEPA and ESA essentially are 

the same on split estate as they are with federal surface. BLM and operators will seek input from 

the private surface owner to include conservation measures in split estate situations.

The following guidance and conservation measures are considered “features” or project “design 

criteria” to be used during Project Plan preparation. The design of projects can incorporate 

conservation needs for wildlife species or measures can be added as COAs. These types of 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

Appendix L L - 29 September 2015

conservation actions offer flexibility for local situations and help minimize or eliminate impacts 

to the species of interest.

1. Use the best available information for siting structures (e.g., storage facilities, 

generators and holding tanks) outside the zone of impact in important wildlife 

breeding, brood-rearing and winter habitat based on the following considerations: 

a. size of the structure(s),

b. level/type of anticipated disturbance 

c. life of the operation, and 

d. extent to which impacts would be minimized by topography. 

2. Concentrate energy-related facilities when practicable.

3. Encourage development in incremental stages to stagger disturbance; design 

schedules that include long-term strategies to localize disturbance and recovery 

within established zones over a staggered time frame.

4. Prioritize areas relative to their need for protection, ranging from complete 

protection to moderate to high levels of energy development. 

5. Develop a comprehensive Project Plan for a single activities in one area or for 

multiple activities in one or several areas, to minimize road densities. Project Plans 

would be required in areas where multiple separate and distinct land disturbing 

activities may be taking place at different times on different schedules but under one 

plan. Also, these areas would typically be larger scale and longer term project 

proposals with potentially signigicant resource impacts as determined through NEPA 

analysis. Smaller scale projects with minimal resource impacts would not require 

Project Plans.

6. To reduce additional surface disturbance, existing roads and two-tracks on and 

adjacent to the project area will be used to the extent possible and will be upgraded 

as necessary.

7. Minimize stream channel disturbances and related sediment problems during 

construction of road and installation of stream crossing structures. Do not place 

erodible material into stream channels. Remove stockpiled material from high water 

zones. Locate temporary construction bypass roads in locations where the stream 

course will have minimal disturbance. Time construction activities to protect 

fisheries and water quality.

8. Design stream-crossings for adequate passage of fish (if potential exists). Minimize 

impacts on water quality and, at a minimum, the 25-year frequency runoff. Consider 

oversized pipe when debris loading may pose problems. Ensure sizing provides 

adequate length to allow for depth of road fill. 

9. Use corridors to the maximum extent possible: roads, power, gas and water lines 

should use the same corridor whenever possible.
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 L - 30 Appendix L

10. Avoid, where possible, locating roads in crucial sage-grouse breeding, nesting and 

wintering areas and mountain plover habitats. Develop roads utilizing topography, 

vegetative cover, site distance, etc. to effectively protect identified wildlife habitats. 

11. Conduct all road and stream crossing construction and maintenance activities in 

accordance with agency approved mitigation measures and BMPs.

12. Utilize remote monitoring technologies whenever possible to reduce site visits 

thereby reducing wildlife disturbance and mortalities.

13. All new roads required for the proposed project will be appropriately constructed, 

improved, maintained, and signed to minimize potential wildlife/vehicle collisions 

and facilitate wildlife movement through the project area. Appropriate speed limits 

will be adhered to on all project area roads, and operators will advise employees and 

contractors regarding these speed limits.

14. Road closures may be implemented during crucial periods (e.g., extreme winter 

conditions, and calving/fawning seasons). Personnel will be advised to minimize 

stopping and exiting their vehicles in big game winter range. 

15. Roads no longer required for operations or other uses will be reclaimed if required 

by the surface owner or surface management agency. Reclamation will be conducted 

as soon as practical.

16. Operator personnel and contractors will use existing state and county roads and 

approved access routes, unless an exception is authorized by the surface management 

agency. 

17. Use minimal surface disturbance to install roads and pipelines. Reclaim sites of 

abandoned wells to restore native plant communities. 

18. Reclamation of disturbed areas will be initiated as soon as practical. Native species 

will be used in the reclamation of important wildlife habitat. Wildlife habitat needs 

will be considered during seed mix formulation. 

19. Locate storage facilities, generators, and holding tanks outside the line of sight and 

sound of important sage-grouse breeding habitat. 

20. Minimize ground disturbance in sagebrush stands with documented use by sagegrouse: 

a. breeding habitat – the lek and associated sagebrush;

b. nesting habitat – sagebrush within 4 miles of a lek; and 

c. wintering habitat – sagebrush with documented winter use by sage-grouse. 

21. Site new power lines and pipelines in disturbed areas wherever possible; remove 

overhead powerlines when use is complete.
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

Appendix L L - 31 September 2015

22. Minimize the number of new overhead power lines in sage-grouse or mountain 

plover habitat. Use the best available information for siting powerlines in important 

sage-grouse breeding, brood-rearing, and winter habitat. Bury lines in sage-grouse 

and mountain plover habitat, when feasible. 

23. Restrict timing for powerline installation to prevent disturbance during critical sagegrouse periods (breeding March 1 – June 15; winter December 1 –March 31).

24. If above ground powerline siting is required within 2 miles of important sage-grouse 

breeding, brood-rearing, and winter habitat, emphasize options for preventing raptor 

perch sites utilizing Avian Powerline Action Committee 2006 guidelines. 

25. Encourage monitoring of avian mortalities by entering into a Memorandum of 

Understanding with FWS and the state agencies to establish procedures and policies 

to be employed by the parties to lessen industry’s liability concerns about the “take” 

of migratory birds. 

26. Remove unneeded structures and associated infrastructure when project is 

completed. 

27. Restrict maintenance and related activities in sage-grouse breeding/nesting 

complexes; 15 March -15 June, between the hours of 4:00-8:00 am and 7:00-10:00 

pm. 

28. Restrict noise levels from production facilities to 50 decibels (10 dBa above 

background noise at the lek).

29. Restrict use of heavy equipment that exceeds 50 dBa within 2 miles of a lek from 4-

8am and 7-10pm during April 1 – June 30. 

30. Protect, to the extent possible, natural springs from disturbance or degradation. 

31. Design and manage produced water storage impoundments so as not to degrade or 

inundate sage-grouse leks, nesting sites and wintering sites, prairie dog towns or 

other Special Status Species habitats.

32. Produced water should not be stored in shallow, closed impoundments or playas. 

Impoundments designed as flow through systems will lessen the likelihood selenium 

will bio-accumulate to levels adversely affecting other wildlife.

33. Develop offsite mitigation strategies in situations where fragmentation or 

degradation of Special Status Species habitat is unavoidable.

34. Protect reserve, workover, and production pits potentially hazardous to wildlife by 

netting and/or fencing as directed by the BLM to prevent wildlife access and 

minimize the potential for migratory bird mortality.
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 L - 32 Appendix L

35. Reduce potential increases in poaching through employee and contractor education 

regarding wildlife laws. Operators should report violations to BLM and MFWP. 

36. Operator employees and their contractors will be discouraged from possessing 

firearms while working. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

Appendix L L - 33 September 2015

Table 1. Summary of General Wildlife Reporting, Inventory, and Monitoring, Billings Resource Management Plan

Action Dates Responsible Entity

Project plans for outcoming years, showing general location of proposed 

development 

Annually Team (BLM, FWS, MFWP, operators)

Annual reports summarizing findings and presenting necessary protection 

measures

Annually BLM with reviews MFWP, FWS, operators, and other 

interested parties

Meeting to finalize future year’s inventory, monitoring, and protection 

measures

Annually BLM with participation by FWS, MFWP, operators, and 

other interested parties

Inventory and Monitoring

Big game use monitoring When Applicable BLM with assistance

Determine mountain plover habitat suitability Prior to permit approval BLM & operator assistance

In areas of suitable mountain plover habitat, conduct nest surveys in project 

area, plus a .5 mile buffer

Prior to ground 

disturbing activities

BLM & operator assistance

In areas of suitable mountain plover habitat, map active black-tailed prairie 

dog colonies on federal mineral estate.

Prior to permit approval BLM & operator assistance

Active prairie dog colonies within .5 mile of a specific project area will be 

identified, mapped and surveyed

Prior to permit approval BLM with operator assistance

Raptor nest inventories (POD areas plus 1 mile buffer; burrowing owls 

excluded) 

Every 5 years during 

April and May but prior 

to permit approval

BLM with operator assistance

In areas with potential bald eagle winter roost sites/territories, conduct surveys 

within one mile of project area

Prior to ground 

disturbing activities

BLM & operator assistance

Conduct bald eagle nest inventories within one mile buffer of project area Between March 1 and 

mid-July

BLM & operator assistance

Monitor productivity at active bald eagle nests within one mile of projectrelated disturbanceBetween March 1 and 

mid-July

BLM & operator assistance

Raptor next productivity monitoring at active nests within one mile of project 

disturbance area

Annually March to midJulyBLM with operator assistance

Sage-grouse lek inventories (project area plus three mile buffer) Every 5 years BLM with operator assistance

Sage-grouse lek attendance monitoring on and within 3miles of the POD 

boundary 

Annually BLM with operator assistance will visit selected leks each 

year so that all leks will be visited annually

Threatened, Endangered & Sensitive species inventory/monitoring within 

selected CBNG development areas 

When Applicable BLM with operator assistance
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 L - 34 Appendix L

Table 1. Summary of General Wildlife Reporting, Inventory, and Monitoring, Billings Resource Management Plan

Action Dates Responsible Entity

Other wildlife species inventory/monitoring within selected CBNG 

development areas 

When Applicable BLM with operator assistance

Monitor high priority bat populations for White-Nose Syndrome When applicable BLM with assistance

Table 2. Summary of Survey and Protection Measures, for Development within the Billings Resource Management Plan

Protection Measure Dates

Bald eagle nest surveys within 1 mile of project area Yearlong

Bald eagle nest avoidance within 0.5 mile of active nests No Surface Use or Occupancy

Bald Eagle Winter Roost surveys within 1 mile of project area December 1 to April 1

Bald Eagle Winter Roost avoidance within 0.5 miles of roost site No Surface Use or Occupancy

Black-footed ferret surveys Prairie dog colonies > 80 acres

Mountain plover surveys within 0.5 miles of project area May 1 to June 15

Active prairie dog colonies on federal surface in mountain plover habitat BLM & operator assistance

Mountain plover nest/brood avoidance within .25 miles of project area April 1 to July 31

Peregrine falcon nest avoidance within 1 mile of active nest No Surface Use or Occupancy

Threatened, Endangered & Sensitive species surveys As necessary

Threatened, Endangered & Sensitive species avoidance As necessary

Big game crucial winter range avoidance December 1 – March 31

Elk Parturition Range avoidance April 1 – June 15

Big Horn Sheep – Powder River Breaks No Surface Use or Occupancy

Prairie dog colony mapping and burrow density determinations Yearlong

Raptor next survey/inventory within 0.5 miles of project area Yearlong

Raptor nest avoidance within 0.5 miles of active nests March 1 – August 1
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

Appendix L L - 35 September 2015

Table 2. Summary of Survey and Protection Measures, for Development within the Billings Resource Management Plan

Protection Measure Dates

Sage-grouse nesting habitat avoidance on areas within 4.0 miles of a lek April 1 – June 30

Sage-grouse and sharp-tailed grouse lek avoidance within 0.6 miles of a lek No Surface Use or Occupancy

Sharp-tailed grouse nesting habitat avoidance on areas within 2 miles of a lek March 1 – June 15

Western burrowing owl surveys (prairie dog colonies within 0.5 miles of disturbance) June – August

General wildlife avoidance/protection As necessary

NOTE: 

In areas of higher or more intensive development, the frequency and timing of inventory and monitoring may need to be increased or expanded to address potential resource 

impacts. Additional monitoring, inventory, or studies may need to be conducted on areas of development and selected undeveloped comparison or control areas.
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 L - 36 Appendix L

References 

Atkinson, E. C. 1995. Survey and monitoring guidelines for ferruginous hawks in Montana. 

USDI, Bureau of land Management and Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks. 42pp. 

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee. 1994. Mitigating bird collisions with power lines: 

The state of the art in 1994. Edison Electric Institute, Washington, D.C. 78pp. +append 

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee. 2006. Suggested practices for avian protection on 

power lines: The state of the art in 2006. Edison Electric Institute and California Electric 

Commission, Washington, D.C. and Sacramento, CA. 207pp. 

Biggins, D.E., B.J. Miller, L.R. Hanebury, B. Oakleaf, A.H. Farmer. 1993. A technique for 

evaluating black-footed ferret habitat. Pp 73-87 In Proceedings of the Symposium on the 

Management of Prairie Dog Complexes for the Reintroduction of the Black-footed Ferret. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

Call, M. W. 1978. Nesting habitats and surveying techniques for common western raptors. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Technical Note No. 316. 115pp. 

Grier, J.W., and R.W. Fyfe. 1987. Preventing research and management disturbance. Pages 

173-182 In B.A.G. Pendleton, B.A. Milsap, K.W. Kline, and D.M. Bird editors. Raptor 

management techniques. Institute of Wildlife Research, National Wildlife Federation, Scientific 

and Technical Series No. 10 420 pp. 

Montana Sage-grouse Work Group. 2005. Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for 

Sage-grouse in Montana – Final. Revised February 1, 2005. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1983. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Resources 

Management Plan, Billings Resource Area. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management. November 1983. BLM-MT-ES-84-002-4410. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1984. Powder River Resource Area, Resource 

Management Plan, Miles City District, Final Environmental Impact Statement, December 1984, 

United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Miles City District Office, 

BLM-MT-ES-85-0014410. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1992. Final Oil and Gas RMP/EIS Amendment for the 

Billings, Powder River and South Dakota Resource Areas. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, Miles City District.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Black-footed ferret survey guidelines for compliance with 

the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Colorado, and 

Albuquerque, New Mexico (April 1989). 10pp. +append 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002c. Mountain Plover survey guideline. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 7pp. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

Appendix L L - 37 September 2015

L.4. Requirements and/or Guidelines for Wildlife Controlled 

Surface Use Stipulations or Exceptions to No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulations 

Plans that are required by controlled surface use (CSU) stipulations or exceptions to no surface 

occupancy stipulations for crucial winter range, greater sage-grouse habitat, bighorn sheep range, 

and other Special Status Species areas will be subject to the following requirements and/or 

guidelines. These requirements and guidelines may be modified based on the best available 

science and research, and best management practices. 

The plan shall address:

• Mitigation or methods that would be used to abate continuous noise (related to longterm operations and/or activities) or temporary noise (related to installation, 

maintenance, one-time use, emergency operations, etc.) to minimize disruption to 

wildlife.

• The management of water developments to reduce the spread of West Nile virus 

within greater sage-grouse habitat areas. The placement of linear rights-of-way 

(ROW) to reduce disturbance to wildlife.

• The placement of new utility developments (powerlines, pipelines, etc.) and 

transportation routes in a manner that does not impact wildlife such as through 

eliminating the need for powerlines or burying powerlines. 

• The design and placement of high profile structures exceeding 10 feet in height in a 

manner that does not impact wildlife.

• The reduction of the frequency of human visitation at wells sites such as through 

remote monitoring of production facilities. 

• Interim reclamation on long-term access roads and well pads including reshaping, 

topsoiling and revegetating cut and fill slopes to maximize the habitat restoration. 

• Restoration of disturbed areas at final reclamation to pre-disturbance conditions or 

desired plant community.

• Placement of permanent (longer than 2 months) structures which create movement to 

minimize impacts to wildlife. 

The plan shall consider:

• The use of off-site mitigation, (e.g., creation of sagebrush habitat or conservation 

easements) with proponent dollars to offset habitat losses.

• The 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 would provide more effective 

mitigation of the impact than can be achieved on-site.
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 L - 38 Appendix L

L.5. Crucial Areas Planning System (CAPS)

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks

Crucial Areas Planning System User’s Guide

Version 1.0 –April 2010

In 2008, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (MTFWP) took the lead in conducting a Crucial Areas 

Assessment. The Assessment evaluated the fish, wildlife and recreational resources of Montana 

in order to identify crucial areas and fish and wildlife corridors. The result, in part, is a Webbased Crucial Areas Planning System (CAPS), a new MTFWP mapping service aimed at 

future planning for a variety of development and conservation purposes so fish, wildlife, and 

recreational resources can be considered earlier.

The Crucial Areas Planning System (CAPS) is intended to provide useful and non-regulatory 

information during the early planning stages of development projects, conservation 

opportunities, and environmental review. 

• CAPS is not intended to replace consultation with MTFWP staff. In cases where 

federally threatened or endangered species occur, CAPS does not replace a federal 

consultation under the Endangered Species Act.

• Finest data resolution is at the square mile section scale or waterbody, and use of 

these data layers at a more localized scale is not appropriate and may lead to 

inaccurate interpretations. The classification may or may not apply to the entire 

section. Consult the local MTFWP biologist for more localized information. 

How Data Are Used in This RMP:

CAPS data used in this RMP are from the “Big Game Winter Range Habitat” CAPS Score 1 &

2. Big game data is for the protection of big game winter ranges. Refer to maps 15-20 for a 

current map of habitat within the Billings Field Office. 

Attached are descriptions of the assessment process used by MTFWP. In the future, changes, 

revisions, or elimination of this data will be coordinated and agreed upon with MTFWP. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

Appendix L L - 39 September 2015
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 L - 40 Appendix L
Appendix M: 

Coal Resources: Coal Development Potential and 

Unsuitability Criteria 

Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix M M - i September 2015 

Table of Contents

M. Coal Resources: Coal Development Potential and Unsuitability Criteria .................................... M-1

M.1 Coal Resource Objectives and Planned Actions ...................................................................... M-1

M.2 Decision Rationale ................................................................................................................... M-2

M.3 Coal Screens and Unsuitability Criteria ................................................................................... M-2

M.4 Coal Beds and Coal Fields ..................................................................................................... M-10

M.4.1 Bridger and Joliet-Fromberg Coal Fields ....................................................................... M-10

M.4.2 Silvertip and Stillwater Coal Fields ............................................................................... M-12

M.4.3 Red Lodge-Bearcreek Coal Field ................................................................................... M-14

M.4.4 Bull Mountain Coal Field .............................................................................................. M-17

M.4.5 Mammoth Coal Bed ....................................................................................................... M-20

M.4.6 Carpenter and McCleary Coal Beds ............................................................................... M-25

M.5 Summary ................................................................................................................................ M-28

M.6 Coal Resource Objectives and Planned Actions .................................................................... M-29

M.7 Decision Rationale ................................................................................................................. M-29
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 M - ii Appendix M 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix M M - 1 September 2015 

M. Coal Resources: Coal Development Potential and 

Unsuitability Criteria

M.1 Coal Resource Objectives and Planned Actions 

The Billings Field Office planning area will be open for federal coal exploration license 

applications. Licenses to mine federal coal for domestic use will be available as long as 

production does not annually exceed 20 tons. Federal coal leasing by application (LBA) will 

remain available for both underground and surface mining considerations. The unsuitability 

criteria will be applied to the lease application area and a plan amendment to the current RMP 

will be prepared if necessary. Prior to approving exploration licenses, licenses to mine 

(domestic), and coal lease applications, a project-specific environmental review document will 

be prepared to assess impacts and develop mitigation measures. 

The federal coal leasing decisions that were made in the previous RMP will be brought forward 

and adopted in this RMP: 

 All federal coal that is minable by underground methods is suitable for further 

consideration for leasing or exchange, pending further study. Within the planning area, 

potential coal resource underground mining development areas occur in the Bull 

Mountain Coal Field located in Musselshell and Yellowstone counties and in the Red 

Lodge-Bearcreek Coal Field located in Carbon County. The coal unsuitability criteria 

will not be applied to the lands comprising the coal application area until a site-specific 

mine plan is filed that details the proposed locations of surface facilities. 

 Within the planning area, surface coal mining development areas occur within the Bull 

Mountain Coal Field and are suitable for further consideration for leasing or exchange, 

pending further study. Within this area, federal coal with a strip ratio less than 10:1, that 

can be mined by surface methods must first be screened to determine their development 

potential, surface owner opposition to mining, the presence of unacceptable 

environmental conflicts (unsuitability criteria), and multiple use conflicts in accordance 

with the four coal screens. The application of the coal screens also includes the 

consideration of the unsuitability criteria. 

In 1984, surface owners of land overlying federal coal in the Bull Mountain Coal Field in the 

Mammoth and McCleary beds (South Divide Resource Area) were consulted to determine their 

preference for or against leasing their land for surface mining. Due to the significant amount of 

time that has elapsed since the consultation was conducted, it was decided not to include that 

data in the RMP (see Chapter 3 – Coal of the PRMP/FEIS).

Federal coal lease applications and exchange proposals will be considered on a case-by-case 

basis. The coal screening process will be applied to future lease application areas that have 

surface mine development potential. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 M - 2 Appendix M 

M.2 Decision Rationale 

This action was selected because it will enable the BLM to comply with the multiple use 

mandates established by FLPMA and the 43 CFR 1600 regulations governing multiple use 

planning. Furthermore, it will allow the BLM to comply fully with the Surface Mining Coal 

Reclamation Act (SMCRA) and the 43 CFR 3400 regulations established to govern the federal 

coal management program. Although development of federal coal resources by surface mining 

methods will be allowed in the Bull Mountain Coal Field, underground mining will be 

encouraged, because it is less environmentally disruptive. The decision to implement a 10:1 

(overburden thickness to coal thickness) stripping ratio cutoff limit was based on the premise that 

it may limit the size of the surface mine. 

M.3 Coal Screens and Unsuitability Criteria 

The principle coal resource-related decision required in developing a land use plan (LUP) is the 

identification of areas that could be acceptable for further consideration for coal leasing. 43 CFR 

3420.1 4(e) states: 

“The major land use planning decision concerning coal resource development shall be the 

identification of areas acceptable for further consideration for leasing which shall be identified 

by the screening procedures.”

Four coal screens were applied to areas within the planning area that contain federal coal that 

could be potentially developed by surface mining methods. The four coal screens (43 CFR 

3420.1-4) are explained below: 

 Identification of Area with Coal Development Potential – Areas being considered for 

development must have a coal resource that has the potential to be developed by surface 

mining methods. Areas could be eliminated from further consideration if they do not 

contain a coal resource with development potential; 

 Surface Owner Consultation – Surface owners in areas that have the potential to be 

developed must by consulted to determine their view of surface mining. Negative surface 

owner consent could result in lands being eliminated from further consideration for 

development; 

 Application of Unsuitability Criteria – A list of 20 coal unsuitability criteria are 

applied to areas that have coal development potential. Areas can be eliminated from 

further consideration for development if they fail to meet any of the 20 unsuitability 

criteria; and 

 Multiple Use Conflict Analysis – The value of other federal resources that are present in 

coal development areas must be also be considered. Areas with coal development 

potential may be eliminated from further consideration based on multiple use 

considerations if other federal resource values are determined to be superior to the coal 

resource. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix M M - 3 September 2015 

Once the coal screens have been applied to prospective coal resource areas via the LUP, the 

unsuitability criteria are generally reviewed and possibly readjusted during the environmental 

review process for subsequent coal lease applications. 

Provided below is a description of the 20 unsuitability criteria for assessing lands suitable for all 

or certain stipulated methods of coal mining: 

Criterion Number 1: All federal lands included in the following land systems or categories 

shall be considered unsuitable: National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System, 

National System of Trails, National Wilderness Preservation System, National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System, National Recreation Areas, lands acquired with money derived from the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund, National Forests, and federal lands in incorporated cities, towns 

and villages. 

Exceptions: (i) A lease may be issued within the boundaries of any National Forest if the 

Secretary finds no significant recreational, timber, economic or other values which may 

be incompatible with the lease; and (A) surface operations and impacts are incident to an 

underground coal mine or (B) where the Secretary of Agriculture determines, with 

respect to lands which do not have significant forest cover within those National Forests 

west of the 100th meridian, that surface mining may be in compliance with the MultipleUse Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976, 

and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. (ii) A lease may be issued 

within the Custer National Forest with the consent of the Department of Agriculture as 

long as no surface coal mining operations are permitted. 

Exemptions: The application of this criterion to lands within the listed land systems and 

categories is subject to valid existing rights, and does not apply to surface coal mining 

operations existing on August 3, 1977. 

Criterion Number 2: Federal lands that are within rights-of-way or easements or within surface 

leases for residential, commercial, industrial, or public purposes on federally owned surface shall 

be considered unsuitable. 

Exceptions: A lease may be issued, and mining operations approved in such areas if the 

surface management agency determines that: 

i. All or certain types of coal development (e.g., underground mining) will not 

interfere with the purpose of the right-of-way or easement; or 

ii. The right-of-way or easement was granted for mining purposes; or 

iii. The right-of-way or easement was issued for a purpose for which it is not being 

used; or 

iv. The parties involved in the right-of-way or easement agree, in writing, to leasing; 

or 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 M - 4 Appendix M 

v. It is impractical to exclude such areas due to the location of coal and method of 

mining and such areas or uses can be protected through appropriate stipulations. 

Exemptions: This criterion does not apply to lands: to which the operator made 

substantial legal and financial commitments prior to January 4, 1977; on which surface 

coal mining operations were being conducted on August 3, 1977; or which include 

operations on which a permit has been issued. 

Criterion Number 3: The terms used in this criterion have the meaning set out in the Office of 

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement regulations at Chapter VII of Title 30 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations. Federal lands affected by section 522(e) (4) and (5) of the Surface 

Mining Control Act of 1977 shall be considered unsuitable. This Includes lands within 100 feet 

of the outside line of the right-of-way of a public road or within 100 feet of a cemetery, or within 

300 feet of a public building, school, church, community or institutional building, or public park, 

or within 300 feet of an occupied dwelling. 

Exceptions: A lease may be issued for lands: 

i. Used as mine access roads or haulage roads that join the right-of-way for a public 

road; 

For which the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement has issued a 

permit to have public roads relocated; 

If, after public notice and opportunity for public hearing in the locality, a written 

finding is made by the authorized officer that the interests of the public and the 

landowners affected by mining within 100 feet of a public road will be protected; 

For which owners of occupied buildings have given written permission to mine 

within 300 feet of their dwellings. 

Exemptions: The application of this criterion is subject to valid existing rights, and does 

not apply to surface coal mining operations existing on August 3, 1977. 

Criterion Number 4: Federal lands designated as wilderness study areas shall be considered 

unsuitable while under review by the Administration and the Congress for possible wilderness 

designation. For any federal land which is to be leased or mined prior to completion of the 

wilderness inventory by the surface management agency, the environmental assessment or 

impact statement on the lease sale or mine plan shall consider whether the land possesses the 

characteristics of a wilderness study area. If the finding is affirmative, the land shall be 

considered unsuitable, unless issuance of noncompetitive coal leases and mining on leases is 

authorized under the Wilderness Act and the Federal land Policy and Management Act of 1976. 

Exemption: The application of this criterion to lands for which the Bureau of Land 

Management is the surface management agency and lands in designated wilderness areas 

in National Forests is subject to valid existing rights. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix M M - 5 September 2015 

Criterion Number 5: Scenic federal lands designated by visual resource management analysis 

as Class I (an area of outstanding scenic quality or high visual sensitivity) but not currently on 

the National Register of Natural Landmarks shall be considered unsuitable. 

Exception: A lease may be issued if the surface management agency determines that surface coal 

mining operations will not significantly diminish or adversely affect the scenic quality of the 

designated area. 

Exemptions: This criterion does not apply to lands: to which the operator made 

substantial legal and financial commitments prior to January 4, 1977; on which surface 

coal mining operations were being conducted on August 3, 1977: or which include 

operations on which a permit has been issued. 

Criterion Number 6: Federal lands under permit by the surface management agency, and being 

used for scientific studies involving food or fiber production, natural resources or technology 

demonstrations and experiments shall be considered unsuitable for the duration of the study, 

demonstration, or experiment, except where mining could be conducted in such a way as to 

enhance or not jeopardize the purposes of the study, as determined by the surface management 

agency, or where the principal scientific user or agency gives written concurrence to all or 

certain methods of mining. 

Exemptions: This criterion does not apply to lands: to which the operator made 

substantial legal and financial commitments prior to January 4, 1977; on which surface 

coal mining operations were being conducted on August 3, 1977; or which include 

operations on which a permit has been issued. 

Criterion Number 7: All publicly or privately owned places which are included in the National 

Register of Historic Places shall be considered unsuitable. This shall include any areas that the 

surface management agency determines, after consultation with the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation and the State Historic Preservation Officer, are necessary to protect the 

inherent values of the property that made it eligible for listing in the National Register. 

Exemptions: This criterion does not apply to lands: to which the operator made 

substantial legal and financial commitments prior to January 4, 1977; on which surface 

coal mining operations were being conducted on August 3, 1977; or which include 

operations on which a permit has been issued. 

Criterion Number 8: Federal lands designated as natural areas or as National Natural 

Landmarks shall be considered unsuitable. 

Exceptions: A lease may be issued and mining operation approved in an area or site if 

the surface management agency determines that: 

ii. The use of appropriate stipulated mining technology will result in no significant 

adverse impact to the area or site; or 

The mining of the coal resource under appropriate stipulations will enhance 

information recovery (e.g. paleontological sites). 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 M - 6 Appendix M 

Exemptions: This criterion does not apply to lands: to which the operator made 

substantial legal and financial commitments prior to January 4, 1977; on which surface 

coal mining operations were being conducted on August 3, 1977; or which includes 

operations on which a permit has been issued. 

Criterion Number 9: Federally designated critical habitat for listed threatened or endangered 

plant and animal species, and habitat for federal threatened or endangered species which is 

determined by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the surface management agency to be of 

essential value and where the presence of threatened or endangered species has been 

scientifically documented, shall be considered unsuitable. 

Exception: A lease may be issued and mining operations approved if, after consultation 

with the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Service determines that the proposed activity is 

not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species and/or its critical 

habitat. 

Exemptions: This criterion does not apply to lands: to which the operator made 

substantial legal and financial commitments prior to January 4, 1977; on which surface 

coal mining operations were being conducted on August 3, 1977; or which include 

operations on which a permit has been issued. 

Criterion Number 10: Federal lands containing habitat determined to be critical or essential for 

plant or animal species listed by a state pursuant to state law as endangered or threatened shall be 

considered unsuitable. 

Exception: A lease may be issued and mining operations approved if, after consultation 

with the state, the surface management agency determines that the species will not be 

adversely affected by all or certain stipulated methods of coal mining. 

Exemptions: This criterion does not apply to lands: to which the operator made 

substantial legal and financial commitments prior to January 4, 1977; on which surface 

coal mining operations were being conducted on August 3, 1977; or which include 

operations on which a permit has been issued. 

Criterion Number 11: A bald or golden eagle nest or site on federal lands that is determined to 

be active and an appropriate buffer zone of land around the nest site shall be considered 

unsuitable. Consideration of availability of habitat for prey species and of terrain shall be 

included in the determination of buffer zones. Buffer zones shall be determined in consultation 

with the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Exceptions: A lease may be issued if: 

iii. It can be conditioned in such a way, either in manner or period of operation, that 

eagles will not be disturbed during breeding season; or 

iv. The surface management agency, with the concurrence of the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, determines that the golden eagle nest(s) will be moved; 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix M M - 7 September 2015 

v. Buffer zones may be decreased if the surface management agency determines that 

the active eagle nests will not be adversely affected. 

Exemptions: This criterion does not apply to lands: to which the operator made 

substantial legal and financial commitments prior to January 4, 1977; on which surface 

coal mining operations were being conducted on August 3, 1977; or which include 

operations on which a permit has been issued. 

Criterion Number 12: Bald and golden eagle roost and concentration areas on federal lands 

used during migration and wintering shall be considered unsuitable. 

Exception: A lease may be issued if the surface management agency determines that all 

or certain stipulated methods of coal mining can be conducted in such a way, and during 

such periods of time, to ensure that eagles shall not be adversely disturbed. 

Exemptions: This criterion does not apply to lands: to which the operator made 

substantial legal and financial commitments prior to January 4, 1977; on which surface 

coal mining operations were being conducted on August 3, 1977; or which include 

operations on which a permit has been issued. 

Criterion Number 13: Federal lands containing a falcon (excluding kestrel) cliff nesting site 

with an active nest and a buffer zone of federal land around the nest site shall be considered 

unsuitable. Consideration of availability of habitat for prey species and of terrain shall be 

included in the determination of buffer zones. Buffer zones shall be determined in consultation 

with the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Exception: A lease may be issued where the surface management agency, after 

consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service, determines that all or certain stipulated 

methods of coal mining will not adversely affect the falcon habitat during the periods 

when such habitat is used by the falcons. 

Exemptions: This criterion does not apply to lands: to which the operator made 

substantial legal and financial commitments prior to January 4, 1977; on which surface 

coal mining operations were being conducted on August 3, 1977; or which include 

operations on which a permit has been issued. 

Criterion Number 14: Federal lands which are high priority habitat for migratory bird species 

of high federal interest on a regional or national basis, as determined jointly by the surface 

management agency and the Fish and Wildlife Service, shall be considered unsuitable. 

Exception: A lease may be issued where the surface management agency, after 

consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service, determines that all or certain stipulated 

methods of coal mining will not adversely affect the migratory bird habitat during the 

periods when such habitat is used by the species. 

Exemption: This criterion does not apply to lands: to which the operator made substantial 

legal and financial commitments prior to January 4, 1977; on which surface coal mining 

operations were being conducted on August 3, 1977; or which include operations on 

which a permit has been issued. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 M - 8 Appendix M 

Criterion Number 15: Federal lands which the surface management agency and the state 

jointly agree are habitat for resident species of fish and wildlife and plants of high interest to the 

state and which are essential for maintaining these priority wildlife species shall be considered 

unsuitable. 

Examples of such lands which serve a critical function for the species involved include: 

vi. Active dancing and strutting grounds for sage grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, and 

prairie chicken; 

Winter ranges crucial for deer, antelope, and elk; 

Migration corridors for elk; 

Extremes of range for plant species; and 

A lease may be issued if, after consultation with the state, the surface management 

agency determines that all or certain stipulated methods of coal mining will not have a 

significant long-term impact on the species being protected. 

Exemptions: This criterion does not apply to lands: to which the operator made 

substantial legal and financial commitments prior to January 4, 1977; on which surface 

coal mining operations were being conducted on August 3, 1977; or which include 

operations on which a permit has been issued. 

Criterion Number 16: Federal lands in riverine, coastal, and special floodplains (l00-year 

recurrence interval) on which the surface management agency determines that mining could not 

be undertaken without substantial threat of loss of life or property shall be considered unsuitable 

for all or certain stipulated methods of coal mining. 

Exemptions: This criterion does not apply to lands: to which the operator made 

substantial legal and financial commitments prior to January 4, 1977; on which surface 

coal mining operations were being conducted on August 3, 1977; or which include 

operations on which a permit has been issued. 

Criterion Number 17: Federal lands which have been committed by the surface management 

agency to use as municipal watersheds shall be considered unsuitable. 

Exception: A lease may he issued where the surface management agency in consultation 

with the municipality (incorporated entity) or the responsible governmental unit 

determines, as a result of studies, that all or certain stipulated methods of coal mining will 

not adversely affect the watershed to any significant degree. 

Exemptions: This criterion does not apply to lands: to which the operator made 

substantial legal and financial commitments prior to January 4, 1977; on which surface 

coal mining operations were being conducted on August 3, 1977; or which include 

operations on which a permit has been issued. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix M M - 9 September 2015 

Criterion Number 18: Federal lands with National Resource Waters, as identified by states in 

their water quality management plans, and a buffer zone of federal lands 1⁄4 mile from the outer 

edge of the far banks of the water, shall be unsuitable. 

Exception: The buffer zone may be eliminated or reduced in size where the surface 

management agency determines that it is not necessary to protect the National Resource 

Waters. 

Exemptions: This criterion does not apply to lands: to which the operator made 

substantial legal and financial commitments prior to January 4, 1977; on which surface 

coal mining operations were being conducted on August 3, 1977; or which include 

operations on which a permit has been issued. 

Criterion Number 19: Federal lands identified by the surface management agency, in 

consultation with the state in which they are located, as alluvial valley floors according to the 

definition in §3400.0-5(a) of this title, the standards in 30 CFR Part 822, the final alluvial valley 

floor guidelines of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement when published, 

and approved state programs under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, 

where mining would interrupt, discontinue or preclude farming, shall be considered unsuitable. 

Additionally, when mining federal land outside an alluvial valley floor would materially damage 

the quantity or quality of water in surface or underground water systems that would supply 

alluvial valley floors, the land shall be considered unsuitable. 

Exemptions: This criterion does not apply to surface coal mining operations which 

produced coal in commercial quantities in the year preceding August 3, 1977, or which 

had obtained a permit to conduct surface coal mining operations. 

Criterion Number 20: Federal lands in a state to which is applicable a criterion (i) proposed by 

that state or Indian tribe located in the planning area, and (ii) adopted by rulemaking by the 

Secretary, shall be considered unsuitable. 

Exceptions: A lease may be issued when: 

vii. Such criterion is adopted by the Secretary less than 6 months prior to the 

publication of the draft comprehensive land use plan or land use analysis plan, or 

supplement to a comprehensive land use plan, for the area in which such land is 

included; or 

After consultation with the state, the surface management agency determines that all 

or certain stipulated methods of coal mining will not adversely affect the value 

which the criterion would protect. 

Exemptions: This criterion does not apply to lands: to which the operator made 

substantial legal and financial commitments prior to January 4, 1977; on which surface 

coal mining operations were being conducted on August 3, 1977; or which include 

operations on which a permit has been issued. 

Underground mining exemption from criteria: 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 M - 10 Appendix M 

a) Federal lands with coal deposits that would be mined by underground mining 

methods shall not be assessed as unsuitable where there would be no surface coal 

mining operations, as defined in §3400.0-5 of this title, on any lease, if issued. 

b) Where underground mining will include surface operations and surface impacts 

on federal lands to which a criterion applies, the lands shall be assessed as 

unsuitable unless the surface management agency finds that a relevant exception 

or exemption applies. Source: 43 CFR 3461.1, BLM, 1987 

M.4 Coal Beds and Coal Fields 

Coal beds are present at various stratigraphic intervals within the coal fields that are located in 

the planning area, including the Cretaceous Eagle, Judith River, Hell Creek and the Paleocene 

Fort Union Formations (Map 47). The Judith River and Hell Creek Formations contain coal 

which is generally thin (less than 2 feet thick) and often has a high content of volcanic ash, 

lowering its quality. These formations crop out (are present at the surface) in western 

Musselshell and Yellowstone counties and in northern Carbon County. Due to the lack of 

geologic data, the development potential for coal beds occurring in these two formations is 

unknown. 

Within the planning area, coal has been historically mined from beds occurring in the Eagle and 

Fort Union Formations. The only coal that is currently being produced in the planning area is 

from the Fort Union Formation in the Bull Mountain coal field near Roundup, Montana. 

Following, is a description of the geology, historical production, and coal resource development 

potential of the coal fields which occur in the planning area. The coal resource estimates stated 

in this document are just “estimates.”

M.4.1 Bridger and Joliet-Fromberg Coal Fields 

The coal-bearing Eagle Formation crops out over a large area in the planning area, forming 

rimrocks along the Yellowstone and Clarks Fork River valleys. In the southern part of the 

planning area (Carbon County), coal occurs in the middle (shale) member of the Eagle 

Formation. Coal resources occur in an area bounded on the north by Rock Creek and on the 

south and east by the Clarks Fork River (see Figure M-1). Shale or “bone” (shaley coal) 

partings within the Eagle Formation coal horizon separate the coal into as many as three distinct 

beds. The position of these partings within the coal horizon influenced how the coal was mined 

and impacted its overall quality. 

The Fromberg fault offsets the Eagle Formation outcrop effectively dividing the coal resource 

into two separate coalfields; the Bridger and Joliet/Fromberg (Cannon, 1986). Underground 

mines were opened in this area in the late 1800s. The primary coal bed crops out along an 

approximate north-south line from Joliet to a point about two miles southwest of Fromberg, 

where it has been displaced by the fault (Figure M-1). The coal bed is subbituminous to 

bituminous in grade and ranges in thickness from 12 to 65 inches, with partings of shale or 

carbonaceous shale (Knappen and Moulton, 1931). The coal bed is locally called the Bridger 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix M M - 11 September 2015 

Figure M-1: Location of the Bridger and Joliet-Fromberg Coal Fields 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 M - 12 Appendix M 

coal because of past production of the coal from mines at Bridger, Montana. However, several 

small mines were opened west of Fromberg. The mines shut down in the 1930s. Although no 

total production figures are available, over 100,000 tons were produced in 1907. 

The coal resources for the Bridger coal field can only be estimated with a high degree of 

uncertainty. There has been no recent exploration in the coal field and the only production 

records are from coal mines that were abandoned nearly 100 years ago. The coal field 

encompasses approximately 13,720 acres, of which, 10,240 acres are federally owned (Figure 

M-1). If the measured thickness of 4 feet of coal is consistent throughout the coal field, the total 

estimated coal resource is approximately 100 million tons (75 million tons federal). If 

conventional (room and pillar) underground mining is employed, approximately 50%, or 38 

million tons of federal coal are recoverable.

There has been some recent interest expressed in federal coal in the Joliet-Fromberg coalfield. A 

group of investors obtained leases on private mineral lands near the coal outcrop and lease 

options from some surface owners overlying federal coal resources. It was also reported that 

some exploratory drilling had occurred on private mineral lands. Federal coal ownership forms 

nearly a solid block of coal-bearing lands approximately 8 miles long and 3 to 4 miles wide 

located 0.5 mile inside the outcrop. 

In 1982, the BLM conducted a Known Recoverable Coal Resource Area study in the JolietFromberg coalfield. These studies were conducted in areas where federal coal has high to 

moderate development potential through surface or underground mining methods. The area of 

prospective surface minable coal encompasses approximately 1,360 acres, of which 320 acres are 

federal. Coal resources within that area were estimated at 13 million tons (approximately 2 

million tons federally owned). Applying a 90% recovery rate, over 2 million tons of federal coal 

are potentially surface mineable. 

The area of prospective underground minable coal in the Joliet-Fromberg coal field is much 

larger. Approximately 8,680 acres of federally owned coal occurs in this area. Approximately 

69 million tons of coal has been identified (46 million tons federal coal). Assuming that room 

and pillar underground mining would be employed, 50% of the coal, or approximately 34 million 

tons (23 million tons federal coal) would be potentially recoverable. 

M.4.2 Silvertip and Stillwater Coal Fields 

The Silvertip and Stillwater coal fields (Figure M-2) are relatively small and are located in the 

extreme southern and southwestern part of the planning area. These coalfields also contain coal 

from the shale member of the Eagle Formation. The coal is fairly uniform, averaging 

approximately 4 feet thick in two or three beds, separated by shale partings. Only small 

quantities of coal were produced from either field, though many prospects were noted on older 

topographic maps, and some may still be visible on the surface. The only potential for renewed 

development in these fields would be small quantities for local domestic use, which is unlikely. 

Potential coal development in the Silvertip coalfield may conflict with production from the Elk 

Basin oil field, which also occupies a similar area. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix M M - 13 September 2015 

Figure M-2: Location of the Stillwater and Silvertip Coal Fields 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 M - 14 Appendix M 

Federal ownership of coal is scattered in the Stillwater coal field. However, the coal outcrop in 

the Silvertip field occurs almost entirely within federal ownership. An accurate estimate of the 

recoverable coal resources within these coal fields has not been made. 

M.4.3 Red Lodge-Bearcreek Coal Field 

The Red Lodge-Bearcreek coal field contains coal from the Fort Union Formation. Within the 

coal field, nine separate coal beds occur within an 825 foot stratigraphic interval of the middle 

member of the formation (Roberts and Rossi, 1999). Figure M-3 provides a generalized 

stratigraphic column of the coal-bearing middle member of the Fort Union Formation in the Red 

Lodge-Bearcreek coal field. 

The coal field is approximately 16,320 acres in size and is located in southern Carbon County 

(Figure M-4). The areal extent of the coal field is limited on the east and north by the line of 

outcrop, on the south by the gradual thinning of the coal beds, and on the southwest by the 

Beartooth thrust fault. West of Rock Creek, the coal lies in a narrow, steeply dipping zone which 

terminates against the Beartooth fault (Woodruff, 1909). Small geologic structures interrupt the 

general southwesterly dip of the strata. Several thin igneous dikes cut the strata, but they did not 

interfere with past coal production. The coal field includes the Red Lodge and Bearcreek mining 

districts, which are separated by a high topographic ridge. 

There is a long history of coal mining in the Red Lodge and Bearcreek areas. The first mine 

opened near Red Lodge just prior to 1882, but up to 1889, operations were conducted on a small 

scale (Woodruff, 1909). Production increased from 232,000 tons in 1886 to over 1 million tons 

by 1917. Most of the coal was used by the Northern Pacific Railway, though some went to the 

Anaconda smelter near Butte, Montana. Around 1924, demand for this coal began to diminish 

due to competition from the open pit mine at Colstrip, Montana. In 1932, the mines closed. 

Over 11 million tons of coal had been produced, entirely by underground, room and pillar 

mining. Coal was also mined under the town of Red Lodge. 

Mining in the Bearcreek area progressed a little behind the Red Lodge area. Production was 

very limited until the railroad from Bridger to Bearcreek, Montana was completed in 1906. At 

least eight mining companies were operating in the area in the early 1900s. Production peaked in 

the early 1920s and began to decline in 1926 due to competition from oil and gas. World War II 

provided impetus for increased production, but after the war, production again declined. After 

abandonment of the Bearcreek-Belfry railroad spur in 1953, only small scale mining and 

trucking of coal to Red Lodge kept the field from closing entirely. Eventually, all mining 

activity ceased. Total production from the district was approximately 13 million tons. The 

Beartooth Coal Company, owned by Portland General Electric, reopened the Brophy 

underground mine in 1980. That year, over 7,000 tons of coal was produced. Due to labor 

problems and a soft coal market, the mine shut down. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix M M - 15 September 2015 

Figure M-3: Generalized stratigraphic column showing Fort Union Formation coal beds in 

the Red Lodge-Bearcreek coalfield. Stratigraphy adapted from Woodruff 1909, Rawlins 

1986, and Roberts and Rossi 1999 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 M - 16 Appendix M 

Figure M-4: Location of the Red Lodge-Bearcreek Coal Field 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix M M - 17 September 2015 

Federal coal ownership in the Red Lodge-Bearcreek coal field consists of approximately 16,320 

acres, primarily located in the south and southwestern portions of the coal field (Figure M-4). An 

accurate estimate of the federal coal resource in this area has not been made due to the lack of 

geologic data. However, in an evaluation of six coal beds, each greater than 4 feet thick in the 

Bearcreek district, Rawlins (1986) estimated that the total Fort Union Formation coal resources 

in this area may exceed 700 million tons. Approximately half of this estimate would be 

potentially recoverable by conventional underground mining methods. Should longwall mining 

be used, the potential coal recovery rate would be higher. Longwall mining is a form of 

underground coal mining that is more productive than conventional room and pillar mining. It 

involves the removal of a large block of coal in a series of slices. The longwall panel (the block 

of coal that is being mined) is typically 0.25 miles in width and several thousand feet long. 

Mining large blocks of coal in this manner facilitates a higher recovery rate of the coal resource. 

In late 2013, it was reported by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) that 

a private company completed an exploration drilling program on non-federal coal in the 

Bearcreek area. 

M.4.4 Bull Mountain Coal Field 

The Bull Mountain Coal Field occurs within the Bull Mountain Basin which is located in southcentral Montana (Figure M-5). The basin is an asymmetrical, shallow synclinal trough that 

trends generally 140° southeast and plunges approximately 0.8° toward the northwest. Regional 

dips of 1° to 4° inward toward the axis of the syncline are common. The area of coal-bearing 

rocks is roughly elliptical in shape, about 50 miles long and 30 miles wide with its long axis 

oriented roughly east-west (Woolsey and others, 1917). 

The Bull Mountain Coal Field contains coals that occur in the upper portion of the Tongue River 

Member of the Fort Union Formation. Twenty-six coal beds have been mapped and named 

(Figure M-6). Most of the beds are lenticular, showing a wide variation in thickness and areal 

extent (Woolsey and others, 1917). Coal beds may be thicker in some parts of the coal field, and 

either thinner, or absent in other parts of the coal field. Connor (1989) reported that coal in the 

Bull Mountain Coal Field ranges in apparent rank from subbituminous A to high volatile 

bituminous C. 

Coal mining in the Bull Mountain Coal Field came into prominence in 1906-1907 following the 

construction of the Pacific coast extension of the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway 

(Woolsey and others, 1917). Prior to that, there was only a small amount of coal being produced 

in the area primarily for local use. Soon after the railway was completed, mining began on a 

large scale in the Roundup bed in the northwest part of the coal field. Most of the 40 million 

tons of coal produced from this bed was from underground mines located near Roundup and 

Klein, Montana. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 M - 18 Appendix M 

Figure M-5: Location of the Bull Mountain Basin, south-central Montana. Basin extent is 

drawn at the Lance-Fort Union Formation boundary. “K” denotes Cretaceous rocks and 

“T” denotes Tertiary rocks (from Stricker, 1999)
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix M M - 19 September 2015 

Figure M-6: Generalized coal stratigraphy showing the principal coal beds in the Bull 

Mountain Basin. Stratigraphy modified from Woolsey and others 1917, Connor 1989; and 

Stricker 1999 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 M - 20 Appendix M 

M.4.5 Mammoth Coal Bed 

The only coal currently being mined in the Bull Mountain Coal Field is from the Mammoth bed 

which occurs near the middle of the Tongue River Member of the Fort Union Formation (Figure 

M-7). The Mammoth is probably the most consistent (thickness) and laterally extensive coal bed 

in the Bull Mountain Coal Field. The coal bed averages approximately 9 feet thick. The Rehder 

bed (1.5 to 4 feet thick), which directly overlies the Mammoth bed, coalesces with the Mammoth 

in the central and eastern portion of the coal field. In these areas, the combined bed, also 

referred to as the Mammoth bed, averages 13 to 14 feet thick and can attain a thickness up to 16 

feet. Along the outcrop of the Mammoth bed, the coal is often found burned due to natural 

causes such as spontaneous combustion, lightning strikes or wildfires. However, in some areas, 

it appears that the burning did not progress very far in from the outcrop. 

Due to its consistent thickness and significant areal extent, the Mammoth coal bed can be 

developed through both surface and underground mining methods. Since the structure of the 

coal bed in the coal field is relatively level, overburden depth on top of the coal, inward from the 

outcrop, increases as a direct function of topography. Therefore, in areas inside the Mammoth 

outcrop (Figure M-8), where the overburden overlying the Mammoth bed is minimal due to 

subtle (flat) topography, it may be economic to mine the coal bed using surface mining methods 

a significant distance beyond the outcrop. However, other factors such as coal quality, market 

conditions, and the amount of coal burned at the outcrop may influence this distance. Beyond 

the surface mining limit, additional coal could be recovered by employing coal auger or highwall 

mining methods. 

Highwall mining is a method of surface coal mining that originated from auger mining. The 

method differs in that continuous miners, rather than augers, are used to bore an entry into the 

coal bed of a highwall left behind in a surface mine after coal removal has been completed. 

Screw conveyors positioned behind the continuous miner transport the cut coal from deep within 

the bed up to an outside stockpiling area. Another primary difference in a highwall mining 

operation is that it is carried out by remote control at the surface where an operator located in a 

cabin uses a television camera to monitor and control the progress of the continuous miner 

machine 

Using a 10:1 (overburden thickness to coal thickness) strip ratio cutoff, the area of potential 

surface minable Mammoth coal encompasses approximately 25,000 acres (11,000 acres federal) 

resulting in an estimated 580 million ton (250 million ton federal) coal resource (see Figure 

M-8). Employing a 90% surface mining recovery rate, approximately 522 million tons (270 

million tons federal) of Mammoth coal are recoverable in the Bull Mountain Coal Field. Figure 

M-8 shows the approximate area of surface minable Mammoth coal in the Bull Mountain 

coalfield at a less than 10:1 strip ratio. Table M-1 provides the surface minable Mammoth coal 

resource estimate. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix M M - 21 September 2015 

Figure M-7: Outcrop of the Mammoth coal bed in the Bull Mountain Coal Field 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 M - 22 Appendix M 

Figure M-8: Mammoth coal bed – Approximate surface mining area ˂ 10:1 strip ratio
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix M M - 23 September 2015 

Table M-1: Surface Minable Mammoth Coal Resource Estimate 

Surface Minable Mammoth Coal Resource Estimate*

Resource Ownership Non-Federal Federal Total

Acreage 14,000 11,000 25,000

Million Short Tons 330 250 580

* Coal thickness ˃ 2 feet thick considered minable (includes Rehder coal bed), assumes 12.5’ average coal 

thickness, coal density = 1,873 tons/acre-foot, acreage values are approximate. 

The area of potential underground minable Mammoth coal encompasses approximately 32,000 

acres resulting in an estimated 605 million ton coal resource. Federal coal ownership constitutes 

approximately 12,000 acres resulting in an estimated 228 million ton coal resource within the 

Bull Mountain Coal Field. Approximately 50% of this coal could be recoverable utilizing a 

conventional room and pillar mining technique. Utilizing a longwall mining technique, an 

additional 30% of the coal resource may be recovered. Data used in estimating the Mammoth 

coal bed resource were obtained from Burlington Northern Coal Company. 

The total Mammoth coal resource estimate is shown in Table M-3. 

Although the Mammoth coal bed was heavily prospected between 1910 and 1920, very little 

development occurred during the early part of the 20th century. The inaccessibility of the coal 

bed at that time may have limited its development. The PM Coal Company opened a small 

underground mine in the Mammoth bed in 1932 that produced Burlington Northern Railroadowned coal until 1973. In 1973, PM Coal Company opened the PM surface mine which 

produced 15,000 to 25,000 tons of coal per year from the Mammoth bed. 

The Divide Coal Company had operated an underground mine in the Mammoth bed for many 

years on privately owned coal (Table M-2). In 1962, the company was issued a Federal lease 

(M-052647) and began mining federal coal. The mine was converted from an underground mine 

to a surface operation in 1972 (the company felt it could not economically comply with the 

Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969). The Divide Coal Company was mining in 

the direction of the abandoned underground mine. 

In the early 1970s, Consolidation Coal Company and the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology 

completed various investigations on the quantity and quality of the Mammoth coal bed and a 

regional hydrology study in the Bull Mountain area. Consolidation Coal Company opened a test 

pit in the Mammoth bed in the northwestern part of the coal field in 1971 (Table M-3). To 

determine its suitability for generating electricity, approximately 50,000 tons of coal was mined 

as a pilot project. The company also wanted to test several reclamation techniques. Although 

the coal proved suitable for use in coal-fired utilities, no further coal development occurred. 

Louisiana Land and Exploration Company also conducted coal investigations in the Bull 

Mountain Coal Field and began undertaking environmental and economic feasibility studies in 

1979, with the hope of obtaining a permit to underground mine Burlington Northern-owned coal. 

The company withdrew its application in late 1981 after determining that new development was 

economically unfeasible. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 M - 24 Appendix M 

Table M-2: Underground Minable Mammoth Coal Resource Estimate 

Underground Minable Mammoth Coal Resource Estimate*

Non-Federal Federal Total

Acreage 20,000 12,000 32,000

Million Short Tons 377 228 605

* Assumes 10 foot average coal thickness, coal density = 1,873 tons/acre-foot, acreage values are 

approximate. 

Table M-3: Mammoth Coal Resource Estimate 

Mammoth Coal Resource Estimate*

Non-Federal Federal Total

Acreage 34,000 23,000 57,000

Million Short Tons 707 478 1,185

* Include potential surface and underground mining areas 

Meridian Land and Minerals Company (a wholly owned subsidiary of Burlington Northern) had 

expressed interest in exchanging federal coal rights for Burlington Northern coal rights in the 

Bull Mountain Coal Field with the intention of consolidating their coal holdings. Two land 

exchanges occurred with the BLM, one in 1991 and the other in 1993. 

A stumbling block to coal mining in the Bull Mountain Coal Field was the lack of rail service. 

The Burlington Northern Railroad had purchased the Milwaukee Road right-of-way between 

Slayton and Gage, Montana. Therefore, the construction of a spur to that line would be required 

to provide access to the coal field. Other forms of transportation to carry large volumes of coal 

from the coalfield were impractical. 

In the late 1980s, Meridian Land and Minerals Company acquired the rights to mine the 

Mammoth bed in the area and also purchased the PM Mine. In 1989 and 1990, they permitted 

and mined a surface test pit adjacent to the underground mine (Bull Mountains Mine No. 1) and 

extracted approximately 180,000 tons of coal for test burn purposes. In 1990, they also 

submitted a permit application to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) 

for reopening the existing Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 (Figure M-7) and was issued a state mine 

permit in 1993. Since that time, the permit has been transferred to several ownership entities and 

was acquired by Signal Peak Energy (SPE) in 2008. In 2008, SPE also submitted an application 

to the BLM to acquire the federally-owned coal reserves on five lease tracts. The lease tracts, 

totaling 2,679.76 acres, contain an estimated 61.4 million tons of in-place coal reserves in the 

Mammoth coal bed. 

In 2009, SPE successfully amended their state mine permit to incorporate both continuous and 

longwall underground mining methods. A 35-mile rail line was constructed connecting the mine 

to the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe mainline track near Broadview, Montana. In 2012, the 

BLM conducted a lease sale for the federal coal tracts and SPE was the successful bidder for 

federal lease MTM 97988. In 2013, some of this federal coal was mined during longwall 

development work. The Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 is currently producing coal at a 10 million 

ton per year rate. In 2013, SPE also conducted exploration drilling to evaluate the surface mine 

development potential of the Mammoth bed in areas adjacent to their underground mining area. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix M M - 25 September 2015 

An application to explore for federal coal and private coal underlying federal surface lands was 

also submitted to the BLM that year. 

On December 19, 2014, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2015 was signed into law. 

Section 3077 of this act, the Northern Cheyenne Lands Act authorizes the conveyance of 

approximately 10,000 of federal coal located in Big Horn and Mussellshell counties to Great 

Northern Properties Limited Partnership (GNP). In turn, GNP will convey all of its coal and iron 

ore interests underlying the Northern Cheyenne Reservation to the Tribe. 

The eighteen federal coal tracts conveyed to GNP in Musselshell County comprise 

approximately 7,952 acres located within the Bull Mountain Coal Field (Figure M-9). The tracts 

contain approximately 41.4 million tons of saleable coal in the Mammoth coal bed (Norwest 

Corporation, 2014). Several of these tracts occur within SPE’s Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 mine 

plan area. 

M.4.6 Carpenter and McCleary Coal Beds 

The Carpenter and the McCleary coal beds may also have the potential to be developed in the 

Bull Mountain Coal Field. The Carpenter bed occurs approximately 450 feet above the Lebo 

Shale Member of the Fort Union Formation (Figure M-10). These coal beds have the potential 

to be developed in the northeastern part of the Bull Mountain Coal Field, in an area that is 

located south of Melstone, Montana. Between 1907 and 1909, these beds were mapped by the 

United States Geological Survey (USGS) and numerous outcrops were measured in the 

Carpenter and Lost Horse Creek drainages. An 8 foot 2 inch thick outcrop of the Carpenter bed 

was measured in the Carpenter Creek drainage (Woolsey and others, 1917). In this drainage, the 

McCleary bed occurs approximately 50 feet above the Carpenter bed and coal outcrops measured 

by the USGS in that area ranged between 3 to over 4 feet in thickness (Woolsey and others, 

1917). 

In 2006, Carpenter Creek, LLC began the process to permit and develop a surface mine that also 

considered highwall mining in the Carpenter Creek area. The company had indicated that there 

was sufficient resource present in the two coal beds to warrant development of a surface mine 

and possibly an underground mine. The company submitted a mine permit application to the 

MDEQ to develop a test pit in the McCleary and Carpenter coal beds on private coal within this 

area. The company also indicated that future development could possibly include federal coal 

using both surface and underground mining methods. It was reported by the MDEQ that GNP 

conducted exploration drilling in that area in 2011 and 2012. 

Although the BLM does not possess sufficient geologic data to provide a resource estimate for 

the Carpenter and McCleary coal beds in the Carpenter Creek drainage area, early USGS field 

mapping data and recent industry interest suggest that these two beds may constitute a resource 

that could be developed either by surface or underground mining methods. The size of the 

resource would be dependent upon the thickness and lateral continuity of the coal beds. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 M - 26 Appendix M 

Figure M-9: Location of Federal Coal Tracts Conveyed to Great Northern Properties 

Limited 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix M M - 27 September 2015 

Figure M-10 McCleary Coal Bed Outcrop in the South Divide Resource Area, Bull 

Mountain Coal Field 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 M - 28 Appendix M 

The area located southeast of Carpenter Creek, on the south side of the divide that separates the 

Yellowstone and Musselshell drainages, may have the potential to support development of the 

McCleary bed coal bed. Early USGS field data indicated that the McCleary bed outcrops in T. 8 

N., R. 31 E. The bed crops out in the extreme northern part of the township above the head of 

Cabin Creek and continues down the creek approximately two miles to the southeast, and then 

turns southwest, extending through the head of Alkali Creek, and across the Weed Creek 

drainage (see Figure M-9). Nine McCleary coal bed sections were measured which ranged in 

thickness between 2 feet 5 inches to 8 feet 8 inches (Woolsey and others, 1917). However, along 

the McCleary bed outcrop through the northern half of the township, the thickness ranges from 

almost 7 feet to over 8 feet. The underlying Carpenter coal bed in the northern portion of the 

township is significantly burned. The thickness and extent of the burn may indicate the presence 

of a relatively thick coal bed in this area, beyond the extent of the burn. 

In 1982, the BLM conducted a Known Recoverable Coal Resource Area study of the McCleary 

seam in this area, which is referred to as the South Divide Resource area. These studies were 

conducted in areas where federal coal has high to moderate development potential through surface or underground mining methods. At South Divide, the area of surface mineable coal totals 

approximately 5,640 acres, of which 1,280 acres are federally owned (see Figure M-10). Coal 

resources within that area were estimated to be 43 million tons (9 million tons federal). At a 

90% recovery rate, over 8 million tons of federal coal in the McCleary coal bed is considered 

recoverable. The corresponding area of underground minable coal covers approximately 3,120 

acres, containing an estimated 26 million tons of coal. The federal ownership in this area is 400 

acres, resulting in approximately 2 million tons of mineable resource. Assuming the coal would 

be mined by room and pillar method, 50%, or 1 million tons would be recoverable. Should 

longwall mining be used, the coal recovery rate would be higher. 

M.5 Summary 

Future coal development will likely occur in the Bull Mountain Coal Field and may occur in the 

Red Lodge-Bearcreek Coal Field. The presence of coal processing and transportation facilities at 

SPE’s Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 may play a role in this increased development in this coal 

field. Coal from the Bull Mountain Coal Field will continue to be shipped to domestic power 

plants and exported overseas for electricity generation. Future coal development in the planning 

area may increase as a result of the completion of export facilities located on the west coast of 

the United States. In addition, transportation and coal quality advantages enhance the export 

marketability of coal in the planning area. It is also possible that future coal leasing activity 

could support coal conversion technologies such as in-situ gasification or coal-to-liquids 

projects. 

Although recent coal exploration activities have been conducted in the Bull Mountain and Red 

Lodge-Bearcreek coal fields, additional exploration efforts will be required to further evaluate 

the development potential of the coal resource in these areas. Applications for federal coal 

exploration licenses and coal leasing will be evaluated by the Billings Field Office. 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Appendix M M - 29 September 2015 

M.6 Coal Resource Objectives and Planned Actions 

The Billings Field Office planning area will be open for federal coal exploration license 

applications. Licenses to mine federal coal for domestic use will be available as long as 

production does not annually exceed 20 tons. Federal coal leasing by application (LBA) will 

remain available for both underground and surface mining considerations. The unsuitability 

criteria will be applied to the lease application area and a plan amendment to the current RMP 

will be prepared if necessary. Prior to approving exploration licenses, licenses to mine 

(domestic), and coal lease applications, a project-specific environmental review document will 

be prepared to assess impacts and develop mitigation measures. 

The federal coal leasing decisions that were made in the previous RMP will be brought forward 

and adopted in this RMP: 

 All federal coal that is minable by underground methods is suitable for further 

consideration for leasing or exchange, pending further study. Within the planning area, 

potential coal resource underground mining development areas occur in the Bull 

Mountain Coal Field located in Musselshell and Yellowstone counties and in the Red 

Lodge-Bearcreek Coal Field located in Carbon County. The coal unsuitability criteria 

will not be applied to the lands comprising the coal application area until a site-specific 

mine plan is filed that details the proposed locations of surface facilities. 

 Within the planning area, surface coal mining development areas occur within the Bull 

Mountain Coal Field and are suitable for further consideration for leasing or exchange, 

pending further study. Within this area, federal coal with a strip ratio less than 10:1, that 

can be mined by surface methods must first be screened to determine their development 

potential, surface owner opposition to mining, the presence of unacceptable 

environmental conflicts (unsuitability criteria), and multiple use conflicts in accordance 

with the four coal screens. The application of the coal screens also includes the 

consideration of the unsuitability criteria. 

In 1984, surface owners of land overlying federal coal in the Bull Mountain Coal Field in the 

Mammoth and McCleary beds (South Divide Resource Area) were consulted to determine their 

preference for or against leasing their land for surface mining. Due to the significant amount of 

time that has elapsed since the consultation was conducted, it was decided not to include that 

data in the RMP. 

Federal coal lease applications and exchange proposals will be considered on a case-by-case 

basis. The coal screening process will be applied to future lease application areas that have 

surface mine development potential. 

M.7 Decision Rationale 

This action was selected because it will enable the BLM to comply with the multiple use 

mandates established by FLPMA and the 43 CFR 1600 regulations governing multiple use 

planning. Furthermore, it will allow the BLM to comply fully with the Surface Mining Coal 

Reclamation Act (SMCRA) and the 43 CFR 3400 regulations established to govern the federal 

coal management program. Although development of federal coal resources by surface mining 
Billings Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

September 2015 M - 30 Appendix M 

methods will be allowed in the Bull Mountain Coal Field, underground mining will be 

encouraged, because it is less environmentally disruptive. The decision to implement a 10:1 

(overburden thickness to coal thickness) stripping ratio cutoff limit was based on the premise that 

it may limit the size of the surface mine.