HiLine District Office

Greater Sage-Grouse

Approved Resource Management Plan

Attachment 8

From the Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management 

Plan Amendments for the Rocky Mountain Region including the Greater 

Sage-Grouse Sub-Regions of: Lewistown, North Dakota, Northwest 

Colorado, and Wyoming and the Approved Resource Management Plans for: 

Billings, Buffalo, Cody, HiLine, Miles City, Pompeys Pillar National 

Monument, South Dakota, and Worland 

Prepared by

US Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

HiLine District 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-15/012+1610
State Director Recommendation for Approval 

I hereby recommend for approval the Hiline Resource Management Plan. 

5-?p r I~ c)tJ /!>-

Date 
[left intentionally blank]
September 2015 HiLine District 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........................................................................................................................1-6

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

2. APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR GRSG HABITAT............................. 2-1

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

2.2 HiLine District GRSG Conservation Summary .....................................................................2-4

2.3 Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions for GRSG Habitat ..................................2-7

2.3.1 BLM ARMP for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management...............................2-8

2.3.2 Disturbance...................................................................................................................2-18

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

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

3.2 Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions.....................................................................3-1

3.2.1 Air Resources and Climate Change ..........................................................................3-1

3.2.2 Cultural Resources........................................................................................................3-2

3.2.3 Fire Management and Ecology ....................................................................................3-8

3.2.4 Fish ..................................................................................................................................3-12

3.2.5 Fluid Minerals................................................................................................................3-13

3.2.6 Forests and Woodlands.............................................................................................3-16

3.2.7 Lands and Realty ..........................................................................................................3-18

3.2.8 Livestock Grazing ........................................................................................................3-24

3.2.9 Noxious Weeds and Other Invasive Non-Native Species................................3-27

3.2.10 Off-Highway Vehicle Use and Travel and Transportation Management........3-30

3.2.11 Paleontological Resources.........................................................................................3-38

3.2.12 Public Safety ..................................................................................................................3-39

3.2.13 Recreation .....................................................................................................................3-41

3.2.14 Renewable Energy Resources...................................................................................3-48

3.2.15 Soil Resources..............................................................................................................3-50

3.2.16 Solid Minerals................................................................................................................3-50

3.2.17 Special Designations....................................................................................................3-53

3.2.18 Vegetation – Rangeland..............................................................................................3-66

3.2.19 Vegetation – Riparian and Wetland ........................................................................3-68

3.2.20 Vegetation – Special Status Plants............................................................................3-70

3.2.21 Visual Resources..........................................................................................................3-71

3.2.22 Water Resources.........................................................................................................3-73

3.2.23 Wilderness Characteristics.......................................................................................3-74

3.2.24 Wildlife ...........................................................................................................................3-77

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

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

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

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

5.1 Implementing the Plan .................................................................................................................5-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter Page

ii HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

5.1.1 Implementation Strategy ..............................................................................................5-2

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

5.3 Changing the Plan .........................................................................................................................5-3

5.4 Plan Evaluation, Adaptive Management, and Monitoring.....................................................5-3

5.4.1 Plan Evaluation................................................................................................................5-3

5.4.2 Adaptive Management ..................................................................................................5-4

5.4.3 Monitoring .......................................................................................................................5-4

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

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

TABLES Page

1-1 Resource Management Plan Amendments............................................................................................1-2

1.1-1 BLM Surface and Subsurface Ownership by County...........................................................................1-2

2.1-1 Acres PHMA and GHMA in the Decision Area for the ARMP........................................................2-3

2.1-2 Acres of GRSG Habitat by County in the Decision Area (BLM-Administered Lands Only)....2-3

2.1-3 Surface Acres of GRSG Habitat by BLM Field Office in the Decision Area..................................2-3

2.2-1 Threats to GRSG in the HiLine District as Identified by the Conservation 

Objectives Team..........................................................................................................................................2-4

2.2-2 Key Components of the HiLine Proposed Plan Addressing COT Report Threats ....................2-5

2.3-1 Summary of Allocation Decisions by Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Areas .........2-7

2.3-2 Desired Conditions for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat....................................................................2-21

3.2-1 BLM Road Maintenance Intensities........................................................................................................3-32

3.2-2 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Classes............................................................................3-42

3.2-3 Areas Managed for Wilderness Characteristics.................................................................................3-74

3.2-4 Desired Conditions for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat....................................................................3-83

FIGURES Page

1.1-1 HiLine District – Surface Ownership......................................................................................................1-4

1.1-2 HiLine District – Federal Mineral Estate................................................................................................1-5

2.1-1 HiLine Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Areas for BLM-Administered Lands..........2-2

2.3-1 Sagebrush Focal Areas..............................................................................................................................2-19

3.2-1 Traditional Cultural Properties................................................................................................................3-4

3.2-2 Montana Gulch and Camp Creek Campgrounds...............................................................................3-47

3.2-3 Bitter Creek Wilderness Study Area....................................................................................................3-63

3.2-4 Burnt Lodge Wilderness Study Area ....................................................................................................3-64

3.2-5 Areas Managed for Wilderness Characteristics.................................................................................3-75

3.2-6 Sagebrush Focal Areas..............................................................................................................................3-82

3.2-7 Greater Sage-Grouse Restoration Area ..............................................................................................3-87
September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP iii

MAPS

Appendix A-1:

1-1 HiLine Planning Area, Surface Management and Sub-Surface Estate

1-2 HiLine Planning Area, Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Areas Across all Jurisdictions

1-3 HiLine Decision Area, Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Areas for BLM Administered 

Lands

2-1 HiLine Habitat Management Areas

2-2 HiLine Biologically Significant Units

2-3 HiLine Fluid Minerals (Oil, Gas, and Geothermal)

2-4 HiLine Locatable Minerals

2-5 HiLine Salable Minerals (Mineral Materials)

2-6 HiLine Non-Energy Leasable Minerals

2-7 HiLine Wind

2-8 HiLine Rights-of-Way

2-9 HiLine Land Tenure

2-10 HiLine Trail and Travel Management (OHV)

Appendix A-2:

A Fire Management Units

B Fluid Mineral Leasing Stipulations

C Utility and Transportation Corridors; Rights-of-Way Avoidance and Exclusion Areas

D Off-Highway Vehicle Designations

E Travel Management Areas

F Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

G Recreation Management Areas

H Recreation Sites and Facilities

I Renewable Energy

J Leasable Solid Minerals

K Locatable Minerals

L Salable Minerals

M Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

N Visual Resource Management (VRM) Classes

O Greater Sage-Grouse and Grassland Bird Habitat Management Areas
iv HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

APPENDICES

A Approved RMP Amendment Maps

A-1 Approved Plan Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Maps

A-2 Approved Plan Maps

B Applying Lek Buffer Distances when Approving Actions in Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management Areas

C Required Design Features for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

D The Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

E Greater Sage-Grouse Disturbance Caps

F Greater Sage-Grouse Mitigation

G Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations and Exception, Modification, and Waiver Criteria

H Best Management Practices

I Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

J Adaptive Management Strategy for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management

K USFWS Concurrence

L Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management

M Reclamation

N Oil and Gas Best Management Practices (General Conditions of Approval)

O Fire and Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation

P Recreation Sites and Management Areas
September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP v

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Full Phrase

ACEC area of critical environmental concern

AML abandoned mine land

AMP allotment management plan

APD application for permit to drill

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

APLIC Avian Power Line Interaction Committee

AQRV air quality related value

ARM Administrative Rules of Montana

ARMP approved resource management plan

ATV all-terrain vehicle

AUM animal unit month

BA biological assessment

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMP best management practice

BSU biologically significant unit

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

COA condition of approval

COT Conservation Objectives Team

CSU controlled surface use

EA environmental assessment

EE/CA engineering evaluation/cost analysis 

EIS environmental impact statement

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ERMA extensive recreation management area

ES&R Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation

ESA Endangered Species Act

FAMS facility asset management system

FIAT fire and invasives assessment tool

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act

FMP fire management plan

FMU fire management unit

GHG greenhouse gas

GHMA general habitat management area(s)

GIS geographic information system

GRSG Greater Sage-Grouse

HMP habitat management plan

IM instruction memorandum

KGRA known geothermal resource area

LND lands not designated as recreation management areas

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund

MAAQS Montana Ambient Air Quality Standards

MDEQ Montana Department of Environmental Quality

MFP management framework plan
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued) Full Phrase

vi HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

MFWP Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks

MOU memorandum of understanding

MPDES Montana Pollution Discharge Elimination System

MSGOT Montana Sage Grouse Oversight Team

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NIFC National Interagency Fire Center

NPS National Park Service

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NSO no surface occupancy

OHV off-highway vehicle

PA programmatic agreement

PFC proper functioning condition

PFYC potential fossil yield classification

PHMA priority habitat management area(s)

PSQ probable sale quantity

R&PP Recreation and Public Purposes 

RDF required design feature

RMP resource management plan

RMZ recreation management zone

ROS recreation opportunity spectrum

ROW right-of-way

RS revised statute

SFA sagebrush focal area(s)

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SMZ streamside management zone

SRMA special recreation management area

SRP special recreation permit

TCP traditional cultural property

TL timing limitation 

TMDL total maximum daily load

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDI United States Department of the Interior

USFS United States Forest Service

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

VRM visual resource management

WEM waiver, exception, and modification

WAFWA Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

WO Washington Office

WQRP water quality restoration plan

WSA wilderness study area

WUI wildland urban interface
September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 1-1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The US Department of the Interior (USDI), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) prepared this Approved 

Resource Management Plan (ARMP) to provide direction for managing BLM-administered lands and 

federal minerals in north central Montana under the jurisdiction of the BLM’s HiLine District. This 

ARMP follows completion of the HiLine Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS; BLM 2015). Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

of 1976 (FLPMA), lands administered by the BLM are defined as public lands. Throughout this document,

public lands administered by the BLM are referred to as BLM-administered lands.

The affected lands were previously managed under two RMPs: the West HiLine RMP (BLM 1988) and 

the Judith-Valley-Phillips RMP (BLM 1994). Oil and gas leasing in Phillips and Valley Counties was 

previously managed under four Management Framework Plans (MFPs): the Phillips MFP (BLM 1977a), 

Valley MFP (BLM 1977b), Little Rocky Mountains MFP (BLM 1977c), and UL Bend/Zortman MFP (BLM 

1977d).

The Judith-Valley-Phillips RMP was amended on five occasions and the West HiLine RMP was amended 

on seven occasions (Table 1-1). In addition, several new laws, regulations, and policies have affected 

management of public lands since approval of both plans.

The two previous RMPs and four MFPs were revised according to guidance in FLPMA and the BLM’s 

Land Use Planning Handbook, H-1601-1.

Land use plan decisions establish goals and objectives for resource management (desired outcomes) and 

the measures needed to achieve these goals and objectives (allowable uses and management actions) in 

coordination with federal, tribal, state, and local governments, land users, and interested members of 

the public. This ARMP incorporates new information and regulatory guidance, and provides management 

direction where it may be lacking or requires clarification. Current management direction that has 

proven effective and requires no change was carried forward into the ARMP.

The BLM’s multiple-use mission is to sustain the health and productivity of the public lands for the use 

and enjoyment of present and future generations. Management is based on the principles of multiple use 

and sustained yield within a framework of environmental responsibility and scientific technology.
1. Introduction

1-2 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

Table 1-1

Resource Management Plan Amendments

Amendment

RMP Amended

Judith-ValleyPhillipsWest

HiLine

Bitter Creek and Mountain Plover Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern Plan Amendment and Environmental Assessment (BLM 2001a)



Fire/Fuels Management Plan Environmental Assessment/Plan Amendment 

for Montana and the Dakotas (BLM 2003a)

 

Loma/Vimy Ridge Watershed Environmental Assessment and Plan 

Amendment (BLM 2002)



Lonesome Lake Management Area Environmental Assessment and 

Resource Management Plan Amendment (BLM 1996a)



Montana/Dakotas Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 

Livestock Grazing Management (BLM 1997a)

 

Off-Highway Vehicle Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Plan 

Amendment for Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota (BLM 2001b)

 

Sweet Grass Hills Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement 

(BLM 1996b)



Wind Energy Development on BLM-Administered Lands in the Western 

United States, Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 

2005)

 

The BLM is responsible for resource protection, resource use, and recreation and for serving the 

community on public lands and federal subsurface mineral estate. It manages air, cultural, and visual 

resources, fish and wildlife habitat, minerals, rangelands, timber, watersheds, and wilderness.

1.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNING AREA

The BLM administers approximately 2,437,000 acres of public land and 4,240,000 acres of federal 

minerals in the planning area in Blaine, Chouteau, Glacier, Hill, Liberty, Phillips, Toole, and Valley 

Counties (Table 1.1-1). These lands and minerals are managed by three BLM Field Offices in Havre, 

Malta, and Glasgow along with the Great Falls Oil and Gas Field Office, which provides oil and gas 

program support in western, central, and north central Montana. Figure 1.1-1 shows surface 

landownership in the planning area, and Figure 1.1-2 shows the federal mineral estate.

Table 1.1-1

BLM Surface and Subsurface Ownership by County

County Total Area

(Acres)

BLM Surface

Acres

Percent BLM

Surface

BLM 

Subsurface 

Acres

Percent BLM 

Subsurface

Blaine 2,705,755 299,201 11 615,688 23

Chouteau 2,542,874 45,025 2 174,281 7

Glacier 1,916,621 1,040 <1 6,184 <1

Hill 1,853,670 14,448 1 156,967 8

Liberty 915,046 7,543 1 66,990 7

Phillips 3,289,325 1,029,362 31 1,744,612 53

Toole 1,223,008 27,646 2 123,203 10
1. Introduction

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 1-3

Table 1.1-1

BLM Surface and Subsurface Ownership by County

County Total Area

(Acres)

BLM Surface

Acres

Percent BLM

Surface

BLM 

Subsurface 

Acres

Percent BLM 

Subsurface

Valley 3,149,440 1,013,209 32 1,351,730 43

Total 17,595,739 2,437,474 14 4,239,655 24

Source: BLM 2014

Sage Creek Area, Valley County Photo by Kathy Tribby


1. Introduction

1-6 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

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

public lands and minerals administered by the HiLine District. The plan provides goals, objectives, land 

use allocations, and management direction to maintain, improve, or enhance resource conditions and to 

provide for long-term benefits to the public.

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

the Judith-Valley-Phillips and the West HiLine RMPs. Additional plan amendments and maintenance 

actions are not adequate to address these changes, as follows:

• Increased oil and gas leasing

• Exploration and development

• Heightened public awareness and interest in BLM management actions and permitted uses

• Increased demand for recreation on public lands

• Increased conflicts between land use and wildlife/wildlife habitat

• Changes in BLM policy

• Expanded scientific knowledge and data

In March 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) published its listing decision for the Greater 

Sage-Grouse (GRSG) as “warranted, but precluded.” Inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms was 

identified as a major threat in the USFWS finding on the petition to list the GRSG. The USFWS has 

identified the principal regulatory mechanism for the BLM as conservation measures in RMPs. Based on 

the identified threats to the GRSG and the USFWS timeline for making a listing decision on this species, 

the BLM needs to incorporate objectives and adequate measures into RMPs in order to conserve, 

enhance, and restore GRSG habitat.

This ARMP incorporates specific management actions and measures to conserve, enhance, and restore

GRSG and its habitats on BLM land.

1.3 PLANNING CRITERIA

The BLM planning regulations (43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 1610.4-2) require planning 

criteria to guide preparation of an RMP. Planning criteria are the constraints or ground rules that guide 

and direct the preparation of the plan. They ensure the plan is tailored to the identified issues and that 

unnecessary data collection and analyses are avoided.

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

the result of public comment.

• The RMP will address public lands and federal minerals managed by the BLM. Decisions will 

not be made in the RMP relative to the management of lands not managed by the BLM.

• The RMP will be in compliance with FLPMA and all other applicable laws, regulations, and 

policies. Management is based on the principles of multiple use and sustained yield within a 

framework of environmental responsibility and scientific technology.
1. Introduction

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 1-7

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

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

• Broad-based public participation will be an integral part of the planning and EIS process.

• Decisions in the plan will strive to be compatible with the existing plans and policies of 

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

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

• The RMP will recognize the State of Montana’s responsibility and authority to manage 

wildlife. The BLM will consult with Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP) as necessary.

The RMP will incorporate state or region-wide planning efforts for wildlife to the fullest 

extent possible.

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

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

and considered in BLM land use planning for the 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).

• The RMP will recognize valid existing rights.

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

documents.

• Based on the assumptions of adequate funding, this plan will be periodically reviewed and 

amended if necessary. Plans would be evaluated every five years per 43 CFR, Part 1610.4-9.

Information gathered from the five-year evaluation would be used to determine planning 

needs and priorities for plan revisions and amendments.

• The planning team will work cooperatively and collaboratively with the State of Montana, 

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

Montana Resource Advisory Council, and all other interested groups, agencies and 

individuals.

• The planning process will provide strategies for the protection of recognized traditional and 

cultural uses.

• The BLM and cooperating agencies and governments will jointly develop alternatives for 

resolving resource management issues that are within the authority of the BLM.

• The planning process will incorporate Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 

Livestock Grazing Management (BLM 1997a) developed in accordance with regulations in 43 

CFR, Part 4180, and approved by the Secretary of the Interior.

• The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was invited to participate throughout the 

planning process, in accordance with the state protocol developed between the BLM and 

the Montana SHPO (BLM 1998).
1. Introduction

1-8 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

• Areas with special environmental qualities will be protected and, if necessary, designated as 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), Wild and Scenic Rivers, or other 

appropriate designations.

• The RMP will emphasize the protection and enhancement of the planning area’s biodiversity,

while providing the public with opportunities for compatible activities on public lands.

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

• Lands acquired by the BLM will be managed in the manner the RMP prescribes for adjacent 

public land, subject to any constraints associated with the acquisition.

• The RMP will provide management direction for lands returned to BLM management by 

revoking withdrawals. The plan will also address lands acquired through other means.

• Forest management strategies will be consistent with the Healthy Forests Restoration Act 

and the Tribal Forest Protection Act, where appropriate.

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

research, and technology, as well as existing inventory and monitoring information.

• The BLM released Handbook H-8320-1, Planning for Recreation and Visitor Services, on 

August 22, 2014. The handbook assists BLM staff in planning and managing recreation and 

visitor services on public land. The release of the handbook coincided with the final 

development of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. Accordingly, not all recreation and visitor 

services decisions in this Proposed RMP/Final EIS follow the recommended format provided 

in the handbook. However, the Proposed RMP/Final EIS complies with the requirements for 

establishing desired conditions, allowable uses, and actions related to the management of 

recreation and visitor services, as discussed in Handbook H-8320-1.

• Fire management strategies will be consistent with the Federal Wildland Fire Policy (NIFC 

2001), National Fire Plan (2000), Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and Implementation 

Procedures Guide with BLM supplemental guidance (NIFC 2008), Interagency Standards for 

Fire and Fire Aviation Operations (Redbook; NIFC, updated annually), and other BLM 

handbooks.

• Geographic information system (GIS) and metadata information will meet Federal 

Geographic Data Committee standards, as required by Executive Order 12906, signed April 

11, 1994. Other applicable BLM data standards will be followed. The goal is to develop an 

RMP with spatial and temporal data that can be easily accessed for use in subsequent 

environmental review. At times, GIS analysis may result in acres that are different than other 

published data sources for BLM-administered lands and minerals.
1. Introduction

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 1-9

Rock Creek, Phillips County BLM Photo
1. Introduction

1-10 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

This page intentionally left blank.
September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 2-1

CHAPTER 2

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR 

GRSG HABITAT

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF GRSG HABITAT MANAGEMENT AREAS

The decision area for GRSG habitat management in 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 priority habitat 

management areas (PHMA) and general habitat management areas (GHMA; see Table 2.1-1, Table 

2.1-2, and Table 2.1-3, Figure 2.1-1, HiLine Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Areas for 

BLM-Administered Lands, and Appendix A1, Figures 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3).

PHMA and GHMA are defined as follows: 

• PHMA—BLM-administered lands with limited impacts containing substantial and high quality 

GRSG habitat that supports high density GRSG populations. Management actions would 

emphasize the conservation and enhancement of sustainable GRSG habitat. The area is 

delineated by using key, core, and connectivity data and maps, landownership patterns, and 

other resource information. The boundaries and management strategies for PHMA are 

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

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

Conservation in the Conservation Objectives Team (COT) report and the Core Habitat 

Areas delineated by the MFWP.

• GHMA—BLM-administered lands with or without ongoing or imminent impacts containing 

sage-grouse habitat outside of the priority areas. Management actions would maintain 

habitat for sustainable sage-grouse populations to promote movement and genetic diversity.

Areas are delineated based on sage-grouse habitat. The boundaries and management 

strategies for GHMA are derived from and generally follow the general habitat boundaries 

identified in the Draft RMP/EIS.

2. Approved Resource Management Plan for GRSG Habitat

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 2-3

Table 2.1-1

Acres PHMA and GHMA in the Decision Area for the ARMP

Surface Land Management PHMA GHMA

BLM-administered surface estate 1,432,689 289,756

BLM-administered mineral estate 1,615,876 537,304

Source: BLM GIS 2015

Table 2.1-2

Acres of GRSG Habitat by County in the Decision Area

(BLM-Administered Lands Only)

County Name1 PHMA2 GHMA Total3

Blaine 0 147,652 147,652

Chouteau 0 31,227 31,227

Glacier 0 0 0

Hill 0 1,815 1,815

Liberty 0 0 0

Phillips 638,575 275,432 914,007

Toole 0 0 0

Valley 994,398 23,318 1,017,716

Total 1,632,973 479,444 2,112,417

Source: BLM GIS 2015

1

: Glacier, Liberty and Toole Counties in the planning area do not contain mapped GRSG habitat.

2

PHMA acres in the proposed plan include 963,627 acres in Phillips and Valley Counties associated with 

SFA.

3

Federal mineral estate is included in these acreage figures.

Table 2.1-3

Surface Acres of GRSG Habitat by BLM Field Office in the Decision Area

BLM Field Office1 PHMA GHMA Total2

Glasgow 994,398 23,318 1,017,716

Havre 0 180,694 180,694

Malta 638,575 275,432 914,007

HiLine District 1,632,973 479,444 2,112,417

Source: BLM GIS 2015

1

Includes 501,622 acres of SFA in the Glasgow Field Office and 462,005 acres of SFA in the Malta Field 

Office. 

2

Federal mineral estate is included in these acreage figures.

The ARMP also identifies a specific Sagebrush Focal Area (SFA), which is an allocation that is a subset of 

PHMA (see Figure 2.1-1). The SFA was 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 that have been 

noted and referenced as having the highest densities of GRSG and other criteria important for the 

persistence of the species.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for GRSG Habitat

2-4 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

Greens Bench, Chouteau County Photo by Brian Hockett

2.2 HILINE DISTRICT 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, by the USFWS in 

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

accordance with that report, the USFWS identified threats by GRSG population across the range and 

stated whether that threat is present and widespread, present but localized, or unknown for that 

specific population. Table 2.2-1 identifies the GRSG populations and the threats identified by the COT 

in the HiLine District.

Table 2.2-1

Threats to GRSG in the HiLine District as Identified by the Conservation Objectives Team

GRSG Identified 

Populations from the COT 

Report Applicable to the 

HiLine District

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

Northern Montana (MT) 2 N L L L N L Y N Y Y N L N

Source: USFWS 2013

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

is not known to be present.

Table 2.2-2 provides a crosswalk as to how the ARMP for the HiLine District addresses the threats 

from the COT Report.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for GRSG Habitat

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 2-5

Table 2.2-2

Key Components of the HiLine Proposed Plan Addressing COT Report Threats

Threats to GRSG and 

its Habitat (from the 

COT Report)

Key Component of the HiLine ARMP

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

restrictive land use allocations and management actions to be 

implemented if habitat or population hard triggers are met.

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

GRSG 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 a human disturbance cap of 3% at the biologically 

significant unit (BSU) and project area scale.

• GHMA—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 (RDFs) when authorizing actions in GRSG 

habitat.

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. In SFA, NSO without waiver, modification, or exception.

• GHMA—Open to fluid mineral leasing subject to NSO within 0.6 mile of 

an occupied lek and timing limitation (TL) stipulations.

• Prioritize the leasing and development of fluid mineral resources outside 

GRSG habitat.

Energy development—

wind energy

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

under any conditions)

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

with special stipulations)

Energy development—

solar energy

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

under any conditions)

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

with special stipulations)

Infrastructure—major 

rights-of-way (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)

Infrastructure—minor 

ROWs

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

stipulations)

Mining—locatable 

minerals

• SFA—Recommend withdrawal from the Mining Law of 1872.

Mining—nonenergy 

leasable minerals

• PHMA—Closed area (not available for nonenergy leasable minerals)
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for GRSG Habitat

2-6 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

Table 2.2-2

Key Components of the HiLine Proposed Plan Addressing COT Report Threats

Threats to GRSG and 

its Habitat (from the 

COT Report)

Key Component of the HiLine ARMP

Mining—salable minerals • PHMA—Closed area (not available for salable mineral development) with

a limited exception (may remain open to free use permits and expansion 

of existing active pits if criteria are met)

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

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

Improper livestock

grazing

• Prioritize the review and processing of grazing permits and leases in SFA, 

followed by PHMA.

• Include in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis for 

renewals and modifications of grazing permits 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 SFA, followed by PHMA to ensure compliance

with the terms and conditions of grazing permits.

Free-roaming equid

management (horses and 

burros)

• Not applicable; none present 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—Prioritize suppression immediately after life and property to 

conserve the habitat.

• GHMA—Prioritize suppression where wildfires threaten PHMA.

Nonnative, invasive

plants species

• Improve GRSG habitat by treating annual grasses.

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

through an integrated pest management approach.

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

(such as big sagebrush) at 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.

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

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

existing rights, to other uses and resources:
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for GRSG Habitat

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 2-7

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

annual grass, and conifer treatments

• Requiring specific design features for certain lands and realty uses

• Implementing a disturbance cap to limit disturbance in PHMA

• Including GRSG habitat objectives in land health standards

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

standards, and ecological site potential

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

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

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

use through monitoring and adaptive management.

The ARMP’s GRSG habitat management approach was built on the foundation for GRSG management 

established by and complementary to the Montana Governor’s Executive Order 10-2014. This created 

the Montana Sage Grouse Oversight Team (MSGOT) and the Montana Sage Grouse Habitat 

Conservation Program by establishing similar conservation measures and focusing restoration in the 

same key areas most valuable to GRSG.

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 HiLine District. A Monitoring Framework is also included (in Appendix D) to describe 

how the program decisions will be tracked to ensure implementation.

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

Section 3.2 of this ARMP for other resources and/or program areas (e.g., Fire Management and Ecology) 

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

reason, the goals, objectives, and management actions in this section are not paginated and still retain 

the title/record number as they are presented in Section 3.2.

Table 2.3-1 is a summary of the allocation decisions presented for each GRSG habitat management 

area. For allocation decisions specific to PHMA and GHMA, refer to Figures 2-1 through 2-10 in 

Appendix A1).

Table 2.3-1

Summary of Allocation Decisions by Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Areas

Resource PHMA GHMA

Land Tenure Retain Retain

Solar Exclusion Avoidance

Wind Exclusion Avoidance

Major ROWs Avoidance Avoidance

Minor ROWs Avoidance Open

Oil and Gas Open with Major Stipulations Open with Minor Stipulations
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for GRSG Habitat

2-8 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

Table 2.3-1

Summary of Allocation Decisions by Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Areas

Resource PHMA GHMA

Geothermal Open with Major Stipulations Open with Minor Stipulations

Non-energy Leasables Closed Open

Salable Minerals Closed Open

Locatable Minerals SFA = Recommend Withdrawal

Other PHMA = Open

Open

Travel Management Limited Limited

Livestock Grazing Open Open

2.3.1 BLM ARMP for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management

Many of the approved plan goals, objectives, management actions and allowable uses identified in this 

section originate from the specific BLM resource/program areas and have been determined to be 

applicable to the approved management of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. The information presented 

below is the same as that presented in the resource sections of Chapter 2 and has simply been 

consolidated here to depict how the agency will manage Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. 

Fire Management and Ecology

Actions

• The BLM will protect sensitive status species habitat (such as sage-grouse) during 

suppression and prescribed fire activities as described in this document and consistent with 

BLM Policy. Fire management-related activities, including prescribed fire, should preserve or 

enhance the habitat quality for sage-grouse and other sensitive status species, especially in 

priority habitat areas. Where applicable, the BLM will use BMPs (Appendix H) to design 

fuels treatment objectives to protect existing sagebrush ecosystems, modify fire behavior, 

restore native plants, and create landscape patterns which benefit sage-grouse habitat 

(Appendix I). The use of heavy equipment during wildfire suppression and rehabilitation is 

allowable in sage-grouse habitat although cross-country travel should be limited through 

these areas. Wildfire suppression facilities shall be located to the extent possible in areas 

that minimize disturbance to high quality sage-grouse habitat.

• 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 viable options; 

– how Greater Sage-Grouse goals and objectives would be met by its use; 

– how the COT Report objectives would be addressed and met;

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

would be minimized.

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

analysis for the Burn Plan has addressed the four bullets outlined above. Prescribed fire 

could be used to meet specific fuels objectives that would protect Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat in PHMA (e.g., creation of fuel breaks that would disrupt the fuel continuity across 

the landscape in stands where annual invasive grasses are a minor component in the
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for GRSG Habitat

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 2-9

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 would need to be designed to strategically reduce wildfire risk around and/or in the 

winter range and designed to protect winter range habitat quality.

Fluid Minerals (oil, gas and geothermal) 

Objectives

• 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).

• Where a proposed fluid mineral development project on an existing lease could adversely 

affect Greater Sage-Grouse populations or habitat, the BLM will work with the lessees, 

operators, or other project proponents to avoid, minimize and apply compensatory 

mitigation to the extent compatible with lessees' rights to drill and produce fluid mineral 

resources. The BLM will work with the lessee, operator, or project proponent in developing 

an application for permit to drill (APD) for the lease to avoid and minimize impacts on sagegrouse or its habitat and will ensure that the best information about the Greater SageGrouse and its habitat informs and helps to guide development of such federal leases.

Actions

• Where the federal government owns the mineral estate in PHMA and GHMA, and the 

surface is in non-federal ownership, apply the same stipulations, conditions of approval 

(COA), and/or conservation measures and RDFs (Appendix C) 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.

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

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.

• No waivers or modifications to a fluid mineral lease NSO stipulation will be granted in 

PHMA. The authorized officer may grant an exception to a fluid mineral lease NSO 

stipulation only where the proposed action: 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for GRSG Habitat

2-10 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

(i) would not have direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on Greater Sage-Grouse or its 

habitat; or

(ii) is proposed to be undertaken as an alternative to a similar action occurring on a 

nearby parcel, and would provide a clear conservation gain to Greater Sage-Grouse.

• 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 authorized officer only with 

the concurrence of the State Director. The authorized officer 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 Greater Sage-Grouse 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.

• The SFA are open to leasing with NSO with no waivers, exceptions, or modifications 

(WEMs).

Lands and Realty

Objectives

• Effects of infrastructure projects, including siting, will be minimized using the best available 

science, updated as monitoring information on current infrastructure projects becomes 

available.

Actions

Land Tenure

• 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) the agency can 

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

indirect adverse impact on conservation of the Greater Sage-Grouse.

Solar and Wind

• PHMA will be exclusion areas for solar and wind energy rights-of-way. GHMA will be 

avoidance areas for solar and wind energy rights-of-way.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for GRSG Habitat

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 2-11

Livestock Grazing

Actions

• If monitoring data demonstrate that livestock use on an allotment in a priority Greater SageGrouse area is adversely affecting Greater Sage-Grouse or their habitat, the terms and 

conditions of grazing permits may be modified, or changes in active use could be considered 

in order to meet the standards for rangeland health as described in 43 CFR, Part 4180 and 

the Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management 

(Appendix L) or to otherwise manage, maintain, or improve sage-grouse habitat.

• Appropriate indicators and measurements specific to habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse, or 

any other wildlife species of concern, will be evaluated as part of standards and guidelines 

assessment and any necessary and appropriate habitat objectives specific to meeting the 

wildlife health standard for the site will be identified and incorporated into allotment 

management plans (AMPs) or the terms and conditions of livestock grazing permits

• Processing Grazing Permits/Leases:

– 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 SFA followed by PHMA outside of the SFA. In setting 

workload priorities, precedence will be given to existing permits/leases in these 

areas not meeting Land Health Standards, with focus on those containing riparian 

areas, including wet meadows. The BLM may use other criteria for prioritization to

respond to urgent natural resource concerns (e.g., fire) and legal obligations. 

– The NEPA analysis for renewals and modifications of livestock grazing permits/leases 

that include lands within SFA and PHMA will include specific management thresholds 

based on the Greater Sage-Grouse habitat objectives Table 2.2, Desired Conditions 

for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat, Land Health Standards (43 CFR, Part 4180.2) and 

ecological site potential, and one or more defined responses that will allow the 

authorizing officer to make adjustments to livestock grazing that have already been 

subjected to NEPA analysis. 

– Allotments within SFA, followed by those 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. 

– 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.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for GRSG Habitat

2-12 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

Off-Highway Vehicle Use and Travel and Transportation Management 

Actions

• The BLM will pursue opportunities to conduct restoration of roads, primitive roads and 

trails not designated during travel management planning, with priority given to areas with 

special management concerns. This includes primitive routes that have not been designated 

as “primitive routes” within wilderness study areas (WSAs) and those that have been closed 

within areas that are being managed to protect or enhance wilderness characteristics or 

special status species such as the Greater Sage-Grouse. Restoration activities will be done in 

accordance with guidelines described in Appendix M, Reclamation. Applicable 

requirements such as specific seed mixes or transplanting recommendations will also be 

applied where special status species or issues are a concern (e.g., mitigation for Greater 

Sage-Grouse).

• 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 6302 (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 authorized officer to resolve management conflicts and protect persons, 

property, and public lands and resources. Where an authorized officer determines that offhighway vehicles (OHV) are causing or will cause considerable adverse effects upon soil, 

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

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

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

until the adverse effects are eliminated and measures implemented to prevent recurrence 

(43 CFR, Part 8341.2). A closure or restriction order should be considered only after other 

management strategies and alternatives have been explored. The duration of temporary 

closure or restriction orders should be limited to 24 months or less; however, certain 

situations may require longer closures and/or iterative temporary closures. This may include 

closure of routes or areas.

Recreation and Visitor Services

Actions

• In PHMA, do not construct new recreation facilities (e.g., campgrounds, trails, trailheads, 

staging areas) unless the development would have a net conservation gain to Greater SageGrouse habitat (such as concentrating recreation, diverting use away from sensitive areas, 

etc.), or unless the development is required for visitor health and safety or resource 

protection.

Salable (Mineral Materials) 

Actions

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

free use permits and the expansion of existing active pits, only if the following criteria are 

met:
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for GRSG Habitat

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 2-13

– 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); and

– all applicable RDFs are applied and the activity is permissible under the specific 

subregional screening criteria (Appendix C).

Solid Minerals – Leasable 

Actions

• 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 Greater Sage-Grouse for purposes of the suitability criteria set forth at 43 CFR, 

Part 3461.5(o)(1).

Solid Minerals – Locatable 

Actions

• Within the limits of the Mining Laws, the BLM will apply COAs (Appendix I) to Plans of 

Operations to prevent undue and unnecessary degradation to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat.

• A recommended withdrawal for 927,074 acres from locatable mineral entry to protect the 

SFA.

Vegetation – Rangeland

Objectives

• In all SFA and PHMA, the desired condition is to maintain all lands ecologically capable of 

producing sagebrush (such as big 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).

Actions

• The BLM will consult with MFWP and seek concurrence regarding the anticipated benefits 

and/or impacts of any vegetation treatments that may impact wildlife habitat including 

priority sage-grouse habitat.

• Quantifiable vegetation objectives for sage-grouse habitat are presented in Table 2.3-2. The 

actions needed to meet or progress toward meeting these objectives will be incorporated 

into the respective AMPs or livestock grazing permits as appropriate. 

• Water developments will be installed and/or maintained to facilitate control of livestock use 

of vegetation, support other uses, and protect resource values. In order to minimize surface 

disturbance, have reliable water of better quality and not alter normal surface flow of water, 

alternative water developments will be emphasized before constructing new pits and 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for GRSG Habitat

2-14 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

reservoirs. The BLM will manage water developments within Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

to reduce the spread of West Nile virus (Appendix I).

• The BLM will use land treatments to achieve and maintain fire regimes, and watershed, 

grazing management, and wildlife objectives. Within the Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA and 

the Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA, treatments that conserve, enhance or 

restore Greater Sage-Grouse habitat will be allowed as well as treatments that benefit other 

resources and do not adversely affect sage-grouse or their habitat.

• Rangeland health monitoring and assessments will be conducted within current staffing 

capabilities. The allotments within the Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA and the Grassland 

Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA will be high priority for reassessment of land health 

standards and processing grazing permits as detailed in Appendix I. Rangeland health 

monitoring plans will be developed and implemented at the field office level.

• Conifers encroaching into sagebrush habitats will be removed, in a manner that considers 

tribal cultural values. Treatments will be prioritized closest to occupied sage-grouse habitats 

and near occupied leks, and where juniper encroachment is phase 1 or phase 2. Use of sitespecific analysis and principles like those included in the Fire and Invasives Assessment Tool

(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.

Vegetation – Riparian and Wetland

Actions

• The BLM will enhance or restore riparian composition and structure beyond proper 

functioning condition (PFC) in riparian areas where and when appropriate for other 

resource values.

• Riparian areas with unique values (e.g., where water quality habitat for special status species 

is an issue) will be treated as avoidance areas for rights-of-way (installation of infrastructure 

that requires surface disturbance and/or permanent surface occupancy). 

• Grazing techniques and practices detailed in Appendix I will be implemented to reduce hot 

season (summer) grazing on riparian and meadow complexes within the PHMA. Alternative 

water facilities will be installed to relieve grazing impacts on riparian areas inside of priority 

sage-grouse habitat.

Wildlife

Goals

• Identify, conserve, enhance and monitor rare, vulnerable, and representative habitats, 

communities, and ecosystems to ensure self-sustaining persistence of special status species.

• Ensure that proposed land uses initiated or authorized by the BLM minimize damage to 

wildlife habitat and populations of special status species.

• Maintain and/or increase Greater Sage-Grouse abundance and distribution by conserving, 

enhancing or restoring the sagebrush ecosystem upon which populations depend in 

cooperation with other conservation partners.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for GRSG Habitat

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 2-15

Objectives

• Manage priority wildlife habitat, special status species habitat, and populations using multiscale assessments to identify current conditions, risks, and opportunities.

• Maintain, enhance, or restore habitat availability and condition for special status species, and 

minimize habitat loss.

• Protect priority Greater Sage-Grouse habitats from anthropogenic disturbances that would 

reduce distribution or abundance of sage-grouse.

• Minimize fragmentation of large intact blocks of important wildlife habitat, particularly 

habitat areas for Greater Sage-Grouse and grassland birds.

Actions

• The BLM will initiate proactive conservation measures that reduce or eliminate threats to 

Bureau sensitive species to minimize the likelihood of and need for listing of these species 

under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

• The BLM will ensure habitat is provided for special status species (BLM 2015, Tables 3.58 

and 3.59). Proposed actions will not jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or 

endangered species, or cause its habitat to be adversely modified or destroyed.

• The BLM will continue cooperative participation in recovery plans, management plans and 

conservation strategies for special status species.

• Fragmentation of large intact blocks of important wildlife habitat will be minimized, 

particularly in PHMA for Greater Sage-Grouse and grassland birds.

• Consider the likelihood of development of not-yet-constructed surface-disturbing 

activities−as defined in Table 2 of the Monitoring Framework (Appendix D)−under valid 

existing rights prior to authorizing new projects in PHMA.

Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Management Areas

• The area will include a NSO stipulation, without modifications or waivers, for oil and gas 

leasing unless there is a more restrictive stipulation in place to protect other resource 

values (e.g., no lease in the Mountain Plover ACEC).

• Exploration and development activities for existing oil and gas leases will be managed 

according to BMPs (Appendix N), or other mitigation measures, through COA in 

authorizing APDs or plans of development. Consistent with surface use rights granted, the 

existing lease may be subject to “restrictions deriving from specific, nondiscretionary 

statutes; and such reasonable measures as may be required by the authorized officer to 

minimize adverse impacts on other resource values, land uses or users not addressed in the 

lease stipulations at the time operations are proposed” (43 CFR, Part 3101.1-2). Overall 

consideration shall be given to minimizing the impact on sage-grouse through a project 

design that avoids, minimizes, and applies compensatory mitigation for direct and indirect 

impacts on sage-grouse habitat or use and includes applicable and technically feasible COA

(Appendix I). Selection and application of these measures shall be based on current science 

and research on the impacts on important breeding, nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering 

areas.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for GRSG Habitat

2-16 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

• The area will be an avoidance area for the issuance of rights-of-way except within designated 

corridors. Rights-of-way and similar facilities will be located adjacent to other facilities in a 

corridor where practical. The BLM will consider opportunities to remove, bury, or modify 

existing power lines (e.g., burying, anti-perching devices or line location).

• Where leases or rights-of-way have some level of development (e.g., road, fence, well, etc.) 

that are no longer in use, the site will be reclaimed by removing the features and restoring 

the habitat. Upon project completion or right-of-way (ROW) expiration, roads built and 

maintained for commercial use across BLM land will be reclaimed, unless based on sitespecific analysis, the route provides specific benefits to the public and the continued public 

use does not contribute to resource conflicts.

• The area will remain available for livestock grazing. Site-specific Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

and management objectives will be developed for BLM land and incorporated into the 

respective AMPs or livestock grazing permits as appropriate. Third order (fine-scale) and 

fourth order (site-scale) habitat indicators and characteristics for sage-grouse habitat 

seasonal use areas as described in the Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework (Stiver, 

et al. 2015) will be used to quantify habitat objectives.

• Existing range improvements, including the location of supplements, will be evaluated and if 

necessary modified to conserve, enhance or restore sage-grouse habitat.

• If prescribed fire is to be used for vegetation treatments, the burn plan will clearly indicate 

how COT objectives will be addressed and met by its use, and why alternative techniques 

were not selected.

• A Fire Risk Assessment will be completed for implementation of prescribed fire in relation 

to sage-grouse goals and objectives.

• The area will be an exclusion area for solar and wind energy rights-of-way.

• The area will be closed to solid leasable minerals, including non-energy leasable minerals.

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

free use permits and the expansion of existing active pits, only if the following criteria are 

met:

– the activity is within the BSU and project area disturbance cap;

– the activity is subject to the provisions set forth in the mitigation framework 

(Appendix I); and

– all applicable RDFs are applied (Appendix C).

• New road construction will be limited to realignments of existing roads, if that realignment 

has a minimal impact on Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, eliminates the need to construct a 

new road, or is necessary for public safety. New road construction will include appropriate 

BMPs and mitigation (Appendices H and I).

• Existing roads, or realignments, will be used to access valid existing rights. If valid existing 

rights cannot be accessed via existing roads, then any new road would be constructed to the 

absolute minimum standard necessary with appropriate BMPs and mitigation (Appendices 

H and I).
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for GRSG Habitat

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 2-17

Greater Sage-Grouse General Habitat Management Areas

• Sagebrush habitats will be managed so that mid-scale (i.e. landscape level) shrub cover 

should include a mix of height classes with herbaceous understory adequate for meeting 

Greater Sage-Grouse requirements as well as habitat requirements for other sageassociated species such as mule deer and pronghorn.

• Consideration will be given to incorporating fine-scale and site-specific Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat and management objectives as appropriate to the area into AMPs or livestock 

grazing permits.

• GHMA will be an avoidance area for solar and wind energy rights-of-way.

• GHMA are open to minor ROWs and avoidance for major ROWs (high voltage 

transmission lines of 100 kilovolts or greater and pipelines 24 inches or greater in diameter).

• GHMA are open to fluid mineral leasing with moderate and standard constraints.

• Greater Sage-Grouse habitat suitability determinations will be based upon existing guidelines 

modified with data from recent habitat inventories and assessments in the planning area.

Relevant range-wide research findings will also be included in habitat suitability 

determinations.

• The BLM will emphasize restoration and rehabilitation of sagebrush in areas that are capable 

of, but no longer support sagebrush to contribute to the distribution and connectivity of 

habitat patches.

• Greater Sage-Grouse habitats associated with silver sagebrush north of the Milk River will 

be enhanced to improve habitat conditions for nesting and brood rearing. Specific 

management actions will be derived from the results of ongoing research and best available 

science.

• New distribution power lines on BLM land within 1 mile of Greater Sage-Grouse leks will be 

buried.

• Fragmentation of large intact blocks of habitat for special status species will be minimized, 

particularly in habitat protection areas for Greater Sage-Grouse and grassland birds.

Adaptive Management Strategy for Greater Sage-Grouse Management

Action

• Follow the adaptive management strategy outlined in Appendix J.

Mitigation

Mitigation measures for all resources are included in Appendices H and I. The BLM may add additional 

mitigation measures as deemed necessary by further environmental analysis and as developed through 

consultation with other federal, state, and local regulatory and resource agencies.

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 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for GRSG Habitat

2-18 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

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.

Application of Lek Buffers

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 U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) Report Conservation Buffer Distance Estimates for Greater Sage-Grouse – A 

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

Development in Highly Important Landscapes

The BLM will designate SFA as shown in Figure 2.3-1 (927,074 acres). All BLM-administered lands 

within the SFA boundary will be managed as PHMA with the following additional management:

1) Recommended for withdrawal from the General Mining Act of 1872, subject to valid existing 

rights. 

2) Managed as NSO, without WEMs, for fluid mineral leasing. 

3) Prioritized for vegetation management and conservation actions in these areas, including, but 

not limited to land health assessments, review of livestock grazing permits/leases, and habitat 

restoration (see specific management sections).

2.3.2 Disturbance

The Montana/Dakotas BLM will use a 3% disturbance cap at the BSU and project scale, until the State 

strategy, similar to Wyoming’s Core Strategy of 5% for all lands and all disturbances, is fully 

implemented. The density calculation (an average of 1 facility per 640 acres) applies to energy and mining 

facilities. The disturbance cap will not be applied to foreclose development of locatable minerals on 

unpatented claims located under the General Mining Act of 1872; the disturbance from locatable mining 

will be accounted for in determining the percent disturbance and whether the cap has been exceeded.

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

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

exceed 5% within a project analysis area, then no further discrete anthropogenic disturbances (subject 

to applicable laws and regulations, such as the General Mining Act of 1872, valid existing rights, etc.) will 

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

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

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

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

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

exceeded as a result of any project co-location.

If the BLM determines that the State of Montana has adopted a Greater Sage-Grouse 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.

2. Approved Resource Management Plan for GRSG Habitat

2-20 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

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 landownership) 

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.

Greater Sage-Grouse: Quantifiable 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 sagegrouse habitat presented in Table 2.3-2 are based on recommendations in current literature (Stiver, et 

al. 2015, 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 Major Land Resource Areas 52C and 58A (USDA 2005). Table 2.3-2, 

Desired Conditions for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat, is to be used as a minimum to meet the applicable 

Land Health Standard in sage-grouse habitats.

Greater Sage-Grouse Photo by Craig Miller

The assessment and evaluation of these objectives will follow the steps described in the Sage-Grouse 

Habitat Assessment Framework (Stiver, et al. 2015).

These habitat objectives in Table 2.3-2 summarize the characteristics that research has found 

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

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

characteristics used in this subregion. Thus, the habitat objectives provide the broad vegetative 

conditions we strive to obtain across the landscape that indicate the seasonal habitats used by sagegrouse. 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 (see 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 significant factor in 

failing to achieve the standards for healthy rangelands, cause, the use will be adjusted by the response 

specified in the instrument that authorized the use.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for GRSG Habitat

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 2-21

Table 2.3-2

Desired Conditions for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Habitat 

Indicators

Dominant Sagebrush, Soil Type and/or Ecological Site

Sagebrush on 

Saline and/or 

Sodic Soils

Sagebrush on

Acid Shale 

Parent 

Materials

Silver 

Sagebrush on 

Overflow Sites

Silver 

Sagebrush on 

All Other 

Soils/Sites

Wyoming Big 

Sagebrush on 

All Other 

Soils/Sites

Sage-Grouse Breeding Habitat

Sagebrush 

Canopy Cover

> 5% > 5% 10-25% > 2% 15-25%

Sagebrush 

Height

> 6 inches > 6 inches > 12 inches > 12 inches > 12 inches

Perennial 

Grass Heights 

(includes 

residual 

grasses)

> 5 inches > 7 inches > 7 inches > 7 inches > 7 inches

Perennial 

Grass Canopy 

Cover (such as 

green 

needlegrass)

> 10% > 10% > 15% > 15% > 10%

Perennial Forb 

Canopy Cover

> 3% > 3% > 10% > 5% > 5%

Perennial Forb 

Availability

> 3 species > 3 species > 5 species > 5 species > 5 species

Riparian Areas 

& Wet 

Meadows

Proper Functioning Condition

Lek Security Rocky Mountain juniper and/or Ponderosa pine with less than 1% canopy cover on 

shrub/grassland ecological sites within 3 kilometers (1.86 miles) of occupied leks

Sage-Grouse Winter Habitat

Sagebrush 

Availability

>10% canopy and >10 inches visible above snow
2. Approved Resource Management Plan for GRSG Habitat

2-22 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

This page intentionally left blank.
September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-1

CHAPTER 3

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

3.1 APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN INSTRUCTIONS

This section describes the management decisions for the HiLine District. The management decisions 

replace the relevant decisions in the West HiLine RMP and Judith-Valley-Phillips RMP. These 

management decisions are presented by program area and now combine the Decisions Common to All 

Alternatives and the Proposed Plan (Alternative E, Preferred Alternative) from the Proposed RMP and 

Final EIS (BLM 2015).

For a description of the physical, biological, cultural, economic and social conditions of the HiLine 

planning area, refer to the Proposed RMP/Final EIS (BLM 2015).

3.2 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

3.2.1 Air Resources and Climate Change

Goals: Protect air resources, including air quality and air quality related values (AQRVs).

Improve greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction methods for BLM-authorized activities.

Objectives: Reduce air pollutant and GHG emissions from BLM-authorized activities, while recognizing 

the multiple use-sustained yield mission of the BLM.

Comply with national and state air resource standards to protect existing air quality and AQRVs.

Work with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) to coordinate data exchange 

and air quality protection strategies.

Management Actions

The BLM will not authorize management actions that exceed applicable Montana and National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (MAAQS, NAAQS).
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-2 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

Actions authorized on BLM land and federal minerals will comply with Clean Air Act requirements, 

including the State of Montana Air Quality Implementation Plan, through the use of BMPs (Appendix 

H) and the Air Resource Management Plan (BLM 2015, Appendix B).

To ensure actions authorized by the BLM comply with air quality regulations, requirements and 

implementation plans, the BLM will evaluate impacts on air quality at the activity planning level, and 

prepare detailed monitoring and mitigation prescriptions for proposals that could degrade air resources.

The BLM will coordinate with the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group, Smoke Monitoring Unit and the 

appropriate airshed zone coordinator to ensure that prescribed fires comply with smoke management 

rules and regulations. The BLM will use timing and atmospheric dispersal to control particulate 

emissions and record and review data on fire prescriptions and mitigation measures (location, size, and 

date of burns).

For oil and gas operations, venting or flaring of hydrocarbon gas requires approval under provisions of 

Notice to Lessee – 4A (NTL-4A). MDEQ, Air Quality Protection Division, monitors this activity for 

compliance. The use of green or flareless well completions as a BMP for oil and gas operations will be 

encouraged to reduce GHG emissions.

3.2.2 Cultural Resources

Goal: Protect, preserve and interpret the cultural resources within the planning area and ensure they are 

available for appropriate uses by present and future generations.

Objectives: Manage important archaeological and historical sites, or areas where concentrations of 

cultural resources occur, for their use based on the nature of the cultural resource and relative 

preservation value.

Reduce imminent threats from natural or human-caused deterioration, and/or reduce potential conflicts 

with other resource uses.

Promote stewardship, conservation, and appreciation of cultural resources through educational and 

public outreach programs in accordance with the BLM Heritage Education Program.

Management Actions

Protection for all cultural resources will occur according to federal laws and BLM regulations and 

agreements. The BLM must evaluate all proposed actions, initiated or authorized by the BLM, to

determine potential impacts on historic properties. This evaluation process occurs under Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The BLM must determine, based on inventory and 

evaluation data, whether the proposed action could impact important cultural resources and, if 

necessary, take steps to avoid or mitigate possible impacts.

The BLM will mitigate impacts on cultural resources from authorized uses through project 

abandonment, redesign, and if necessary, data recovery investigations in accordance with the national 

Programmatic Agreement (PA) among the BLM, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and 

National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (BLM 2012a); and the State Protocol 

Agreement between the BLM Montana State Director and the Montana SHPO (BLM 1998).
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-3

Several steps are available to mitigate an occurrence of a potential adverse impact on cultural resources, 

including a requirement for on-the-ground inventory prior to proposed projects that include surfacedisturbing activities; avoidance or modification of the proposed project; and if effective modification 

cannot be reached, excavation for archaeological information retrieval and/or consultation with the 

SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Further, consultation with knowledgeable 

tribal elders is used to identify important cultural properties which might otherwise be missed by a 

standard archaeological inventory.

To consider potential impacts on historic properties where a federal action is occurring, the BLM will 

comply with Section 106 of the NHPA. Commonly, a Class III survey (inventory) is required prior to 

surface disturbance to identify significant cultural properties.

The BLM will consult with Indian tribes when its actions have the potential to affect areas of concern to 

the practitioners of traditional religions. The activities of concern are those that might degrade the visual 

or aesthetic nature of an area, or cause the loss of plant species or other resources important to 

traditional uses. The BLM is required to consult with traditional religious practitioners on policies and 

procedures to ensure they are considered when implementing agency actions. This includes 

consultations with federally recognized Indian tribes as sovereign nations in a government-togovernment relationship with the United States.

Potential impacts on the Little Rocky Mountains and Sweet Grass Hills Traditional Cultural Properties 

(TCPs) will be avoided, if possible, or mitigated (Figure 3.2-1).

To promote the appreciation of cultural resources the BLM will continue to provide traveling museum 

exhibits consisting of replica artifacts from local sites. These exhibits will provide outreach and local 

identification with cultural resources across the planning area.

The BLM will monitor cultural sites to ensure that sites retain integrity and are not being vandalized or 

degraded through other processes.

The Big Bend of the Milk River, Kevin Rim, and Sweet Grass Hills ACEC, along with the potential Little 

Rocky Mountains ACEC, contain diverse cultural resources and historic sites of significance. Special 

management for these areas is addressed in the Special Designations section of Chapter 2.

National Register of Historic Places

Cultural sites with characteristics that make them eligible for the National Register of Historic Places 

require additional attention beyond recordation. The National Register of Historic Places sites would be 

categorized for use allocations based on their nature and relative preservation value, and appropriately 

managed.

Pursuant to Section 110 of the NHPA, the BLM will identify other cultural resources in the planning area 

by defining priority geographic areas for new field inventory based on a probability for unrecorded 

significant resources. Any new National Register eligible sites recorded will be categorized in use 

allocations and specific management will be prescribed.

3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-5

Use Allocation Categories

Cultural resources within the planning area are diverse, extensive and rich in history. Sacred sites 

consist of vision quest sites, graves, ceremonial sites and spiritual sites. Prehistoric cultural sites consist 

of habitation/camp sites such as stone circle sites, bison kill sites, cairns, lithic scatters, quarries, animal 

processing sites, etc. Historic sites range from early railroads, homestead sites, early farming and 

ranching infrastructure, town sites, building foundations, and dumps, to sites associated with early 

mining.

Categorizing cultural resources according to their potential uses is the culmination of the identification 

process and the bridge to protection and utilization decisions. Use categories establish what needs to be 

protected, and when or how use should be authorized. All cultural resources have uses, but not all 

should be used in the same way (BLM 8110 Manual, 2004).

Sweet Grass Hills Photo by Kathy Tribby

All recorded cultural resources will be assessed according to six use categories for prehistoric and 

historic resources, as identified below.

• Scientific Use: This category applies to any cultural property determined to be available for 

consideration as the subject of scientific or historical study at the present time, using 

currently available research techniques. Study includes methods that would result in the 

property’s physical alteration or destruction. This category applies almost entirely to 

prehistoric and historic archaeological properties, where the method of use is generally 

archaeological excavation, controlled surface collection, and/or controlled recordation (data 

recovery). Recommendations to allocate individual properties to this use must be based on 

documentation of the kinds of data the property is thought to contain and the data’s 

importance for pursuing specified research topics. Properties in this category need not be 

conserved in the face of a research or data recovery (mitigation) proposal that would make 

adequate and appropriate use of the property’s research importance. Scientific Use 

properties include sites similar in composition to:

– Beaucoup Site (24PH188/189). This site complex is important because it contains a 

bison kill site, extensive drive lines, stone circle sites and unusual ceremonial 

features. The site is part of the Big Bend of the Milk River ACEC.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-6 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

– Fantasy Complex (24PH1206). This site is a kill site complex indicating use over 

several time periods.

– Kevin Rim (Toole County). This site complex consists of extensive prehistoric stone 

feature sites and drive lines with potential bison kill sites located on a unique 

geological bluff.

– Laundry Springs (24VL1679). This site has buried features and is located next to a 

natural spring. Evidence shows that the site was much larger at one time before 

early homesteading and farming.

– Lonesome Lake Complex (Chouteau County). This site is important because it 

contains over 1,000 stone circles along with other stone features and prehistoric 

sites.

• Public Use: This category may be applied to any cultural property found to be appropriate 

for use as an interpretive exhibit in place, or for related educational and recreational uses by 

members of the general public. The category may also be applied to buildings suitable for 

continued use or adaptive use, for example as staff housing or administrative facilities at a 

visitor contact or interpretive site. Public Use properties include sites of similar composition 

to:

– Henry Smith (24PH794). This site complex is important because it contains a bison 

kill site, extensive drive lines, stone circle features and unique stone effigies. The site 

is part of the Big Bend of the Milk River ACEC.

– Little Rocky Mountains Ranger Station (24PH2151). The Little Rocky Mountains 

Ranger Station was built in 1908 by the USDA, Forest Service (USFS) as a Fire 

Lookout in the Little Rocky Mountains. It is the only station of its kind in the HiLine 

District. The cabin was also used as an administrative site for the BLM Fire Program.

• Conservation for Future Use: This category is reserved for any unusual cultural property 

which, because of scarcity, a research potential that surpasses the current state of the art, 

singular historic importance, cultural importance, architectural interest, or comparable 

reasons, is not currently available for consideration as the subject of scientific or historical 

study that would result in its physical alteration. A cultural property included in this 

category is deemed worthy of segregation from all other land or resource uses, including 

cultural resource uses that would threaten the maintenance of its present condition or 

setting, as pertinent, and would remain in this use category until specified provisions are met 

in the future. Conservation for Future Use properties include sites of similar composition 

to:

– Grouse Gulch Cave (24PH1121). This cave is unique for its petroglyph images.

– Lookout Cave (24PH402). This cave is unique as it has yielded a wealth of 

information from excavations. The cave is also unique for its petroglyph images.

– Two Hands Cave (24PH404). This cave is unique for its petroglyph images.

• Experimental Use: This category may be applied to a cultural property judged well-suited 

for controlled experimental study, to be conducted by the BLM or others concerned with 

the techniques of managing cultural properties, which would result in the property’s 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-7

alteration, possibly including loss of integrity and destruction of physical elements.

Committing cultural properties or the data they contain to loss must be justified in terms of 

specific information that would be gained and how it would aid in the management of other 

cultural properties. Experimental study should aim toward understanding the kinds and rates 

of natural or human-caused deterioration, testing the effectiveness of protection measures, 

or developing new research or interpretation methods and similar kinds of practical 

management information. It should not be applied to cultural properties with strong 

research potential, traditional cultural importance, or good public use potential, if it would 

significantly diminish those uses. No Experimental Use properties have been identified at this 

time.

• Traditional Use: This category is to be applied to any cultural resource known to be 

perceived by a specified social and/or cultural group as important in maintaining the cultural 

identity, heritage, or well-being of the group. Cultural properties assigned to this category 

are to be managed in ways that recognize the importance ascribed to them and seek to 

accommodate their continuing traditional use. Traditional Use properties include sites of 

similar composition to:

– Little Rocky Mountains TCP (24PH3197/24BL1341). This area was determined 

eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as a TCP based on significance 

derived from the role the property plays in a community’s historically rooted beliefs, 

customs, and practices.

– Sweet Grass Hills TCP (24TL771/24LT171). The Sweet Grass Hills was determined 

eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as a TCP based on significance 

derived from the role the property plays in a community’s historically rooted beliefs, 

customs, and practices.

– Medicine Rock (24PH1008). This is a large petroglyph boulder located on the 

prairie. The boulder is an erratic left by the retreating glaciers several thousand 

years ago. Native Americans often leave offerings at this site.

• Discharged from Management: This category is assigned to cultural properties that have 

no remaining identifiable use. Most often these are prehistoric and historic archaeological 

properties, such as small surface scatters of artifacts or debris, whose limited research 

potential is effectively exhausted as soon as they have been documented. Also, more 

complex archaeological properties that have had their salient information collected and 

preserved through mitigation or research may be discharged from management, as should 

cultural properties destroyed by any natural event or human activity. Properties discharged 

from management remain in the inventory, but they are removed from further management 

attention and do not constrain other land uses. Particular classes of unrecorded cultural 

properties may be named and described in advance as dischargeable upon documentation, 

but specific cultural properties must be inspected in the field and recorded before they may 

be discharged from management. No Discharged from Management properties have been 

identified at this time.

Little Rocky Mountains Traditional Cultural Property 

A portion of the TCP will be closed to oil and gas leasing. The remaining area will be open to leasing 

with an NSO stipulation. See Appendix A2, Map B.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-8 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

Through vegetation management or forest health treatments the BLM may restore natural meadows to 

enhance traditional uses and viewsheds.

The TCP will be an avoidance area for rights-of-way.

The TCP will be an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way.

A portion of the TCP will be closed to solid mineral leasing (e.g., coal). The remaining area will be open.

A portion of the TCP will be limited to those mineral material uses necessary for reclamation activities 

and maintenance of the existing road system.

Sweet Grass Hills Traditional Cultural Property

The TCP will be closed to oil and gas leasing.

The TCP will be an avoidance area for rights-of-way.

The TCP will be an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way.

The TCP will be closed to solid mineral leasing (e.g., coal).

The TCP is currently withdrawn from locatable mineral entry under the Mining Law until 2017. The 

BLM will recommend a 20-year extension of the current withdrawal to protect the TCP.

The TCP will be closed to solid mineral material sales (e.g., sand and gravel).

3.2.3 Fire Management and Ecology

Goal: Manage fire and fuels to protect life and property and to protect or enhance resource values.

Objectives: For wildland fire, protection of firefighter and public safety is the first priority, with threats 

to resources and property being evaluated on their own merits, case by case. 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.

Secretarial Order 3336, issued by the Secretary of the Interior on January 5, 2015, emphasized that 

“protecting, conserving, and restoring the health of the sagebrush-steppe ecosystem and, in particular, 

greater sage-grouse habitat, while maintaining safe and efficient operations, is a critical fire management 

priority for the Department.”

Use fire to protect, maintain, and enhance resources; and to function in its ecological role where 

appropriate.

Integrate fire and fuels management across landscape, agency, federal, and international boundaries.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-9

Management Actions

The BLM’s 2012 Fire Planning Manual Guidance (M-9211) and Fire Planning Handbook (H-9211-1), along 

with Chapter 09 of the Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations (NIFC, updated 

annually), and the BLM’s updated policy for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy 

(2009), April 30, 2010 (NWCG #024-2010), the Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire 

Management Policy (February 2009), and Secretarial Order 3336 and the Final Report dated May 1, 

2015, summarize national fire policy, regulations, guidance documents, and BLM fire planning policy. The 

key points of this policy and guidance are:

• Firefighter and public safety is the first priority in every fire management activity.

• Fire management programs and activities are economically viable, based upon values to be 

protected, costs, and land and resource management objectives.

• Federal, state, tribal, local, interagency, and international coordination and cooperation are 

essential.

• Federal agencies and local communities collaborate, particularly when Community Wildfire 

Protection Plans are prepared.

• The role of wildland fire as an essential ecological process and natural change agent would 

be incorporated into the planning process.

• Fire Management Plans (FMPs), programs, and activities support land and RMPs and their 

implementation.

• Fire regime condition class methodology would be utilized for project planning, 

prioritization, and monitoring.

The BLM prioritizes fire management activities by risk to life, property, and natural resource objectives, 

including protecting, conserving, and restoring sage-grouse habitat. Mechanical, prescribed fire and other 

treatments will be used, where appropriate, to restore and maintain fire regimes, land health, and to 

reduce hazardous fuels accumulations.

The BLM uses Fire Management Units (FMUs), fire management categories, and a FMP to summarize 

guidance for fire and fuels management actions on BLM-managed lands. The FMP is developed and tiered 

from the RMP and then updated annually. The planning area includes seven FMUs: Sweet Grass Hills, 

Havre Prairie Potholes, Malta Prairie Potholes, Bears Paw, Little Rockies, Malta Breaks, and Sun Prairie 

(Appendix A2, Map A). The BLM assigns a fire management category to each FMU; the categories 

range from Category A where fire (including prescribed fire) is not desired at all, to Category D where 

fire is desired and no constraints are placed on its use. The BLM periodically assesses FMUs and the FMP 

to determine whether they reflect appropriate and suitable strategies to protect high value areas; or 

where appropriate, to enhance resource conditions and achieve desired vegetation conditions.

Appendix O, Fire and Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation (ES&R), provides full definitions of the 

fire management categories.

The BLM Montana/Dakotas State Office has developed a database of landscape-level fire and disturbance 

regimes. This database is used to assess the condition of plant communities and systems relative to their 

regimes. Fire regime/condition class methodology and other land health assessments will be used by the 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-10 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

BLM to monitor vegetation treatment effects and other changes to landscape health and fire behavior.

This information will be used to provide feedback for updating available fire management strategies and 

responses at the RMP level.

Within the areas identified as fire management Category C (Appendix A2, Map A), wildfires will be 

managed to meet resource and protection objectives. Within the areas identified as fire management 

Category B (Appendix A2, Map A), wildfires will be managed to meet protection objectives. Fire 

management has included the full range of suppression options from full suppression to managing fire for 

beneficial effects. If monitoring indicates the strategy could be revised in Category C areas where the 

management of wildfire to achieve resource objectives is currently not allowed, changes will be 

developed and implemented through coordination with state, local, tribal, and other federal agencies and 

the RMP will be updated as necessary. 

The BLM coordinates with state and adjacent federal land management agencies to implement fire 

prevention orders such as restrictions and/or closures; and maintains a current Fire Restriction and 

Closure Plan as an appendix to the Fire Management Plan. The BLM has developed and maintains a 

Wildland Fire Prevention, Mitigation, and Education Plan (BLM 2012b); and coordinates with counties to 

develop, update, or implement Community Wildfire Protection Plans.

Vegetation and fuels treatments on BLM lands will be planned and prioritized based on values at risk and 

land health assessments, including fire regime condition class assessments. In conjunction with forestry, 

wildlife, riparian, and range management priorities, mechanical and prescribed fire treatments may be 

used in all of the FMUs. The highest wildland urban interface (WUI) priority fuels treatment areas 

include the Zortman and Landusky Communities at Risk and areas identified by Community Wildfire 

Protection Plans and the Tribal Forest Protection Act.

The BLM will protect the wilderness characteristics of land within the National Wilderness Preservation 

System and in WSAs. This includes the Burnt Lodge and Bitter Creek WSAs. Fire management-related 

activities, including prescribed fire, should preserve or enhance the natural character of wilderness areas 

and avoid unnecessary impairment of a WSA’s suitability for preservation as wilderness. The use of 

ground-disturbing equipment during wildfire suppression and rehabilitation requires authorization, and 

should be avoided to protect wilderness characteristics. The use of motorized vehicles and mechanical 

equipment during mop-up should be minimized, and fire camps should be located outside WSAs.

Suppression methods, prescribed fire implementation, and ES&R projects may include the use of power 

tools, aircraft, motorboats, and motorized firefighting equipment, and may require authorization prior to 

use.

The BLM will protect sensitive status species habitat (such as Greater Sage-Grouse habitat) during 

suppression and prescribed fire activities as described in this document and consistent with the 

Secretarial Order on Rangeland Fire and BLM Policy. Fire management-related activities, including 

prescribed fire, should preserve or enhance the habitat quality for Greater Sage-Grouse and other 

sensitive status species, especially in priority habitat areas. Where applicable, the BLM will use BMPs 

(Appendix H) to design fuels treatment objectives to protect existing sagebrush ecosystems, modify 

fire behavior, restore native plants, and create landscape patterns which benefit sage-grouse habitat 

(Appendix I). The use of heavy equipment during wildfire suppression and rehabilitation is allowable in 

sage-grouse habitat although cross-country travel should be limited through these areas. Wildfire 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-11

suppression facilities shall be located to the extent possible in areas that minimize disturbance to high 

quality sage-grouse habitat.

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 would be met by its use; 

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

• a risk assessment to address how potential threats to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat would 

be minimized.

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

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

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

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

grasses are a minor component in the understory, 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 would need to be 

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

winter range habitat quality.

The BLM will implement ES&R in a cost-effective manner to minimize negative effects of fire on soil, 

vegetation, and water resources (Appendix O).

Prior to approval of vegetation treatment activities, an interdisciplinary environmental review will be 

required. For other BLM resources, site inventories or assessments will provide guidance for project 

planning so that activities will meet the objectives of those programs. Livestock grazing could be 

considered as a vegetation management tool to reduce hazardous fuel loads. The BLM will design post 

fuels management projects to ensure long-term persistence of seeded or pre-treatment native plants.

Post-treatment land uses, such as livestock grazing rest periods, will be determined at the activity level.

The MDEQ has the primary responsibility for attaining and maintaining air quality standards through 

coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Prescribed fire projects must comply 

with state and federal air quality regulations, and the BLM must obtain burn permits from the MDEQ.

The BLM is a member of the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group which manages smoke impacts on the 

region by monitoring and scheduling interagency burn activities. The entire planning area is within 

Montana/Idaho Airshed 9, a geographic area which has excellent smoke dispersal and is rarely denied 

activity by the Montana/Idaho State Airshed Group. At the project level, the BLM manages smoke 

impacts on sensitive areas such as towns, WSAs and wilderness areas by constraining wind direction 

and/or smoke dispersal height in the burn plan prescription. In addition, the BLM coordinates and 

obtains burn permits as necessary from county and local agencies and tribal partners.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-12 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

The Bears Paw, Havre Prairie Potholes, Little Rockies, Sun Prairie, and Sweet Grass Hills FMUs will be 

managed as Category B (Appendix A2, Map A), where unplanned fire is likely to cause negative effects 

but prescribed fire treatments may be used to reduce fuels, improve land health, and restore fire 

regimes. Prevention and education activities are emphasized in this category as well as fuels reduction 

treatments.

The Malta Breaks and Malta Prairie Potholes FMUs will be managed as Category C (Appendix A2, Map

A), where fire is desired to manage ecosystems but ecological, social, or political conditions create 

constraints on the use of wildfire for resource benefit. Suppression may be required in Category C 

areas. The emphasis in this category is to reduce hazardous fuels accumulations and to restore or 

maintain land health and fire regimes. Prevention and education activities target recreation areas and 

WUI areas.

Wildfires will be suppressed in both Category B and C areas. If the conditions described above change in 

Category C areas, suppression strategies will be reevaluated to include use of wildfire for resource 

benefit. Changes will be developed and implemented through coordination with state, local, tribal, and 

other federal agencies.

3.2.4 Fish

Goals: Ensure habitat for aquatic species is of sufficient quantity and quality to enhance biological diversity and 

sustain ecological, economic and social values.

Ensure proposed land uses initiated or authorized by the BLM maintain or improve aquatic habitats.

Promote public awareness, appreciation, and understanding of fisheries conservation, management, and ecology.

Objectives: The necessary habitat, biological processes, and disturbance regimes would be present to 

maintain, enhance, or restore priority fisheries populations. Land use would maintain habitat quality and 

large, intact reaches of aquatic habitat. 

Use individual species management strategies and/or known habitat associations to design aquatic habitat 

for as many aquatic species as possible.

Manage priority fish habitats using multi-scale assessments to identify current conditions, risks and 

opportunities.

Identify restoration activities to provide improved aquatic and riparian habitat.

Management Actions

Management activities will be designed and implemented consistent with current adopted strategies 

including Montana’s Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy (MFWP 2005) and 

currently accepted science.

Most management actions will be directed at maintaining habitat and the processes that provide habitat 

diversity in the planning area. Where special status fish species are present on BLM-administered lands, 

actions authorized by the BLM shall further the conservation and/or recovery of these species.

Conservation of Bureau sensitive species is defined in the 6840 manual as, “the use of programs, plans, 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-13

and management practices to reduce or eliminate threats affecting the status of the species, or improve 

the condition of the species’ habitat on BLM-administered lands.”

The BLM will cooperate with state and federal agencies to establish programs that are consistent with 

ecologically sound and sustainable practices, conserve and enhance high quality aquatic habitat, protect 

native aquatic species, and enhance game fishing opportunities.

If species which occur on BLM lands in the planning area are added to the Threatened and Endangered 

list in the future, management actions will be developed to conserve, enhance and protect the species in 

accordance with the ESA. For further information on fish and fisheries in the HiLine District, see BLM 

2015, Appendix N.

The BLM will continue to manage aquatic habitats in the planning area according to existing federal and 

state laws, regulations, and BLM policies including BMPs and Montana Streamside Management Zone 

(SMZ) guidelines. Habitat management includes maintaining water quality and quantity, and riparian and 

wetland habitat conditions.

The BLM will protect aquatic resources occurring on BLM land through implementation of responsible 

and appropriate land management activities. The BLM will continue to implement, review, and update as 

necessary the Prairie Pothole Waterfowl and Fisheries Habitat Management Plan (HMP) of North 

Central Montana (BLM 1978) and the Whitewater Lake Waterfowl Habitat Development Project HMP 

(BLM 1970a). The BLM management approach includes the development of activity plans showing how 

site-specific actions accomplish goals and objectives. Some examples of activity plans include AMPs, 

recreation plans, HMPs, cultural RMPs, oil and gas plans of development, and use authorizations. These 

plans would include the implementation of appropriate BMPs for activities directed by or permitted by 

the BLM to support the integrity of ecological processes, protect identified beneficial water uses, and 

meet state water quality standards.

The BLM will provide maintenance to all aquatic habitat improvement/fisheries projects as needed to 

ensure proper function.

Any new reservoirs will be analyzed for fish habitat potential. Priority consideration will be given to 

reservoirs near communities and access routes. The BLM will maintain and/or improve new and existing 

designated fishing reservoirs through fencing, aeration, and fish habitat improvement projects. All fishing 

reservoirs will be maintained as fisheries as long as the BLM and MFWP determine that they are viable 

fisheries opportunities. Fish stocking will be coordinated with MFWP.

3.2.5 Fluid Minerals

Goal: Ensure dependable and environmentally responsible production of leasable minerals by identifying lands 

appropriate for lease and development.

Objectives: Provide opportunities for responsible development of oil and gas.

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 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-14 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

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).

Where a proposed fluid mineral development project on an existing lease could adversely affect Greater 

Sage-Grouse populations or habitat, the BLM will work with the lessees, operators, or other project 

proponents to avoid, minimize and apply compensatory mitigation 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 Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat 

informs and helps to guide development of such federal leases.

Management Actions

The BLM planning process determines availability of federal minerals for oil and gas leasing. Federal oil 

and gas resources administered by the BLM are categorized into one of four groups:

• lands open to leasing with only standard lease terms;

• lands open to leasing subject to moderate constraints, such as a seasonal TL Stipulation or 

Controlled Surface Use (CSU);

• lands open to leasing subject to major constraints, such as NSO; and

• lands closed to leasing.

In areas with only standard lease terms, the BLM’s 200 meter/60-day rule provides that COA are 

deemed consistent with lease rights provided that they do not require relocation of proposed 

operations by more than 200 meters, mandate that operations be sited off the leasehold, or prohibit 

new surface-disturbing activities for a period of more than 60 days in an lease year (43 CFR, Part 

3101.1-2).

In areas with a TL stipulation, surface use is prohibited during specific time periods 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.

In areas with a CSU stipulation, 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 NSO or TL stipulation.

In areas with a NSO stipulation, use or occupancy of the land surface for fluid mineral exploration or 

development is prohibited to protect identified resource values.

In areas closed to leasing, federal minerals are not available for future oil and gas leasing. Existing oil and 

gas leases will continue according to the respective stipulations until they expire. Where oil or gas is 

being drained from lands otherwise unavailable for leasing, the BLM may issue leases with an NSO 

stipulation (43 CFR, Part 3100.0-3(d)) with appropriate WEM criteria.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-15

An oil and gas lease grants the lessee the right to explore for, extract, remove, and dispose of the 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, and permit approval requirements. Oil and 

gas operations are described in detail in BLM 2015, Appendix E.1.

The BLM Montana State Office issues all federal oil and gas leases for the planning area, including those 

involving split estate ownership. Competitive lease auctions are held where the public can nominate any 

federal lands with unleased federal minerals and/or any split estate lands overlying unleased federal 

minerals. For those parcels determined as appropriate for oil and gas leasing, but where other resource 

concerns or conflicts exist, stipulations based on the Approved RMP are placed on the parcels. Prior to 

the lease auction, parcels with stipulations are posted for a 45-day review period in accordance with 

current regulations and policy.

Where the federal government owns the mineral estate in PHMA and GHMA, and the surface is in nonfederal ownership, apply the same stipulations, COAs, and/or conservation measures and RDFs 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.

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

The existing oil and gas leases (803,656 acres) will continue according to the respective stipulations until 

they expire. As these leases expire, the areas will come under the management guidelines of the 

Approved RMP. New surface use stipulations (including TL, CSU, and NSO) cannot be applied to 

existing oil and gas leases or other existing valid use authorizations such as rights-of-way. Site-specific 

actions such as APDs and rights-of-way in areas with existing oil and gas leases will be allowed, subject 

to surface use COAl and BMPs (Appendix N).

Where applicable, stipulations may be changed by application of waivers, exceptions, or modifications.

Waivers are a permanent exception from a lease stipulation. This occurs when the resource does not 

require the 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. The 

decision whether to grant waivers, exceptions, or modifications generally occurs during the APD 

approval process. If the authorized officer determines the change to be substantial, the change will be 

subject to a 30-day public review period.

Additional information can be provided to the lessee in the form of Onshore Orders (1, 2, 3, 5, and 7) 

and Notice to Lessees 3A and 4A. The Onshore Orders and Notices 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 APD 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-16 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

or Sundry Notice that must be approved according to lease stipulations, Onshore Oil and Gas Orders, 

and appropriate regulations. Subsequent well operations are set forth in 43 CFR, Part 3162.3-2.

New information may lead to changes in existing resource inventories. New areas and resource 

locations, or areas and resource locations that are no longer valid, may be identified. These usually 

cover small areas requiring the same protection or mitigation as stated 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 

through plan maintenance. In cases where the changes constitute a change in resource allocation outside 

the scope of this plan, a plan amendment will be required.

On Bureau of Reclamation lands (131,364 acres), in addition to the resource-specific stipulations under 

each alternative, stipulations and conditions are provided in accordance with that agency’s planning 

guidance (BLM 2015, Appendix E.3).

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. Unavailable lands 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 WEM provisions. This would only 

be a paper transaction with no physical impacts on the unavailable lands. No exploration or 

development (drilling or production) within the unavailable lands would occur. 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.

All lands will be open to geophysical exploration, subject to appropriate resource surveys, surface 

protection measures, adequate bonding, and adherence to State of Montana standards (ARM, 36.22.5) 

for geophysical operations.

Approximately 49% of federal minerals will be open to leasing subject to major constraints (NSO); 42% 

will be open to leasing subject to moderate constraints (TL and CSU); and 5% will be open to leasing 

subject to standard lease terms only (Appendix A2, Map B). The federal minerals available for leasing 

will be subject to the stipulations which are summarized in BLM 2015, Table 2.8. The complete 

stipulations, including the objectives, exceptions, modifications, and waivers, are located in Appendix 

G. Requirements and/or guidelines for wildlife CSU stipulations are shown in BLM 2015, Appendix E.5.

Approximately 4% of federal minerals will be closed to leasing (Appendix A2, Map B). This includes the 

Bitter Creek WSA, Burnt Lodge WSA, Sweet Grass Hills TCP, a portion of the Little Rocky Mountains 

TCP, and the Azure Cave ACEC. 

3.2.6 Forests and Woodlands

Goal: Promote healthy forests that are biologically and structurally diverse, relatively fire tolerant, and dominated 

by not only vigorous conifer trees but also native grasses, forbs and shrubs, and hardwoods.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-17

Objectives: Emphasize healthy forest conditions through treatments and management activities that 

would include the role of fire as a change agent necessary for the development of healthy forests and 

woodlands.

Provide for local economic opportunities through offerings of forest products while being responsive to 

developing markets dependent upon non-traditional forest byproducts (e.g., biomass).

Management Actions

All forest and woodland health treatments will be clearly defined through written silvicultural 

prescriptions based on the latest available science. At a minimum, prescriptions will require a current 

stand description, the desired future conditions to achieve a healthy forest ecosystem, and the 

recommended steps to achieve forest health. The BLM will consult with MFWP and seek concurrence 

regarding the anticipated benefits and/or impacts of any forest or woodland treatments that may impact 

wildlife habitat.

The BLM will look for opportunities to utilize all material that is treated through offerings of forest 

products including saw timber and minor products such as Christmas trees, fuel wood and post and pole 

sales. Permits will be issued for minor products on a demand basis unless specifically prohibited. No sale 

of forest products will be made at less than the appraised market value. Sales of commercial wood 

products will be coordinated with adjacent landowners. Mitigation measures applied to all treatments 

will include Water Quality Best Management Practices for Montana Forests (Logan 2001). Posttreatment activities will consider the use of prescribed fire as a means to further reduce debris and 

provide site preparation for establishment or resprouting of native vegetation.

The BLM will continue a collaborative effort to identify high priority treatment areas and implementation 

schedules, and will establish baseline data utilizing the Forest Vegetation Information System or the 

current standard. Data will be used to establish acres of forest and woodlands that are outside the 

historical range of variance and will help prioritize land treatments. Isolated parcels will be treated on a 

case-by-case basis.

The BLM will offer forest products as opportunities arise. The probable sale quantity (PSQ) of timber is 

664 MBF per year along with 4,000 tons of biomass per year. The PSQ does not include quantities due 

to salvage timber activities from wildfire, insect, or weather events. Management of old growth stands 

will follow the Old-Growth Forest Types of the Northern Region (USFS 1992) for overall guidance and 

direction.

The Burnt Lodge and Bitter Creek WSAs will not be available for the sale of wood products. This 

includes personal use wood products (e.g., Christmas trees, firewood, post and poles).

The BLM will allow for a full range of forest health treatments in the Sweet Grass Hills ACEC that may 

include the sale of wood products. Landscape-level projects that focus on forest health rather than 

product quantity allow for an array of silvicultural treatments that mimic ecological processes. The sale 

of wood products resulting from forest health treatments will be a secondary benefit and will not be a 

reason for undertaking the treatments. The ACEC will not be open for incidental personal use wood 

products.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-18 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

As forest health treatments and/or natural disturbances take place that reduce the risk of dangerous and 

high severity fire events, management may adjust suppression strategies to become more cost effective.

Additionally, as forest treatments occur that result in conditions approaching historical fire regimes, 

natural fire may be managed for the benefit of the forested resource.

3.2.7 Lands and Realty

Landownership Adjustment

Goal: Improve resource management efficiency and provide public benefits as opportunities arise.

Objectives: Retain lands with high resource values and adjust landownership to improve land pattern 

and management efficiency, enhance public access and resource values, and/or meet public and 

community needs.

Management Actions

Section 102(a)(1) of FLPMA provides that “... the public lands be retained in Federal ownership, unless 

as a result of the land use planning procedure provided for in this Act, it is determined that disposal of a 

particular tract would serve the national interest....” Management of landownership adjustments will be 

based on three categories of BLM land as described below.

• Category 1 (Retention): BLM lands in Category 1 are identified for retention and include 

lands with high resource values. These lands tend to be fairly well blocked in terms of land 

pattern. Included in this category are areas such as WSAs, National Historic Trails, and 

ACECs. Acquisition of lands or interests in lands would receive priority if located within 

and/or adjacent to BLM land in Category 1 provided the lands meet one or more of the 

acquisition criteria found in BLM 2015, Appendix F.1, Landownership Adjustment Criteria.

• Category 2 (Retention-Limited Disposal): BLM lands in Category 2 are generally 

identified for retention in public ownership. Category 2 includes BLM lands that are fairly 

well blocked as well as some smaller, isolated parcels as long as they are larger than a 

quarter-section or its equivalent or half-section or its equivalent. Limited disposal actions 

involving BLM lands within this category could occur.

BLM lands designated as Category 2 would not be available for sale. However, BLM lands 

within this category could be exchanged for lands or interests in lands located anywhere in 

Montana. In addition, parcels of BLM land within Category 2 may be identified for transfer 

under the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act. Such recreation or public purpose 

use could be considered on a case-by-case basis for such facilities as schools or other public 

administration, parks or recreation areas, or historic preservation. Also, BLM land within 

Category 2 could be considered for airport purposes under the Airport and Airway 

Improvement Act, for public agency jurisdictional transfer, or for State Indemnity Selections 

on a case-by-case basis.

BLM lands in Category 2 may contain significant resource values protected by law or policy, 

and any disposal action is contingent upon prior review and approval. If actions cannot be 

taken to adequately mitigate impacts from disposal of those lands, the parcels would be 

retained. Acquisition of lands or interests in lands located in or adjacent to Category 2 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-19

would be considered in accordance with the acquisition criteria found in BLM 2015, 

Appendix F.1, Landownership Adjustment Criteria.

• Category 3 (Disposal): BLM lands in Category 3 are identified for disposal through any 

method, including sale. These lands generally are surrounded by private land with no legal 

access, or have been selected for disposal by the BLM due to management issues. BLM land 

parcels in this category are relatively smaller in size. These parcels typically range in size 

from a quarter to a half section but would vary in acreage.

BLM lands in Category 3 would be available for disposal through exchange for lands or 

interests in lands located anywhere within Montana. Those parcels which meet the sale 

criteria of section 203(a)(1) of FLPMA could be made available for sale. However, disposal of 

Category 3 lands by exchange would have priority over disposal by sale. In addition, parcels 

of BLM land within Category 3 may be identified for transfer under the R&PP Act. Such 

recreation or public purpose use could be considered on a case-by-case basis for such 

facilities as schools or other public administration, parks or recreation areas, or historic 

preservation. Also, BLM land within Category 3 could be considered for airport purposes 

under the Airport and Airway Improvement Act, for public agency jurisdictional transfer, or 

for State Indemnity Selections on a case-by-case basis. 

Some BLM lands in Category 3 may contain significant resource values protected by law or 

policy and any disposal action is contingent upon prior review and approval. If actions 

cannot be taken to adequately mitigate impacts from disposal of those lands, the parcels 

would be retained as Category 1 or 2.

All landownership adjustment proposals, whether land exchange, acquisition of land or interests in land, 

or disposal, will be subject to environmental review including all biological reports, cultural and 

paleontological inventories , and hazardous materials assessments, as well as standards for boundary 

evidence certificate(s), water rights documentation, and mineral potential report, if the mineral estate is 

included in the proposal.

Exchange will be the preferred method of landownership adjustment. In accordance with policy, all lands 

to be exchanged must be within Montana (43 CFR §2200.0(d) (2008)). If the BLM disposal parcels 

contain public access routes, the access rights will be reserved to the United States in the conveyance.

Disposal will be considered on a case-by-case basis through sale (by competitive, modified competitive, 

or direct methods). Applications for R&PP, jurisdictional transfer to other federal agencies, Color-ofTitle, Desert Land Entry, Indian Allotment, Carey Act Grant, State Grant, Railroad Grants, and Airport 

Grants will be considered and reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Acquisition will primarily be accomplished through purchase of land or interests in land (conservation 

easements) from willing landowners using the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) or other 

funding sources. Acquisition of land may also be accomplished through donations to the BLM by 

nonfederal landowners. The BLM may acquire conservation easements to preserve open space, enhance 

public access, and protect important resource values.

Land acquired adjacent to special management areas such as Wilderness Areas or ACECs will be subject 

to the management guidance for that area.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-20 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

All lands within special management areas (WSAs, ACECs, etc.) will be designated as Category 1 

(retention) lands.

Lands classified as priority habitat and general habitat (or habitat classification appropriate for the subregion) 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) the agency can demonstrate that the disposal, including land exchanges, 

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

Lands with wilderness characteristics will be identified for retention or very limited disposal (Category 

2). The BLM land in these areas will not be disposed of other than by exchange and only when necessary 

to further protect or enhance the wilderness characteristics.

BLM lands designated as Category 3 (disposal) are shown in BLM 2015, Appendix F, Maps F.1 through 

F.8. Appendix F.2 provides the legal description of the disposal parcels. The remaining BLM land will be 

designated as Category 2.

Lands or interests in lands brought forward by willing landowners will be considered for acquisition 

provided they meet one or more of the acquisition criteria listed in BLM 2015, Appendix F.1, 

Landownership Adjustment Criteria. The offered lands surrounded by or adjacent to BLM lands in 

Category 1 will be considered acquisition priorities over lands surrounded by or adjacent to BLM lands 

in Category 2. Newly acquired lands that meet retention criteria (Category 1) will be designated as 

retention lands; all other acquired lands will be designated as Category 2. No lands meeting Category 3 

criteria will be considered for acquisition.

The need to protect newly acquired lands will be considered as part of the environmental review prior 

to acquisition and, if withdrawn, the lands will be managed under the terms and conditions of the 

withdrawal.

Federal minerals underlying nonfederal surface will generally be retained in federal ownership. However, 

an exchange of this type of mineral estate may be considered on a case-by-case basis if found to be in 

the public interest. The sale of this type of mineral interest under section 209(b) of FLPMA could be 

considered only if the requirements of this same section were met. Conversely, the acquisition of 

patented mining claims will also be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

Land tenure adjustments will follow USDI and BLM guidance and policies for acquisitions and disposals.

It is not the intention of the BLM to have a net gain in federal ownership, but rather to provide 

exceptional national public lands that are accessible to the public.

Access

Goal: Address public and administrative access needs across nonfederal lands.

Objective: Acquire or retain and mark access to BLM land in cooperation with private landowners; 

state, local and tribal governments; and other federal agencies in order to improve efficiency of multiple 

use management and to facilitate public enjoyment of these lands.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-21

Management Actions

All available methods will be used to acquire the legal rights for public and administrative access across 

nonfederal land to BLM land. Easement acquisition through donation or purchase will be the preferred 

method of acquiring legal access. Reciprocal rights, exchanges, fee purchases, and reserving public access 

in disposal actions are other appropriate methods of securing access. As a last resort, the Secretary of 

the Interior may exercise the power of eminent domain only if necessary to secure access to BLM lands, 

and then only if the lands so acquired are confined to as narrow a corridor as is necessary to serve such 

purpose (43 U.S.C. 1715).

The BLM will generally acquire on behalf of the United States and its assigns permanent, exclusive, 

unrestrictive, and assignable rights of access. This allows the BLM to maintain the road or trail and 

control commercial uses for road maintenance purposes. Any proposed commercial uses will require 

that a ROW application be submitted and approved prior to use. A standard 60-foot-wide easement will 

be acquired unless road design or resource management necessitates a different width.

The BLM is a partner in the Respected Access Campaign and will promote the concept of Respected 

Access is Open Access through educational opportunities and signage (more information is available at 

http://treadlightly.org/programs/respected-access-campaign/).

As per Executive Order 13443 and BLM Manual 8342, improving access to public lands is a priority for 

the BLM and will be one of the objectives of subsequent transportation and travel management planning.

All access will be documented on the BLM land tenure records system with associated geospatial data to 

BLM corporate standards.

Legal public or administrative access will be pursued from willing landowners on a case-by-case basis as 

the need or opportunity arises. Acquisition efforts will be focused on Category 1 and 2 lands where no 

legal public access exists or where additional access is necessary to meet management objectives.

Facilities

Goal: Provide and manage adequate administrative and other facilities based on public and agency needs.

Objective: Ensure facilities are maintained to meet public health and safety requirements.

Management Actions

Recreation sites, administrative sites, buildings and communication towers will be maintained within 

Bureau standards to reduce deferred maintenance costs and meet public health and safety requirements.

Comprehensive condition assessments will be conducted for all maintained facilities and maintenance 

actions will be implemented if necessary. These activities will be coordinated with other federal, state, 

and local government agencies, private landowners and the general public as needed. 

Existing and new facilities will be managed through Facility Asset Management System (FAMS). 

Directional and informative signs will be installed based on public need and available funding. All signs 

will conform to BLM policy.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-22 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

Rights-of-Way, Leases and Permits

Goals: Consider all requests for rights-of-way, land use permits, and leases.

Designate transportation and utility corridors, as well as avoidance and/or exclusion areas.

Objective: Address the needs of industry, utilities, the public, or government entities for land use 

authorizations while minimizing adverse impacts on other resource values.

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 Actions

Requests for land use authorizations (rights-of-way, leases or permits) will be analyzed and mitigation 

measures applied on a case-by-case basis through the environmental review process. Terms and 

conditions for rights-of-way, corridors, and development areas (oil and gas) will incorporate applicable 

BMPs, current professional practice, and recent scientific findings. All rights-of-way will comply with SMZ

restrictions and guidelines where applicable. In accordance with current policy, land use authorizations 

will not be issued for uses which involve the disposal or storage of materials which could contaminate 

the land (e.g., hazardous waste disposal sites, landfills, rifle ranges, etc.).

Nonfederal landowners who are surrounded by BLM land will be allowed a degree of access that will 

provide for the reasonable use and enjoyment of the nonfederal land (BLM Manual 2801).

Applications for rights-of-way from holders of valid, existing mining claims in the Sweet Grass Hills will 

be considered on a case-by-case basis with appropriate mitigation.

Communication Sites

New communication site users will be grouped into suitable existing sites to reduce impacts and 

expedite application processing. Communication site management plans will be completed prior to 

authorizing communication site uses in new areas. The following communication sites are designated:

Mount Royal (Sweet Grass Hills), Sheep Coulee, Kevin Rim, Harlem, Antoine Butte, Saco Hills, Larb 

Hills, Loring, Whitewater, and Rose Hill. In the Little Rocky Mountains, communication sites will be 

located only on Antoine Butte. In the Sweet Grass Hills, communication sites will not be allowed on 

West and Middle Buttes. The use of alternative energy sources will be considered where electric power 

is not available.

Revised Statute 2477

Revised Statute (R.S.) 2477, which provided that “[t]he right of way for the construction of highways 

over public lands, not reserved for public uses, is hereby granted,” was repealed on October 21, 1976, 

by FLPMA. FLPMA did not terminate valid rights-of-way established under R.S. 2477 prior to its repeal.

Current guidance on the BLM's authority to recognize or adjudicate claims under R.S. 2477 is contained 

in Washington Office (WO) Instruction Memorandum (IM) No. 2010-016: Clarification of the Acting 

Director's February 20, 2009 Memorandum on R.S. 2477 Claims. Under this policy the BLM will not 

process or review R.S. 2477 claims under a Recordable Disclaimer of Interest ruling. This policy does 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-23

not affect existing valid R.S. 2477 rights-of-way consistent to Section 315 of FLPMA. Determinations on 

the validity of an R.S. 2477 claim are currently only available through federal court.

New ROW facilities will be located within or adjacent to existing rights-of-way, or corridors, to the 

extent practical, in order to minimize adverse environmental impacts and the proliferation of separate 

rights-of-way. New rights-of-way will include appropriate BMPs and mitigation (Appendices H and I).

The latest version of Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2012 (APLIC 

2012) and the BMPs established by the BLM Wind Energy Development Programmatic EIS and Record 

of Decision (BLM 2006a) will be implemented in the construction and operation of ROW facilities.

Corridors

Five utility and transportation corridors will be designated: U.S. Highway 2, U.S. Highway 87; U.S. 

Highway 191; and State Secondary Highway Nos. 24 and 325 (Appendix A2, Map C). The corridor for 

U.S. Highway 191 will exclude the Big Bend of the Milk River ACEC. The corridors will be available for 

all uses (e.g., power lines, pipelines). The corridor width will be restricted to 1 mile, or 1/2 mile from 

the centerline. These corridors will include 19,884 acres of BLM land. Applicants for new utility and 

transportation rights-of-way will be encouraged to locate their facility within one of these corridors.

Within the Bitter Creek WSA, management of the Northern Border Pipeline ROW will be subject to 

guidance that protects the resource values for which the WSA was designated. Within the Frenchman 

Breaks ACEC, management of the Northern Border Pipeline ROW will be subject to guidance that 

protects the resource values of the area.

Exclusion Areas

The Bitter Creek and Burnt Lodge WSAs will be exclusion areas (Appendix A2, Map C). If the Bitter 

Creek WSA is not designated by Congress as wilderness, the area will remain an exclusion area. If the 

Burnt Lodge WSA is not designated by Congress as wilderness, the area would become an avoidance 

area.

Avoidance Areas

The BLM will designate 19 avoidance areas for the issuance of rights-of-way (Appendix A2, Map C). In 

these areas, efforts will be made to reroute a proposal. A ROW may be allowed if no reasonable 

alternative is found; however, special mitigation measures may be required to protect sensitive resource 

values. Rights-of-way may also be allowed if they support or promote other management objectives for 

the area.

During site-specific planning, riparian areas with unique values (e.g., where water quality habitat for 

special status species is an issue) will be treated as avoidance areas for rights-of-way (installation of 

infrastructure that requires surface disturbance and/or permanent surface occupancy).

Unauthorized Use

Management Actions

The HiLine District attempts to reduce trespass through prevention, detection, and resolution. The 

priority for resolving trespass in an area is accorded to newly discovered ongoing uses, developments, 

or occupancies where resource damage is occurring and/or where there is a significant loss of revenue 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-24 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

to the United States. In such cases, resolution is needed to halt and prevent further environmental 

degradation or revenue loss. Historic trespass cases where little or no resources damage is occurring 

are resolved as workloads permit.

Withdrawals

Goal: Protect significant resources or significant government investment.

Objective: Utilize withdrawal actions with the least restrictive measures and of the minimum size 

necessary to accomplish the required purpose.

Management Actions

New withdrawals will be pursued where other agency actions are inadequate to protect critical 

resource values or federal investments. Examples of such resource values include cultural or historic 

sites, crucial habitat for threatened and endangered species, or scenic values. Federal investments that 

may need the protection of a withdrawal could include administrative sites or extensively developed 

recreation areas. New withdrawals will include only the minimum area required to meet the purpose of 

the withdrawal.

New withdrawal proposals that result in a transfer of jurisdiction to another federal agency will be 

considered on a case-by-case basis. Other agency requests for new withdrawals, or modification, 

extension, or revocation of existing withdrawals will be considered.

Existing withdrawals will be reviewed prior to their expiration to determine if a need exists to extend 

and/or modify the withdrawal. Should the review indicate that the purpose for which the lands were 

withdrawn is no longer valid, the withdrawal will be allowed to expire. If the purpose remains valid for a 

portion of the withdrawn lands, the withdrawal will be modified and extended.

Existing and new proposed mineral withdrawals are addressed under the Solid Minerals – Locatable

section in Chapter 2.

If lands are returned to BLM management through the withdrawal process, they will be managed 

consistent with adjacent public lands.

3.2.8 Livestock Grazing

Goal: Provide opportunities on the public rangelands for a maintainable level of livestock grazing consistent with 

multiple use and sustained yield.

Objective: Manage livestock grazing to provide a sustained flow of local economic benefits and protect 

resource values.

Management Actions

Livestock will continue to be allocated approximately 386,600 animal unit months (AUMs) of forage 

each year from BLM land in the planning area (BLM 2015, Appendix G). Approximately 2,390,000 acres 

will be open to livestock grazing and 47,000 acres will be closed to livestock grazing except as needed 

for resource management. The Little Rocky Mountains Allotment No. 05630 and Whitewater Lake 

Allotment No. 05068 will remain closed to livestock grazing except as needed for resource 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-25

management. The Cree Crossing Allotment No. 05302 adjacent to the Milk River will remain closed to 

livestock grazing for recreation values. The 15 Mile Trailing Allotment No. 06237 will be closed to 

livestock grazing except as needed for livestock trailing purposes. Most unpermitted parcels will remain 

available for livestock grazing.

Actions consistent 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 

Appendix L) will continue to be incorporated into livestock grazing permits and leases and will apply to 

all livestock grazing activities. Under the grazing regulations if Standards are not met the authorized 

officer would take appropriate action as soon as practical but not later than the start of the next grazing 

season upon determining that grazing management needs to be modified to ensure progress toward 

conformance with the guidelines (43 CFR, Part 4180.2(c)(3)). A no grazing alternative will be considered 

in environmental assessments (EA) prepared as part of the grazing permit renewal process as outlined in 

IM No. MT-2012-042.

Flexibility is authorized in grazing permits to allow for livestock management needs and fluctuating 

climatic conditions. Flexibility afforded to livestock management practices includes adjustment of on/off 

dates and livestock numbers, but management must be within the overall terms of the grazing permit, 

the permitted season of use and the established carrying capacity of the allotment. Any deviations from 

the terms and conditions of the grazing permit should be applied for beforehand and will require 

environmental review.

All allotments have been assigned to a management category depending on the resources and problems 

contained in the allotment. The three categories of Improve (I), Maintain (M) and Custodial (C) reflect 

resource conditions, resource potential and economic considerations for each allotment. The terms 

improve, maintain and custodial relate to resource objectives for the allotment (i.e., whether conditions 

need to be improved or maintained, or if custodial management is appropriate because of relatively 

limited resources and resource problems). The BLM’s allotment categorization system will continue to 

determine priorities for processing grazing authorizations, implementing grazing activity plans, spending 

range improvement funds and monitoring. Allotments will be subject to recategorization based on 

changes in resource conditions as determined through monitoring and land health evaluations consistent 

with BLM policy. Future changes in allotment categories will be documented through plan maintenance.

Developed recreation sites will not be allocated for livestock grazing.

Existing AMPs will continue to be implemented including associated range improvement projects. AMPs 

will be updated and revised in response to monitoring and/or permit transfers. New AMPs will be 

developed and implemented to direct site-specific management of livestock grazing after completion of 

rangeland health assessments.

Livestock grazing will be managed through monitoring of AMPs or similar grazing plans and supervision 

of grazing use as provided under the grazing regulations. Adjustments to livestock management practices 

or livestock numbers including increases or decreases will be made based on results of monitoring 

studies, rangeland health assessments, allotment evaluations, and through an environmental review 

process. Where opportunities occur, cooperative efforts to utilize permittee/lessee monitoring and 

integrated ranch planning will be emphasized.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-26 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

If monitoring data demonstrate that livestock use on an allotment is adversely affecting Greater SageGrouse or their habitat, the terms and conditions of grazing permits may be modified (43 CFR, Parts 

4130.3, 4130.3-1, 4130.3-2), or changes in active use (43 CFR, Part 4110.3-3) could be considered in 

order to meet the standards for rangeland health as described in 43 CFR, Part 4180 and the Lewistown 

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management or to otherwise 

manage, maintain, or improve sage-grouse habitat.

Appropriate indicators and measurements specific to habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse, or any other 

wildlife species of concern, will be evaluated as part of standards and guidelines assessment (43 CFR, 

Part 4180) and any necessary and appropriate habitat objectives specific to meeting the wildlife health 

standard for the site will be identified and incorporated into AMPs or the terms and conditions (43 CFR, 

Parts 4130.3, 4130.3-1, 4130.3-2) of livestock grazing permits.

Newly acquired lands will be evaluated to determine if they should be designated as reserve common 

allotments, allocated for grazing, or designated as unavailable for livestock grazing in consideration of the 

management needs and objectives for the acquisition, with the exception of lands covered under 43 

CFR, Part 4110.1-1 (e.g., where lands have been acquired through purchase or exchange, and an 

agreement provides that the BLM will honor existing grazing permits or leases).

Yearling factors will be considered according to the framework laid out in BLM 2015, Appendix I.

Processing Grazing Permits/Leases

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 SFA followed by PHMA

outside of the SFA. In setting workload priorities, precedence will be given to existing permits/leases in 

these areas not meeting Land Health Standards, with focus on those containing riparian areas, including 

wet meadows. The BLM may use other criteria for prioritization to respond to urgent natural resource 

concerns (e.g., fire) and legal obligations. 

The NEPA analysis for renewals and modifications of livestock grazing permits/leases that include lands

within SFA and PHMA will include specific management thresholds based on the Desired Conditions for 

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat (habitat objectives) presented in Table 2.2 and Land Health Standards (43 

CFR, Part 4180.2) and ecological site potential, and one or more defined responses that will allow the 

authorizing officer to make adjustments to livestock grazing that have already been subjected to NEPA 

analysis. 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, bison, llamas, alpacas and goats).

The 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 PHMA, beginning with 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-27

those in SFA. 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 Greater Sage-Grouse habitat objectives found in the Special Status Species section of 

the land use plan? 

• Is there data that indicates that the Greater Sage-Grouse 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 PHMA 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.

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.

Compliance Monitoring 

Allotments within SFA, 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

3.2.9 Noxious Weeds and Other Invasive Non-Native Species

Goal: Prevent the introduction and spread of noxious weeds and invasive species through cooperative Integrated 

Pest Management practices.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-28 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

Objective: Reduce the rate of spread for widely established invasive species, and prevent the 

establishment or spread of new invasive species.

Management Actions

Montana state and county-designated noxious weeds will be managed according to the principles of 

integrated pest management found in Partners Against Weeds: An Action Plan for the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM 1996c), Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western 

States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 2007); Montana Weed Management Plan 

(MWMP 2008); County Weed Control Act (MDA 2003); Noxious Weed Management Plan, Lewistown 

District (BLM 1992); or the most current noxious weed management plan(s) developed within the 

planning area. These plans outline the principles of integrated pest management which will continue to 

be followed. The basic principles of integrated pest management include:

• education and awareness for staff, cooperators, and the public;

• prevention, early detection and rapid response for all noxious weed species;

• inventory of public and cooperator lands for noxious weeds;

• control of noxious weeds by various methods that include cultural, physical, biological, and 

chemical controls or other land practices; and 

• monitoring of treatment areas.

The State of Montana currently has 34 designated noxious weeds, of which 20 are found in the planning 

area. An invasive plant attains a noxious status by legislation only. This designation usually places the 

burden to control, contain, or inhibit reproduction of a listed species on the owner of an infested parcel.

It also prohibits the sale and distribution of listed species. Montana law allows for the petition and 

review of invasive plants for inclusion on its Noxious Weed List, making the list a dynamic document.

Montana State Noxious Weeds are divided into five priorities based on the distribution and abundance 

of a given species across the state. This priority system helps determine the management strategy for a 

given species on the list.

• Priority 1A - These weeds are not present in Montana. Management criteria will require 

eradication if detected; education and prevention.

• Priority 1B - These weeds have limited presence in Montana. Management criteria will 

require eradication or containment and education.

• Priority 2A - These weeds are common in isolated areas of Montana. Management criteria 

will require eradication or containment where less abundant.

• Priority 2B - These weeds are abundant in Montana and widespread in many counties.

Management criteria will require eradication or containment where less abundant.

• Priority 3 – Regulated Plants. These plants have the potential to have significant negative 

impacts. These plants may not be intentionally spread or sold other than as a contaminant in 

agricultural products.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-29

In addition, under the County Noxious Weed Control Act and Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM), 

each county is allowed to designate plant species as noxious within that county. The BLM also maintains 

a list of exotic invasive species for the land it administers (Table 3.33 in Chapter 3).

The BLM will continue cooperative agreements with county and state entities. Management efforts will 

be coordinated with other federal, state, and county agencies, weed management areas, and private 

landowners and organizations. Development of cooperative weed management areas where all the 

landowners are cooperatively working to contain or eradicate noxious weeds within designated areas 

will be encouraged.

Treatment methods include chemical, cultural, physical, and biological. Invasive species such as 

cheatgrass will be evaluated in site-specific projects associated with the watershed analysis. Perennial 

vegetation will be reestablished in a timely manner to rehabilitate disturbance areas. Native species will 

be used for rehabilitation and reclamation unless site-specific evaluations indicate that nonnative species 

are needed to ensure success or rapid vegetative reestablishment.

Weed seed free forage will be used on BLM land. Forage subject to this rule includes hay, grains, cubes, 

pelletized feeds, straw, and mulch (BLM 1997b). Reclamation/stabilization and maintenance materials 

used will be from weed seed free sources to the extent practicable.

Other resource programs will assist in invasive species management through project planning and 

program implementation. This will include integrating prevention measures in program activities to 

reduce the spread of invasive species, and supplying resources to mitigate and manage invasive species 

issues with on-the-ground project implementation. In general, mitigation measures are established to 

reduce the potential for introduction of invasive species and to minimize any adverse effect their 

presence may cause. These measures are found in stipulations, COA, standard operating procedures, 

etc. that require clean equipment, seed and forage for use in projects, and place the burden on the 

consumer for control of invasive species in some instances. Standard operating procedures and 

mitigation measures for integrated weed management treatments have also been developed to mitigate 

non-target effects of different procedures. These measures are outlined in the Record of Decision for 

Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 2007).

Grasshopper/Mormon cricket outbreaks are managed as outlined in a BLM Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU WO-220-2009-06) in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

(USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service-Plant Protection and Quarantine (APHIS-PPQ 09-

8011-087-MU) (BLM 2003b).

The State of Montana has developed a management plan to address invasive species (animals, plants, and 

pathogens) associated with water bodies. The BLM will coordinate with MFWP to address prevention of 

and potential infestations of Aquatic Nuisance Species and follow actions outlined in the Montana 

Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan (MANS 2002). Aquatic Nuisance Species are categorized 

into the following classes to help implement proper management and prevention for each species:

• Priority Class 1 - These species are not known to be present in Montana, but have a high 

potential to invade and there are limited or no known management strategies for these 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-30 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

species. Appropriate management for this class includes prevention of introductions and 

eradication of populations.

• Priority Class 2 - These species are present and established in Montana and have the 

potential to spread, and there are limited or no known management strategies for these 

species. These species can be managed through actions that involve mitigation of impact, 

control of population size, and prevention of dispersal to other water bodies.

• Priority Class 3 - These species are not known to be established in Montana and have a 

high potential for invasion, and appropriate management techniques are available.

Appropriate management for this class includes prevention of introductions and eradication 

of pioneering populations.

• Priority Class 4 - These species are present and have the potential to spread in Montana, 

but there are management strategies available for these species. These species can be 

managed through actions that involve mitigation of impact, control of population size, and 

prevention of dispersal to other water bodies.

Pest management including the use of pesticides in the interest of public health and safety and other 

resource management objectives will be conducted on a case-by-case basis consistent with required 

NEPA analysis. Examples include flea control to prevent plague transmission in support of black-footed 

ferret recovery, ground squirrel and prairie dog management, mosquito control to minimize West Nile 

virus transmission, and pheromone traps for pine bark beetle management.

3.2.10 Off-Highway Vehicle Use and Travel and Transportation Management 

Goals: In coordination with other federal agencies, state and local governments, and private landowners, plan 

and manage motorized and nonmotorized travel to provide recreational experiences while maintaining or 

protecting resource values.

Create travel networks that are logical and sustainable, as well as meet the increasingly diverse transportation, 

access and recreational needs of the public, while maintaining or protecting resource values in coordination with 

other federal agencies, state and local governments, and private landowners and using an interdisciplinary 

approach.

Objectives: Designate all lands managed by the BLM within the HiLine District as “open” or “limited” 

or “closed” to OHV use, and identify Travel Management Areas to frame transportation issues and help 

delineate travel networks that address specific uses and resource concerns. These travel management 

areas would be prioritized as high, medium, and low for completion of travel management planning after 

the Record of Decision for this RMP.

Identify areas for motorized and nonmotorized travel to provide opportunities for a variety of 

recreation experiences with minimal resource impacts and conflicts of use.

Ensure adequate implementation of road management guidelines for road planning, design and 

maintenance.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-31

Management Actions

Completion of comprehensive travel management plans will involve moving from an interim OHV Area 

designation of “limited,” which would allow OHV use to continue on existing routes, to a designation of 

“limited to designated roads, primitive roads and trails” and establishing objectives for each route. Any 

land acquired by the BLM over the life of the RMP will be managed under the limited classification 

criteria as identified in 43 CFR, Part 8342.1. Travel will be limited to existing roads and trails until a site 

determination and travel management plan are completed for the acquisition (43 CFR, Part 8342.2).

Route objectives and regulations at 43 CFR, Part 8340 through 43 CFR, Part 8342.3 will be applied in 

identifying route-specific management, such as maintenance intensities (Table 3.2-1) where activity-level 

plan decisions are made for specific travel routes.

The BLM will coordinate with MFWP in the block management program as appropriate. Motorized 

travel adjacent to block management areas could conform to seasonal limitations, as determined by the 

authorized officer on a case-by-case basis through environmental review and public involvement.

Motorized wheeled cross-country travel for lessees and permittees is limited to the administration of a 

federal lease or permit (BLM 2003c). Any authorized or permitted activity, such as a grazing permit or 

special recreation permit (SRP), that involves motorized access to public lands must describe how access 

will be managed, both on and off the existing or designated route system, as part of the permit or 

authorization. Area-specific limitations or needs will be addressed in more detail during subsequent 

travel management planning and incorporated into the associated permits/leases.

Roads, primitive roads and trails will be maintained in accordance with the following: BLM policy; the 

assigned maintenance intensity (Table 3.2-1); consideration of resource issues; BMPs (Appendix H); 

and available funding. All roads, primitive roads and trails will be maintained in accordance with 

standards and guidelines in BLM Manuals 9113, 9114, 9115 and associated handbooks. Roads will be 

inspected on an established schedule in accordance with the Bureau’s Condition Assessment guidance.

New permanent roads, primitive roads and trails will be constructed subject to environmental review 

and approved engineering standards, following criteria described in this section. Consideration will be 

given to use demands, location, safety, and resource constraints when determining the level of road 

necessary (BLM Manuals 9113, 9114, 9115 and associated handbooks). If an existing road, primitive road 

or trail is substantially contributing to resource impacts, the road will be considered for redesign, rerouting, decommissioning or closure to minimize the adverse impacts. Existing BLM roads, primitive 

roads, and trails will be managed through the FAMS and Ground Transportation Linear Feature 

geospatial database (BLM Manual 1626).

The BLM will pursue opportunities to conduct restoration of roads, primitive roads and trails not 

designated during travel management planning, with priority given to areas with special management 

concerns. This includes primitive routes that have not been designated as “primitive routes” within 

WSAs and those that have been closed within areas that are being managed to protect or enhance 

wilderness characteristics or special status species such as the Greater Sage-Grouse. Restoration 

activities will be done in accordance with guidelines described in Appendix M, Reclamation. Applicable 

requirements such as specific seed mixes or transplanting recommendations will also be applied where 

special status species or issues are a concern (e.g., mitigation for Greater Sage-Grouse).
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-32 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

Table 3.2-1

BLM Road Maintenance Intensities

Maintenance Description Maintenance Objectives

Level 0 – Existing routes that will no 

longer be maintained or declared as 

routes. Routes identified as Level 0 are 

identified for removal from the 

Transportation System entirely.

• No planned annual maintenance.

• Meet identified environmental needs.

• No preventive maintenance or planned annual 

maintenance activities.

Level 1 – Routes where minimal (low 

intensity) maintenance is required to 

protect adjacent lands and resource 

values. These roads may be impassable 

for extended periods of time or only 

accessible with high-clearance fourwheel-drive vehicles.

• Low (Minimal) maintenance intensity.

• Emphasis is given to maintaining drainage and runoff 

patterns as needed to protect adjacent lands. Grading, 

brushing, or slide removal is not performed unless route 

bed drainage is being adversely affected, causing erosion.

• Meet identified resource management objectives.

• Perform maintenance as necessary to protect adjacent 

lands and resource values.

• No preventive maintenance.

• Planned maintenance activities limited to environmental 

and resource protection.

• Route surface and other physical features are not 

maintained for regular traffic.

Level 2 – Reserved for Possible Future Use

Level 3 – Routes requiring moderate 

maintenance because of low-volume use 

(e.g., seasonally or year-round for 

commercial, recreational, or 

administrative access). Maintenance 

intensities may not provide year-round 

access but are intended to generally 

provide resources appropriate for 

keeping the route in use for the majority 

of the year.

• Medium (Moderate) maintenance intensity.

• Drainage structures will be maintained as needed. 

Surface maintenance will be conducted to provide a 

reasonable level of riding comfort at prudent speeds for 

the route conditions and intended use. Brushing is 

conducted as needed to improve sight distance when 

appropriate for management uses. Landslides adversely 

affecting drainage receive high priority for removal; 

otherwise, they will be removed on a scheduled basis.

• Meet identified environmental needs.

• Generally maintained for year-round traffic.

• Perform annual maintenance necessary to protect 

adjacent lands and resource values.

• Perform preventive maintenance as required to generally 

keep the route in acceptable condition.

• Planned maintenance activities should include 

environmental and resource protection efforts, annual 

route surface.

• Route surface and other physical features are maintained 

for regular traffic.

Level 4 - Reserved for Possible Future Use

Level 5 – Route for high (Maximum) 

maintenance because of year-round 

needs, high-volume traffic, or significant 

use. Also may include route identified 

through management objectives as 

• High (Maximum) maintenance intensity.

• The entire route will be maintained at least annually. 

Problems will be repaired as discovered. These routes 

may be closed or have limited access because of weather 

conditions but are generally intended for year-round use.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-33

Table 3.2-1

BLM Road Maintenance Intensities

Maintenance Description Maintenance Objectives

requiring high intensities of maintenance 

or to be maintained open year-round 

and are generally accessible with twowheel-drive, low clearance vehicles.

• Meet identified environmental needs.

• Generally maintained for year-round traffic.

• Perform annual maintenance necessary to protect 

adjacent lands and resource values.

• Perform preventive maintenance as required to generally 

keep the route in acceptable condition.

• Planned maintenance activities should include 

environmental and resource protection efforts, annual 

route surface.

• Route surface and other physical features are maintained 

for regular traffic.

Off-Highway Vehicle Use

OHV use will be managed consistent with the definitions and prescriptions identified in the Record of 

Decision for the Off-Highway Vehicle EIS and Proposed Plan Amendment for Montana, North Dakota 

and South Dakota (BLM 2003c), unless stated otherwise in the alternatives section. In the interim, until 

travel management planning has been completed, all motorized wheeled travel is restricted to existing 

roads, primitive roads and trails; however, several exceptions apply:

• any military, fire, search and rescue, or law enforcement vehicle for emergency operations; 

• official BLM administrative business (prescribed fire, noxious weed control, range 

management, etc.);

• other government agency business (surveying, animal damage control, etc.);

• administration of a federal lease or permit (e.g., a livestock permittee maintaining a fence, an 

oil or gas company performing routine maintenance on a well, etc.);

• for dispersed camping within 300 feet of an existing open road. Site selection must be 

completed by nonmotorized means, and accessed by the most direct route causing the least 

damage.

Motorized travel in the Bitter Creek WSA and Burnt Lodge WSA will continue to be limited to 

identified primitive routes.

BLM regulations (43 CFR, Parts 8341.2 and 8364.1) allow for area or road closures where OHVs are 

causing or will cause considerable adverse impacts on soil, vegetation, wildlife, threatened or endangered 

species, wildlife habitat, cultural resources, other authorized uses, public safety, or other resources. The 

authorized officer can immediately close the area or road affected until the impacts are eliminated and 

measures are implemented to prevent future recurrence.

Travel Management Areas

Travel management areas are an optional planning tool to frame transportation issues and help delineate 

motorized and nonmotorized travel networks that address specific uses and resource concerns. These 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-34 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

areas are identified and prioritized as high, moderate and low in this ARMP, but site-specific route 

designations will be made during subsequent travel management planning in accordance with BLM 

Handbook H-8342-1. BLM guidelines state that this planning must be done within five years of the 

Record of Decision. 

Before any site-specific travel management planning occurs, the following baseline information and 

actions should be completed:

• Road condition assessments will be completed for each area prior to travel management 

planning;

• Legal access needs for easements to BLM lands and rights-of-way to private lands will be 

identified; and

• Baseline road and trail inventory maps will be printed and made available to the general 

public for their review utilizing open houses, the Internet, and other means of 

communication.

Travel Management Planning Criteria

Through analysis and activity-level planning, the BLM will collaborate with affected and interested parties 

to evaluate the designated road, primitive road and trail network. 

The route network will be evaluated for active OHV management suitability and for envisioning 

potential changes in the existing transportation system or the addition of new roads, primitive roads, 

and trails that will help meet land use plan objectives. In conducting such evaluations, the following 

factors will be considered:

• measures needed to avoid on-site and off-site effects on current and future land uses and 

important natural resources, including issues such as noise and air pollution, erodible soils, 

stream sedimentation, nonpoint source water pollution, listed and sensitive species habitats, 

historic and archeological sites, wildlife, special management areas, grazing operations, public 

safety, needs of nonmotorized recreationists, and recognition of property rights for adjacent 

landowners;

• trails suitable for different categories of OHVs including dirt bikes, all-terrain vehicles 

(ATVs), and 4-wheel drive touring vehicles, or nonmotorized means of travel such as 

mountain biking and hiking as well as opportunities for joint trail use;

• need for parking, trailheads, informational and directional signs, mapping and profiling, and 

development of brochures or other materials for public dissemination; and 

• opportunities to connect existing or planned trail networks.

Travel Management Criteria for Making Road and Trail Selections

Existing and/or new individual roads, primitive roads and trails will be chosen with the transportation 

network goals in mind rather than just using all of the inherited roads, primitive roads and trails. Most 

existing roads, primitive roads and trails on BLM land were created by use over time, rather than 

planned and constructed for specific activities or needs. Instead of simply using this process as a way of 

deciding which individual roads, primitive and trails should be closed or left open, the BLM will consider 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-35

a broader range of possibilities for management of individual roads, primitive roads and trails, including 

reroutes, reconstruction or new construction, and closures. These management considerations can be 

used to develop a high-quality travel system. A well-designed travel system can direct use away from 

sensitive areas and still provide high-quality recreational activities and access for commercial and 

recreational needs.

An interdisciplinary team and cooperating agencies will be used for special expertise in identifying the 

resources, landownership, public demand, access needs, conflicts of use and benefits of various routes.

This process will include public involvement.

The BLM will emphasize management of the transportation system to reduce impacts on natural 

resources from authorized roads, primitive roads and trails (Appendix H). The BLM will also consider 

through travel management planning closing and restoring unauthorized user created roads, primitive 

roads and trails to prevent resource damage.

Resource considerations will be assessed in determining designation criteria. All designations will be 

based on the protection of resources, safety of all users, and the minimization of conflicts among various 

uses (43 CFR, Part 8342.1). The following elements to be considered during route selection fall within 

the designation criteria:

• administrative access for the BLM and BLM-authorized activities

• areas of critical environmental concern

• at-risk watersheds

• cultural resources

• current maintenance agreements

• desired future condition

• elimination of route redundancy

• energy development

• erodible soils

• forest resources

• low bearing strength soils (saline)

• paleontological resources

• potential for adverse or positive economic effects

• prescriptions for land use allocations including special recreation management areas (SRMA)

• public health and safety; emergency services

• recreation opportunities, experiences, settings, benefits

• riparian resources, assessment of PFC

• rights-of-way, easements and inholdings

• Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-36 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

• user preferences and conflicts of use

• vegetation

– at-risk vegetative sites

– relic vegetation

• visual resources

• watershed resources

• wilderness characteristics

• WSAs 

• wildlife resources

– Greater Sage-Grouse habitat

– raptor nesting locations

– sensitive species habitats

– winter range

The BLM will pursue opportunities to conduct restoration of roads, primitive roads and trails not 

designated during travel management planning, with priority given to areas with special management 

concerns (see Table 3.2-1 for more information).

Schedule

Travel management areas are prioritized into high, moderate and low categories. Travel management 

planning for all areas will be completed in order of priority and as funding and staffing allow.

Prioritization of travel management areas will be an ongoing process and priorities for travel planning 

can change through implementation and monitoring based on resource needs, special status species 

including Greater Sage-Grouse, funding, and staffing.

OHV Area Designations

The Glasgow OHV area (40 acres) will remain designated open to OHV use off roads, primitive roads 

and trails (see Appendix A2, Map D).

The Fresno OHV area (125 acres) will remain designated open to OHV use off roads, primitive roads 

and trails (see Appendix A2, Map D). The boundary of the OHV area will be increased from 84 acres 

to 125 acres to more closely follow topography of the area and incorporate the existing system of trails.

Through travel management planning the BLM will address the need for seasonal restrictions, and/or the 

need to fence the boundary of the OHV area to address resource values and conflicts of use on 

surrounding lands. A paleontological inventory will be conducted to determine appropriate access 

points, fence placement, and need for parking areas.

The Sweet Grass Hills ACEC will be closed to motorized travel (Appendix A2, Map E).

The remaining BLM land will be designated as “limited.” In these areas travel can continue on existing 

roads, primitive roads, and trails; however, no new routes may be created without specific 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-37

authorization. Upon the completion of a comprehensive travel management plan, an area will move from 

an interim OHV Area designation of “limited,” to a designation of “limited to designated roads, primitive 

roads and trails.”

Cross-country over-snow vehicle use in the planning area (including snowmobiles) will be allowed, 

except in crucial winter range areas (see BLM 2015, Figure 3.13). Over-snow vehicles will be subject to 

the following management guidelines: avoid locations where wind or topographic conditions may have 

reduced snow depth and created situations where damage to vegetation or soils could occur, or where 

the majority of vegetation is taller than the protective snow cover. Sensitive areas could be closed to 

motorized snow vehicle travel if resource damage is found to be occurring in these areas. Additional 

management guidance regarding the use of over-snow vehicles, such as area closures, seasonal closures, 

or limiting their use to designated roads, primitive roads and trails may be considered and implemented 

in subsequent travel management plans.

The use of motorized vehicles, including OHVs, to retrieve game off road will not be allowed, regardless 

of individual possession of a Montana Disabled Hunting License, in limited or closed areas unless 

designated through travel management planning. Options for off-road game retrieval could include 

designating the types of vehicles that may be used, times of day, limited motorized off-road travel or 

motorized travel on closed roads and will apply to all individuals with a legally taken game animal.

Travel Management Areas

Site-specific travel planning within the Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA and Greater SageGrouse PHMA will be completed within a five (5) year period after the Record of Decision is signed. 

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 6302 

(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 

authorized officer to resolve management conflicts and protect persons, property, and public lands and 

resources. Where an authorized officer 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 or less; however, certain situations may require longer closures and/or iterative 

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

Nine travel management areas (Appendix A2, Map E) will be prioritized into the following categories 

for travel management planning: 

High:

• Grassland Bird/Greater Sage Grouse PHMA and Frenchman Breaks
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-38 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

• Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA plus additional BLM lands between the PHMA and Charles M. 

Russell National Wildlife Refuge

• Little Rocky Mountains

Moderate:

• Fresno area (includes the 125-acre OHV area plus additional BLM lands in the vicinity)

• Marias River area)

• North Missouri Breaks 

Low:

• Remaining BLM lands 

3.2.11 Paleontological Resources

Goal: Manage and protect paleontological resources using scientific principles and expertise for present and 

future generations.

Objectives: Ensure that proposed land uses initiated or authorized by the BLM avoid inadvertent 

damage to significant paleontological resources.

Develop appropriate plans for inventory, monitoring, and the scientific and educational use of 

paleontological resources.

Promote the stewardship, conservation, and appreciation of paleontological resources through 

appropriate educational and public outreach programs.

Management Actions

The BLM will identify and prioritize high probability paleontological locations for paleontological 

inventories and information attained will guide management decisions in those areas. Through this 

process the BLM will:

• maintain a database of paleontological sites and localities;

• require permits for individuals or institutions conducting paleontological investigations;

• coordinate with other state and federal agencies’ permitting processes to eliminate 

confusion among permittees when working in multiple jurisdictions;

• ensure that significant fossils are placed in approved repositories in trust;

• establish a long-term monitoring program at known paleontological locales to assess 

potential adverse impacts and develop mitigation as appropriate; and

• coordinate with law enforcement to provide monitoring and protection against looting and 

vandalism of paleontological resources.

Paleontological assessments will be completed for all projects proposed on federal lands. These 

assessments will determine the need for further paleontological inventories. The inventories will 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-39

evaluate the effects of the project on paleontological resources and will recommend appropriate 

mitigation measures to protect these resources. The BLM will avoid impacts on significant 

paleontological remains through project redesign, project abandonment, and/or mitigation of adverse 

impacts through scientific recovery and analysis.

The BLM will develop a resource awareness program designed to enhance the public appreciation of 

paleontological resource values. This includes coordination with permitted universities and museums in 

furthering the paleontological research potential across the HiLine and identifying and conserving areas 

of paleontological interest for future use. When practical, public use areas will be developed in the form 

of invertebrate collection areas or interpretation kiosks. Paleontological research and education 

opportunities will be pursued for high priority areas.

Lands within the planning area exhibiting the highest site density and/or high Potential Fossil Yield 

Classification (PFYC), as reported by Hanna (2007), will be used to establish priorities for 

paleontological inventory.

Preliminarily, the priority inventory locations are north central Phillips County, northern Hill County, 

and eastern Liberty County. These locations may change or be modified with the addition of new 

information. These inventories will provide additional information about BLM-managed paleontological 

resources and will assist the BLM in allocating resources (time, money, staffing, etc.) and 

managing/protecting significant paleontological resources. Monitoring and completion of site assessments 

for known paleontological sites will occur routinely and site stabilization will be completed as deemed 

necessary.

The collection of petrified wood and invertebrate fossils for personal use will be allowed as limited by 

the regulations (43 CFR, Parts 3620 and 8365) in areas not specifically closed.

3.2.12 Public Safety

Goals: Reclaim abandoned mine land (AML) sites on BLM land to improve water quality, plant communities, 

and diverse fish and wildlife habitat.

Provide and manage adequate hazard class dams based on public safety and agency need.

Mitigate threats and reduce risks to the public and environment from hazardous materials.

Abandoned Mine Lands

Objective: Assess the level of risk at AML sites and prioritize for reclamation based on standardized 

risk assessment.

Management Actions

The closure of dangerous inactive and abandoned mine sites will be designed to reduce the risks to 

human health and safety, restore the environment, and protect geological and cultural resources.

Reclamation will be implemented at the highest risk sites first. Where deemed appropriate, the BLM will 

restore severely impacted soils and watersheds as close as possible to pre-disturbed conditions that 

support productive plant communities and ensure properly functioning watersheds.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-40 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

Restoration and reclamation activities and repositories will be monitored to determine effectiveness of 

reclamation practices.

Hazard Class Dams

Objective: Ensure hazard class dams are maintained to meet public health and safety requirements.

Management Actions

Construction and maintenance priorities for hazard class dams will be in conformance with applicable 

laws and regulations, and BLM policy. Condition assessments and Emergency Action Planning 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.

Hazardous Materials

Objective: Ensure the protection of BLM lands and facilities from hazardous materials to meet public 

and BLM employee health and safety requirements.

Management Actions

The BLM will comply with all federal environmental and safety laws and regulations governing storage, 

handling, and use of hazardous materials and governing disposal of hazardous waste. The BLM will also 

comply with state hazardous materials laws and regulations as required.

Disposal of hazardous materials on public lands will generally not be permitted. When the use or 

storage of hazardous materials is authorized (i.e., in mining operations, pesticide application or other 

types of commercial activities) special stipulations will be applied to comply with appropriate laws, 

regulations, and policies. In the event of hazardous materials incidents on public land, standard operating 

procedures will be used to respond. Cleanups and reclamation will be conducted in accordance with the 

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan and the NEPA or Removal Site 

Evaluation/ Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) decision.

The BLM will promote and support the appropriate use and recycling of hazardous materials in public 

facilities and on public land to prevent or minimize the generation and disposal of hazardous wastes.

Environmental site assessments will be conducted for land acquisitions, land disposals, and for rights-ofway if applicable. Land uses will be authorized and managed to reduce the occurrence and severity of 

hazardous materials incidences on public land.

The BLM will assess level of risk at hazard sites and conduct remediation at highest priority sites that are 

the greatest risks to the public and environment.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-41

3.2.13 Recreation

Goal: Provide a diverse array of recreational opportunities and visitor experiences while maintaining healthy BLM 

land resources.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

Objectives: Establish, manage, and maintain quality recreation sites and facilities to meet a broad range 

of public needs subject to resource constraints.

Manage commercial, competitive, or special events with SRPs that eliminate or minimize impacts on 

resources and conflicts with other users.

Manage recreation opportunities and visitor experiences to provide a sustained flow of local economic 

benefits and protect non-market economic values.

Manage recreation settings and opportunities by their specific recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) 

class description for desired recreation opportunities, experience levels, facility developments, and other 

resource uses.

Management Actions

The BLM recognizes that natural resource-based recreation is a significant economic contributor in 

most communities adjacent to BLM land. Priorities for Recreation and Visitor Services (BLM 2003d) 

states, “Our multiple-use mission is to serve the diverse outdoor recreation demands of visitors while 

helping to maintain the sustainable conditions needed to conserve their lands and their recreation 

choices.” The three primary goals for the HiLine District based on the national recreation program are:

• Improve access to appropriate recreation opportunities on BLM-managed or partnered lands and 

waters;

• Ensure a quality experience and enjoyment of natural resources on BLM-managed or partnered 

lands and waters; and

• Provide for and receive fair value in recreation.

A majority of BLM lands have recreational opportunities that can be appropriately provided for in 

conjunction with the other resource demands sanctioned by the BLM’s multiple-use mission. With this 

in mind, along with the goals described above, the HiLine District will manage its recreation 

opportunities and visitor experiences under the management actions described below.

BLM lands provide multiple opportunities for all publics, including those with disabilities. The BLM seeks 

to make these opportunities available through the use of universal design principles in the planning, 

construction, and renovation of facilities and in the provision of accessible programs and services to the 

public. The BLM’s mandate of multiple-use management and its role as provider of a wide variety of 

dispersed recreation opportunities in vast open spaces present unique challenges in implementing 

recreation programs and activities accessible to persons with disabilities. The BLM will consider the 

proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas (US Access Board 2009) for camping 

facilities, picnic facilities, viewing areas, and outdoor recreation access routes and trails.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-42 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

The ROS is a means of classifying and managing recreational opportunities based on physical, social, and 

managerial settings. Recreation opportunities in the HiLine District have been broken down into the 

following seven ROS classes based on a combination of the activities, settings and experiences available 

to the public: primitive, semi-primitive nonmotorized, semi-primitive motorized, roaded natural, roaded 

modified, rural and urban (Table 3.2-2). These classifications can be broken down further or expressed 

in more detail as more data are gathered through development of supplemental plans such as travel 

management plans.

Table 3.2-2

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Classes

ROS Class Class Description

Primitive Opportunity for isolation from man-made sights, sounds, and management 

controls in an unmodified natural environment. Only facilities essential for 

resource protection are available. A high degree of challenge and risk are 

present. Visitors use outdoor skills and have minimal contact with other users 

or groups. Motorized use is prohibited.

Semi-Primitive 

Nonmotorized

Some opportunity for isolation from man-made sights, sounds, and 

management controls in a predominantly unmodified environment.

Opportunity to have a high degree of interaction with the natural environment, 

to have moderate challenge and risk and to use outdoor skills. Concentration 

of visitors is low, but evidence of users is often present. On-site managerial 

controls are subtle. Facilities are provided for resource protection and the 

safety of users. Motorized use is prohibited.

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized

Some opportunity for isolation from man-made sights, sounds, and 

management controls in a predominantly unmodified environment.

Opportunity to have a high degree of interaction with the natural environment, 

to have moderate challenge and risk and to use outdoor skills. Concentration 

of visitors is low, but evidence of users is often present. On-site managerial 

controls are subtle. Facilities are provided for resource protection and the 

safety of users. Motorized use is permitted.

Roaded Natural Mostly equal opportunities to affiliate with other groups or be isolated from 

sights and sounds of man. The landscape is generally natural with modifications 

moderately evident. Concentration of users is low to moderate, but facilities 

for group activities may be present. Challenge and risk opportunities are 

generally not important in this class. Opportunities for both motorized and 

nonmotorized activities are present. Construction standards and facility design 

incorporate conventional motorized uses.

Roaded Modified Similar to the Roaded Natural setting, except this area has been or could be 

heavily modified by roads from activities including oil and gas development 

and/or off-road vehicle use. This class still offers opportunity to have a high 

degree of interaction with the natural environment and to have moderate 

challenge and risk and to use outdoor skills.

Rural Area is characterized by a substantially modified natural environment.

Opportunities to affiliate with others are prevalent. The convenience of 

recreation sites and opportunities are more important than a natural landscape 

or setting. Sights and sounds of man are readily evident, and the concentration 

of users is often moderate to high. Developed sites, roads, and trails are 

designed for moderate to high uses.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-43

Table 3.2-2

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Classes

ROS Class Class Description

Urban Area is characterized by a substantially urbanized environment, although the 

background may have natural appealing elements. High levels of human activity 

and concentrated development including recreation opportunities are 

prevalent. Developed sites, roads and other recreation opportunities are 

designed for high use.

While the BLM will manage to support these different recreation settings and opportunities, ROS 

classifications will not ultimately restrict or authorize future management actions, but will (1) provide 

guidance on what types of actions and mitigation measures are appropriate on BLM land when 

comprehensively examined along with other resource allocations; and (2) disclose to the public the 

potential impacts on recreational conditions during the environmental review process for future 

proposed actions.

The BLM will manage for a variety of quality recreational opportunities and visitor experiences (i.e. 

hunting, fishing, sightseeing, OHV use, horseback riding, mountain biking, hiking, rafting, rock hounding, 

etc.) consistent with other resource management objectives.

Comparable, cost effective and value based fee systems will be established for services and facilities 

provided to public users in accordance with BLM directives and the Federal Lands Recreation 

Enhancement Act.

Recreation users will be limited to 14-day camping stays at developed campgrounds. No variances to the 

14-day camping limit will be allowed. Personal property of recreational users cannot be left unattended 

in developed campgrounds for more than 24 hours. Developed campgrounds are those that provide a 

majority of the following amenities: tent or trailer spaces, picnic tables, drinking water, access roads, 

refuse containers, toilet facilities, fee collection, reasonable visitor protection and campfire rings.

Recreation users will also be limited to 16-day camping stays on undeveloped lands (dispersed camping) 

(75 FR 30850-30852), or as determined by any supplementary rules published in the Federal Register.

This does not apply to locations that contain structures or capital improvements (such as boat launch 

sites, picnic areas, and interpretive centers) and that are used primarily by the public for recreational 

purposes such as developed campgrounds, designated recreation areas, and SRMAs. The BLM regulates 

the use and occupancy at such developed locations in accordance with 43 CFR, Part 8365.2–3. 

The BLM will establish and maintain information kiosks with brochures, interpretive and educational 

information, site maps and regulations, and important contacts. All developed recreation sites (including 

trailheads, picnic areas, etc.) are closed to target shooting per 43 CFR, Part 8365.2-5(a).

Periodic accessibility, safety, and condition assessments will be conducted in accordance with Bureau 

policy at developed recreation sites and prioritized available funds to resolve deferred and corrective 

maintenance needs.

The “Leave No Trace” and “Tread Lightly” practices will be promoted to enhance the sustainability of 

resource-based activities.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-44 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

The BLM will work cooperatively with other agencies (e.g., MFWP) to identify and sign BLM lands to 

provide more recreational opportunities in areas with limited public access and/or confusing ownership 

boundaries. Signs must be placed according to current boundary marking standards (BLM Manual 9130).

The BLM will modify the existing ROS classifications to accommodate the other proposed resource 

allocations under the range of alternatives. Appendix A2, Map F shows the acreages and ROS classes 

the BLM will manage under this ARMP.

The BLM will issue SRPs as appropriate for commercial, competitive, and special events subject to 

guidelines in BLM Handbook 2930, resource capacities, social conflict concerns, professional 

qualifications, public safety, and public needs. For example, applications for SRPs in Greater Sage-Grouse 

PHMA will be denied if approval of the permit would adversely impact sage-grouse or sage-grouse 

habitat. New permits will not be authorized that directly conflict with other permitted uses and existing 

permits will be given preference. Through plan implementation, changes in demand for permits and 

resulting impacts will be monitored and thresholds identified that could lead to limits in the number of 

permits to minimize impacts on the resources, public safety, and overall visitor satisfaction. All SRP 

applications and renewals will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and site-specific analysis will be done 

for each proposed operating area.

Recreation sites and facilities will be maintained and managed to promote resource value protection, 

public safety and health, quality facilities, visitor experiences, management efficiency, and value-based 

returns. Expansion of existing sites and development of new sites will take into consideration public 

demand, resource constraints, and management capabilities through an environmental review process.

Priority will be given to new sites that have partnership funding strategies and are consistent with 

established management guidelines.

Recreation Management Areas

Objectives: Establish a three-tier system of lands managed for recreation where SRMAs that would be 

given management priority to provide quality recreation opportunities and visitor experiences and 

Extensive Recreation Management Areas (ERMAs) would also require specific management 

consideration but commensurate with the management of other resources and resource uses. All 

remaining public lands not designated as recreation management areas (LND) will generally be managed 

only to address basic recreation and visitor services and resource stewardship needs such as visitor 

safety and use, and user conflicts.

Provide for primarily undeveloped, dispersed recreational opportunities while maintaining the prescribed 

recreation settings (ROS classes), protecting resources, ensuring public health and safety, and working 

toward resolving conflicts of use.

Incorporate outcomes-focused recreation management principles per WO IM No. 2011-004 (BLM 

2011). Outcomes-focused management varies from the traditional “activity-based” recreation 

management approach, which primarily focused on specific activities and the associated facilities needed 

to support such uses. Outcomes-focused recreation focuses management on primary activities within 

recreation management zones (RMZ). These primary activities provide the public with certain types of 

experiences on BLM lands. Providing these experiences then produces a variety of personal, community, 

economic, and environmental benefits.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-45

Management Actions

Where the nature of the resource attracts concentrated or intensive recreational use, BLM lands may 

be managed as a SRMA. These are areas where the BLM focuses specific management, funding, and 

planning to provide for the best possible recreation experience while protecting, sustaining, and 

enhancing the environmental resources of these areas.

Within each SRMA, the BLM may also allocate RMZs. An RMZ represents BLM lands with a distinctive 

recreation setting (activities, experiences, and benefits) within each SRMA. The BLM will focus 

management, funding, and planning within RMZs to implement and maintain proposed ROS classes, 

recreation management objectives, and management actions.

Where the nature of the resource attracts concentrated recreational use but is not the specific focus of 

management, the area will be managed as an ERMA. Other resources and resource uses are considered 

in the management of these areas and some recreation activities may be restricted or constrained to 

achieve interdisciplinary objectives.

BLM lands outside of SRMAs and ERMAs are managed as LND. Recreation management within LND will 

be limited to custodial actions, which are primarily reactive in order to manage dispersed activities, 

visitor health and safety, and user and resource conflicts. LND are generally managed directly through 

RMP decisions and do not require additional activity-level planning.

The majority of lands within the planning area will be managed as LND for dispersed recreational 

experiences associated with hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, pleasure driving, camping and picnicking.

The BLM will manage this area in a custodial manner to ensure quality of experience and enjoyment of 

natural and cultural resources.

The existing recreation facilities (fishing reservoirs and watchable wildlife areas) within the LND will be 

maintained in a custodial manner and enhanced only as needed to meet recreational demands that are 

associated with resource protection, and public health and safety requirements. New recreation facilities 

could be considered but should be a lower priority for implementation than those proposed for SRMAs 

and ERMAs and should resolve specific conflicts of use.

The Bitter Creek Watchable Wildlife Area will continue to be managed under BLM Manual 6330-

Management of BLM Wilderness Study Areas until such time as Congress decides whether or not to 

designate the area as Wilderness. If released by Congress, the Bitter Creek WSA will be managed as an 

ACEC and a management plan will be developed to provide semi-primitive, motorized recreation 

opportunities. Until the management plan is developed, management of the area will continue to be 

guided by BLM Manual 6330 as an ERMA.

The BLM will manage two SRMAs (Glasgow OHV and Little Rocky Mountains) and ten ERMAs (BR-12, 

Cottonwood Riparian Area, Faraasen Park, Fresno OHV, Marias River, Paulo Fishing Reservoir, South 

Phillips Recreation Complex, Sweet Grass Hills ACEC, Timber Creek Ridge, and Troika Fishing 

Reservoir) (Appendix A2, Map G). The remainder of the planning area will be managed as LND.

The BLM will allocate three RMZs within the Little Rocky Mountains SRMA, as follows:
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-46 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

Zortman Recreation Management Zone 

• Recreation Setting: Provides full service facility-based camping in a ponderosa pine rural 

setting near the small rural community of Zortman.

• Primary Activities: Overnight developed camping, day use picnicking, wildlife viewing, 

recreational gold panning, hiking, horseback riding, and OHV and ATV use.

• Recreation Management Objective: Maintain and enhance the facilities at the Camp Creek 

Campground (Figure 3.2-2), Horse Corral Campground, and Buffington Day Use Picnic 

Area as needed to meet recreational demands and comply with public health and safety 

requirements. Identify and develop new opportunities for facility-based recreation. For 

example, the Zortman Ranger Station could be fixed up and converted into a rental cabin.

Specific areas within this zone could be set aside for recreational gold panning through 

coordination and/or partnership with the local community.

Landusky Recreation Management Zone 

• Recreation Setting: Provides small facility-based camping in a ponderosa pine rural setting near 

the very small rural community of Landusky.

• Primary Activities: Overnight developed camping, wildlife viewing, hiking, and OHV and ATV 

use.

• Recreation Management Objective: Maintain and enhance the facilities at the Montana Gulch 

Campground (Figure 3.2-2) as needed to meet recreational demands and comply with 

public health and safety requirements.

Little Rockies Recreation Management Zone 

• Recreation Setting: Provides an excellent back country experience for dispersed camping, 

wildlife viewing, hiking, horseback riding, and OHV and ATV use opportunities in a 

ponderosa pine roaded natural setting.

• Primary Activities: Dispersed camping, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, fishing, OHV and ATV 

use.

• Recreation Management Objective: Provide for dispersed back country experiences for both 

nonmotorized and motorized recreational activities. Emphasize the “Leave No Trace” and 

“Tread Lightly” programs to aid in minimizing the conflicts of use between motorized and 

nonmotorized BLM land users.

Due to its limited size (40 acres) and uniformity in recreational opportunities throughout, the Glasgow 

OHV SRMA will not be divided into management zones.

Objectives and management actions for the individual SRMAs and ERMAs are identified in BLM 2015, 

Appendix S.

Recreation Sites

The ARMP contains both land use planning-level and implementation-level decisions for recreation and 

visitor services. Implementation-level decisions for recreation sites and recreation management areas 

(Appendix A2, Map H) can be found in Appendix P of this ARMP.

3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-48 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

3.2.14 Renewable Energy Resources

Goal: Provide opportunities for the development of renewable energy from resources such as biomass, 

geothermal, solar and wind, while minimizing adverse impacts on other resource values.

Objective: Work with local communities, state and local government, and other federal agencies in 

building a clean energy future by providing sites for environmentally sound development of renewable 

energy on BLM land.

Management Actions

Renewable energy projects on BLM land may include biomass, geothermal, solar, and wind projects, and 

the siting of transmission facilities needed to deliver the produced power to the consumer.

Opportunities for development will be provided to the extent consistent with other goals, objectives, 

and requirements of this plan.

Solar and wind energy exploration and development authorization will be subject to the same laws, 

regulations, and guidelines as other commercial rights-of-way. Terms and conditions for authorizations 

including site testing, monitoring and development will incorporate applicable BMPs, current professional 

practice, and recent scientific findings.

Biomass

The BLM will explore opportunities to provide a reliable and sustainable supply of woody biomass that 

may be made available from BLM land in the planning area. Biomass can be used to produce bio-energy 

and/or bio-based products such as plastics, ethanol, and diesel. Biomass can also be used to produce the 

full range of wood products including lumber, composites, paper and pulp, furniture, housing 

components, and round wood.

Geothermal

BLM lands in the planning area will be available for geothermal leasing, unless located within the Burnt 

Lodge or Bitter Creek WSAs, in priority sage-grouse habitat, or in instances where it is determined that 

issuing the lease will cause unnecessary or undue degradation to BLM lands or resources. No Known 

Geothermal Resource Areas (KGRAs) are located in the planning area. (A region identified by the USGS

as containing geothermal resources. New leasing regulations no longer use KGRAs as a basis for the 

leasing process.)

Geothermal projects will be designed and developed in accordance with the Geothermal Leasing in the 

Western United States Programmatic EIS (BLM and USFS 2008). A site-specific environmental analysis 

will be prepared for any proposed exploration or development of geothermal resources. The analysis 

will address the application of stipulations and develop any additional mitigation measures over and 

above the lease stipulations required.

Solar

BLM land that is designated as an exclusion area (e.g., WSAs and PHMA) will not be available for solar 

energy rights-of-way. As a result, these areas will be closed to commercial solar energy development.

Opportunities for solar development will be provided consistent with the other goals, objectives, and 

requirements of this plan. Applications for solar energy projects will be processed and authorized as 

rights-of-way under Title V of FLPMA. Utility-scale concentrating solar power or photovoltaic electric 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-49

generating facilities must comply with the BLM’s planning, environmental, and ROW application 

requirements as established by BLM guidance (WO IM No. 2011-003) or additional Bureau guidance 

and/or policy.

Wind

BLM land that is designated as an exclusion area (e.g., WSAs and PHMA) will not be available for wind 

energy rights-of-way. As a result, these areas will be closed to commercial wind energy development.

This includes wind energy site monitoring and testing.

The use of wind turbines at the Zortman/Landusky mine reclamation area to lower the cost of 

electricity needed to operate the pumps and water treatment plants was approved under the Final 

EE/CA for Water Management at the Zortman and Landusky Mines (BLM 2006b), and is not discussed 

or analyzed further in this document.

Wind energy projects will be designed and developed in accordance with the Wind Energy 

Development on BLM-Administered Lands in the Western United States Final Programmatic EIS (BLM 

2005); BLM wind energy development policy (WO IM No. 2009-043) and subsequent policy and 

guidance issued by the BLM; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines 

(USFWS 2012). Implementation of any proposed management action will ensure that potential adverse 

impacts on natural and cultural resources will be minimal to negligible through the use of BMPs 

(Appendix H). Areas available for wind energy development will include mitigation for surfacedisturbing and disruptive activities. Areas with fluid minerals NSO, CSU, and TL stipulations will be 

treated as avoidance areas for wind energy (Appendix G). This mitigation may restrict wind energy 

development in some areas.

Prior to authorizing any wind energy projects, a site-specific environmental review will be conducted to 

determine project feasibility, and to address and mitigate impacts. This environmental review will include 

the appropriate level of public involvement.

The Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA, Bitter Creek and Burnt Lodge WSAs, Little Rocky Mountains and 

Sweet Grass Hills TCPs, ACECs, large reservoirs and waterfowl complexes, some wildlife habitat, 

recreation sites, lands managed for their wilderness characteristics, and National Historic Trails will be 

exclusion areas for solar and wind energy rights-of-way. The exclusion areas are shown on Appendix 

A2, Map I. GHMA will be an avoidance area for solar and wind energy rights-of-way.

Approximately 1,600 acres of open areas near Shelby, Montana will be designated Potential Wind 

Development Areas as shown on Appendix A2, Map I. The lands designated for potential wind 

development could be offered for competitive leasing at the discretion of the authorized officer.

Avoidance areas may include mitigation for cultural resources, paleontological resources, visual 

resources, soils, riparian areas, and wildlife. Mitigation measures will be applied on a case-by-case basis 

during project level planning. 

Exceptions to avoidance areas may be granted if an environmental review demonstrates that effects 

could be mitigated to an acceptable level.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-50 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

3.2.15 Soil Resources

Goal: Maintain, improve or restore soil quality, and prevent or minimize erosion and compaction while 

supporting multiple use management.

Objectives: Incorporate soil protection consistent with soil resource capabilities in management 

actions and objectives for other resources/uses.

Achieve and maintain Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management.

Management Actions

The BLM will evaluate the effects of a proposed surface-disturbing activity to the soil resource using

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey data/interpretations and/or through an 

onsite investigation; and will apply mitigation measures/BMPs if necessary, relocate the activity to a more 

suitable soil type, or deny the authorization.

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 (Appendix M).

Authorization could be denied in areas where erosion cannot be effectively controlled/mitigated and 

reclamation to BLM program-specific standards will likely be unsuccessful.

If a surface-disturbing activity is proposed on a prime farmland, special attention will be required during 

construction and reclamation to ensure there will be no unnecessary and irreversible conversion of 

prime farmland to nonagricultural uses (30 U.S.C. 1260, P.L. 95-87, Section 510(d)(1)).

The BLM will use soil survey data/interpretations to predict soil behavior, limitation, or suitability for a 

given activity or action. Soil interpretations are developed by the cooperators in the National 

Cooperative Soil Survey and maintained by the NRCS. Soil data and interpretations are ever evolving; 

therefore, as new or updated soil data and interpretations become available they will supersede prior 

data and interpretations. Soil interpretations do not preclude activities or actions, but rather provide a 

reasonable guide to the risk, limitations, and probable outcome of a particular use or practice. The 

information is not site-specific and does not eliminate the need for onsite investigation of the soil. An 

example of a criteria-based interpretation that may be used is the Potential Erosion Hazard (Road/Trail).

3.2.16 Solid Minerals

Leasable

Goal: Provide opportunities for exploration and development of solid leasable minerals consistent with other 

resource goals.

Objective: Provide for solid minerals leasing in accordance with existing laws and regulations (43 CFR, 

Parts 3400 and 3500).
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-51

Management Actions

The BLM will consider proposals for developing leasable minerals (coal, sulfur, and solid and semi-solid 

bituminous rock) on a case-by-case basis. Site-specific environmental review will be required to lease 

these minerals. No areas have been identified with economic reserves to support future leasing analysis.

Area wide terms, conditions or other special considerations needed to protect other resources or 

values will be implemented through coal screen criteria during the leasing stage (43 CFR, Part 3461). 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 Greater Sage-Grouse for 

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

For solid mineral leasing other than coal and oil shale, prospecting permits will be available for all land 

not closed to mineral leasing in conformance with 43 CFR, Part 3500. Permits will be issued after 

appropriate environmental review to assess effects and develop mitigation measures. Terms and 

conditions will be applied to non-energy leasable projects to meet land health standards for uplands, 

riparian areas and wetlands, water quality, air quality, and native plant and animal species (Appendix 

H). Discovery of a valuable mineral deposit, within the terms of the prospecting permit, entitles the 

prospecting permit holder to a preference right lease for mineral development and mining operations as 

defined in 43 CFR, Part 3809.5.

The BLM will protect sensitive areas by closing them to mineral leasing (Appendix A2, Map J). Sensitive 

areas include WSAs, rare and intact important archaeological sites, essential breeding and nesting areas 

for raptors, a critical bat hibernaculum, significant paleontological areas, and PHMA for Greater SageGrouse.

Locatable

Goal: Provide land use opportunities contributing to economic benefits while protecting or minimizing adverse 

impacts on other resources.

Objective: Provide for locatable mineral entry in accordance with existing laws and regulations (43 

CFR, Parts 3700 and 3800).

Management Actions

Administration of locatable minerals (gold, copper, lead, zinc, silver, bentonite and diamond/kimberlite) 

on BLM lands will continue as required by law and regulation by taking the following steps: 

• Review and process notices to ensure the proposed actions do not create unnecessary or 

undue degradation of the environment. 

• Review and process Plans of Operations to ensure the proposed actions do not create 

unnecessary or undue degradation of the environment (43 CFR, Part 3809). 

• Conduct at a minimum, annual compliance inspections on each active notice and Plan of 

Operations. 

• 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. Casual use does 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-52 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

not require a permit or prior authorization. However, if necessary, the BLM could monitor 

casual use to prevent unnecessary and undue degradation. 

The BLM will coordinate with the MDEQ during the review, approval, inspection and reclamation of 

mining operations. Requirements of all state and federal laws will be met in the management of mining 

operations. 

Terms and conditions (BLM 2015, Appendix P) will be applied to mining activities (within the constraints 

of the Mining Laws) to meet land health standards for uplands, riparian areas and wetlands, water 

quality, air resources, and native plant and animal species. 

In areas withdrawn from mineral entry, Plans of Operations will not be approved unless the USDI has 

determined that the mining claims covered by the Plan of Operations are valid under the Surface 

Management Regulations at 43 CFR, Part 3809.100.

The BLM will protect sensitive areas by continuing four mineral withdrawals (20,058 acres) and 

recommending three new withdrawals (951,766 acres) (Appendix A2, Map K). Sensitive areas include 

a critical bat hibernaculum, developed recreation sites, rare and intact important archaeological sites, 

and essential breeding habitat for mountain plovers.

The BLM will continue the withdrawal for Azure Cave to protect a critical bat hibernaculum and 

recommend a 20-year extension for the Sweet Grass Hills withdrawal. Management of the Sweet Grass 

Hills withdrawal area will primarily focus on preserving areas of traditional importance to Native 

Americans and aquifers in the area that provide potable water to local residents.

Through the withdrawal review process, the BLM will consider the need for a new withdrawal or ROW

to promote success for the Zortman/Landusky mine reclamation. The area for the withdrawal or ROW

will be based on the need to maintain and protect the infrastructure associated with the reclamation 

activities, and will likely not exceed the boundary of the Zortman/Landusky Mine Reclamation ACEC.

The withdrawals for the Camp Creek and Montana Gulch campgrounds will be modified to include the 

entire recreation sites. 

The BLM will recommend revoking the withdrawals for the Landusky Town Site, Landusky Recreation 

Site, and Zortman Town Site on a case-by-case basis for the potential sale or exchange of the BLM 

parcels within the withdrawal boundaries.

The following new withdrawals will be proposed to segregate the areas from locatable mineral entry:

• A withdrawal of 24,672 acres in south Valley County (Mountain Plover ACEC) to protect 

essential breeding habitat for mountain plovers.

• A withdrawal of 20 acres to protect the Zortman Cemetery.

• A withdrawal of 927,074 acres to protect the SFA.

Within the limits of the Mining Laws, the BLM will apply COA (Appendix I) to Plans of Operations to 

prevent undue and unnecessary degradation to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-53

Salable (Mineral Material)

Goal: Provide for the extraction of mineral materials to meet public demand while minimizing adverse impacts 

on other resource values.

Objective: Provide for mineral material sales in accordance with existing laws and regulations (43 CFR, 

Part 3600).

Management Actions

The BLM will issue sales contracts for mineral materials (sand, gravel, stone, limestone, and clay) where 

disposal is deemed to be in the public interest, while providing for reclamation of mined lands and 

preventing unnecessary or undue impact on other resources. All lands not withdrawn or discretionally 

closed are available for mineral material disposal. Mineral material permits are considered on a case-bycase basis and issued at the discretion of the authorized officer.

Free use permits may be issued to government agencies or subdivisions and to nonprofit organizations.

Materials obtained by a free use permit may not be bartered or sold.

Mineral material sale contracts are valued according to the BLM statewide general appraisal schedule or 

through individual site-specific appraisals.

Common use areas or community pits will be designated if the level of localized activity warrants. New 

mineral material sites will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 

Mineral material sales will be processed on a case-by-case basis. Salable mineral sites will have an 

approved mining and reclamation plan and an environmental review prior to being opened. Where 

resource conflicts cannot be adequately mitigated, a permit will be denied. Operating stipulations to 

protect other resource values will be included in mineral material permits.

The collection of petrified wood and invertebrate fossils for personal use will be allowed as limited by 

the regulations (43 CFR, Parts 3620 and 8365) in areas not specifically closed.

The BLM will protect sensitive areas by closing them to mineral material sales (Appendix A2, Map L).

Sensitive areas include WSAs; Azure Cave ACEC; a portion of the Little Rocky Mountains TCP; Sweet 

Grass Hills TCP and ACEC; Big Bend of the Milk River ACEC; Frenchman Breaks ACEC; Kevin Rim 

ACEC; Malta Geological ACEC; Mountain Plover ACEC; Woody Island ACEC; and Zortman Cemetery.

The PHMA will be closed to commercial use permits, but open to free use permits (e.g., county gravel 

pits). 

3.2.17 Special Designations

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Goal: Protect relevant and important values through ACEC designation and apply special management where 

standard or routine management is not adequate to protect the values from risks or threats of 

damage/degradation or to provide for public safety from natural hazards.

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) are BLM lands where special management attention 

is needed to protect important and relevant values. To be designated as an ACEC, a nominated area 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-54 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

must meet the criteria of relevance and importance as outlined in 43 CFR, Part 1610.7-2 and BLM 

Manual 1613. If the relevance and importance criteria are met, an area is identified as a potential ACEC 

and considered for designation and management in the resource planning process. Designation is based 

on whether or not a potential ACEC requires special management attention.

While an ACEC may emphasize one or more unique resources, other multiple use management can 

continue within an ACEC as long as the uses do not impair the values for which the area was 

designated. Special management attention for ACECs means that limited resources may be directed to 

that area over other, non-designated areas but may or may not require changes in the current 

management.

Seven existing ACECs were revisited and twelve new nominations were considered in the HiLine Draft 

RMP/EIS and Proposed RMP/Final EIS (see BLM 2015, Appendix K and Maps K.1 through K.19). Six of 

the seven existing ACECs will be retained and four of the seven of the new nominations that met the 

criteria of relevance and importance will be designated as ACECs. The special management required for 

each of the ten ACECs is presented below.

Existing ACECs

Azure Cave ACEC

Purpose of ACEC Designation

Protect the cave and critical bat hibernaculum while ensuring public safety.

Management Actions

The BLM will retain Azure Cave as an ACEC (141 acres) to protect cave resources and potentially the 

northernmost bat hibernaculum in the United States (Appendix A2, Map M). The cave will be managed 

to protect bats during crucial hibernation periods and allow specific use on a limited basis. Any cave 

access will need to consider appropriate time periods, white nose syndrome, and management activities 

to protect the bats.

The ACEC will remain closed to oil and gas leasing and the BLM will continue the withdrawal from 

mineral entry and location.

The ACEC will be an avoidance area for rights-of-way and an exclusion area for wind energy rights-ofway.

To protect the cave and critical bat hibernaculum the ACEC will be closed to solid mineral leasing and 

mineral material sales.

Big Bend of the Milk River ACEC

Purpose of ACEC Designation

Protect the diverse cultural resources and historic sites.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-55

Management Actions

The BLM will retain the Big Bend of the Milk River ACEC (1,972 acres) to protect the diverse cultural 

resources and historic sites representing bison hunting and prehistoric ceremonial use of the 

Northwestern Plains (Appendix A2, Map M, which is located at the end of Chapter 2). Two National 

Register eligible sites are located within the Big Bend of the Milk River ACEC: Henry Smith and 

Beaucoup.

The Henry Smith site (1,000 acres) has been allocated for Public Use. The site will be inventoried for 

cultural resources, and mapping and/or collecting data will be completed as necessary.

The Beaucoup site (1,120 acres) has been allocated for Scientific Use. The site will be inventoried for 

cultural resources. All resources will be mapped, collected and excavated as necessary for relevant 

archaeological data.

The ACEC will include an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing and the area will remain closed to solid 

mineral leasing.

The ACEC will be an avoidance area for rights-of-way and an exclusion area for wind energy rights-ofway.

The BLM will not recommend a withdrawal from mineral entry and location. The ACEC will be closed 

to solid mineral material sales.

Bitter Creek ACEC

Purpose of ACEC Designation

Protect the scenic diversity found within the Bitter Creek watershed.

Management Actions

The BLM will retain the Bitter Creek ACEC (60,701 acres) to protect the scenic diversity qualities found 

within the Bitter Creek watershed (Appendix A2, Map M, which is located at the end of Chapter 2). If 

the Bitter Creek WSA is released by Congress, an ACEC management plan will be completed consistent 

with the management direction as discussed in the alternatives below. Until an ACEC management plan 

is completed the area will be managed consistent with BLM Manual 6330-Management of BLM WSAs as 

appropriate.

The area will remain closed to oil and gas leasing until an ACEC management plan is completed that will

address leasing.

The ACEC will be an avoidance area for rights-of-way.

The ACEC will be an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way.

The ACEC will be open to solid mineral entry and location.

The ACEC will be closed to solid mineral material sales.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-56 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

Kevin Rim ACEC

Purpose of ACEC Designation

Protect the diverse archeological resources and significant raptor values.

Management Actions

The BLM will retain the ACEC (4,557 acres) to protect the diverse archeological resources and 

significant raptor habitat (Appendix A2, Map M).

The ACEC includes an existing communication site. The ACEC will be an avoidance area for rights-ofway.

The ACEC will include an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing.

New communication facilities should be located at the existing communication site, rather than a new 

location on Kevin Rim.

The ACEC will be an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way.

The ACEC will be closed to solid mineral leasing and mineral material sales.

The ACEC will be open to mineral entry and location.

Mountain Plover ACEC

Purpose of ACEC Designation

Protect mountain plover habitat that is not associated with black-tailed prairie dogs.

Management Actions

The BLM will retain the ACEC (24,762 acres) to protect the mountain plover habitat (Appendix A2, 

Map M). The ACEC includes two habitat areas for the mountain plover. The primary habitat is the 

hardpan area on the valley bottoms (12,000 acres). The secondary habitat areas are on the gentle rises 

on either side of the valleys.

The ACEC will be closed to oil and gas leasing.

The ACEC will be an avoidance area for rights-of-way and an exclusion area for wind energy rights-ofway.

The BLM will recommend a withdrawal from solid mineral entry and location. The ACEC will be closed 

to solid mineral leasing and mineral material sales.

Sweet Grass Hills ACEC

Purpose of ACEC Designation

Protect the diverse cultural and historic resource values.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-57

Management Actions

The BLM will retain the ACEC (7,419 acres) to protect the diverse archeological resources (Appendix 

A2, Map M). Management of the area will primarily focus on preserving areas of traditional spiritual 

importance to Native Americans and aquifers in the area that provide potable water to local residents.

The ACEC will be closed to solid mineral leasing but open to mineral material sales.

The area will be closed to oil and gas leasing.

The BLM will allow for a full range of forest health treatments in the Sweet Grass Hills ACEC that may 

include the sale of wood products. The ACEC will not be open for incidental personal use wood 

products.

The ACEC will be an avoidance area for rights-of-way and an exclusion area for wind energy rights-ofway.

The ACEC will be closed to motorized travel. Off-road travel for administration of a federal lease or 

permit will be granted, unless specifically prohibited.

The BLM will recommend a 20-year extension to the withdrawal from solid mineral entry and location 

to preserve areas of traditional spiritual importance to Native Americans and aquifers in the area that 

provide potable water to local residents.

Part of a Bureau of Reclamation withdrawal (532 acres) was recommended for termination in a 

withdrawal review effort (May 1993) since the withdrawal is no longer serving the purpose for which it 

was withdrawn. The remaining 40 acres was recommended for a 20-year term modification (May 1993) 

since it is serving the purpose for which it was withdrawn by providing for a current and future riprap 

quarry for Tiber Reservoir. However, under this alternative the 40 acres will be recommended for 

withdrawal termination since the continued use of the riprap quarry will be incompatible with the 

resource values being protected by the ACEC.

The ACEC will be closed to solid mineral leasing and mineral material sales.

New ACECs

Frenchman Breaks ACEC

Purpose of ACEC Designation

Maintain the unique landscape and scenic characteristics and protect the fragile watershed and wildlife 

species from fragmentation due to roads and other surface-disturbing activities.

Management Actions

The area will be designated an ACEC (42,020 acres) to maintain the unique landscape and scenic 

characteristics and protect the fragile watershed and wildlife species from fragmentation (Appendix 

A2, Map M).
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-58 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

The ACEC will include an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing to protect the fragile watershed and 

crucial winter range. 

The ACEC will be an avoidance area for rights-of-way and an exclusion area for wind energy rights-ofway.

The ACEC will be closed to solid mineral leasing and mineral material sales.

Malta Geological ACEC

Purpose of ACEC Designation

Protect significant paleontological values for scientific study.

Management Actions

The area will be designated an ACEC (6,153 acres) to preserve the significant paleontological values for 

scientific inquiry. Other uses will be constrained by measures needed to protect paleontological 

resources for scientific study. Personal collection of common fossils will not be allowed (Public Law 111-

11, Section 6304(e)).

The ACEC will include a CSU stipulation for oil and gas leasing.

The ACEC will be an avoidance area for rights-of-way and an exclusion area for wind energy rights-ofway to preserve the shallow subsurface paleontological resources.

The ACEC will be closed to solid mineral leasing and mineral material sales. The BLM will not 

recommend a withdrawal from mineral entry and location.

Woody Island ACEC

Purpose of ACEC Designation

Maintain the unique landscape and scenic characteristics, and protect the fragile watershed and wildlife 

species from fragmentation due to roads and other surface-disturbing activities.

Management Actions

The area will be designated an ACEC (32,869 acres) to maintain the unique landscape and scenic 

characteristics, and protect the fragile watershed and wildlife species from fragmentation (Appendix 

A2, Map M).

The ACEC will include an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing.

The ACEC will be an avoidance area for rights-of-way and an exclusion area for wind energy rights-ofway.

The ACEC will be closed to solid mineral leasing and mineral material sales. The BLM will not 

recommend a withdrawal from mineral entry and location.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-59

Zortman/Landusky Mine Reclamation ACEC

Purpose of ACEC Designation

Promote successful reclamation and ensure public safety on public lands affected by prior surface and 

underground mining activities.

Management Actions

The area will be designated an ACEC (2,682 acres) to promote successful reclamation, protect 

associated infrastructure, and ensure public safety on BLM lands affected by prior mining activities 

(Appendix A2, Map M).

The ACEC, which is within the higher elevations of the Little Rocky Mountains TCP, will be closed to oil 

and gas leasing to protect the prehistoric and historic archaeological resources in the area.

The ACEC will be an avoidance area for rights-of-way and an exclusion area for wind energy rights-ofway.

The ACEC will be designated closed to off-road vehicles to maintain the reclamation and ensure public 

safety until such time as the reclamation efforts are completed (this includes travel off road and on roads 

used for reclamation activities). Travel for administrative purposes or for the administration of a federal 

lease or permit will be granted, unless specifically prohibited in the lease or permit. Travel on roads will 

also be allowed for access to private land. When the reclamation efforts are completed the area will be 

limited to designated roads as determined through the travel plan for the Little Rocky Mountains.

The ACEC is within the existing withdrawal (3,530 acres) in support of the reclamation activities at the 

Zortman and Landusky mines, which expires in 2015. Through the withdrawal review process, the BLM 

will consider the need for a new withdrawal or ROW to promote successful reclamation. The area for 

the withdrawal or ROW will be based on the need to maintain and protect the infrastructure associated 

with the reclamation activities, but will not exceed the boundary of the ACEC.

The ACEC will be open to solid mineral material sales associated with the need for reclamation 

materials and maintenance of the existing roads (5 to 6 miles).

Back Country Byways

Management Action

No back country byways will be designated at this time. If a back country byway is identified in the 

future, the designation will be addressed through a land use plan amendment.

National Historic Trails

Goal: Assist in cooperative efforts to manage current and future National Historic Trails to protect values for 

which they were designated. In cooperation with trail administrator and other trail managers, both private and 

public, 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.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-60 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

Objectives: Reduce the potential for uses that substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of 

the National Trail and avoid types of activities that are incompatible with the purposes for which the 

National Trail was established.

Provide premier trail visitor experiences for public benefit. 

Maximize opportunities for shared National Trail stewardship.

Identify and manage the historic route, historic remnants and artifacts located on BLM-managed lands 

within the identified Trail Management Corridor for public use, enjoyment, and vicarious trail 

experiences.

Identify and manage high potential historic sites or high potential route segments located on BLMmanaged lands, including the recommendation of additional federal protection components.

Restore altered landscapes located on BLM-managed lands to an identified trail-era condition when 

applicable and feasible while considering existing multiple uses of the BLM-managed lands. 

Management Actions

A portion of the Marias River exploration trail of the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail crosses 

BLM land (Appendix A2, Map H). The BLM will manage this segment of the Lewis and Clark National 

Historic Trail in a manner that is consistent with the nature and purposes and provisions of Public Law 

90-543 (the National Trails System Act) as amended by Public Law 95-265. The Lewis and Clark 

National Historic Trail Comprehensive Management Plan (NPS 1982) and Foundation Document (NPS 

2012) outline management objectives, practices and responsibilities, and emphasize partnerships in trail 

administration. Scenic and cultural values will be protected on BLM-managed land along this historic trail.

A portion of the Nez Perce National Historic Trail crosses BLM land north of the Upper Missouri River 

Breaks National Monument and in the Bears Paw Mountains. The BLM will manage this segment of the 

Nez Perce National Historic Trail in a manner consistent with the purposes and provisions of Public 

Law 90-543, as amended by Public Law 99-445 and the comprehensive plan being prepared by the USFS.

National Historic Trails and associated Management Corridors will be classified as Category 1 

(retention) lands.

The BLM will reclaim disturbances to the trails and associated settings, such as unauthorized routes and 

other legacy impacts as opportunities arise.

The BLM will implement the Interagency National Historic Trail Plans for the Lewis and Clark and Nez 

Perce National Historic Trails for BLM-managed lands within identified Trail Management Corridors and 

participate in the interagency planning update efforts as needed.

The BLM will support partnerships and cooperative agreements with other agencies, local and state 

authorities, and non-governmental organizations to implement stewardship and educational goals for the 

National Historic Trails and support the Montana site stewardship program for monitoring and 

evaluation of significant trail resources.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-61

The BLM will support the development and management of National Trail Auto Tours in partnership 

with the administrating agency and other interested parties.

The BLM will work in partnership to provide high-quality heritage education, interpretation, and tourism 

opportunities in reference to National Historic Trails located within the HiLine planning area.

The BLM will identify and acquire lands or easements within the trail corridors from willing sellers to 

protect resources or provide public access.

National Trail Management Corridors

The BLM will designate a National Trail Management Corridor for both the Lewis and Clark National 

Historic Trail and the Nez Perce (Nee-Me-Poo) National Historic Trail based on the maps and/or GIS

layer supplied to and as identified by the administrating agencies.

The Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail identified corridor will reflect a 1/2 mile wide management 

zone (1/4 mile either side of the centerline) based on the line as generally depicted in the Vicinity Map, 

Proposed Lewis and Clark Trail (USDI 1976). This corridor may be modified at a later date following the 

publication of the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail Comprehensive Plan by the USDI, National 

Park Service (NPS) or when further research and/or inventory in relation to the trail indicate a change is 

needed. Additional NEPA analysis will be conducted at that time.

The Nez Perce (Nee-Me-Poo) National Historic Trail identified corridor will reflect a 1/2 mile wide 

management zone (1/4 mile either side of the centerline) based on the line as generally depicted in the 

Nez Perce (Nee-Me-Poo) Trail Study Report (USFS and NPS 1982). This corridor may be modified at a 

later date following the publication of the Nez Perce National Historic Trail Comprehensive Plan by the 

USFS or when further research in relation and/or inventory to the trail indicates a change is needed.

Additional NEPA analysis will be conducted at that time.

Lewis and Clark and Nez Perce (Nee-Me-Poo) National Historic Trails

The area will include an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing within the established National Trail 

Management Corridor.

The area will be an avoidance area for rights-of-way, and an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way 

within 1 mile of the established trail centerline. 

The trail will be considered a Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class II.

Wilderness Study Areas

Goal: Manage Wilderness Study Areas so as not to impair their suitability for preservation as wilderness until 

such time as Congress either designates them as wilderness or releases them from further study.

Objectives: Protect and preserve the wilderness characteristics of the existing WSAs (naturalness, 

solitude, and outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation).
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-62 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

Management Actions

The Bitter Creek WSA (Figure 3.2-3) and Burnt Lodge WSA (Figure 3.2-4) will be managed 

according to the BLM Manual 6330-Management of BLM Wilderness Study Areas until such time as 

Congress acts upon the recommendations. Only Congress can designate or release these lands.

The BLM will prepare a wilderness management plan for any areas designated as wilderness by 

Congress. The WSAs not designated as wilderness by Congress will subsequently be managed in 

accordance with guidance for adjacent BLM land unless otherwise specified in this RMP. If released by 

Congress, the Burnt Lodge WSA will be managed consistent with surrounding BLM land. If released by 

Congress, the Bitter Creek WSA will be managed as an ACEC and a management plan will be developed 

to provide semi-primitive, motorized recreation opportunities.

BLM Manual 6330-Management of BLM Wilderness Study Areas describes the policies under which the 

BLM will manage the WSAs under wilderness review until Congress either designates these lands as 

wilderness or releases them for other purposes. Section 603(c) of FLPMA tells the BLM how to manage 

lands under wilderness review, in these words: “During the period of review of such areas and until 

Congress has determined otherwise, the Secretary shall continue to manage such lands according to his 

authority under this Act and other applicable law in a manner so as not to impair the suitability of such 

areas for preservation as wilderness...”

This language is referred to as the “nonimpairment” mandate. The BLM will review all proposals for uses 

and/or facilities within the WSAs to determine whether the proposal meets the nonimpairment 

standard. Uses and/or facilities found to be nonimpairing may be permitted on lands under wilderness 

review. Uses and/or facilities found to be impairing will be denied. The following criteria are referred to 

as the nonimpairment criteria.

Nonimpairment Criteria

The use, facility, or activity must be temporary. This means a temporary use that does not create 

surface disturbance or involve permanent placement of facilities may be allowed if such use can easily 

and immediately be terminated upon wilderness designation. “Temporary” means the use or facility may 

continue until the date of wilderness designation, at which time the use must cease and/or the facility 

must be removed. In the WSAs, “surface disturbance” is any new disruption of the soil or vegetation 

that will necessitate reclamation.

Decisions to allow or deny proposed actions based on the nonimpairment criteria will be included in 

appropriate decision documents.

When the use, activity, or facility is terminated, the wilderness values must not have been degraded so 

far as to significantly constrain the Congress’s prerogative regarding suitability of the area for 

preservation as wilderness.


3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-65

The only permitted exceptions to the above rules are: 

• emergencies such as suppression activities associated with wildfire or search and rescue 

operations;

• reclamation activities designed to minimize impacts on wilderness values created by 

violations and emergencies; 

• uses and facilities that are considered grandfathered or valid existing rights under FLPMA;

• ensure public safety as remediation for human-caused hazards in the WSA;

• protect or enhance wilderness characteristics or values; and

• other legal requirements.

Any of these activities should be carried out in the least impairing manner practicable.

Some lands under wilderness review may contain minor facilities that were found in the wilderness 

inventory process to be substantially unnoticeable. For example, these may include primitive vehicle 

routes (“ways”) and livestock developments. BLM Manual 6330 does not require such facilities to be 

removed or discontinued. They may be used and maintained as before, as long as this does not cause 

new impacts that will impair the area’s wilderness suitability.

The HiLine District will follow the guidance provided in BLM Manual 6330 for management actions 

within the WSAs including the following:

• WSAs will be managed as VRM Class I.

• Fire activities and projects in WSAs will adhere to standard agency fire management policies 

and techniques found in other BLM documents, such as the Guidance for Implementation of 

Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics will be used 

for all suppression efforts. A resource advisor will be assigned to all fires that occur within a 

WSA.

• Active restoration activities will be conducted to remove unnatural features and rehabilitate 

unauthorized human disturbances. Unauthorized range facilities will be removed, consistent 

with range regulations.

• Closed routes will be rehabilitated or converted into non-mechanized trails.

• Public access to WSAs will be provided through public access easements across private 

lands/roads.

• Lands within WSA boundaries will be acquired from willing sellers. Existing impacts on 

acquired lands will be rehabilitated.

• Competitive or commercial SRPs will not be authorized within WSAs, with the exception of 

outfitter and guide uses.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-66 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

Burnt Lodge WSA Photo by Brian Hockett

3.2.18 Vegetation – Rangeland

Goals: Manage the vegetative resource to maintain a diversity of ecological conditions on upland vegetation 

while providing for a variety of multiple uses that are economically and biologically feasible.

Maintain, restore, and enhance woody draw communities to achieve multi-aged stands that are healthy, 

structurally diverse, and reproductively successful.

Objectives: Manage uplands to meet health standards and meet or exceed PFC within site or 

ecological capability (Appendices I and L). Where appropriate, fire will be used as a management agent 

to achieve/maintain disturbance regimes supporting healthy functioning vegetation conditions.

Manage existing stands of woody draw species to achieve diversity in age, class, and structure, provide 

habitat for wildlife. 

Manage surface-disturbing activities in a manner to minimize degradation to rangelands, woody draws 

and soil quality.

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

sagebrush (such as big 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).

Management Actions

The BLM will ensure consistency with achieving or maintaining Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota (BLM 

1997a).
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-67

Any increase in vegetation allocation will be applied to watershed protection until soils are stabilized to 

a satisfactory condition as determined by an interdisciplinary team prior to increasing livestock or 

wildlife allocations.

The BLM will consult with MFWP and seek concurrence regarding the anticipated benefits and/or 

impacts of any vegetation treatments that may impact wildlife habitat including priority sage-grouse 

habitat.

Site-specific sage-grouse habitat and management objectives have been developed for BLM land within 

the Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA and the Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA (Appendix I).

These objectives will be incorporated into the respective AMPs or livestock grazing permits as 

appropriate.

Conifers encroaching into sagebrush habitats will be removed in a manner that considers tribal cultural 

values. Treatments will be prioritized 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.

Rest periods from livestock grazing of less than two growing seasons in vegetation treatment areas may 

be desirable in some circumstances, and will be determined through site-specific interdisciplinary 

planning, monitoring, and environmental review. For example, it may be desirable to use grazing to 

control weedy or invasive species immediately following a vegetation treatment.

Selling of grass seed, hay, or other vegetative products may be authorized. Hay or seed cutting may be 

used as a land treatment to improve production of crested wheatgrass provided it is not in conflict with 

wildlife or wildlife habitat values.

Range improvements will be constructed to manage use of vegetation to support multiple use resource 

management.

Water developments will be installed and/or maintained to facilitate control of livestock use of 

vegetation, support other uses, and protect resource values. In order to minimize surface disturbance, 

have reliable water of better quality and not alter normal surface flow of water, alternative water 

developments will be emphasized before constructing new pits and reservoirs. The BLM will manage 

water developments within Greater Sage-Grouse habitat to reduce the spread of West Nile virus 

(Appendix I).

The BLM will use land treatments to achieve and maintain fire regimes, and watershed, grazing 

management, and wildlife objectives. Within the Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA and the Grassland 

Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA, treatments that conserve, enhance or restore Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat will be allowed as well as treatments that benefit other resources and do not adversely affect 

sage-grouse or their habitat.

Rangeland health monitoring and assessments will be conducted within current staffing capabilities. The 

allotments within the Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA and the Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA 

will be high priority for reassessment of land health standards and processing grazing permits as detailed 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-68 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

in Appendix I. Rangeland health monitoring plans will be developed and implemented at the field office 

level.

Increased production resulting from land treatments will be allocated toward accomplishing multiple use 

objectives. Additional forage resulting from land treatments could be temporarily allocated 75% to 

watershed and wildlife, and 25% to livestock. Conversely, where there is substantial contribution (at 

least 50% of the total cost as direct or in-kind contribution) by the livestock permittee and no conflicts 

with wildlife objectives, up to 50% of the additional vegetation may be temporarily allocated to livestock.

Existing crested wheatgrass seedings will be managed where feasible as spring use pastures to defer 

native rangeland grazing. Crested wheatgrass seedings will be maintained for maximum livestock forage 

production with up to 70% of the production allocated to livestock when soils are stabilized to a 

satisfactory condition. Mechanical treatments and fertilization are management practices which renovate 

old crested wheatgrass stands to benefit associated native rangeland. Additional crested wheatgrass 

seedings may be used to consolidate existing scattered stands of crested wheatgrass into manageable 

units. Where native restoration of old crested wheatgrass seedings is considered, farming and herbicide 

use could be authorized for up to three years in order to help destroy the old crested wheatgrass seed 

bank and improve the success of the native seeding.

The initiating party will be required to reclaim surface disturbances greater than one-tenth acre if 

necessary to protect other resources. Range improvement pits and reservoirs will be excluded until 

abandonment.

All surface disturbances will be reseeded/revegetated with native plant species common to the site’s 

natural plant community. Site-specific environmental analysis may warrant the use, on a case-by-case 

basis, of introduced species where difficult site stabilization or wildlife concerns prevail.

Native species needed for reclamation and restoration activities, including the restoration of sage-grouse 

habitats in the planning area, will be identified and prioritized. Seed that is not available commercially 

should be collected following the procedures outlined in the Seeds of Success Protocol from local 

sources. Locally collected seed should be used to create sources of native plant materials with willing 

farmers or through work with NRCS Plant Materials Programs or through both. Cleaning and storage of 

seed must be addressed so that viability is maintained.

The best available vegetation treatment will be considered for managing cheatgrass and annual bromes, 

including but not limited to early spring grazing, mid-summer prescribed fire, and herbicide use. Treat 

areas that contain cheatgrass and other invasive or noxious species to minimize competition and favor 

establishment of desired species.

3.2.19 Vegetation – Riparian and Wetland

Goal: Manage activities to ensure healthy and proper functioning condition of wetlands and riparian areas 

within site or ecological capability.

Objectives: 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 and wetland areas with natural capability will be in PFC.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-69

Develop site-specific objectives and management strategies for riparian and wetland areas during the 

development and implementation of proposed actions and activity plans.

Maintain, restore, or improve riparian and wetland areas to achieve a healthy and productive ecological 

condition that provides benefits and values within site capability.

Management Actions

Wetland and riparian areas are unique and among the most productive and important ecosystems.

Although comprising only a small percentage of the BLM lands, they affect most other resources and 

values. Given the high value of these areas for a variety of resources, all aspects of riparian and wetland 

area inventory, monitoring, and management will involve an interdisciplinary effort.

Extensive inventories have been conducted across the planning area to locate, quantify, and broadly 

classify wetland and riparian areas. The PFC methodology is utilized by the BLM to assess the physical 

functioning of riparian and wetland areas. The term PFC is used to describe both the assessment 

process and a defined, on-the-ground condition of a riparian or wetland area. The PFC assessment 

provides a consistent approach for assessing how well the physical processes are functioning in wetland 

and riparian areas through consideration of hydrology, vegetation, and soil/landform attributes. An 

implementation plan will be developed that contains an assessment and monitoring plan for riparian and 

wetland areas. User guides to assessing PFC and the supporting science for lotic areas (TR 1737-15) and 

lentic areas (TR 1737-16) will be adhered to by the BLM’s interdisciplinary identification and assessment 

teams. 

The BLM will enhance or restore riparian composition and structure beyond PFC in riparian areas 

where and when appropriate for other resource values. This may include, but is not limited to, 

establishing riparian pastures, stream corridor/ shoreline fencing, specialized grazing methods, winter 

grazing use, a different species of livestock, and rehabilitation protective measures.

The allowance for improvements of riparian/wetland areas has the potential to either benefit or degrade 

the resource, and improving the functionality of one aspect (i.e., hydro-period) could convert the 

riparian/wetland type. The BLM will conserve riparian/wetland habitat by intensifying cooperative efforts 

among federal, state and private interests and will minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of 

wetlands.

Wetlands will be protected in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order No. 11990, 

Protection of Wetlands. Under the provisions of this Executive Order, the BLM must minimize the 

destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands when acquiring, managing and disposing of federal lands and 

facilities.

Riparian protection will be provided by the Montana SMZ Law (77-5-301 through 

77-5-307 MCA). SMZs provide regulation for the protection of water quality. The SMZ encompasses a 

strip at least 50 feet wide on each side of a stream, lake, or other body of water, measured from the 

ordinary high water mark, and extends beyond the high water mark to include wetlands and areas that 

provide additional protection in zones with steep slopes or erodible soils. The SMZ provides the 

minimum regulatory standards for forest practices in riparian areas.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-70 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

Ephemeral drainages and some mapped intermittent streams will not be covered by the SMZs under the 

definitions in the state regulations. These areas, however, will be covered by management stipulations 

commonly known as BMPs (Appendix H).

Prescribed fire could be used as a management agent to support healthy functioning riparian conditions.

Riparian areas with unique values (e.g., where water quality habitat for special status species is an issue) 

will be treated as avoidance areas for rights-of-way (installation of infrastructure that requires surface 

disturbance and/or permanent surface occupancy).

Grazing techniques and practices detailed in Appendix I will be implemented to reduce hot season 

(summer) grazing on riparian and meadow complexes within the Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA and the 

Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA. Alternative water facilities will be installed to relieve 

grazing impacts on riparian areas inside of priority sage-grouse habitat.

Saline seeps that occur as a result of surface-disturbing activities will be prioritized and reclaimed.

Surface-disturbing activities with the potential for producing seep areas will be designed with mitigation 

measures to minimize development of saline seeps. 

Riparian and wetland exclosures will be maintained and monitored to compare differences between 

areas grazed and ungrazed by livestock.

No pits will be placed in natural wetlands and in some cases pits may be filled in to improve wildlife 

habitat in natural wetlands (Appendix I). Wetlands that have been drained for water consolidation may 

be restored by plugging drainage ditches, and alternative water developments may be developed in these 

areas.

3.2.20 Vegetation – Special Status Plants

Goal: Ensure that in meeting the BLM’s multiple use-sustained yield mandate, special status plants and plant 

communities are managed, conserved, and/or restored for future generations.

Objectives: Promote the conservation and recovery of BLM special status plant species and their 

habitats.

Management Actions

The BLM will manage for the conservation of BLM special status plants and their associated habitats and 

to ensure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out do not contribute to the need to list any 

species as threatened or endangered. Site-specific prescriptions may include avoidance of special status 

plant habitat for ROWs, seasonal timing restrictions for grazing (e.g., limited to no grazing during 

flowering to seed set for a particular species), no salt or water placement within 1/4 mile of a known 

special status plant species population, seed collection or transplanting of special status plant species for 

mitigation.

The BLM will inventory lands to determine which BLM special status plant species occur on public lands, 

the condition of the plant populations and their habitats, and how discretionary BLM actions affect those 

plant species and their habitats.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-71

The BLM will cooperatively participate in recovery plans, management plans and conservation strategies 

for special status species plants and will work with federal, tribal, and state agencies as well as private 

landowners to improve habitat for special status plants. 

Through activity plans for other resources (e.g., watershed plans, fire management plans, AMPs, etc.) the 

BLM will design site-specific management prescriptions and projects to benefit individual species habitats 

and communities. Special status plants will be monitored to assess their condition and trend.

3.2.21 Visual Resources

Goal: Manage scenic values in accordance with the objectives established for visual resource management 

classes.

Objectives: The VRM classes are based on a process that considers scenic quality, sensitivity to 

changes in the landscape and distance zone. The four VRM classes are numbered I to IV; the lower the 

number, the more sensitive and scenic the area. Each class has a management objective which prescribes 

the level of acceptable change in the landscape. The objectives are guidelines to be used with the visual 

resource contrast rating system during new project-level planning. The management objectives will not 

preclude the maintenance of existing structures and range improvements.

The VRM class objectives are defined as follows:

Class I: The objective of this class is to preserve the existing character of the landscape. This class 

provides for natural ecological changes; however, it does not preclude very limited management activity.

The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be very low and must not attract attention.

Class II: The objective of this class is to retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of 

change to the characteristic landscape should be low. Management activities may be seen, but should not 

attract the attention of the casual observer. Any changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, 

color, and texture found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.

Class III: The objective of this class is to partially retain the existing character of the landscape. The 

level of change to the characteristic landscape should be moderate. Management activities may attract 

attention, but should not dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic 

elements found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.

Class IV: The objective of this class is to provide for management activities which require major 

modification of the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic 

landscape can be high. These management activities may dominate the view and be the major focus of 

viewer attention. However, every attempt should be made to minimize the impact of these activities 

through careful location, minimal disturbance, and repeating the basic elements of form, line, color, and 

texture in the natural characteristic landscape.

The degree to which a management activity affects the visual quality depends on the visual contrast 

created between the project and the existing landscape. The contrast is measured by comparing 

elements of form, line, color, and texture to describe the visual contrast created by a project. The visual 

resource contrast rating system determines whether proposed activities meet VRM objectives.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-72 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

Management Actions

Visual resource design techniques and BMPs will be used to minimize short and long-term visual impacts.

Contrast ratings will be completed for all proposed projects in Class I and II areas, and for proposed 

projects in Class III and IV areas that are high-impact projects or located in highly sensitive areas.

The visual resource contrast rating system will be used during project level planning to determine 

whether or not proposed activities will meet VRM objectives. The contrast rating system provides a 

systematic means to evaluate proposed projects and determine whether these projects conform with 

the approved VRM objectives. The degree to which a management activity affects the visual quality 

depends on the visual contrast created between the project and the existing landscape. The contrast is 

measured by comparing elements of form, line, color, and texture to describe the visual contrast 

created by a project. Mitigation measures will then be identified to reduce visual contrasts, and 

rehabilitation plans to address landscape modifications will be prepared on a case-by-case basis. The 

analysis can then be used as a guide for resolving visual impacts. Once every attempt is made to reduce 

visual impacts, the project will be re-evaluated for conformance to the VRM Class objectives using the 

Contrast Rating process. If the project remains out of conformance, the authorized officer may deny the 

project proposal, attach additional mitigations to bring the proposal into compliance with the existing 

VRM Class, or pursue a land use plan amendment in order to adjust the VRM Class and objectives for 

the area.

In VRM Class I, II, III and IV areas the BLM may prohibit surface-disturbing activities if such activities are 

not designed to meet the intent of the VRM Class objectives.

The Burnt Lodge and Bitter Creek WSAs will be managed as VRM Class I areas (Appendix A2, Map

N). The following areas will be managed as VRM Class II:

• an area south of the Dry Fork Road in Phillips County and the area south of the Willow 

Creek Road in Valley County and north of the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge;

• areas just north of the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument;

• Nez Perce and Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail corridors;

• Bitter Creek area;

• Frenchman area including the Frenchman Breaks ACEC;

• Kevin Rim area;

• Marias River area;

• Sweet Grass Hills area; 

• Woody Island area; and

• areas managed specifically to protect wilderness characteristics (Areas 49B, 52L and 53).

The remaining BLM lands will be managed as VRM Class III and VRM Class IV.

In VRM Class II areas the BLM will reduce the visual contrast on BLM land in the existing landscape by 

utilizing proper site selection, reducing soil and vegetative disturbance, choice of color, and over time, 

returning the disturbed areas to a seamless, natural landscape.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-73

3.2.22 Water Resources

Goal: Maintain, improve or restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of waters to protect beneficial 

uses.

Objectives: Ensure water quality and availability for authorized beneficial uses and proper watershed, 

wetland, riparian, and stream channel functions.

Prevent, minimize, and/or remediate contributions of non-point source pollution from BLM land to all 

receiving waters, including groundwater resources.

Management Actions

Surface and ground water quality will be maintained to state and federal water quality standards, 

including Standard for Rangeland Health #3 which requires that water quality meets Montana state 

standards. BMPs (Appendix H) will be used to prevent nonpoint source water pollution, and mitigation 

measures will be applied on a case-by-case basis. Permits pertaining to projects affecting water quality, 

wetlands, or streams will be obtained, and outside applicants will be required to provide copies of 

permits (e.g., 310, 404) prior to BLM authorization.

Projects will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to minimize impacts on water quality. All proposed 

reservoirs will be designed with a minimum 15-year life expectancy, and the BLM will evaluate other 

types of improvements to determine the need for alternate site water facilities (e.g., wells, springs). The 

BLM will continue to comply with Montana water laws, obtain water rights for all projects, and 

participate in the water adjudication process.

The State of Montana identifies impaired and non-impaired waters in its 303(d)/305(b) Integrated 

Report. This report lists all segments known to exceed state water quality standards, lists segments that 

do not fully support beneficial uses, and identifies the probable causes and sources of any water quality 

impairment. The State uses all available scientifically credible data including indicators such as dissolved 

oxygen concentration, pH, flow alterations, turbidity, temperature, metals, habitat alterations, fecal 

coliform, sulfates, nutrients, sodium, and sediment to make beneficial use determinations.

Through an existing MOU with the MDEQ, the BLM will participate in the development, 

implementation, and monitoring of water quality restoration plans (WQRPs) and total maximum daily 

load (TMDL) in watershed planning areas in which the BLM is a significant land manager or water user.

The BLM will continue to produce, and provide to the DEQ, biennial reports that describe the 

successes achieved in protecting and improving water quality in Montana.

The BLM will use reasonable land, soil, and water conservation practices to prevent harm to public 

health, recreation, safety, welfare, livestock, birds, fish, or other wildlife prior to the adoption of 

WQRPs and TMDLs. Human health will be protected by minimizing the potential contamination of 

public water systems. Source water is untreated water from streams, rivers, lakes, or aquifers used to 

supply public water systems. The BLM will ensure that stipulations are in place to protect the Statedesignated Source Water Protection Areas that protect public water systems from potential 

contamination.

The BLM will manage federal lands with reasonable land, soil, and water conservation practices in order 

to protect water bodies that currently meet state water quality standards and improve water quality 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-74 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

where beneficial uses are not fully supported. The BLM manages nonpoint source pollution by 

controlling the cause and source of pollutants through the use of pollution control measures such as 

BMPs and soil and water conservation practices. These measures are discussed in detail in the Montana 

Nonpoint Source Management Plan (MDEQ 2012). The BLM is responsible for monitoring progress and 

success once pollution control measures are implemented.

Disposal of produced water from any oil and gas fields will be in accordance with Onshore Order No. 7 

and EPA guidelines. Produced water cannot be discharged to live surface water in Montana without 

treatment in conjunction with a Montana Pollution Discharge Elimination System (MPDES) permit.

Effluent limits set by the MDEQ for direct discharge ensure no degradation will occur. Discharge to 

impoundments within an ephemeral drainage will also require an MPDES permit and a non-degradation 

waiver for groundwater.

Watershed control structures will be maintained on a case-by-case basis to meet Standards for 

Rangeland Health or public safety concerns.

New reservoirs will be considered on a site-specific basis through activity planning and will consider 

livestock grazing practices, important wildlife habitat, alternate water sources, and the opportunity to 

replace or repair existing reservoirs.

Water supply sources (e.g., wells, springs, reservoirs, and stream and lake access) for BLM-authorized 

actions (e.g., grazing, wildlife, recreation, etc.) will comply with Montana water laws.

The BLM will avoid the discharge of produced water from point sources to BLM land, including stream 

channels and uplands, as a means of disposal. Any allowed discharge will be in compliance with MDEQ 

requirements.

3.2.23 Wilderness Characteristics

Goal: Where practical, manage lands with wilderness characteristics for naturalness, solitude, and outstanding 

opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation.

Objective: Manage specific areas for their wilderness characteristics while providing for multiple uses 

throughout the planning area.

Management Actions

The BLM will manage 16,393 acres in three areas (Areas 49B, 52L and 53) to protect wilderness 

characteristics as a priority over other multiple uses (Table 3.2-3 and Figure 3.2-5).

Table 3.2-3

Areas Managed for Wilderness Characteristics

Inventory No. Area Acres

49B Sage Creek - Castle Butte 5,144 

52L Lena 5,679

53 Square Creek 5,570

Total 16,393

3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-76 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

Management proposed under the Preferred Alternative for these three areas includes:

• Fluid Minerals: NSO with no WEMs.

• Landownership Adjustment: Category 2 -Retention/Limited Disposal (exchange only – no sale).

• Rights-of-Way: Avoidance areas.

• OHV Area Designations: Limited.

• Renewable Energy – Wind: Exclusion.

• Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: Semi-primitive motorized.

• Travel and Transportation Management: Closed to development of new roads, primitive roads, 

and trails.

• Visual Resource Management: VRM Class II.

Any changes to livestock grazing will be consistent with achieving or maintaining the Standards for 

Rangeland Health. All agreements and provisions for maintenance and upkeep of existing range 

improvements will continue to remain in effect including access to and maintenance of range 

improvements. New range improvements and land treatments could be allowed provided they meet 

with the objective of enhancing or restoring those wilderness characteristics being managed for and 

meet the intent of the visual quality objectives of the VRM class.

The areas will be limited for OHV use and a high priority for travel management planning. In these areas 

travel will be limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails until subsequent travel management 

plans designate a motorized and nonmotorized transportation network after completion of this RMP. A 

ROW may be allowed if no reasonable alternative is found; however, special mitigation measures will be 

required to minimize impacts on wilderness characteristics.

Of the remaining lands with wilderness characteristics, 290,865 acres will be managed to emphasize 

other resource values and multiple uses while applying management restrictions to reduce impacts on

wilderness characteristics. Most of these areas fall within PHMA, SFA, Frenchman Breaks ACEC, and 

Sweet Grass Hills ACEC. Management proposed for these areas is complementary to maintaining 

wilderness characteristics in these areas. Management proposed under this alternative for these areas 

includes:

• Fluid Minerals: Closed within the Sweet Grass Hills TCP; NSO with no WEMs within the 

Frenchman Breaks ACEC and SFA; and NSO with limited exceptions and no waivers or 

modifications within the Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA.

• Landownership Adjustment: Category 1 – Retention within the Sweet Grass Hills ACEC; 

Category 2 – Retention/Limited Disposal within all other areas.

• Rights-of-Way: Avoidance Areas.

• OHV Area Designations: Closed within the Sweet Grass Hills ACEC; Limited within all other 

geographic areas.

• Renewable Energy – Wind: Exclusion.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-77

• Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: Semi-Primitive Nonmotorized within the Sweet Grass Hills 

ACEC; Semi-Primitive Motorized within the remainder of geographic area.

• Visual Resource Management: VRM Class I within the Sweet Grass Hills ACEC; VRM Class II 

within the remainder of the geographic area.

The other 92,190 acres will be managed to emphasize other resource values and multiple uses as a 

priority over protecting wilderness characteristics. In coordination with the interdisciplinary team and 

the BLM HiLine District Manager and Field Managers, it was determined that these areas either cannot 

be effectively managed to protect wilderness characteristics or the management or use of other 

resources takes precedence over wilderness characteristics. However, BLM-authorized activities 

associated with all resources and all resource use programs in these areas will be subject to mitigation 

and minimization guidelines and BMPs in Appendix H.

3.2.24 Wildlife

Goals: Ensure habitat for native wildlife is of sufficient quantity and quality to enhance biological diversity and 

sustain ecological, economic and social values.

Identify, conserve, enhance and monitor rare, vulnerable, and representative habitats, communities, and 

ecosystems to ensure self-sustaining persistence of special status species.

Ensure that proposed land uses initiated or authorized by the BLM minimize damage to wildlife habitat and 

populations of special status species.

Promote public awareness, appreciation, and understanding of wildlife conservation, management, and ecology.

Maintain and/or increase Greater Sage-Grouse abundance and distribution by conserving, enhancing or restoring 

the sagebrush ecosystem upon which populations depend in cooperation with other conservation partners.

Objectives: The necessary habitat, biological processes, and disturbance regimes will be present to 

maintain, enhance, or restore priority wildlife habitat and populations of special status species. Land use 

will maintain habitat quality and large intact blocks of habitat. Habitat quality and land use will allow 

wildlife species movements between large blocks of habitat and between seasonal habitats on a localized 

and landscape scale.

The BLM will maintain and enhance habitat for wildlife species. The emphasis for habitat maintenance 

and restoration will be placed on present and potential habitat for priority species such as sensitive, 

threatened and/or endangered species. The BLM will prioritize wildlife habitat improvement projects 

such as restoration of sagebrush communities through invasive species removal and native shrub 

reestablishment. Priority will be given to projects that improve habitat conditions in areas where there 

is the greatest expectation of an increase in wildlife populations or population viability resulting from the 

restoration enhancement work.

Use individual species management strategies and/or known habitat associations to design habitat 

management strategies to promote management of as many species as possible.

Implement habitat improvement projects where necessary to restore wildlife habitat and/or to improve 

unsatisfactory or declining wildlife habitat.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-78 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

Manage priority wildlife habitat, special status species habitat, and populations using multi-scale 

assessments to identify current conditions, risks, and opportunities.

Maintain, enhance, or restore habitat availability and condition for special status species, and minimize 

habitat loss.

Protect priority Greater Sage-Grouse habitats from anthropogenic disturbances that will reduce 

distribution or abundance of sage-grouse.

Minimize fragmentation of large intact blocks of important wildlife habitat, particularly habitat areas for 

Greater Sage-Grouse and grassland birds.

Management Actions

General Wildlife

The BLM will provide ecological conditions that support wildlife species (BLM 2015, Appendix Q) over 

the long term and promote maintenance and recovery of federally listed species and BLM sensitive 

species (BLM 2015, Appendix Q). The planning area provides for the range of habitat requirements for 

species by managing for the broad level ecosystem desired conditions. This strategy will involve a twotiered approach:

• The structure, composition, and disturbance processes of ecosystems that maintain habitat 

are managed for attainable and sustainable desired conditions that meet a variety of 

management objectives. The historic range of variability of habitat conditions are used for 

comparison and guidance in order to manage for habitats that sustain a broad range of 

wildlife species found in the planning area. Changes in land use within the planning area as 

well as on adjacent lands often preclude the BLM from attaining these goals on all BLM 

lands. 

• Species with conservation concerns are evaluated in order to determine limiting habitats, 

population influences, and special habitat needs not provided through ecosystem-level 

management. Species identified may need additional protection as specified in conservation 

strategies for individual species or species groups. Incorporating design components found in 

the desired conditions and guidelines detailed in the RMP, species conservation strategies 

and recovery plans, or species assessments based on the best available science will maintain 

or enhance key habitat and habitat effectiveness in order to provide diversity components 

and maintain wildlife sustainability. Species and management actions identified for this level 

of management are mostly addressed in the Special Status Species section. 

New fences will follow BLM specifications to allow for wildlife passage, except for fences built specifically 

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

collisions or entanglements.

Power lines and substations constructed on BLM land will comply with the most current raptor 

protection standards (currently Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 

2012 (APLIC 2012). Existing power lines that have been identified as having problems with collision or 

electrocution of wildlife and do not meet APLIC standards will be corrected and modified to prevent 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-79

future wildlife collision threats or electrocution. Power lines that are in good working order will be 

maintained and upgraded as deemed necessary.

Wildlife mortality at water tanks on BLM land will be minimized, primarily through the use of functional 

wildlife escape ramps. All new tanks will have effective escape ramps built in and existing tanks will have 

effective escape ramps installed.

Mitigation for migratory birds will be considered during activity level planning because the number of 

species, variety of habitats, and variation in seasonal movements limit the ability to provide effective 

mitigation for all species at the resource management planning level.

Management activities will consider current adopted strategies including Montana’s Comprehensive Fish 

and Wildlife Conservation Strategy (MFWP 2005) and currently accepted science. The BLM will 

continue to implement, review, and update as necessary the Prairie Pothole Waterfowl and Fisheries 

HMP of North Central Montana (BLM 1978), Whitewater Lake Waterfowl Habitat Development 

Project HMP (BLM 1970a), and Milk River Hills Pronghorn Winter Range HMP (BLM 1970b).

Implementation and consistent and effective monitoring of outcomes for habitat and species will provide 

the impetus toward the desired conditions. Monitoring will provide necessary data to evaluate RMP 

management decisions and will help identify needs for changes in management practices. Monitoring to 

track changing conditions in key areas and for specific species (Appendix D) is an important step in 

accomplishing objectives and achieving desired conditions.

Coordination and partnerships with state and federal agencies, tribal governments, commercial interests, 

interested organizations and individuals will serve as an important way to achieve desired conditions 

throughout the planning area, particularly for wildlife species and populations that span administrative 

and legal boundaries. 

The BLM will work with local organizations, schools and other agencies to provide educational 

programs, information brochures, interpretive sites, etc. to promote public awareness, appreciation, and 

understanding of wildlife conservation, management, and ecology.

Fences identified as potential barriers to wildlife movement or representing significant hazards for 

wildlife on BLM land will be inventoried. Fences will be prioritized for replacement or modification to 

maintain resource values including wildlife movements.

Bighorn Sheep: No new grazing permits authorizing sheep or goat allotments will be allowed within the 

MFWP Bighorn Sheep Management Zone (BLM 2015, Figure 3.21). Sheep and goat 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) between domestic sheep and/or goats and bighorn sheep. Domestic sheep/goats will not be 

allowed within bighorn sheep range unless mechanisms are in place to achieve effective separation from 

wild sheep.

Migratory Birds: The BLM will follow the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan (2005) to 

analyze site-specific proposed actions and determine whether BLM lands are meeting rangeland health 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-80 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

standards. The BLM will integrate the goals of the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture into programmatic and 

site-specific management decisions through the following management actions: 

• Emphasize maintenance and restoration of habitats that sustain sensitive species. 

• Strive to enhance or restore migratory bird habitat composition and structure in riparian 

habitats, where and when appropriate.

Waterfowl: Upland and emergent vegetation in pastures surrounding reservoirs established or rebuilt 

for waterfowl values will be managed to provide adequate nesting and brood rearing cover for 

waterfowl.

Special Status Species

BLM Manual 6840 provides policy and guidance for the conservation of BLM special status species and 

the ecosystems upon which they depend on BLM-administered lands.

The BLM will initiate proactive conservation measures that reduce or eliminate threats to Bureau 

sensitive species to minimize the likelihood of and need for listing of these species under the ESA.

The BLM will ensure habitat is provided for special status species (BLM 2015, Tables 3.58 and 3.59).

Proposed actions will not jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species, or 

cause its habitat to be adversely modified or destroyed.

The BLM will continue cooperative participation in recovery plans, management plans and conservation 

strategies for special status species.

Fragmentation of large intact blocks of important wildlife habitat will be minimized, particularly in 

Greater Sage-Grouse and grassland bird priority areas.

The BLM will coordinate with MFWP or other interested parties to highlight special status species 

information and BLM management of habitats for special status species. The BLM will also provide 

outreach materials for the general public.

A Biological Assessment (BA) evaluating the impacts of the Proposed Plan on federal threatened and 

endangered species was submitted to the USFWS on May 21, 2015 with a request of concurrence on 

the effects determinations contained therein. On May 27, 2015, USFWS issued a concurrence that the 

Proposed Plan “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” the black-footed ferret, whooping crane, least 

tern, pallid sturgeon, grizzly bear, red knot, piping plover, and piping plover critical habitat presented in 

the BA. The Memorandum of Concurrence is located in Appendix K.

Mitigation

Mitigation measures for all resources are included in Appendices H and I. The BLM may add additional 

mitigation measures as deemed necessary by further environmental analysis and as developed through 

consultation with other federal, state, and local regulatory and resource agencies.

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 
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-81

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.

Application of Lek Buffers

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.

Development in Highly Important Landscapes

The BLM will designate SFA as shown in Figure 3.2-6 (927,074 acres). All BLM-administered lands 

within the SFA boundary will be:

1) Recommended for withdrawal from the General Mining Act of 1872, subject to valid existing 

rights. 

2) Managed as NSO, without WEM, for fluid mineral leasing. 

3) Prioritized for management and conservation actions in these areas, including, but not 

limited to review of livestock grazing permits/leases (see the Livestock Grazing section for 

additional actions).

Disturbance 

The Montana/Dakotas BLM will use a 3% disturbance cap at the BSU and project scale, until the State 

strategy, similar to Wyoming’s Core Strategy of 5% for all lands and all disturbances, is fully 

implemented. The density calculation (an average of 1 facility per 640 acres) applies to energy and mining 

facilities. The disturbance cap will not be applied to foreclose development of locatable minerals on 

unpatented claims located under the General Mining Act of 1872; the disturbance from locatable mining 

will be accounted for in determining the percent disturbance and whether the cap has been exceeded.

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

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

exceed 5% within a project analysis area, then no further discrete anthropogenic disturbances (subject 

to applicable laws and regulations, such as the General Mining Act of 1872, valid existing rights, etc.) will 

be permitted by the BLM within 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 Greater Sage-Grouse 

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.

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 landownership) 

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 

3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-83

reduced to maintain the limit under the cap; or (2) unless the energy or mining facility is co-located into 

an existing disturbed area.

Black-tailed Prairie Dog: The BLM will adopt the MFWP Region 6 Prairie Dog Abundance and 

Distribution Objectives Plan (MFWP 2006) and will contribute to achieving prairie dog objectives on 

BLM land as outlined in the plan.

The BLM will manage firearm discharge on BLM land before and after any future ferret reintroduction.

Firearm discharge may temporarily be prohibited on prairie dog towns where black-footed ferret 

reintroduction is occurring. However, recreational shooting will be managed on these towns and towns 

subsequently occupied by the ferret, unless impacts from shooting are shown to be detrimental.

Greater Sage-Grouse: Quantifiable 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 sagegrouse habitat presented in Table 3.2-4 are based on recommendations in current literature (Stiver, et 

al. 2015, 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 Major Land Resource Areas 52C and 58A (USDA 2005). Table 3.2-4 is 

to be used as a minimum to meet the applicable Land Health Standard in sage-grouse habitats.

Table 3.2-4

Desired Conditions for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Dominant Sagebrush, Soil Type and/or Ecological Site

Habitat 

Indicators

Sagebrush on 

Saline and/or 

Sodic Soils

Sagebrush on

Acid Shale 

Parent 

Materials

Silver 

Sagebrush on 

Overflow Sites

Silver 

Sagebrush on 

All Other 

Soils/Sites

Wyoming Big 

Sagebrush on 

All Other 

Soils/Sites

Sage-Grouse Breeding Habitat

Sagebrush 

Canopy Cover

> 5% > 5% 10-25% > 2% 15-25%

Sagebrush Height > 6 inches > 6 inches > 12 inches > 12 inches > 12 inches

Perennial Grass 

Heights(includes 

residual grasses)

> 5 inches > 7 inches > 7 inches > 7 inches > 7 inches

Perennial Grass 

Canopy Cover 

(such as green 

needlegrass)

> 10% > 10% > 15% > 15% > 10%

Perennial Forb 

Canopy Cover

> 3% > 3% > 10% > 5% > 5%

Perennial Forb 

Availability

> 3 species > 3 species > 5 species > 5 species > 5 species

Riparian Areas & 

Wet Meadows

Proper Functioning Condition

Lek Security Rocky Mountain juniper and/or Ponderosa pine with less than 1% canopy cover on 

shrub/grassland ecological sites within 3 kilometers (1.86 miles) of occupied leks

Sage-Grouse Winter Habitat

Sagebrush 

Availability

>10% canopy and >10 inches visible above snow
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-84 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

The assessment and evaluation of these objectives will follow the steps described in the Sage-Grouse 

Habitat Assessment Framework (Stiver, et al. 2015).

These habitat objectives in Table 3.2-4 summarize the characteristics that research has found 

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

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

characteristics used in this subregion. Thus, the habitat objectives provide the broad vegetative 

conditions we strive to obtain across the landscape that indicate the seasonal habitats used by sagegrouse. 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 (see 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 significant factor in 

failing to achieve the standards for healthy rangelands, the use will be adjusted by the response specified 

in the instrument that authorized the use.

Greater Sage-Grouse General Habitat Areas: Sagebrush habitats will be managed so that mid-scale 

(i.e. landscape level) shrub cover should include a mix of height classes with herbaceous understory 

adequate for meeting Greater Sage-Grouse requirements as well as habitat requirements for other sageassociated species such as mule deer and pronghorn.

Consideration will be given to incorporating fine-scale and site-specific Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and 

management objectives as appropriate to the area into AMPs or livestock grazing permits.

General sage-grouse habitat will be an avoidance area for solar and wind energy rights-of-way.

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat suitability determinations will be based upon existing guidelines modified 

with data from recent habitat inventories and assessments in the planning area. Relevant range-wide 

research findings will also be included in habitat suitability determinations.

The BLM will emphasize restoration and rehabilitation of sagebrush in areas that are capable of, but no 

longer support sagebrush to contribute to the distribution and connectivity of habitat patches.

Greater Sage-Grouse habitats associated with silver sagebrush north of the Milk River will be enhanced 

to improve habitat conditions for nesting and brood rearing. Specific management actions will be derived 

from the results of ongoing research and best available science.

New distribution power lines on BLM land within 1 mile of Greater Sage-Grouse leks will be buried.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-85

Fragmentation of large intact blocks of habitat for special status species will be minimized, particularly in 

habitat protection areas for Greater Sage-Grouse and grassland birds.

Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Management Areas: Two PHMA are located in the HiLine 

District. The Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA is located in northwest Phillips County and 

northeast Valley County and includes 426,355 acres of BLM surface. The Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA is 

located in southern half of Phillips and Valley Counties and includes 1,006,312 acres of BLM surface.

Both PHMA are displayed on Appendix A2, Map O. These two areas encompass the sage-grouse core 

area as identified by MFWP and the priority area of conservation as identified by the USFWS. The 

following management actions will apply to these areas:

• PHMA will include a NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing unless there is a more restrictive 

stipulation in place to protect other resource values (e.g., no lease in the Bitter Creek WSA 

and the Mountain Plover ACEC). No waivers or modifications to a fluid mineral lease nosurface-occupancy stipulation will be granted. The authorized officer may grant an exception 

to a fluid mineral lease no-surface-occupancy stipulation only where the proposed action: 

– will not have direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on Greater Sage-Grouse or its 

habitat; or,

– 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 Greater Sage-Grouse.

• Exploration and development activities for existing oil and gas leases will be managed 

according to BMPs (Appendix N), or other mitigation measures, through COA in 

authorizing APDs or plans of development. Consistent with surface use rights granted, the 

existing lease may be subject to “restrictions deriving from specific, nondiscretionary 

statutes; and such reasonable measures as may be required by the authorized officer to 

minimize adverse impacts on other resource values, land uses or users not addressed in the 

lease stipulations at the time operations are proposed” (43 CFR, Part 3101.1-2). Overall 

consideration shall be given to minimizing the impact on sage-grouse through a project 

design that avoids, minimizes, and applies compensatory mitigation for direct and indirect 

impacts on sage-grouse habitat or use and includes applicable and technically feasible COA

(Appendix I). Selection and application of these measures shall be based on current science 

and research on the impacts on important breeding, nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering 

areas.

• PHMA will be an avoidance area for the issuance of rights-of-way except within designated 

corridors. Rights-of-way and similar facilities will be located adjacent to other facilities in a 

corridor where practical. The BLM will consider opportunities to remove, bury, or modify 

existing power lines (e.g., burying, anti-perching devices or line location).

• Where leases or rights-of-way have some level of development (e.g., road, fence, well, etc.) 

that are no longer in use, the site will be reclaimed by removing the features and restoring 

the habitat. Upon project completion or ROW expiration, roads built and maintained for 

commercial use across BLM land will be reclaimed, unless based on site-specific analysis, the 

route provides specific benefits to the public and the continued public use does not 

contribute to resource conflicts.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-86 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

• PHMA will remain available for livestock grazing. Site-specific Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

and management objectives will be developed for BLM land and incorporated into the 

respective AMPs or livestock grazing permits as appropriate. Third order (fine-scale) and 

fourth order (site-scale) habitat indicators and characteristics for sage-grouse habitat 

seasonal use areas as described in BLM Technical Reference 6710-1, Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Assessment Framework (Stiver, et al. 2015) will be used to quantify habitat objectives.

• The NEPA analyses for renewals and modifications of livestock grazing permits/leases that 

include lands within PHMA will include specific management thresholds based on the 

Desired Conditions for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat (habitat objectives) presented in 

Table 3.2-4 and Land Health Standards (43 CFR, Part 4180.2) and defined responses that 

will allow the authorized officer to make adjustments to livestock grazing without 

conducting additional NEPA.

• Existing range improvements, including the location of supplements, will be evaluated and if

necessary modified to conserve, enhance or restore sage-grouse habitat.

• If prescribed fire is to be used for vegetation treatments, the burn plan will clearly indicate 

how COT objectives will be addressed and met by its use, and why alternative techniques

were not selected.

• A Fire Risk Assessment will be completed for implementation of prescribed fire in relation 

to sage-grouse goals and objectives.

• PHMA will be an exclusion area for solar and wind energy rights-of-way. 

• PHMA will be closed to solid leasable minerals, including non-energy leasable minerals.

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

free use permits and the expansion of existing active pits, only if the following criteria are 

met:

– the activity is within the BSU and project area disturbance cap;

– the activity is subject to the provisions set forth in the mitigation framework 

(Appendix F);

– all applicable RDFs are applied (Appendix C).

• New road construction will be limited to realignments of existing roads, if that realignment 

has a minimal impact on Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, eliminates the need to construct a 

new road, or is necessary for public safety. New road construction will include appropriate 

BMPs and mitigation (Appendices H and I).

• Existing roads, or realignments, will be used to access valid existing rights. If valid existing 

rights cannot be accessed via existing roads, then any new road will be constructed to the 

absolute minimum standard necessary with appropriate BMPs and mitigation (Appendices H 

and I). 

Greater Sage-Grouse Restoration Area: This is an area with ongoing or imminent impacts containing 

substantial and high quality sage-grouse habitat that historically supported sustainable sage-grouse 

populations. This area includes 46,786 acres of BLM surface (Figure 3.2-7). Management actions will 

emphasize restoration for the purpose of establishing or restoring sustainable sage-grouse populations.

3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-88 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

Greater Sage-Grouse Photo by Brian Hockett

Specific management for this area will be addressed through plan implementation, most likely a natural 

gas field development plan for the Bears Paw South Area (see BLM 2015, Appendix E, Map E.1).

Management actions addressed during implementation will be based on guidance contained in IM MT2010-017 and may include: 

• Maximizing the area of interim reclamation on roads and well locations. 

• Direct planting of seedlings of shrubs and forbs important for spring and summer food. 

• Seeding of wild collected shrub seed to increase nesting habitat. 

• Burying power lines to prevent predator perch sites.

Mountain Plover: The following management actions will apply to protect mountain plover habitat and 

to maintain regional mountain plover populations:

• Mountain plover habitat will include an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing: surface 

occupancy and use will be prohibited within mountain plover habitat (Appendix G).

• A timing stipulation will also apply: surface occupancy and use will be prohibited within 1/4 

mile of mountain plover habitat from April 1 through July 15 (Appendix G).

• Activities for existing oil and gas leases will be managed according to BMPs (Appendix N).

• For surface-disturbing or disruptive activities other than oil and gas, mitigation will be 

applied where needed to minimize impacts of human activities on mountain plover habitat 

consistent with the oil and gas surface use restrictions. The BLM will avoid permanent 

above-ground structures that may provide perches for avian predators or deter plover from 

using preferred habitat. Mitigation measures will be applied on a case-by-case basis during 

activity level planning if an evaluation of the project area indicates the presence of mountain 

plovers. This will include surveys for mountain plovers in all suitable habitat, as well as 

avoidance of nesting areas from April 1 through July 15. Exceptions may be granted by the 

authorized officer if an environmental review demonstrates that effects could be mitigated 

to an acceptable level.
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 3-89

• Road maintenance in mountain plover habitat will not occur between April 1 and July 15 

unless the road is surveyed prior to maintenance activities for plover presence and 

avoidance measures are implemented.

• The BLM will reduce or control non-native grasses to increase breeding habitat, and 

prescribed burning could be used to increase the availability of nesting habitat, particularly 

on lands where taller or non-native grasses occur.

• The BLM will promote integrated pest management practices that limit chemical applications 

in mountain plover habitat.

Piping Plover: The following management actions will apply to protect piping plover habitat and 

maintain regional piping plover populations:

• Piping plover habitat will include an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing: surface 

occupancy and use will be prohibited within 1/4 mile of essential and critical habitat 

(Appendix G).

• Road maintenance in piping plover habitat will not occur between April 1 and July 31 unless 

the road is surveyed prior to maintenance activities for plover presence and avoidance 

measures are implemented.

Sprague’s Pipit: The following management actions will apply to protect Sprague’s pipit habitat:

• Sprague’s pipits will be protected through management actions for the Grassland 

Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA.

• A timing stipulation will apply to areas within Sprague’s pipit habitat: Surface occupancy and 

use will be prohibited from April 15 through July 15 (Appendix G).
3. Approved Resource Management Plan

3-90 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

Frenchman Area, Phillips County Photo by Kathy Tribby
September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 4-1

CHAPTER 4

CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC 

INVOLVEMENT

4.1 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

The BLM HiLine District will continue to coordinate, both formally and informally, with the numerous 

state, federal, tribal, and local agencies and officials interested and involved in the management of public 

lands in north-central Montana. Coordination and partnerships with state and federal agencies, tribal 

governments, commercial interests, interested organizations and individuals will achieve desired 

conditions throughout the planning area, particularly for wildlife species and populations that span 

administrative and legal boundaries.

The BLM will consult with MFWP Region 6 biologists and seek concurrence on the anticipated benefits 

and impacts of any vegetation treatments that may impact wildlife habitat. The BLM will coordinate with 

the MFWP and other interested parties to highlight special status species information and BLM 

management of habitats for special status species.

Specific to cultural resources, the BLM will regularly consult with the SHPO, certified local governments, 

and other federal and state agencies in order to properly identify and assess culturally significant 

properties, nominate properties to the National Register of Historic Places, conduct Section 106 

reviews of agency projects and conduct educational programs on the importance of preserving historic 

properties. 

The BLM Montana/Dakotas invited the tribes to participate in preparing the HiLine RMP regarding land 

use. 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, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and National Conference of State Historic 

Preservation Officers and the State Protocol Agreement between the BLM and SHPO, or where 

applicable the Section 106 regulations.

The BLM incorporated the information it received from the SHPO and tribes into the HiLine Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS and the ARMP. It took into consideration 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 
4. Consultation, Coordination, and Public Involvement

4-2 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

outlined in the National Programmatic Agreement and the state protocols or where applicable the 

Section 106 regulations. The BLM will satisfy the requirements of NHPA Section 106 for future 

implementation-level decisions, such as project proposals, including adequate consultation with the 

SHPO, the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Native American tribes, and other interested parties. 

This is consistent with the alternatives procedures set forth in the National Programmatic Agreement

and relevant state protocol or where applicable under Section 106 regulations.

The BLM will consult with Indian tribes when its actions have the potential to affect areas of concern to 

the practitioners of traditional religions, as established by Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites, 

61 Federal Register 104, May 24, 1996). The activities of concern are those that might degrade the visual 

or aesthetic nature of an area or cause the loss of plant species or other resources important to 

traditional uses. The BLM is required to consult with traditional religious practitioners on policies and 

procedures to ensure they are considered when implementing agency actions. This includes 

consultations with federally recognized Indian tribes as sovereign nations in a government-togovernment relationship with the United States.

The BLM will work with local organizations, schools and other agencies to provide educational 

programs, information brochures, and interpretive sites to promote public awareness, appreciation, and 

understanding of conservation, management, and ecology on BLM-administered lands in the HiLine 

District.

4.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The BLM HiLine District will continue to actively seek the views of the public, using techniques such as 

news releases, mass mailings, and social media to ask for participation. In this way, the BLM will inform 

the public of new and ongoing project proposals, site-specific planning, and opportunities and time 

frames for comment. The BLM, on request, will make available annual land use plan updates to track and 

monitor the progress of plan implementation.

Implementation actions such as the development of travel management plans will include a NEPA 

process of environmental review and public involvement. Adaptive management actions that may be 

necessary in the future will require activity level planning, environmental review, and public involvement. 

All proposed actions in the future must conform to the HiLine ARMP and ROD. Proposed actions on or 

affecting BLM-administered land must also be reviewed for NEPA compliance, including appropriate 

public involvement.
4. Consultation, Coordination, and Public Involvement

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 4-3

Sand Creek Area, Blaine and Chouteau Counties Photo by Kathy Tribby
4. Consultation, Coordination, and Public Involvement

4-4 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

This page intentionally left blank.
September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 5-1

CHAPTER 5

PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

The ARMP includes all the approved decisions from the RMP. Plan implementation is a continuous 

process occurring over the life of the ARMP. During the process, the BLM will consider changing 

circumstances and new information through monitoring. The goal is to maintain a dynamic ARMP that is 

evaluated and amended if necessary on an issue-by-issue basis.

The implementation and monitoring process for the HiLine District involves these steps: planning, 

implementation, monitoring, evaluation, and adjustments, as necessary. Planning involves a great amount 

of time and resources to identify issues and management opportunities to address those issues. During 

the planning process, the scope of the issue is identified, and management goals, objectives, and actions 

are defined to address the issues. Once the planning process is completed, decisions are implemented, 

monitored, and evaluated over time to determine if goals are being met and if management actions are 

achieving the desired objective or standard. Results of monitoring are documented and communicated 

to appropriate parties, and management objectives and actions are modified based on results, if 

necessary.

5.1 IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN

Decisions made through the RMP were implemented over time. Some of the decisions were immediate 

and went into effect with the ROD, such as recreation site designations and lands available for disposal 

through exchange. Some decisions would be implemented after a site-specific environmental review.

Examples include range improvements or approval of an APD for a natural gas well. Other decisions 

include guidance that would be applied during site-specific analysis or activity planning.

The BLM will review any future proposals or management actions in accordance with the ARMP to 

determine if the proposal would be in conformance with the RMP. While the Final EIS for the HiLine 

RMP provides the compliance with NEPA for the broad-scale decisions to be made in the ROD, it does 

not replace the requirement to comply with NEPA for implementation actions.

Proposed actions fall into one of the following categories
5. Plan Implementation

5-2 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

• Those that are exempt from NEPA

• Those that are categorically excluded

• Those that are covered by an existing NEPA environmental document

• Those that require preparation of an EA to determine if an EIS is needed

• Those that require preparation of an EIS

The NEPA procedural, documentation, and public involvement requirements are different for each 

category.

Activity level planning will address any proposed new activities and long-term permitted activities that 

need to be brought into compliance with plan decisions, subject to valid existing rights. Monitoring of 

these activities will then determine the effectiveness of applying the land use plan direction. Where land 

use plan actions or BMPs are not effective, they could be modified without amendment or revision, as 

long as assumptions and impacts disclosed in the analysis remain valid and broad-scale goals and 

objectives are not changed. This approach uses on-the-ground monitoring, review of scientific 

information, and consideration of practical experience and common sense to adjust management and 

modify plan implementation to reach the desired outcome.

As part of this process, the BLM will review management actions and the plan periodically to determine 

whether the objectives set forth in this document are being met. Where they are not being met, the 

BLM will consider adjusting the appropriate scope. Where it considers taking or approving actions that

will alter or not conform to overall direction of the plan, the BLM will prepare a plan amendment and 

environmental analysis of appropriate scope.

In addition, during the life of the ARMP, the BLM expects that new information gathered from field 

inventories and assessments, research, other agency studies, and other sources will update baseline data 

or support new management techniques, BMPs, and scientific principles. To the extent that such new 

information or actions address issues covered in the plan, the BLM will integrate the data through plan 

maintenance.

5.1.1 Implementation Strategy

A well-documented, well-organized process is essential to the successful implementation of land use 

plans. To that end, the BLM will develop an implementation strategy for the HiLine District that lists 

prioritized decisions. These will help achieve the desired outcomes and can be implemented given 

existing or anticipated resources. Developing implementation strategies enables the BLM to prioritize 

the preparation of implementation decisions. As appropriate, this strategy will also further identify 

monitoring to determine if the implementation of activities has achieved the desired goals and 

objectives.

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.
5. Plan Implementation

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 5-3

The BLM expects that new information gathered from field inventories and assessments, research, other 

agency studies, and other sources will update baseline data and support new management techniques, 

BMPs, and scientific principles. Where monitoring shows land use plan actions or BMPs are not effective, 

the BLM may amend the plan, as appropriate. The BLM would document plan maintenance in supporting 

records; this is because it does not require formal public involvement, interagency coordination, or the 

NEPA analysis required for making new land use plan decisions.

5.3 CHANGING THE PLAN

Should conditions warrant, the ARMP may be changed 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 making policy changes and changing public needs might also require a plan amendment. Also, 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, according to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) procedures for implementing NEPA.

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 that 

identified in this plan. Identifying new areas or removing old areas that no longer have those resource 

values could be added to the existing data inventory without a plan amendment or revision. In cases 

where the 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. This would 

be done in coordination with MFWP and the USFWS and would be based on the best available scientific 

information, through a plan maintenance, amendment, or revision, as appropriate.

If the BLM finds that implementation of Montana GRSG Habitat Conservation Program is effective in 

meeting GRSG conservation management goals and objectives , the BLM may revise the management 

decisions and associated GRSG habitat management area maps. It would do this, in coordination with 

the State of Montana and the USFWS and based on best available scientific information. The BLM would 

implement plan maintenance decisions and associated GRSG habitat management area maps through 

plan maintenance or plan amendment, as appropriate. The intent would be to achieve the agencies’

shared goal of consistent and effective GRSG management and conservation across all lands, regardless 

of ownership.

5.4 PLAN EVALUATION, ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT, AND MONITORING

5.4.1 Plan Evaluation

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.

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. The ARMP will generally be evaluated every five years, unless 

unexpected actions, new information, or significant changes in other plans, legislation, or litigation 

trigger an evaluation.
5. Plan Implementation

5-4 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

Land use plan evaluations determine if decisions are being implemented, if mitigation measures are 

satisfactory, if the related plans of other entities have significant changes, if new data is of significance to 

the plan, and if decisions should be changed through amendment or revision.

The BLM will adhere to the following evaluation schedule for the ARMP:

• August 2020

• August 2025

• August 2030

• August 2035

Evaluations will follow the protocols established by the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1 in 

effect at the time.

5.4.2 Adaptive Management

The hard and soft trigger data for GRSG (Appendix J) will be analyzed as soon as it becomes available 

after the FOD is signed and then, at a minimum, will be analyzed annually thereafter.

The BLM will periodically review monitoring results; any management objectives or actions that may 

need to be changed or adjusted will be open to public review and comment before decisions are made 

through an environmental review process. Through implementation, an adaptive management approach 

may also be used for specific activities in the planning area, if appropriate, consistent with Secretarial 

Order 3270 (Adaptive Management). Adaptive management would require activity-level planning, 

environmental review, and public involvement.

5.4.3 Monitoring

Monitoring is the repeated measurement of activities and conditions over time. 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 what changes need to be made in management practices 

to meet objectives. Monitoring determines whether planned activities have been implemented in the 

manner prescribed by the plan. This monitoring documents the BLM’s progress toward full 

implementation of the land use plan decision. No specific thresholds or indicators are required for this 

type of monitoring.

Monitoring also is used to determine if the implementation of activities has achieved the desired goals 

and objectives. This requires knowledge of the objectives established in the RMP as well as indicators 

that can be measured. Indicators are established by technical specialists in order to address specific 

questions and thus avoid collecting unnecessary data. Success is measured against the benchmark of 

achieving desired future conditions established by the plan.

Monitoring is also used to ascertain whether a cause-and-effect relationship exists among management 

activities or resources being managed. It confirms whether the predicted results occurred and if 

assumptions and models used to develop the plan are correct. This type of monitoring is often done by 
5. Plan Implementation

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 5-5

contracting with another agency, academic institution, or other entity. It is usually expensive and time 

consuming since results are not known for many years.

Regulations at 43 CFR, Part 1610.4-9, require that the proposed plan establish intervals and standards, 

as appropriate, for monitoring and evaluating the plan, based on the sensitivity of the resource decisions 

involved. Periodically, the BLM reviews progress in meeting the plan objectives and adhering to the 

management framework established by the plan. CEQ regulations implementing NEPA state that 

agencies may provide for monitoring to ensure that their decisions are carried out and should do so in 

important cases (40 CFR, Part 1505.2[c]). To meet these requirements, the BLM will prepare periodic 

reports on the implementation of the RMP, as described above.
5. Plan Implementation

5-6 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

Black Elk Coulee, Blaine County Photo by Craig Miller
September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 6-1

CHAPTER 6

GLOSSARY

Abandoned Mine Lands. An abandoned hard rock mine on or affecting public lands administered by 

the BLM, at which exploration, development, mining, reclamation, maintenance, and inspection of 

facilities and equipment, and other operations ceased as of January 1, 1981 (the effective date of the 

BLM's Surface Management regulations, codified at 43 CFR, Part 3809) with no evidence demonstrating 

that the miner intends to resume mining. For many abandoned mines, no current claimant of record or 

viable potentially responsible party exists. Abandoned mines generally include a range of mining impacts 

or features that may pose a threat to water quality, public safety, and the environment.

Acquired Lands. Lands in federal ownership that were obtained by the government through purchase, 

condemnation, gift, or exchange.

Actual Use. The amount of animal unit months consumed by livestock, based on the numbers of 

livestock and grazing dates submitted by the livestock operator and confirmed by periodic field checks 

by the BLM. 

Air Quality. 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 Federal Land Manager for a particular area. AQRV impacts may also include sulfur, 

nitrogen, acid deposition, and lake acidification.

Air Quality Standards. Primary standards are designed to protect human health, including sensitive 

populations, such as people with asthma and emphysema, children, and senior citizens. They were 

designed for the immediate protection of public health, with an adequate margin of safety, regardless of 

the cost. Secondary standards are designed to protect public welfare, including soils, water, crops, 

vegetation, buildings, property, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility, and other economic, aesthetic, and 

ecological values, as well as personal comfort and well-being. Secondary standards were established to 

protect the public from known or anticipated effects of air pollution.
6. Glossary

6-2 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

Allotment. An area of land where one or more livestock operators graze their livestock. Allotments 

generally consist of BLM-administered 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 Categorization. Grazing allotments and rangeland areas used for livestock grazing are 

assigned to an allotment category during resource management planning. Allotment categorization is 

used to establish priorities for distributing available funds and personnel during plan implementation to 

achieve cost-effective improvement of rangeland resources. Categorization is also used to organize 

allotments into similar groups for developing multiple use prescriptions, analyzing site-specific and 

cumulative impacts, and determining trade-offs. 

Allotment Management Plan. A written program of livestock grazing management, including 

supportive measures if required, designed to attain specific management goals in a grazing allotment. 

Amendment. The process for considering or making changes in the terms, conditions, and decisions 

of approved resource management plans or management framework plans, using the prescribed 

provisions for resource management planning appropriate to the proposed action or circumstances.

Usually only one or two issues are considered that involve only a portion of the planning area. 

Analysis Area. The geographic area defining the scope of analysis for a particular resource. This area 

may be larger than the project area when effects have the potential to extend beyond the boundaries of 

the proposed action. 

Animal Unit Month (AUM). A standardized measurement of the amount of forage necessary to 

sustain one cow or its equivalent for one month, approximately 800 pounds of forage. An AUM is the 

amount of forage needed to sustain one cow and her calf, one horse, or five sheep or goats for a month.

Application for Permit to Drill (APD). Before beginning construction or the drilling of a well, the 

lessee or operator must file an APD with the BLM Great Falls Oil and Gas Field Office. A copy of the 

application is posted in the Great Falls Oil and Gas Field Office, in the appropriate HiLine District field 

office, and if applicable, in the office of the surface management agency for a minimum of 30 days for 

public review. After 30 days, the application can be approved in accordance with lease stipulations, 

onshore oil and gas orders, and onshore oil and gas regulations (43 CFR, Part 3160) if it is 

administratively and technically complete.

Area Designations.

• Open. 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.

• Limited. An area restricted at certain times, in certain areas, and/or to certain vehicular 

use. These restrictions may be of any type, but can generally be accommodated within the 

following type of categories: Numbers of vehicles; types of vehicles; time or season of 

vehicle use; permitted or licensed use only; use on existing roads, primitive roads and trails; 

use on designated roads and trails; and other restrictions.
6. Glossary

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 6-3

• Closed. An area where motorized vehicle use off road is prohibited. Use of off-road 

vehicles in closed areas may be allowed for certain reasons; however, such use shall be 

made only with the approval of the authorized officer.

Area of Critical Environment Concern. Areas within the public lands where special management 

attention is required to: (1) protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or 

scenic values, fish and wildlife resources, or other natural systems or processes, or (2) protect life and 

safety from natural hazards. 

Authorized Officer. The federal employee who has the delegated authority to make a specific 

decision. 

Authorized Use. Uses of public land that may be authorized include agriculture development, 

residential use (under certain conditions), business, industrial, and commercial uses, advertising; research 

projects, State National Guard maneuvers, and motion picture filming. Recreational concessions are 

considered business uses and may be authorized by lease. Timber harvest, livestock grazing, mineral 

extraction and special recreation events, among other uses, are authorized under other regulations and 

not under Section 302 of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA). 

Avoidance Areas. Areas to be avoided but may be available for location of rights-of-way with special 

stipulations. (BLM Land Use Planning Handbook, Appendix C)

Best Management Practices (BMPs). A suite of techniques that guide, or may be applied to, 

management actions to aid in achieving desired outcomes. Best management practices are often 

developed in conjunction with land use plans, but they are not considered a land use plan decision unless 

the land use plan specifies that they are mandatory. They may be updated or modified without a plan 

amendment if they are not mandatory. 

Big Game. Large species of wildlife that are hunted, such as elk, deer, bighorn sheep, and pronghorn 

antelope. 

Biodiversity. The diversity of living organisms considered at all levels of organization including genetics, 

species, and higher taxonomic levels, and the variety of habitats and ecosystems, as well as the processes 

occurring therein. 

Biological Assessment. The gathering and evaluation of information on proposed endangered and 

threatened species and critical habitat and proposed critical habitat. Required when a management 

action potentially conflicts with endangered or threatened species, the biological assessment is the way 

federal agencies enter into formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and describe a 

proposed action and the consequences to the species the action would affect. 

Biologically Significant Unit: The summary of all the priority habitat management areas within a 

GRSG population as, delineated in the US Fish and Wildlife Service Conservation Objectives Team 

recommendations.

Biomass. The trees and woody plants, including limbs, tops, needles, leaves, and other woody parts, 

grown in a forest, woodland, or rangeland environment, that are the by-products of forest management.
6. Glossary

6-4 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

Compensatory Mitigation. Compensating for the (residual) impact by replacing or providing 

substitute resources or environments. (40 CFR, Part 1508.20)

Conservation Agreement. A formal signed agreement between the US Fish and Wildlife Service or 

National Marine Fisheries Service and other parties that implements specific actions, activities, or 

programs designed to eliminate or reduce threats or otherwise improve the status of a species.

Conservation agreements can be developed at a state, regional, or national level and generally include 

multiple agencies at both the state and federal level, as well as 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 prior to signing the conservation agreement or subsequently 

in order to implement the conservation agreement. 

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 threats. Conservation strategies are generally developed for species of plants and animals that are 

designated as BLM Sensitive species or that have been determined by the Fish and Wildlife Service or 

National Marine Fisheries Service to be federal candidates under the Endangered Species Act. 

Corridor. A designated right-of-way corridor is a parcel of land with specific boundaries identified by 

law, Secretarial order, the land-use planning process, or other management decision, as being a 

preferred location for existing and future rights-of-way and facilities. The corridor may be suitable to 

accommodate more than one type of right-of-way use or facility or one or more right-of-way uses or 

facilities which are similar, identical, or compatible. (43 CFR, Part 2801.5[b][9])

Critical Habitat. An area occupied by a threatened or endangered species “on which are found those 

physical and biological features (1) essential to the conservation of the species, and (2) which may 

require special management considerations or protection.” 

Crucial Winter Range. That part of the winter range where a majority of the wildlife population 

(primarily mule deer) is located (or 90 percent of the individuals) when the annual snowpack is at its 

maximum and/or temperatures are at a minimum in the two worst winters out of ten.

Cultural Resource/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. It may include definite locations (sites or places) or traditional cultural or religious 

importance to specified social or cultural groups. Cultural resources are concrete material places and 

things that are located, classified, ranked, and managed through the system of identifying, protecting, and 

using for public benefit. 

Cultural Resource Inventory Classes.

• 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. Class I inventories encompass prehistoric, historic, and 

ethnological/sociological elements and in large part chronicle past land uses. They may have 

major relevance to current land use decisions. 
6. Glossary

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 6-5

• 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. 

• 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 (generally at 30-meter intervals) until the area has 

been thoroughly examined. 

Designated Roads and Trails. Specific roads and trails where some type of motorized vehicle use is 

allowed either seasonally or yearlong. 

Desired Future Condition. Outcomes representing the long-term vision of the BLM with regard to 

the resources managed on BLM-administered land. 

Developed Recreation. Recreation that requires facilities and might result in concentrated use of an 

area; for example, a campground. 

Dispersed Recreation. Unstructured recreation not confined to specific locations. Examples of these 

activities are hunting, fishing, off-road vehicle use, hiking, and sightseeing. 

Endangered Species. Any plant or animal species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. 

Exception (Oil and Gas). A one-time exemption to a lease stipulation. Exceptions are determined on 

a case-by-case basis. 

Exclusion Areas. Areas that are not available for locating rights-of-way under any conditions (BLM 

Land Use Planning Handbook, Appendix C).

Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA). An identified area of BLM-administered land 

managed to provide stewardship of resources and visitor use. Investments are limited to stewardship 

actions only within ERMAs. 

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 specific locations, such as oil 

and gas well pads and associated infrastructure.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. Public Law 94-579, October 21, 1976, often 

referred to as the BLM’ s Organic Act, which provides most of the BLM’s legislated authority, direction, 

policy, and basic management guidance. 

Fire Management Category. A classification for landscape-level fire and fuels management strategies 

and options based on consideration of fire history, land status, issues, concerns, hazardous fuels, and 

other resource objectives. There are four categories, which range from Category A, where wild and 

prescribed fire are not desired due to reasons other than ecological, to Category D, where fire may be 
6. Glossary

6-6 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

desired and there are no constraints associated with the resource condition, or social, economic, or 

political considerations.

Fire Management Plan. A strategic plan that defines a program to manage wildland fire (wildfire and 

prescribed fire) and documents the fire management program in the approved land use plan; the plan is 

supplemented by operational procedures, such as preparedness plans, dispatch plans, prescribed fire 

plans, and prevention plans.

Fire Management Unit (FMU). A land management area definable by objectives, management 

constraints, topographic features, access, values to be protected, political boundaries, fuel types, and 

major fire regime groups that set it apart from the characteristics of an adjacent FMU. The FMU may 

have dominant management objectives and preselected strategies assigned to accomplish these 

objectives.

Fire Regimes. Descriptions of the patterns of fire occurrence, frequency, size, and severity in a given 

area or ecosystem. A fire regime is a generalization based on fire histories at individual sites. Fire 

regimes can often be described as cycles because some parts of the histories usually get repeated, and 

the repetitions can be counted and measured, such as fire return interval.

Fire Regime Condition Class. A classification describing the degree of departure from historical fire 

regimes, possibly resulting in alternations of key ecosystem components. These classes categorize and 

describe vegetation composition and structure conditions that currently exist inside the fire regime 

groups. The risk of loss of key ecosystem components from wildfires increases from Condition Class 1 

(lowest risk) to Condition Class 3 (highest risk). See also Condition Class.

Fire Regime Groups. A classification of fire regimes into groups based on frequency and severity.

There are five national classifications: I - frequent (0-35 years), low severity; II - frequent (0-35 years), 

stand replacement severity; III - 35-100+ years, mixed severity; IV - 35-100+ years, stand replacement 

severity; and V - 200+ years, stand replacement severity. 

Fishery. Habitat that supports the propagation and maintenance of fish. 

Forage. All browse and herbaceous foods available to grazing animals, which may be grazed or 

harvested for feeding. 

Forb. An herbaceous plant that is not a grass, sedge, or rush. 

Forest Health. The perceived condition of a forest derived from concerns about such factors as its 

age, structure, composition, function, vigor, presence, or unusual levels of insects and disease, and 

resilience to disturbance. 

Forest Health Treatments. Treatments that restore forest ecosystems or stands to a condition that 

sustains their complexity, function and productivity while providing for human needs. 

Forest Products. Vegetative resources that are not normally measured in board feet but can be sold 

or removed from public lands by means of a contract or permit.

Fossil. Mineralized or petrified form from a past geologic age, especially from previously living things. 
6. Glossary

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 6-7

Fragmentation. The splitting or isolating of patches of similar habitat. Habitat can be fragmented by 

natural events or development. 

General Habitat Management Area (GHMA). See Greater Sage-Grouse General Habitat 

Management Area.

Geographic Information System (GIS). A system of computer hardware, software, data, people 

and applications that capture, store, edit, analyze and graphically display a potentially wide array of 

geospatial information. 

Geophysical Exploration. The use of geophysical instruments and methods to determine subsurface 

conditions by analyzing such properties as specific gravity, electrical conductivity, or magnetic 

susceptibility. 

Goal. A broad statement of a desired outcome. Goals are usually not quantifiable and may not have 

established time frames for achievement. 

Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMA). Areas 

containing substantial and high quality grasslands that support large populations of a suite of special 

status grassland bird species. This includes the following species of concern: Sprague’s pipit, chestnutcollared longspur, McCown’s longspur, Baird’s sparrow, and long-billed curlew. Management actions 

would emphasize the conservation and enhancement of sustainable grassland bird habitats. Areas are 

delineated by using survey results, predictive models of species distributions, and landownership 

patterns. These areas also include core area for GRSG identified by Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks.

Sage-grouse core areas are habitats associated with Montana’s highest densities of GRSG, based on male 

counts, and GRSG lek complexes and associated habitat important to GRSG distribution.

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. The BLM’s receipt of a relinquishment is not a decision to 

close areas to livestock grazing.

Greater Sage-Grouse General Habitat Management Area (GHMA). Areas with or without 

ongoing or imminent impacts containing GRSG habitat outside of the priority areas. Management actions 

would maintain habitat for sustainable GRSG populations to promote movement and genetic diversity.

Areas are delineated based on GRSG habitat. 

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat. A specific environment, or set of environmental conditions suitable 

for occupancy by GRSG often typified by the presence of sagebrush. GRSG habitat may be further 

defined by the season of use (i.e., winter, breeding, and brood-rearing), each with its own set of different 

environmental conditions. Each planning area may further define seasonal habitat characteristics based 

on local ecological conditions. See also Greater Sage-Grouse General Habitat Management Areas, Greater 

Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Management Areas, and Greater Sage-Grouse Restoration Areas.

Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA). An area with limited 

impacts containing substantial and high quality greater GRSG habitat that supports high density GRSG
6. Glossary

6-8 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

populations. Management actions would emphasize the conservation and enhancement of sustainable 

GRSG habitat. The area is delineated by using key, core, and connectivity data/maps landownership 

patterns, and other resource information.

Greater Sage-Grouse Restoration Areas. Areas with ongoing or imminent impacts containing 

substantial and high quality GRSG habitat that historically supported sustainable GRSG populations.

Management actions would emphasize restoration for the purpose of establishing or restoring 

sustainable GRSG populations. Areas are delineated by using connectivity data/maps and other resource 

information.

Groundwater. Water contained in pore spaces of consolidated and unconsolidated surface material. 

Guidelines. Actions or management practices that may be used to achieve desired outcomes, 

sometimes expressed as best management practices. Guidelines may be identified during the land use 

planning process, but they are not considered a land use plan decision unless the plan specifies that they 

are mandatory. 

Habitat. (1) Species specific environment or environmental conditions suitable for occupancy by that 

species; (2) a particular land cover type that provides an environment or environmental conditions 

suitable for occupancy by many species.

Habitat Connectivity. Vegetative cover in sufficient quantity and arrangement to allow for the 

movement of wildlife. 

Habitat Diversity. The variation in types, sizes, and shapes of landscape elements or vegetation types. 

Impact. A modification of the existing environment caused by an action, such as construction or 

operation of facilities. 

Impacts. Environmental consequences (the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives) 

as a result of a proposed action. Impacts 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. 

Implementation Decisions. Decisions that take action to implement land use plan decisions. They 

are generally appealable to Interior Board of Land Appeals. 

Implementation Plan. A site-specific plan written to implement decisions made in a land use plan. An 

implementation plan usually selects and applies best management practices to meet land use plan 

objectives. Implementation plans include both activity plans and project plans. 

Integrated Weed Management. This is a decision support system involving deliberate selection, 

integration, and implementation of effective weed management tactics. It uses cost/benefit analysis and 

takes into consideration public interests and social, economic, and ecological impacts in the decisionmaking process. 

Invasive Plants. Plants that are invasive species. 
6. Glossary

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 6-9

Invasive Species. Organisms that have been introduced into an environment where they did not 

evolve. Executive Order 13112 focuses on organism whose presence is likely to harm the economy, the 

environment, or human health. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). Most LWCF monies comes from Outer 

Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing and are used for the purchase of land, waters, and wetlands, with an 

emphasis on special management areas. Congress allocates the money based on competing proposals 

submitted by various BLM offices.

Lease Stipulation (Oil and Gas). Conditions of lease issuance that provide protection for 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 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—Greater Sage-Grouse.

• Confirmed GRSG lek. Data supports existence of 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 the subsequent year. One of three subcategories will be 

assigned to a confirmed lek:

– Active—Default assignment unless criteria are met for “inactive” or “extirpated”

– Inactive—10 years with no sign of lek activity, supported by surveys conducted 

during three or more years over the last 10 years

– Extirpated—Habitat changes have caused birds to permanently abandon a lek (e.g., 

plowing, urban development, or overhead power line)

• Provisionally confirmed GRSG lek. Only one year of survey data is available but more 

than five males were observed

• Unconfirmed GRSG lek. Single count with no subsequent survey or a reported lek without 

supporting survey data

Lek—Sharp-tailed Grouse.

• Confirmed sharp-tailed grouse lek. Data supports existence of lek. Supporting data 

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 the subsequent year. One of three 

subcategories will be assigned a confirmed lek:

– Active—Default assignment unless criteria are met for “inactive” or “extirpated”

– Inactive—10 years with no sign of lek activity, supported by surveys conducted 

during three or more years over the last 10 years

– Extirpated—Habitat changes have caused birds to permanently abandon a lek (e.g., 

plowing, urban development, or overhead power line)
6. Glossary

6-10 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

• Unconfirmed sharp-tailed grouse lek. Single count with no subsequent survey or a 

reported lek without supporting survey data. 

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. 

Management Framework Plan. Planning decision document prepared before the effective date of 

the regulations implementing the land use planning provisions of the FLPMA, which establishes, for a 

given area of land, land use allocations, coordination guidelines for multiple use, and objectives to be 

achieved for each class of land use or protection. 

Mineral. Any solid or fluid inorganic substance that can be extracted from the earth for profit. 

Mineral Entry. The filing of a claim on public land to obtain the right to any minerals it may contain. 

Mineral Estate. The ownership of minerals, including rights necessary for access, exploration, 

development, mining, ore dressing, and transportation operations. 

Mineral Materials. Materials such as common varieties of sand, stone, gravel, pumice, pumicite, and 

clay, that are not obtainable under the mining or leasing laws but that can be acquired under the Mineral 

Materials Act of 1947, as amended. 

Mineral Withdrawal. A formal order that withholds federal lands and minerals from entry under the 

Mining Law of 1872 and closes the area to mineral location (staking mining claims) and development. 

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 and local laws and rules. A single mining claim may 

contain as many adjoining locations as the locator may make or buy. The four categories of mining 

claims are: lode, placer, mill site, and tunnel site. 

Mitigation Measures. Methods or procedures that reduce or lessen the impacts of an action.

Mitigation measures and conservation actions are best management practices, operating procedures, or 

design features that have been developed to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for 

potentially significant adverse environmental impacts associated with surface-disturbing or disruptive 

activities.

Modification. A change in a plan of operations that requires some level of review by BLM because it 

exceeds what was described in the approved plan. 

Modification (Oil and Gas). A change to the provision of a lease stipulation either temporarily or for 

the term of the lease. 

Monitoring Plan. The process of tracking the implementation of land use plan decisions and collecting 

and assessing data/information necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of land use planning decisions. 
6. Glossary

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 6-11

Motorized Travel. Moving by means of vehicles that are propelled by motors, such as cars, trucks, 

OHVs, motorcycles, boats, and aircraft (source: BLM Handbook 8342: Travel and Transportation 

Management).

Motorized Vehicles. Synonymous with off-highway vehicle (OHV). Examples of this type of vehicle are

airplanes, all-terrain vehicles, utility type vehicles, sport utility vehicles, motorcycles, and over-snow

vehicles (source: BLM Handbook H-8342-1: Travel and Transportation Management).

• All-Terrain Vehicle. A wheeled vehicle other than an over-snow vehicle, which is defined as 

having a wheelbase and chassis of 50 inches in width or less, steered with handlebars, 

generally having a dry weight of 800 pounds or less, travels on three or more low-pressure 

tires, and with a seat designed to be straddled by the operator.

• Motorcycle. Motorized vehicles with two tires and with a seat designed to be straddled by 

the operator.

• Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV). Defined in 43 CFR, Part 8340.0-5 (a), as “any motorized 

vehicle capable of, or designed for, travel on or immediately over land, water, or other 

natural terrain, excluding: 1) Any non-amphibious registered motorboat; 2) Any military, 

fire, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle while being used for emergency purposes; 3) 

Any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the authorized officer, or otherwise 

officially approved; 4) Vehicles in official use; and 5) Any combat or combat support vehicle 

when used in times of national defense emergencies.” OHVs generally include dirt 

motorcycles, dune buggies, jeeps, 4-wheel-drive vehicles, SUVs, over-snow vehicles, UTVs 

and ATVs. Airplanes are also considered OHVs because they are wheeled motorized 

vehicles that are capable of travel over land. Helicopters are not considered OHVs because 

they are not capable of travel over land.

• Over-Snow Vehicle. A motor vehicle designed for use over snow that runs on a track or 

tracks or a ski or skis. It does not include machinery used strictly for the grooming trails for 

nonmotorized travel.

• Sport Utility Vehicle. A street legal, high clearance vehicle used primarily on a highway but 

designed to be capable of off-highway travel.

• Utility Type (or Terrain) Vehicle. Any recreational motor vehicle other than an ATV, 

motorbike, or over-snow vehicle designed for and capable of travel over designated unpaved 

roads, traveling on four or more low-pressure tires, maximum width less than 74 inches, 

usually a maximum weight of less than 2,000 pounds, or having a wheelbase of 94 inches or 

less. Does not include vehicles specially designed to carry a person with disabilities.

Multiple Use. Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 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 conform 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,
6. Glossary

6-12 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

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.” (43 USC, Section 1702, 

Sec. 103[c])

National Environment Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Encourages productive and enjoyable 

harmony between humans and the environment and promotes efforts to prevent or eliminate damage to 

the environment and biosphere and stimulate human health and welfare; enriches the understanding or 

the ecological systems and natural resources important to the nation and establishes the Council on 

Environmental Quality. 

Net Conservation Gain. The actual benefit or gain above baseline conditions.

No Surface Occupancy. A fluid minerals 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. 

Noxious Weeds. A plant species designated by federal or state law as generally possessing one or 

more of the following characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage; parasitic; a carrier or host of 

serious insects or disease; nonnative, new, or not common to the United States. 

Paleontological Resources (Fossils). The physical remains of plants and animals preserved in soils 

and sedimentary rock formations. Paleontological resources are important for understanding past 

environments, environmental change, and the evolution of life. 

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. Expressed in AUMs. 

Permittee. Holder of a valid permit that authorizes certain uses of the public lands (e.g., for grazing). 

Permittee (Grazing). Holder of a valid permit that authorizes grazing use of the public lands within 

the grazing district. 

Placer. An alluvial deposit of sand and gravel containing valuable minerals such as gold. 

Potential Fossil Yield Classification. Occurrences of paleontological resources are closely tied to 

the geologic units that contain them. The probability for finding paleontological resources can be broadly 

predicted from the geologic units present at or near the surface; therefore, geologic mapping can be 

used for assessing the potential for the occurrence of paleontological resources. Using the PFYC system, 

geologic units are classified based on the relative abundance of vertebrate fossils or scientifically 

significant invertebrate or plant fossils and their sensitivity to adverse impacts, with a higher class 

number indicating a higher potential. The five classes range from Class 1 (very low) to Class 5 (very 

high).
6. Glossary

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 6-13

Prehistoric. Refers to the period wherein Native American cultural activities took place that were not

yet influenced by contact with historic nonnative cultures. 

Prescribed Fire. The planned ignition of fire in a planned area; implementation must occur under 

specified conditions to meet specific management objectives. 

Prescription Livestock Grazing (Grazing). Grazing use authorized on land designated or not 

designated for livestock grazing designed to accomplish a specific purpose; for example, authorizing 

sheep and goats to graze a piece of land as a biological control agent to treat noxious weeds.

Prescription grazing would normally be authorized on a temporary nonrenewable basis. 

Primitive and Unconfined Recreation. Nonmotorized, nonmechanized and undeveloped types of 

recreation. 

Primitive Road. A linear route managed for use by four-wheel-drive or high-clearance vehicles. These 

routes do not customarily meet any BLM road design standards.

Primitive Route. Any transportation linear feature located within a wilderness study area or lands 

with wilderness characteristics designated for protection by a land use plan and not meeting the 

wilderness inventory road definition.

Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA). See Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat 

Management Areas and Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Management Area.

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. PSQ is not a commitment to offer for sale a specific 

level of timber volume every year. 

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC). Ecosystems are in PFC when they function within their 

historic range of variability. 

Proposed Action. A project or set of activities that a federal agency intends to implement, as defined 

in NEPA regulations. 

Public Involvement. Any process designed to broaden the information base upon which agency 

decisions are made by informing the public about BLM activities, plans, and decisions to encourage public 

understanding about the participation in the planning processes which lead to final decision-making. 

Public Lands. Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, any land and interest in 

land owned by the United States within the several states and administered by the Secretary of the 

Interior through the BLM, without regard to how the United States acquired ownership (43 USC, 

Section 1702, Sec. 103[e]).

Public Land Laws. A body of laws that regulates the administration of the public lands and the 

resources thereon. 
6. Glossary

6-14 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

Public Propose. A use in which the public has an interest, affecting its safety, health, morale, and 

welfare but not including use for habitation, cultivation, trade, or manufacturing. 

Public Value. An asset held by, service performed for, or benefit accruing to the people at large. 

Rangeland. Land used for grazing by livestock and big game animals on which vegetation is dominated 

by grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or shrubs. 

Reclamation. Reclamation is the reconstruction of topographic, soil, and plant conditions after 

disturbance, which may not be identical to the predisturbance site but which permits the degraded land

mass to function adequately in the ecosystem of which it was and is a part (Munshower 1994).

Record of Decision. A document signed by a responsible official recording a decision that was 

preceded by the preparing of an environmental impact statement. 

Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act. Authorizes the sale or lease of BLM lands for 

recreation or other public purposes to state and local governments and to qualified nonprofit 

organizations. Examples of typical uses under the act are historic monument sites, campgrounds, 

schools, fire houses, law enforcement facilities, municipal facilities, landfills, hospitals, parks, and 

fairgrounds. Department of the Interior regulations for the R&PP Act are found in 43 CFR, Parts 2740 

(sales) and 2912 (leases).

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). A framework for stratifying and defining classes of 

outdoor recreation environments, activities, and experience opportunities. The settings, activities, and 

opportunities for obtaining experiences are arranged along a continuum or spectrum divided into six 

classes: primitive, semiprimitive nonmotorized, semiprimitive motorized, roaded natural, rural, and 

urban. 

Required Design Feature (RDF). Required for certain activities in all GRSG habitat. RDFs establish 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rendered inapplicable.

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

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

• A specific RDF will provide no additional protection to GRSG or its habitat.

Reserve Common Allotment. A unit of public land that will not have term grazing permits issued.

Such an allotment would only be grazed on a temporary nonrenewable basis. The use of these 
6. Glossary

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 6-15

allotments would be to provide temporary grazing to rest other areas following wildfire, habitat 

treatments, or to allow for more rapid attainment of rangeland health. The allotment must be of 

sufficient size to be managed as a discrete unit. Reserve common allotments should be distributed 

throughout the planning area. 

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. A permit or an easement that authorizes the use of public lands for certain specified 

purposes, commonly for pipelines, roads, telephone lines, electric lines, and reservoirs; also, the lands 

covered by such an easement or permit.

Right-of-Way Corridor. A parcel of land that has been identified by law or Secretarial order or

through a land use plan or other management decision as being the preferred location for existing and 

future right-of-way grants and suitable to accommodate one type of right-of-way or one or more rightsof-way that are similar, identical, or compatible.

Rights-of-Way, Major. High voltage transmission lines of 100 kilovolts or greater and pipelines 24 

inches or greater in diameter.

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 areas or washes that lack vegetation that depends on free water in the soil.

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.

Road Density. Number of miles of open road per square mile. 

Roadless. The absence of roads that have been improved and maintained by mechanical means to 

ensure relatively regular and continuous use. A way maintained solely by the passage of vehicles does 

not constitute a road. 

Sagebrush Focal Area. Areas of BLM-administered land identified by the US Fish and Wildlife Service 

as strongholds for GRSG and that have been noted and referenced by the conservation community as 

having the highest densities of GRSG and other criteria important for the persistence of GRSG.

Sage-Grouse Habitat. See Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat.

Salable Minerals. Common variety minerals on the public lands, such as sand and gravel, that are used 

mainly for construction and are disposed of by sales or special permits to local governments.

Seasonal Restriction. A fluid minerals leasing constraint that prohibits surface use during specified 

periods to protect identified resource values. The constraint does not apply to the operation and 

maintenance of production facilities unless analysis demonstrates that such constraints are needed and 

that less stringent, project-specific constraints would be insufficient.
6. Glossary

6-16 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

Section 106 Compliance. The requirement of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

that any project funded, licensed, permitted, or assisted by the federal government 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.

Sensitive Species. Species designated by the BLM State Director, usually in cooperation with the state 

agency responsible for managing the species and state natural heritage programs, as sensitive. They are 

those 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

• Are undergoing significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that 

would reduce its existing distribution

• Are undergoing significant current or predicted downward trends in population or density 

such that federal listed, proposed, candidate, or state listed status may become necessary

• 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

Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA). An identified area of BLM-administered land 

managed to provide entire recreation products (i.e., services, settings, and activity and outcome 

opportunities) in response to identifiable significant customer desires. Investments in facilities or visitor 

assistance are authorized within SRMAs.

Special Recreation Permits (SRPs). Authorizations that allow for recreation on public lands and 

related waters. They are issued as a means to control visitor use, protect recreational and natural 

resources, and provide for the health and safety of visitors. Organized groups and special area permits 

are usually issued in high use areas or where recreation use requires special BLM management.

Commercial SRPs are also issued as a mechanism to provide a fair return to the United States for the 

commercial recreational use of public lands.

Special Status Species. Proposed species, listed species, and candidate species under the Endangered 

Species Act, state-listed species, and BLM State Director-designated sensitive species. 

Species. A unit of classification of plants and animals consisting of the largest and most inclusive array 

of sexually reproducing and cross-fertilizing individuals who share a common gene pool. 

Split-Estate. A land status term that applies when the surface is patented or deeded into nonfederal 

ownership, while the federal government retains the mineral rights. Reverse split-estate applies when 

the federal government transfers both the surface and mineral estate into nonfederal ownership, but the 

surface estate is subsequently returned while the minerals, or a portion of them, are retained by the 

private landowner.
6. Glossary

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 6-17

Stipulations. Requirements that are part of the terms of a mineral lease. Some stipulations are 

standard on all federal leases. Other stipulations may be applied to the lease at the discretion of the 

surface management agency to protect valuable surface resources and uses. 

Surface-Disturbing or Disruptive Activities. For the purposes of applying mitigation measures, 

surface-disturbing and disruptive activities are defined below.

• Surface-Disturbing Activities—The physical disturbance or removal of land surface and 

vegetation. Some examples of surface-disturbing activities include construction of roads, well 

pads, pipelines, power lines, pits and reservoirs, facilities, recreation sites, and mining.

Vegetation renovation treatments that involve soil penetration or substantial mechanical 

damage to plants (plowing, chiseling, and chopping, for example) are also surface-disturbing 

activities.

• Disruptive Activities—Those resource uses and activities that are likely to alter the 

behavior of, displace, or cause excessive stress to wildlife populations occurring at a specific 

location or time. In this context, disruptive activities refer to those actions that alter 

behavior or displace wildlife such that reproductive success is negatively affected or the 

physiological ability to cope with environmental stress is compromised. This term does not 

apply to the physical disturbance of the land surface, vegetation, or features. Examples of 

disruptive activities are noise, vehicle traffic, or other human presence regardless of the 

activity. The term is used in conjunction with protecting wildlife during crucial life stages 

(e.g., breeding, nesting, and birthing), although it could apply to any resource value. This 

definition is not intended to prohibit all activities or authorized uses. For example, 

emergency activities (e.g., fire suppression and search and rescue), rangeland monitoring, 

routine maintenance associated with an approved authorization, dispersed recreation (e.g., 

hunting and hiking) and livestock grazing are not considered surface-disturbing or disruptive 

activities. 

Sustainability. The ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes and functions, biological 

diversity, and productivity over time. 

Sustained Yield. Maintenance of an annual or regular periodic output of a renewable resource from 

public land consistent with the principles of multiple use. 

Terms and Conditions. Measures contained in livestock grazing permits and leases that the BLM 

Authorized Officer determines to be appropriate to achieve management and resource condition 

objectives for the public lands and other lands administered by the BLM and to ensure conformance 

with fundamentals of rangeland health and standards and guidelines for grazing administration. 

Threatened Species. Any plant or animal species defined under the Endangered Species Act that is

likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 

range; listings are published in the Federal Register. 

Trail. Linear routes managed for human-powered, stock, or off-road vehicle forms of transportation, or 

for historical or heritage values. Trails are not generally managed for use by four-wheel drive or highclearance vehicles. 
6. Glossary

6-18 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

Transfer of Grazing Preference. The BLM’s approval of an application to transfer grazing preference 

from one party to another or from one base property to another or both. Grazing preference means a 

superior or priority position against others for the purposes of receiving a grazing permit or lease. This 

priority is attached to base property owned or controlled by the permittee or lessee.

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 networks of roads, trails,

ways, and other routes that provide for public access and travel across the planning area. All designed 

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. 

Valid Existing Right. Documented legal rights or interests in the land that allow a person or entity to 

use said land for a specific purpose and that are still in effect. Such rights include fee title ownership, 

mineral rights, rights-of-way, easements, permits, and licenses. Such rights may have been reserved, 

acquired, leased, granted, permitted, or otherwise authorized over time.

Visual Resource Management Classes. Categories assigned to public lands based on scenic quality, 

sensitivity level, and distance zones. There are four classes, each with an objective that prescribes the 

amount of change allowed in the characteristic landscape. 

WAFWA GRSG Management Zone. 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

Waiver (Oil and Gas). A permanent exemption to a lease stipulation. 

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 has the following attributes:

• Generally appears to have been affected mainly by the forces of nature, with human imprints 

substantially unnoticeable

• Has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation

• Has at least 5,000 acres or is large enough to make practical its preservation and use in an 

unimpaired condition

• May also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or 

historic value

Wilderness Characteristics. Key characteristics of a wilderness listed in section 2(c) of the 

“Wilderness Act” of 1964 and used by the BLM in its wilderness inventory. Characteristics are size, 

naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude, outstanding opportunities for primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation, and special features. 
6. Glossary

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 6-19

Wilderness Study Area. A designation made through the land use planning process of a roadless area 

found to have wilderness characteristics, as described in Section 2 (c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964.

Wildfire. An unplanned ignition of a wildland fire (such as a fire caused by lightning, volcanoes, 

unauthorized and accidental human-caused fires) and escaped prescribed fires. 

Wildland Fire. Any non-structure fire that occurs in the wildland. This term was updated in February 

of 2009 to include two (rather than three) types of wildland fire: 

• Wildfire—An unplanned ignition of a wildland fire (such as a fire caused by lightning, 

volcanoes, unauthorized and accidental human-caused fires) and escaped prescribed fires

• Prescribed Fire—A planned fire; planned ignitions

Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). The line, area, or zone where structures and other human 

development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuel. See also Rural Intermix.

Wildlife Corridor. Landscape elements that connect similar patches of habitat through an area with 

different characteristics. Wildlife corridors are also segments of land that create a link between critical 

habitats. For example, streamside vegetation may create a corridor of willows and hardwoods between 

meadows or through a forest. These linkage zones are where species migrate and intermingle, ensuring 

genetic interchange and consequently long-term survival.

Winter Range. An area where specific wildlife species (primarily deer, antelope, and elk) congregate 

during winter. These areas are often composed of topographic or vegetative features that enhance 

survival for these species when conditions such as snow accumulation and temperature place increased 

energetic demands on individual animals.

Withdrawal. Removal or withholding of public lands by statute or secretarial order, from the 

operation of some or all of the public land laws. 
6. Glossary

6-20 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

Kevin Rim, Toole County Photo by Brian Hockett
September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 7-1

CHAPTER 7

REFERENCES

APLIC (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee). 2012. Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines: The 

State of the Art in 2012. Edison Electric Institute and APLIC. Washington, DC. Internet website: 

http://www.aplic.org/uploads/files/11218/Reducing_Avian_Collisions_2012watermarkLR.pdf.

BLM. 1970a. Whitewater Lake Waterfowl Habitat Development Project Habitat Management Plan.

_____. 1970b. Milk River Hills Pronghorn Winter Range Habitat Management Plan. 

_____. 1977a. Phillips Management Framework Plan. 

_____. 1977b. Valley Management Framework Plan. 

_____. 1977c. Little Rocky Mountains Management Framework Plan. 

_____. 1977d. UL Bend/Zortman Management Framework Plan. 

_____. 1978. Prairie Pothole Waterfowl and Fisheries Habitat Management Plan of North Central 

Montana. 

_____. 1988. Final West HiLine Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. BLM 

Lewistown District.

_____. 1992. Noxious Weed Management Plan for the Lewistown District.

_____. 1994. Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan Summary, Judith-Valley-Phillips 

Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. BLM Lewistown District 

Office.

_____. 1996a. Lonesome Lake Management Area Environmental Assessment and Resource 

Management Plan Amendment. 
7. References

7-2 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

_____. 1996b. Final Sweet Grass Hills Resource Management Plan Amendment and Environmental 

Impact Statement. 

_____. 1996c. Partners Against Weeds: Final Action Plan for the Bureau of Land Management. 

_____. 1997a. Montana/Dakotas Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing

Management. 

_____. 1997b. Environmental Assessment, Decision Record, and Finding of No Significant Impact, EA 

Number: MT-001-EA97 for the Implementation of Requirements for Noxious Weed Seed-Free 

Forage on BLM-Administered Public Lands in Montana. BLM Montana State Office.

_____. 1998. State Protocol Agreement with Montana State Historic Preservation Office regarding the 

Manner in which the BLM Will Meet Its Responsibilities under the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) as Provided for in the National Programmatic Agreement (NPA).

_____. 2001a. Bitter Creek and Mountain Plover Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Plan 

Amendment and Environmental Assessment. 

_____. 2001b. Off-Highway Vehicle Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Plan Amendment 

for Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota. 

_____. 2002. Loma/Vimy Ridge Watershed Environmental Assessment and Plan Amendment. 

_____. 2003a. Fire/Fuels Management Plan Environmental Assessment/Plan Amendment for Montana 

and the Dakotas. 

_____. 2003b. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU WO-220-2003-03) with U.S. Department of 

Agriculture - Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service-Plant Protection and Quarantine 

(APHIS-PPQ) concerning Management of Grasshoppers and Mormon Crickets on Lands Subject 

to the Jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior. 

_____. 2003c. Record of Decision. Off-Highway Vehicle Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed 

Plan Amendment for Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota. 

_____. 2003d. The BLM’s Priorities for Recreation and Visitor Services, BLM Workplan Fiscal Years 

2003-2007. 

_____. 2004. National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management. Internet website: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/

fish__wildlife_and/wildlife/national_sage-grouse.html.

_____. 2005. Wind Energy Development on BLM-Administered Lands in the Western United States, 

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. 

_____. 2006a. Record of Decision for the Wind Energy Development Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement (PEIS) and Associated Land Use Plan Amendments. 
7. References

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 7-3

_____. 2006b. Final Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) for Water Management at the 

Zortman and Landusky Mines, Phillips County, Montana. Prepared for the BLM by Spectrum 

Engineering. September. Internet website: http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/fo/

lewistown_field_office/zortman.html. 

_____. 2007. Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States, Final 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. 

_____. 2011. Washington Office Instruction Memorandum No. 2011-004. Transmittal of Revised 

Recreation and Visitor Services Land Use Planning Guidance, Updated Checklist, and Three 

Land Use Planning Templates. October. 1, 2010.

_____. 2012a. Programmatic Agreement Among the Bureau of Land Management, the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers 

Regarding the Manner in which the BLM Will Meet Its Responsibilities under the National 

Historic Preservation Act. February 9, 2012.

_____. 2012b. Central Montana Fire Zone, Wildland Fire Prevention, Mitigation, and Education Plan. 

Electronic copy on file at the Lewistown Interagency Dispatch Center, Lewistown, Montana. 

_____. 2014. mtsde.SDEDATA. BLM_MT_surf_subsurf_2014. Created Hiline District Office, using 

ArcMAP 10.2, as an intersect of surface and subsurface layers with counties layer.

_____. 2015. HiLine Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

BLM HiLine District. June 2015.

_____. GIS. 2015. BLM GIS data.

BLM and USFS. 2008. Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States, Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement. 

Chambers, Jeanne C., D. A. Pyke, J. D. Maestas, M. Pellant, C. S. Boyd, S. B. Campbell, and S. Espinosa. 

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. Fort 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.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 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.
7. References

7-4 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

Doherty K. E., D. E. Naugle, H. E. Copeland, A. A. Pocewicz, and J. M. Kiesecker. 2011. “Energy 

development and conservation trade-offs: Systematic planning for greater sage-grouse in their 

eastern range.” In: “Greater sage-grouse: Ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its 

habitats” (S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly, editors). Studies in Avian Biology (vol. 38) University of 

California Press, Berkeley.

Doherty, K. E., D. E. Naugle, J. D. Tack, B. L. Walker, J. M. Graham, and J. L. Beck. 2014. “Linking 

conservation actions to demography: Grass height explains variation in greater sage-grouse nest 

survival.” Wildlife Biology 20(6):320-325.

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.

Hanna, Rebecca R. 2007. Class I Overview of the BLM Malta Resource Management Plan Area: Including 

portions of Glacier, Chouteau, Liberty, Toole, Hill, Blaine, Phillips, and Valley Counties, 

Montana. Volume 2: Paleontological Resources, Part I.

Logan, Robert. 2001. Water Quality BMPs for Montana Forests. Publication EB158, Montana State 

University Extension Service. Bozeman.

MANS (Montana Aquatic Nuisance Species). 2002. Final Management Plan. Montana Aquatic Nuisance 

Species Technical Committee.

MDA (Montana Department of Agriculture). 2003. County Weed Control Act, Title 7, Chapter 22, Part 

21, MCA.

MDEQ (Montana Department of Environmental Quality). 2012. Montana Nonpoint Source Management 

Plan. 

MFWP (Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks). 2005. Montana’s Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy. 

_____. 2006. Final Fish, Wildlife and Parks Region 6 Prairie Dog Abundance and Distribution Objectives 

Plan. Glasgow, Montana.

Munshower, Frank F. 1994. Practical Handbook of Disturbed Land Revegetation. Reclamation Research 

Unit, Montana State University, Bozeman.

MWMP (Montana Weed Management Plan). 2008. Montana Noxious Weed Summit Advisory Council 

Weed Management Task Force.

National Fire Plan. 2000. Managing the Impacts of Wildfire on Communities and the Environment: A 

Report to the President in Response to the Wildfires of 2000. September. Department of the 

Interior and USDA Forest Service. Internet website: http://www.fireplan.gov/reports/8-20-

en.pdf.

NIFC (National Interagency Fire Center). 2001. Review and Update of the 1998 Federal Wildland Fire 

Management Policy. Boise, Idaho.
7. References

September 2015 HiLine District Office Approved RMP 7-5

_____. 2008. Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and Implementation Procedures Reference Guide (IA 

RX Fire Guide). National Interagency Fire Center, Boise, Idaho. September.

NPS (US Department of the Interior, National Park Service). 1982. Lewis and Clark National Historic 

Trail Comprehensive Plan for Management and Use. 

_____. 2012. Foundation Document, Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail. 

PPJV (Prairie Pothole Joint Venture). 2005. Implementation Plan. 

Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinkes, D. E. Naugle, P. D. Makela, D. A. Nance, and J. W. Karl, editors. 2015. SageGrouse Habitat Assessment Framework: A Multiscale Assessment Tool. Technical Reference 

6710-1. Bureau of Land Management and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 

Denver, Colorado.

US Access Board. 2009. Draft Final Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas. October 19, 

2009.

USDA (US Department of Agriculture). 2005. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Montana 

Ecological Site Descriptions. Internet website: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/

mt/soils/surveys/?cid=nrcs144p2_057017.

USDI (US Department of the Interior). 1976. The Lewis and Clark Trail, a Potential Addition to the 

National Trails System. Final Environmental Statement. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. 

December 14, 1976.

USFS (US Department of Agriculture Forest Service). 1992. Old-Growth Forest Types of the Northern 

Region. 

USFS and NPS. 1982. Nez Perce (Nee-Me-Poo) Trail, A Study Report. US Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northern Region, and US Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012. Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines. Internet website: 

http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/docs/WEG_final.pdf.

_____. 2013. Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report. 

Denver, Colorado. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/greatersagegrouse/documents/COTReport-with-Dear-Interested-Reader-Letter.pdf. February 2013.

_____. 2014. Memorandum. Greater Sage-Grouse: Additional Recommendations to Refine Land Use 

Allocations in Highly Important Landscapes. Internet website: 

http://www.fws.gov/greatersagegrouse/documents/ESA%20Process/GRSG%20Strongholds%20me

mo%20to%20BLM%20and%20USFS%20102714.pdf. October 27, 2014. 
7. References

7-6 HiLine District Office Approved RMP September 2015

Dry Fork Creek, Phillips County Photo by Kathy Tribby
APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

APPROVED RMP MAPS

APPENDIX A1

APPROVED PLAN GREATER SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT MANAGEMENT MAPS














This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX A2

APPROVED PLAN MAPS
















This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX B

APPLYING LEK BUFFER DISTANCES WHEN APPROVING ACTIONS IN 

GREATER SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT MANAGEMENT AREAS

HiLine Approved Plan Appendix B

Lek Buffers B-1 September 2015

Appendix B

Applying Lek Buffer Distances when Approving Actions in Greater 

Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Areas

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 bufferdistances 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.

• The BLM may approve actions in GHMA that are within the applicable lek buffer distance identified above 

only if:

− Based on best available science, landscape features, and other existing protections, (e.g., land use 

allocations, state regulations), the BLM determines that a lek buffer-distance other than the applicable 

distance identified above offers the same or a greater level of protection to Greater Sage-Grouse and its 

habitat, including conservation of seasonal habitat outside of the analyzed buffer area; or 

− 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

− Any residual impacts within the lek buffer-distances are addressed through compensatory mitigation 

measures sufficient to ensure a net conservation gain, as outlined in the Mitigation Strategy (Appendix F).
Appendix B HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 B-2 Lek Buffers

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 Greater Sage-Grouse, or range improvements which provide a conservation 

benefit to Greater Sage-Grouse 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

REQUIRED DESIGN FEATURES FOR GREATER SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT

HiLine Approved Plan Appendix C

Required Design Features C-1 September 2015

Appendix C

Required Design Features for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Required Design Features (RDFs) are required for certain activities in all Greater Sage-Grouse (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, a state-implemented conservation measure, or a plan-level protection is determined to 

provide equal or better protection for GRSG or its habitat;

• A specific RDF 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.
Appendix C HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 C-2 Required Design Features

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.

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.
HiLine Approved Plan Appendix C

Required Design Features C-3 September 2015

• Place new utility developments (power lines, pipelines, etc.) and transportation routes in existing utility or 

transportation corridors.

• Bury distribution power lines.

• Corridor power, flow, and small pipelines under or immediately adjacent to roads.

• Design or site permanent structures which create movement (e.g., a pump jack) to minimize impacts to sagegrouse. 

• 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 MFWP and partners. Limit 

noise to less than 10 decibels above ambient measures (20-26 dBA) at sunrise at the perimeter of the lek during 

active lek season (Patricelli, et al. 2010; Blickley, et al. In preparation). 

• Require noise shields when drilling during the lek, nesting, brood-rearing, or wintering season. 

• Fit transmission towers with anti-perch devices (Lammers and Collopy 2007).

• Require sage-grouse-safe fences.

• Locate new compressor stations outside Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMA) and design them to 

reduce noise that may be directed towards PHMA.

• Clean up refuse.

• Locate man camps outside of PHMA.

Reclamation

• Include objectives for ensuring habitat restoration to meet sage-grouse habitat needs in reclamation

practices/sites (Pyke 2011). Address post-reclamation management in reclamation plan such that goals and 

objectives are to protect and improve sage-grouse habitat needs.

• Maximize the area of interim reclamation on long-term access roads and well pads including reshaping, 

topsoiling and revegetating cut and fill slopes.

• Restore disturbed areas at final reclamation to the pre-disturbance landforms and desired plant community.

• Irrigate interim reclamation if necessary for establishing seedlings more quickly.

• Utilize mulching techniques to expedite reclamation and to protect soils. 

General Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Areas (GHMA)

Make applicable BMPs mandatory as Conditions of Approval (COA) within General Habitat Management Areas 

(GHMA). BMPs are continuously improving as new science and technology become available and therefore are subject 

to change. At a minimum include the following BMPs:
Appendix C HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 C-4 Required Design Features

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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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).

• Clean up refuse.

Reclamation

• Include restoration objectives to meet sage-grouse habitat needs in reclamation practices/sites. Address postreclamation management in reclamation plan such that goals and objectives are to protect and improve sagegrouse habitat needs.

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.

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.

Gelbard, J.L., and J. Belnap. 2003. Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in a semiarid landscape. Conservation 

Biology 17:420‐432.
HiLine Approved Plan Appendix C

Required Design Features C-5 September 2015

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.

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 and Fuels

Fuels Management

1. Where applicable, design fuels treatment objective to protect existing sagebrush ecosystems, modify fire 

behavior, restore native plants, and create landscape patterns which most benefit sage‐grouse habitat.

2. Provide training to fuels treatment personnel on sage‐grouse 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 sage-grouse 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 are 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.
Appendix C HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 C-6 Required Design Features

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 aid in controlling wildfire should wildfire occur near key habitats or important 

restoration areas (such as where investments in restoration have already been made).

Fire Management

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. 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.
HiLine Approved Plan Appendix C

Required Design Features C-7 September 2015

Required Design Features for Solid Mineral Development

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 PHMA and GHMA, and to the 

extent allowable by law (i.e., to prevent unnecessary and undue degradation). 

Roads

• Design roads to an appropriate standard no higher than necessary to accommodate their intended purpose.

• Locate roads to avoid important areas and habitats.

• Coordinate road construction and use among ROW holders.

• Construct road crossing at right angles to ephemeral drainages and stream crossings.

• Establish speed limits on BLM system roads to reduce vehicle/wildlife collisions or design roads to be driven at 

slower speeds.

• Do not issue ROWs to counties on mining development roads, unless for a temporary use consistent with all 

other terms and conditions included in this document.

• Restrict vehicle traffic to only authorized users on newly constructed routes (e.g., use signing, gates, etc.).

• Use dust abatement practices on roads and pads.

• Close and reclaim duplicate roads, by restoring original landform and establishing desired vegetation.

Operations

• Cluster disturbances associated with operations and facilities as close as possible.

• Place infrastructure in already disturbed locations where the habitat has not been restored.

• Restrict the construction of tall facilities and fences to the minimum number and amount needed.

• Site and/or minimize linear ROWs to reduce disturbance to sagebrush habitats.

• Place new utility developments (power lines, pipelines, etc.) and transportation routes in existing utility or 

transportation corridors.

• Bury power lines.

• Cover (e.g., fine mesh netting or use other effective techniques) all pits and tanks regardless of size to reduce 

sage‐grouse mortality.

• Equip tanks and other above ground facilities with structures or devices that discourage nesting of raptors and 

corvids.

• Control the spread and effects of non‐native plant species (Gelbard and Belnap 2003, Bergquist et al. 2007).

• Restrict pit and impoundment construction to reduce or eliminate threats from West Nile virus (Doherty 2007).

• Remove or re‐inject produced water to reduce habitat for mosquitoes that vector West Nile virus. If surface 

disposal of produced water continues, use the following steps for reservoir design to limit favorable mosquito 

habitat:

− Overbuild size of ponds for muddy and non‐vegetated shorelines.

− Build steep shorelines to decrease vegetation and increase wave actions.

− Avoid flooding terrestrial vegetation in flat terrain or low lying areas.

− Construct dams or impoundments that restrict down slope seepage or overflow.

− Line the channel where discharge water flows into the pond with crushed rock.

− Construct spillway with steep sides and line it with crushed rock.

− Treat waters with larvicides to reduce mosquito production where water occurs on the surface.

− Require sage‐grouse‐safe fences around sumps.

• Clean up refuse (Bui, et al. 2010).

• Locate man camps outside of PHMA.

Reclamation

• Include restoration objectives to meet sage‐grouse habitat needs in reclamation practices/sites.

• Address post reclamation management in reclamation plan such that goals and objectives are to protect and 

improve sage‐grouse habitat needs.
Appendix C HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 C-8 Required Design Features

• 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.
APPENDIX D

THE GREATER SAGE-GROUSE MONITORING FRAMEWORK

THE GREATER 

SAGE-GROUSE

MONITORING

FRAMEWORK

Bureau of Land Management 

U.S. Forest Service 

Developed by 

the Interagency 

Greater 

Sage-Grouse 

Disturbance 

and Monitoring 

Subteam 

May 30, 2014 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework
 

Developed by the Interagency Greater Sage-Grouse Disturbance and Monitoring Subteam 

Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 3
 

I. Broad and Mid Scales.................................................................................................................. 7
 

A. Implementation (Decision) Monitoring ..................................................................................... 7
 

B. Habitat Monitoring..................................................................................................................... 8
 

B.1. Sagebrush Availability (Measure 1)....................................................................................... 10
 

a. Establishing the Sagebrush Base Layer .......................................................................... 11
 

b. Monitoring Sagebrush Availability ................................................................................ 19
 

B.2. Habitat Degradation Monitoring (Measure 2) ................................................................. 22
 

a. Habitat Degradation Datasets and Assumptions............................................................. 22
 

b. Habitat Degradation Threat Combination and Calculation ............................................ 26
 

B.3. Energy and Mining Density (Measure 3)......................................................................... 26
 

a. Energy and Mining Density Datasets and Assumptions................................................. 28
 

b. Energy and Mining Density Threat Combination and Calculation ................................ 28
 

C. Population (Demographics) Monitoring .................................................................................. 29
 

D. Effectiveness Monitoring......................................................................................................... 29
 

II. Fine and Site Scales................................................................................................................. 35
 

III. Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 37
 

IV. The Greater Sage-Grouse Disturbance and Monitoring Subteam Membership ...................... 37
 

Figure 1. Map of Greater Sage-Grouse range, populations, subpopulations, and Priority
 

Areas for Conservation as of 2013.................................................................................... 5
 

Table 1. Indicators for monitoring implementation of the national planning strategy, 

RMP/LUP decisions, sage-grouse habitat, and sage-grouse populations at the 

broad and mid scales......................................................................................................... 6
 

Table 2. Relationship between the 18 threats and the three habitat disturbance measures
 

for monitoring. ................................................................................................................ 9
 

Table 3. Datasets for establishing and monitoring changes in sagebrush availability.................. 13
 

Table 4. Ecological Systems in BpS and EVT capable of supporting sagebrush vegetation 

and capable of providing suitable seasonal habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse................. 13
 

Table 5. Ecological Systems with conifers most likely to encroach into sagebrush vegetation. .. 18
 

Table 6. Geospatial data sources for habitat degradation (Measure 2). ........................................ 27
 

Literature Cited .............................................................................................................................. 39
 

Attachment A: An Overview of Monitoring Commitments......................................................... 43
 

Attachment B: User and Producer Accuracies for Aggregated Ecological Systems within 

LANDFIRE Map Zones....................................................................................... 45
 

Attachment C: Sagebrush Species and Subspecies Included in the Selection Criteria for
 

Building the EVT and BpS Layers ...................................................................... 47
 

1 
2
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION
 

The purpose of this U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) 

Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework (hereafter, monitoring framework) is to describe 

the methods to monitor habitats and evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the BLM’s 

national planning strategy (attachment to BLM Instruction Memorandum 2012-044), the BLM 

resource management plans (RMPs), and the USFS’s land management plans (LMPs) to 

conserve the species and its habitat. The regulations for the BLM (43 CFR 1610.4-9) and the 

USFS (36 CFR part 209, published July 1, 2010) require that land use plans establish intervals 

and standards, as appropriate, for monitoring and evaluations based on the sensitivity of the 

resource to the decisions involved. Therefore, the BLM and the USFS will use the methods 

described herein to collect monitoring data and to evaluate implementation and effectiveness of 

the Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) (hereafter, sage-grouse) planning strategy and the conservation 

measures contained in their respective land use plans (LUPs). A monitoring plan specific to the 

Environmental Impact Statement, land use plan, or field office will be developed after the 

Record of Decision is signed. For a summary of the frequency of reporting, see Attachment A, 

An Overview of Monitoring Commitments. Adaptive management will be informed by data 

collected at any and all scales. 

To ensure that the BLM and the USFS are able to make consistent assessments about sagegrouse habitats across the range of the species, this framework lays out the methodology—at 

multiple scales—for monitoring of implementation and disturbance and for evaluating the 

effectiveness of BLM and USFS actions to conserve the species and its habitat. Monitoring 

efforts will include data for measurable quantitative indicators of sagebrush availability, 

anthropogenic disturbance levels, and sagebrush conditions. Implementation monitoring results 

will allow the BLM and the USFS to evaluate the extent that decisions from their LUPs to 

conserve sage-grouse and their habitat have been implemented. State fish and wildlife agencies 

will collect population monitoring information, which will be incorporated into effectiveness 

monitoring as it is made available. 

This multiscale monitoring approach is necessary, as sage-grouse are a landscape species and 

conservation is scale-dependent to the extent that conservation actions are implemented within 

seasonal habitats to benefit populations. The four orders of habitat selection (Johnson 1980) used 

in this monitoring framework are described by Connelly et al. (2003) and were applied 

specifically to the scales of sage-grouse habitat selection by Stiver et al. (in press) as first order 

(broad scale), second order (mid scale), third order (fine scale), and fourth order (site scale). 

Habitat selection and habitat use by sage-grouse occur at multiple scales and are driven by 

multiple environmental and behavioral factors. Managing and monitoring sage-grouse habitats 

are complicated by the differences in habitat selection across the range and habitat use by 

individual birds within a given season. Therefore, the tendency to look at a single indicator of 

habitat suitability or only one scale limits managers’ ability to identify the threats to sage-grouse 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and to respond at the appropriate scale. For descriptions of these habitat suitability indicators for 

each scale, see “Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework: Multiscale Habitat Assessment 

Tool” (HAF; Stiver et al. in press). 

Monitoring methods and indicators in this monitoring framework are derived from the current 

peer-reviewed science. Rangewide, best available datasets for broad- and mid-scale monitoring 

will be acquired. If these existing datasets are not readily available or are inadequate, but they are 

necessary to inform the indicators of sagebrush availability, anthropogenic disturbance levels, 

and sagebrush conditions, the BLM and the USFS will strive to develop datasets or obtain 

information to fill these data gaps. Datasets that are not readily available to inform the fine- and 

site-scale indicators will be developed. These data will be used to generate monitoring reports at 

the appropriate and applicable geographic scales, boundaries, and analysis units: across the range 

of sage-grouse as defined by Schroeder et al. (2004), and clipped by Western Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Management Zone (MZ) (Stiver et al. 2006) boundaries and 

other areas as appropriate for size (e.g., populations based on Connelly et al. 2004). (See Figure 

1, Map of Greater Sage-Grouse range, populations, subpopulations, and Priority Areas for 

Conservation as of 2013.) This broad- and mid-scale monitoring data and analysis will provide 

context for RMP/LMP areas; states; GRSG Priority Habitat, General Habitat, and other sagegrouse designated management areas; and Priority Areas for Conservation (PACs), as defined in 

“Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report” 

(Conservation Objectives Team [COT] 2013). Hereafter, all of these areas will be referred to as 

“sage-grouse areas.” 

4 
Figure 1. Map of Greater Sage-Grouse range, populations, subpopulations, and Priority Areas for 

Conservation as of 2013. 

5 
This monitoring framework is divided into two sections. The broad- and mid-scale methods, 

described in Section I, provide a consistent approach across the range of the species to monitor 

implementation decisions and actions, mid-scale habitat attributes (e.g., sagebrush availability 

and habitat degradation), and population changes to determine the effectiveness of the planning 

strategy and management decisions. (See Table 1, Indicators for monitoring implementation of 

the national planning strategy, RMP/LMP decisions, sage-grouse habitat, and sage-grouse 

populations at the broad and mid scales.) For sage-grouse habitat at the fine and site scales, 

described in Section II, this monitoring framework describes a consistent approach (e.g., 

indicators and methods) for monitoring sage-grouse seasonal habitats. Funding, support, and 

dedicated personnel for broad- and mid-scale monitoring will be renewed annually through the 

normal budget process. For an overview ofBLM and USFS multiscale monitoring commitments, 

see Attachment A. 

Table 1. 	 Indicators for monitoring implementation of the national planning strategy, RMP/LMP 

decisions, sage-grouse habitat, and sage-grouse populations at the broad and mid scales. 

Implementation Habitat Population 

(State Wildlife 

Agencies) 

Geographic 

Scales 

Availability 

Broad Scale: 

From the 

range of sagegrouse to 

WAFWA 

Management 

Zones 

BLM/USFS Distribution and 

National planning amount of 

strategy goal and sagebrush within 

objectives the range 

Degradation 

Distribution and 

amount of 

energy, mmmg, 

and 

infrastructure 

facilities 

Demographics 

WAFWA 

Management 

Zone 

population 

trend 

Mid Scale: RMP/LMP Mid-scale habitat 

From decisions indicators (HAF; 

WAFWA Table 2 herein, 

Management e.g., percent of 

Zone to sagebrush per 

populations; unit area) 

PACs 

Distribution and Individual 

amount of population 

energy, mmmg, trend 

and 

infrastructure 

facilities (Table 2 

herein) 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I. BROAD AND MID SCALES
 

First-order habitat selection, the broad scale, describes the physical or geographical range of a 

species. The first-order habitat of the sage-grouse is defined by populations of sage-grouse 

associated with sagebrush landscapes, based on Schroeder et al. 2004, and Connelly et al. 2004, 

and on population or habitat surveys since 2004. An intermediate scale between the broad and 

mid scales was delineated by WAFWA from floristic provinces within which similar 

environmental factors influence vegetation communities. This scale is referred to as the 

WAFWA Sage-Grouse Management Zones (MZs). Although no indicators are specific to this 

scale, these MZs are biologically meaningful as reporting units. 

Second-order habitat selection, the mid-scale, includes sage-grouse populations and PACs. The 

second order includes at least 40 discrete populations and subpopulations (Connelly et al. 2004). 

Populations range in area from 150 to 60,000 mi2 and are nested within MZs. PACs range from 

20 to 20,400 mi2 and are nested within population areas. 

Other mid-scale landscape indicators, such as patch size and number, patch connectivity, linkage 

areas, and landscape matrix and edge effects (Stiver et al. in press) will also be assessed. The 

methods used to calculate these metrics will be derived from existing literature (Knick et al. 

2011, Leu and Hanser 2011, Knick and Hanser 2011). 

A. Implementation (Decision) Monitoring 

Implementation monitoring is the process of tracking and documenting the implementation (or 

the progress toward implementation) of RMP/LMP decisions. The BLM and the USFS will 

monitor implementation of project-level and/or site-specific actions and authorizations, with 

their associated conditions of approval/stipulations for sage-grouse, spatially (as appropriate) 

within Priority Habitat, General Habitat, and other sage-grouse designated management areas, at 

a minimum, for the planning area. These actions and authorizations, as well as progress toward 

completing and implementing activity-level plans, will be monitored consistently across all 

planning units and will be reported to BLM and USFS headquarters annually, with a summary 

report every 5 years, for the planning area. A national-level GRSG Land Use Plan Decision 

Monitoring and Reporting Tool is being developed to describe how the BLM and the USFS will 

consistently and systematically monitor and report implementation-level activity plans and 

implementation actions for all plans within the range of sage-grouse. A description of this tool 

for collection and reporting of tabular and spatially explicit data will be included in the Record of 

Decision or approved plan. The BLM and the USFS will provide data that can be integrated with 

other conservation efforts conducted by state and federal partners. 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B. Habitat Monitoring 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), in its 2010 listing decision for the sage-grouse, 

identified 18 threats contributing to the destruction, modification, or curtailment of sage-grouse 

habitat or range (75 FR 13910 2010). The BLM and the USFS will, therefore, monitor the 

relative extent of these threats that remove sagebrush, both spatially and temporally, on all lands 

within an analysis area, and will report on amount, pattern, and condition at the appropriate and 

applicable geographic scales and boundaries. These 18 threats have been aggregated into three 

broad- and mid-scale measures to account for whether the threat predominantly removes 

sagebrush or degrades habitat. (See Table 2, Relationship between the 18 threats and the three 

habitat disturbance measures for monitoring.) The three measures are: 

Measure 1: Sagebrush Availability (percent of sagebrush per unit area) 

Measure 2: Habitat Degradation (percent of human activity per unit area) 

Measure 3: Energy and Mining Density (facilities and locations per unit area) 

These three habitat disturbance measures will evaluate disturbance on all lands, regardless of 

land ownership. The direct area of influence will be assessed with the goal of accounting for 

actual removal of sagebrush on which sage-grouse depend (Connelly et al. 2000) and for habitat 

degradation as a surrogate for human activity. Measure 1 (sagebrush availability) examines 

where disturbances have removed plant communities that support sagebrush (or have broadly 

removed sagebrush from the landscape). Measure 1, therefore, monitors the change in sagebrush 

availability—or, specifically, where and how much of the sagebrush community is available 

within the range of sage-grouse. The sagebrush community is defined as the ecological systems 

that have the capability of supporting sagebrush vegetation and seasonal sage-grouse habitats 

within the range of sage-grouse (see Section I.B.1., Sagebrush Availability). Measure 2 (see 

Section I.B.2., Habitat Degradation Monitoring) and Measure 3 (see Section I.B.3., Energy and 

Mining Density) focus on where habitat degradation is occurring by using the footprint/area of 

direct disturbance and the number of facilities at the mid scale to identify the relative amount of 

degradation per geographic area of interest and in areas that have the capability of supporting 

sagebrush and seasonal sage-grouse use. Measure 2 (habitat degradation) not only quantifies 

footprint/area of direct disturbance but also establishes a surrogate for those threats most likely to 

have ongoing activity. Because energy development and mining activities are typically the most 

intensive activities in sagebrush habitat, Measure 3 (the density of active energy development, 

production, and mining sites) will help identify areas of particular concern for such factors as 

noise, dust, traffic, etc. that degrade sage-grouse habitat. 

8 
 

 

Table 2. Relationship between the 18 threats and the three habitat disturbance measures for monitoring. 

Note: Data availability may preclude specific analysis of individual layers. See the detailed methodology 

for more information. 

Energy and 

Sagebrush Habitat Mining 

USFWS Listing Decision Threat Availability Degradation Density 

Agriculture X
 

Urbanization X
 

Wildfire X
 

Conifer encroachment X
 

Treatments X
 

Invasive Species X
 

Energy (oil and gas wells and development X X facilities) 

Energy (coal mines) X X
 

Energy (wind towers) X X
 

Energy (solar fields) X X
 

Energy (geothermal) X X
 

Mining (active locatable, leasable, and saleable X X developments) 

Infrastructure (roads) X
 

Infrastructure (railroads) X
 

Infrastructure (power lines) X
 

Infrastructure (communication towers) X
 

Infrastructure (other vertical structures) X
 

Other developed rights-of-way X
 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The methods to monitor disturbance found herein differ slightly from methods used in Manier et 

al. 2013, which provided a baseline environmental report (BER) of datasets of disturbance across 

jurisdictions. One difference is that, for some threats, the BER data were for federal lands only. 

In addition, threats were assessed individually, using different assumptions from those in this 

monitoring framework about how to quantify the location and magnitude of threats. The 

methodology herein builds on the BER methodology and identifies datasets and procedures to 

use the best available data across the range of the sage-grouse and to formulate a consistent 

approach to quantify impact of the threats through time. This methodology also describes an 

approach to combine the threats and calculate each of the three habitat disturbance measures. 

B.1. Sagebrush Availability (Measure 1) 

Sage-grouse populations have been found to be more resilient where a percentage of the 

landscape is maintained in sagebrush (Knick and Connelly 2011), which will be determined by 

sagebrush availability. Measure 1 has been divided into two submeasures to describe sagebrush 

availability on the landscape: 

Measure 1a: the current amount of sagebrush on the geographic area of interest, and 

Measure 1b: the amount of sagebrush on the geographic area of interest compared with 

the amount of sagebrush the landscape of interest could ecologically support. 

Measure 1a (the current amount of sagebrush on the landscape) will be calculated using this 

formula: [the existing updated sagebrush layer] divided by [the geographic area of interest]. The 

appropriate geographic areas of interest for sagebrush availability include the species’ range, 

WAFWA MZs, populations, and PACs. In some cases these sage-grouse areas will need to be 

aggregated to provide an estimate of sagebrush availability with an acceptable level of accuracy. 

Measure 1b (the amount of sagebrush for context within the geographic area of interest) will be 

calculated using this formula: [existing sagebrush divided by [pre-EuroAmerican settlement 

geographic extent of lands that could have supported sagebrush]. This measure will provide 

information to set the context for a given geographic area of interest during evaluations of 

monitoring data. The information could also be used to inform management options for 

restoration or mitigation and to inform effectiveness monitoring. 

The sagebrush base layer for Measure 1 will be based on geospatial vegetation data adjusted for 

the threats listed in Table 2. The following subsections of this monitoring framework describe 

the methodology for determining both the current availability of sagebrush on the landscape and 

the context of the amount of sagebrush on the landscape at the broad and mid scales. 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. Establishing the Sagebrush Base Layer 

The current geographic extent of sagebrush vegetation within the rangewide distribution of sagegrouse populations will be ascertained using the most recent version of the Existing Vegetation 

Type (EVT) layer in LANDFIRE (2013). LANDFIRE EVT was selected to serve as the 

sagebrush base layer for five reasons: 1) it is the only nationally consistent vegetation layer that 

has been updated multiple times since 2001; 2) the ecological systems classification within 

LANDFIRE EVT includes multiple sagebrush type classes that, when aggregated, provide a 

more accurate (compared with individual classes) and seamless sagebrush base layer across 

jurisdictional boundaries; 3) LANDFIRE performed a rigorous accuracy assessment from which 

to derive the rangewide uncertainty of the sagebrush base layer; 4) LANDFIRE is consistently 

used in several recent analyses of sagebrush habitats (Knick et al. 2011, Leu and Hanser 2011, 

Knick and Hanser 2011); and 5) LANDFIRE EVT can be compared against the geographic 

extent of lands that are believed to have had the capability of supporting sagebrush vegetation 

pre-EuroAmerican settlement [LANDFIRE Biophysical Setting (BpS)]. This fifth reason 

provides a reference point for understanding how much sagebrush currently remains in a defined 

geographic area of interest compared with how much sagebrush existed historically (Measure 

1b). Therefore, the BLM and the USFS have determined that LANDFIRE provides the best 

available data at broad and mid scales to serve as a sagebrush base layer for monitoring changes 

in the geographic extent of sagebrush. The BLM and the USFS, in addition to aggregating the 

sagebrush types into the sagebrush base layer, will aggregate the accuracy assessment reports 

from LANDFIRE to document the cumulative accuracy for the sagebrush base layer. The 

BLM—through its Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) program and, specifically, the 

BLM’s landscape monitoring framework (Taylor et al. 2014)—will provide field data to the 

LANDFIRE program to support continuous quality improvements of the LANDFIRE EVT layer. 

The sagebrush layer based on LANDFIRE EVT will allow for the mid-scale estimation of the 

existing percent of sagebrush across a variety of reporting units. This sagebrush base layer will 

be adjusted by changes in land cover and successful restoration for future calculations of 

sagebrush availability (Measures 1a and 1b). 

This layer will also be used to determine the trend in other landscape indicators, such as patch 

size and number, patch connectivity, linkage areas, and landscape matrix and edge effects (Stiver 

et al. in press). In the future, changes in sagebrush availability, generated annually, will be 

included in the sagebrush base layer. The landscape metrics will be recalculated to examine 

changes in pattern and abundance of sagebrush at the various geographic boundaries. This 

information will be included in effectiveness monitoring (See Section I.D., Effectiveness 

Monitoring). 

Within the USFS and the BLM, forest-wide and field office–wide existing vegetation 

classification mapping and inventories are available that provide a much finer level of data than 

what is provided through LANDFIRE. Where available, these finer-scale products will be useful 

for additional and complementary mid-scale indicators and local-scale analyses (see Section II, 

11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fine and Site Scales). The fact that these products are not available everywhere limits their utility 

for monitoring at the broad and mid scale, where consistency of data products is necessary across 

broader geographies. 

Data Sources for Establishing and Monitoring Sagebrush Availability 

There were three criteria for selecting the datasets for establishing and monitoring the change in 

sagebrush availability (Measure 1): 

 Nationally consistent dataset available across the range 

 Known level of confidence or accuracy in the dataset 

 Continual maintenance of dataset and known update interval 

Datasets meeting these criteria are listed in Table 3, Datasets for establishing and monitoring 

changes in sagebrush availability. 

LANDFIRE Existing Vegetation Type (EVT) Version 1.2 

LANDFIRE EVT represents existing vegetation types on the landscape derived from remote 

sensing data. Initial mapping was conducted using imagery collected in approximately 2001. 

Since the initial mapping there have been two update efforts: version 1.1 represents changes 

before 2008, and version 1.2 reflects changes on the landscape before 2010. Version 1.2 will be 

used as the starting point to develop the sagebrush base layer. 

Sage-grouse subject matter experts determined which of the ecological systems from the 

LANDFIRE EVT to use in the sagebrush base layer by identifying the ecological systems that 

have the capability of supporting sagebrush vegetation and that could provide suitable seasonal 

habitat for the sage-grouse. (See Table 4, Ecological systems in BpS and EVT capable of 

supporting sagebrush vegetation and capable of providing suitable seasonal habitat for Greater 

Sage-Grouse.) Two additional vegetation types that are not ecological systems were added to the 

EVT: Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana Shrubland Alliance and Quercus gambelii Shrubland 

Alliance. These alliances have species composition directly related to the Rocky Mountain 

Lower Montane-Foothill Shrubland ecological system and the Rocky Mountain Gambel OakMixed Montane Shrubland ecological system, both of which are ecological systems in 

LANDFIRE BpS. In LANDFIRE EVT, however, in some map zones, the Rocky Mountain 

Lower Montane-Foothill Shrubland ecological system and the Rocky Mountain Gambel OakMixed Montane Shrubland ecological system were named Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Shrubland Alliance and Quercus gambelii Shrubland Alliance, respectively. 

12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3. Datasets for establishing and monitoring changes in sagebrush availability. 

Dataset Source 

Update 

Interval 

Most Recent 

Version Year Use 

BioPhysical Setting 

v1.1 

LANDFIRE Static 2008 Denominator for 

sagebrush availability 

Existing Vegetation 

Type v1.2 

LANDFIRE Static 2010 Numerator for 

sagebrush availability 

Cropland Data Layer National 

Agricultural 

Statistics Service 

Annual 2012 Agricultural updates; 

removes existing 

sagebrush from 

numerator of 

sagebrush availability 

National Land Cover 

Dataset Percent 

Imperviousness 

Multi-Resolution 

Land 

Characteristics 

Consortium 

(MRLC) 

5-Year 2011 (next 

available in 2016) 

Urban area updates; 

removes existing 

sagebrush from 

numerator of 

sagebrush availability 

Fire Perimeters GeoMac Annual 2013 < 1,000-acre fire 

updates; removes 

existing sagebrush 

from numerator of 

sagebrush availability 

Burn Severity Monitoring 

Trends in Burn 

Severity 

Annual 2012 (2-year delay 

in data 

availability) 

> 1,000-acre fire 

updates; removes 

existing sagebrush 

from numerator of 

sagebrush availability 

except for unburned 

sagebrush islands 

Table 4. Ecological systems in BpS and EVT capable of supporting sagebrush vegetation and capable 

of providing suitable seasonal habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Ecological System Sagebrush Vegetation that the Ecological System has 

the Capability of Producing 

Colorado Plateau Mixed Low Sagebrush 

Shrubland 

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longiloba 

Artemisia bigelovii 

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia frigida 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Columbia Plateau Low Sagebrush Steppe Artemisia arbuscula 

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longiloba 

Artemisia nova 

13 
Columbia Plateau Scabland Shrubland Artemisia rigida 

Columbia Plateau Steppe and Grassland Artemisia spp. 

Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush 

Shrubland 

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longicaulis 

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longiloba 

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush 

Shrubland 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. xericensis 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush 

Steppe 

Artemisia cana ssp. cana 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. xericensis 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Artemisia tripartita ssp. tripartita 

Artemisia frigida 

Inter-Mountain Basins Curl-Leaf Mountain 

Mahogany Woodland and Shrubland 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Artemisia arbuscula 

Artemisia tridentata 

Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert 

Scrub 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Artemisia spinescens 

Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia arbuscula 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. spiciformis 

Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert ShrubSteppe Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia bigelovii 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Northwestern Great Plains Mixed Grass 

Prairie 

Artemisia cana ssp. cana 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Artemisia frigida 

Northwestern Great Plains Shrubland Artemisia cana ssp. cana 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed 

Montane Shrubland 

Artemisia tridentata 

Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill 

Shrubland 

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia frigida 

Western Great Plains Floodplain Systems Artemisia cana ssp. cana 

Western Great Plains Sand Prairie Artemisia cana ssp. cana 

Wyoming Basins Dwarf Sagebrush 

Shrubland and Steppe 

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longiloba 

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Artemisia tripartita ssp. rupicola 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Shrubland Alliance (EVT only) 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Quercus gambelii Shrubland Alliance (EVT 

only) 

Artemisia tridentata 

14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accuracy and Appropriate Use of LANDFIRE Datasets 

Because of concerns over the thematic accuracy of individual classes mapped by LANDFIRE, all 

ecological systems listed in Table 4 will be merged into one value that represents the sagebrush 

base layer. With all ecological systems aggregated, the combined accuracy of the sagebrush base 

layer (EVT) will be much greater than if all categories were treated separately. 

LANDFIRE performed the original accuracy assessment of its EVT product on a map zone 

basis. There are 20 LANDFIRE map zones that cover the historical range of sage-grouse as 

defined by Schroeder (2004). (See Attachment B, User and Producer Accuracies for Aggregated 

Ecological Systems within LANDFIRE Map Zones.) The aggregated sagebrush base layer for 

monitoring had user accuracies ranging from 57.1% to 85.7% and producer accuracies ranging 

from 56.7% to 100%. 

LANDFIRE EVT data are not designed to be used at a local level. In reports of the percent 

sagebrush statistic for the various reporting units (Measure 1a), the uncertainty of the percent 

sagebrush will increase as the size of the reporting unit gets smaller. LANDFIRE data should 

never be used at the 30m pixel level (900m2 resolution of raster data) for any reporting. The 

smallest geographic extent for using the data to determine percent sagebrush is at the PAC level; 

for the smallest PACs, the initial percent sagebrush estimate will have greater uncertainties 

compared with the much larger PACs. 

Agricultural Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer 

The dataset for the geographic extent of agricultural lands will come from the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Cropland Data Layer (CDL) 

(http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/Cropland/Release/index.htm). CDL data are generated 

annually, with estimated producer accuracies for “large area row crops ranging from the mid 

80% to mid-90%,” depending on the state 

(http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/Cropland/sarsfaqs2.htm#Section3_18.0). Specific 

information on accuracy may be found on the NASS metadata website 

(http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/Cropland/metadata/meta.htm). CDL provided the only 

dataset that matches the three criteria (nationally consistent, known level of accuracy, and 

periodically updated) for use in this monitoring framework and represents the best available 

agricultural lands mapping product. 

The CDL data contain both agricultural classes and nonagricultural classes. For this effort, and in 

the baseline environmental report (Manier et al. 2013), nonagricultural classes were removed 

from the original dataset. The excluded classes are: 

Barren (65 & 131), Deciduous Forest (141), Developed/High Intensity (124), Developed/Low 

Intensity (122), Developed/Med Intensity (123), Developed/Open Space (121), Evergreen Forest 

(142), Grassland Herbaceous (171), Herbaceous Wetlands (195), Mixed Forest (143), Open 

15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water (83 & 111), Other Hay/Non Alfalfa (37), Pasture/Hay (181), Pasture/Grass (62), Perennial 

Ice/Snow (112), Shrubland (64 & 152), Woody Wetlands (190). 

The rule set for adjusting the sagebrush base layer for agricultural lands (and for updating the 

base layer for agricultural lands in the future) is that once an area is classified as agriculture in 

any year of the CDL, those pixels will remain out of the sagebrush base layer even if a new 

version of the CDL classifies that pixel as one of the nonagricultural classes listed above. The 

assumption is that even though individual pixels may be classified as a nonagricultural class in 

any given year, the pixel has not necessarily been restored to a natural sagebrush community that 

would be included in Table 4. A further assumption is that once an area has moved into 

agricultural use, it is unlikely that the area would be restored to sagebrush. Should that occur, 

however, the method and criteria for adding pixels back into the sagebrush base layer would 

follow those found in the sagebrush restoration monitoring section of this monitoring framework 

(see Section I.B.1.b., Monitoring Sagebrush Availability). 

Urban Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer 

The National Land Cover Database (NLCD) (Fry et al. 2011) includes a percent imperviousness 

dataset that was selected as the best available dataset to be used for urban adjustments and 

monitoring. These data are generated on a 5-year cycle and are specifically designed to support 

monitoring efforts. Other datasets were evaluated and lacked the spatial specificity that was 

captured in the NLCD product. Any new impervious pixel in NLCD will be removed from the 

sagebrush base layer through the monitoring process. Although the impervious surface layer 

includes a number of impervious pixels outside of urban areas, this is acceptable for the 

adjustment and monitoring for two reasons. First, an evaluation of national urban area datasets 

did not reveal a layer that could be confidently used in conjunction with the NLCD product to 

screen impervious pixels outside of urban zones. This is because unincorporated urban areas 

were not being included, thus leaving large chunks of urban pixels unaccounted for in this rule 

set. Second, experimentation with setting a threshold on the percent imperviousness layer that 

would isolate rural features proved to be unsuccessful. No combination of values could be 

identified that would result in the consistent ability to limit impervious pixels outside urban 

areas. Therefore, to ensure consistency in the monitoring estimates, all impervious pixels will be 

used. 

Fire Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer 

Two datasets were selected for performing fire adjustments and updates: GeoMac fire 

perimeters and Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity (MTBS). An existing data standard in the 

BLM requires that all fires of more than 10 acres are to be reported to GeoMac; therefore, there 

will be many small fires of less than 10 acres that will not be accounted for in the adjustment and 

monitoring attributable to fire. Using fire perimeters from GeoMac, all sagebrush pixels falling 

16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

within the perimeter of fires less than 1,000 acres will be used to adjust and monitor the 

sagebrush base layer. 

For fires greater than 1,000 acres, MTBS was selected as a means to account for unburned 

sagebrush islands during the update process of the sagebrush base layer. The MTBS program 

(http://www.mtbs.gov) is an ongoing, multiyear project to map fire severity and fire perimeters 

consistently across the United States. One of the burn severity classes within MTBS is an 

unburned to low-severity class. This burn severity class will be used to represent unburned 

islands of sagebrush within the fire perimeter for the sagebrush base layer. Areas within the other 

severity classes within the fire perimeter will be removed from the base sagebrush layer during 

the update process. Not all wildfires, however, have the same impacts on the recovery of 

sagebrush habitat, depending largely on soil moisture and temperature regimes. For example, 

cooler, moister sagebrush habitat has a higher potential for recovery or, if needed, restoration 

than does the warmer, dryer sagebrush habitat. These cooler, moister areas will likely be detected 

as sagebrush in future updates to LANDFIRE. 

Conifer Encroachment Adjustment for the Sagebrush Base Layer 

Conifer encroachment into sagebrush vegetation reduces the spatial extent of sage-grouse habitat 

(Davies et al. 2011, Baruch-Mordo et al. 2013). Conifer species that show propensity for 

encroaching into sagebrush vegetation resulting in sage-grouse habitat loss include various 

juniper species, such as Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma), western juniper (Juniperus 

occidentalis), Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum), pinyon species, including 

singleleaf pinyon (Pinus monophylla) and pinyon pine (Pinus edulis), ponderosa pine (Pinus 

ponderosa), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) (Gruell et 

al. 1986, Grove et al. 2005, Davies et al. 2011). 

A rule set for conifer encroachment was developed to adjust the sagebrush base layer. To capture 

the geographic extent of sagebrush that is likely to experience conifer encroachment, ecological 

systems within LANDFIRE EVT version 1.2 (NatureServe 2011) were identified if they had the 

capability of supporting both the conifer species (listed above) and sagebrush vegetation. Those 

ecological systems were deemed to be the plant communities with conifers most likely to 

encroach into sagebrush vegetation. (See Table 5, Ecological systems with conifers most likely 

to encroach into sagebrush vegetation.) Sagebrush vegetation was defined as including sagebrush 

species or subspecies that provide habitat for the Greater Sage-Grouse and that are included in 

the HAF. (See Attachment C, Sagebrush Species and Subspecies Included in the Selection 

Criteria for Building the EVT and BpS Layers.) An adjacency analysis was conducted to identify 

all sagebrush pixels that were directly adjacent to these conifer ecological systems, and these 

pixels were removed from the sagebrush base layer. 

17 
Table 5. Ecological systems with conifers most likely to encroach into sagebrush vegetation. 

EVT Ecological Systems 

Coniferous Species and Sagebrush Vegetation that 

the Ecological System has the Capability of 

Producing 

Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Pinus edulis 

Juniperus osteosperma 

Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia arbuscula 

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Artemisia bigelovii 

Artemisia pygmaea 

Columbia Plateau Western Juniper Woodland and 

Savanna 

Juniperus occidentalis 

Pinus ponderosa 

Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia arbuscula 

Artemisia rigida 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

East Cascades Oak-Ponderosa Pine Forest and 

Woodland 

Pinus ponderosa 

Pseudotsuga menziesii 

Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia nova 

Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Pinus monophylla 

Juniperus osteosperma 

Artemisia arbuscula 

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Northern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Pinus ponderosa 

Woodland and Savanna Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia arbuscula 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine-Juniper 

Woodland 

Juniperus osteosperma 

Juniperus scopulorum 

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia tridentata 

Rocky Mountain Poor-Site Lodgepole Pine Forest Pinus contorta 

Pseudotsuga menziesii 

Pinus ponderosa 

Artemisia tridentata 

Southern Rocky Mountain Pinyon-Juniper 

Woodland 

Pinus edulis 

Juniperus monosperma 

Artemisia bigelovii 

Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine 

Woodland 

Pinus ponderosa 

Pseudotsuga menziesii 

18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pinus edulis 

Pinus contorta 

Juniperus spp. 

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia arbuscula 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Invasive Annual Grasses Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer 

There are no invasive species datasets from 2010 to the present (beyond the LANDFIRE data) 

that meet the three criteria (nationally consistent, known level of accuracy, and periodically 

updated) for use in the determination of the sagebrush base layer. For a description of how 

invasive species land cover will be incorporated in the sagebrush base layer in the future, see 

Section I.B.1.b., Monitoring Sagebrush Availability. 

Sagebrush Restoration Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer 

There are no datasets from 2010 to the present that could provide additions to the sagebrush base 

layer from restoration treatments that meet the three criteria (nationally consistent, known level 

of accuracy, and periodically updated); therefore, no adjustments were made to the sagebrush 

base layer calculated from the LANDFIRE EVT (version 1.2) attributable to restoration 

activities since 2010. Successful restoration treatments before 2010 are assumed to have been 

captured in the LANDFIRE refresh. 

b. Monitoring Sagebrush Availability 

Monitoring Sagebrush Availability 

Sagebrush availability will be updated annually by incorporating changes to the sagebrush base 

layer attributable to agriculture, urbanization, and wildfire. The monitoring schedule for the 

existing sagebrush base layer updates is as follows: 

2010 Existing Sagebrush Base Layer = [Sagebrush EVT] minus [2006 Imperviousness Layer] 

minus [2009 and 2010 CDL] minus [2009/10 GeoMac Fires that are less than 1,000 acres] minus 

[2009/10 MTBS Fires that are greater than 1,000 acres, excluding unburned sagebrush islands 

within the perimeter] minus [Conifer Encroachment Layer] 

2012 Existing Sagebrush Update = [2010 Existing Sagebrush Base Layer] minus [2011 

Imperviousness Layer] minus [2011 and 2012 CDL] minus [2011/12 GeoMac Fires < 1,000 

acres] minus [2011/12 MTBS Fires that are greater than 1,000 acres, excluding unburned 

sagebrush islands within the perimeter] 

Monitoring Existing Sagebrush post 2012 = [Previous Existing Sagebrush Update Layer] minus 

[Imperviousness Layer (if new data are available)] minus [Next 2 years of CDL] minus [Next 2 

years of GeoMac Fires < 1,000 acres] minus [Next 2 years of MTBS Fires that are greater than 

19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1,000 acres, excluding unburned sagebrush islands within the perimeter] plus 

[restoration/monitoring data provided by the field]
 

Monitoring Sagebrush Restoration 

Restoration after fire, after agricultural conversion, after seedings of introduced grasses, or after 

treatments of pinyon pine and/or juniper are examples of updates to the sagebrush base layer that 

can add sagebrush vegetation back into sagebrush availability in the landscape. When restoration 

has been determined to be successful through rangewide, consistent, interagency fine- and sitescale monitoring, the polygonal data will be used to add sagebrush pixels back into the broadand mid-scale sagebrush base layer. 

Measure 1b: Context for Monitoring the Amount of Sagebrush in a Geographic Area of 

Interest 

Measure 1b describes the amount of sagebrush on the landscape of interest compared with the 

amount of sagebrush the landscape of interest could ecologically support. Areas with the 

potential to support sagebrush were derived from the BpS data layer that describes sagebrush 

pre-EuroAmerican settlement (v1.2 of LANDFIRE). 

The identification and spatial locations of natural plant communities (vegetation) that are 

believed to have existed on the landscape (BpS) were constructed based on an approximation of 

the historical (pre-EuroAmerican settlement) disturbance regime and how the historical 

disturbance regime operated on the current biophysical environment. BpS is composed of map 

units that are based on NatureServe (2011) terrestrial ecological systems classification. 

The ecological systems within BpS used for this monitoring framework are those ecological 

systems that are capable of supporting sagebrush vegetation and of providing seasonal habitat for 

sage-grouse (Table 4). Ecological systems selected included sagebrush species or subspecies that 

are included in the HAF and listed in Attachment C. 

The BpS layer does not have an associated accuracy assessment, given the lack of any reference 

data. Visual inspection of the BpS data, however, reveals inconsistencies in the labeling of pixels 

among LANDFIRE map zones. The reason for these inconsistencies is that the rule sets used to 

map a given ecological system will vary among map zones based on different physical, 

biological, disturbance, and atmospheric regimes of the region. These variances can result in 

artificial edges in the map. Metrics will be calculated, however, at broad spatial scales using BpS 

potential vegetation type, not small groupings or individual pixels. Therefore, the magnitude of 

these observable errors in the BpS layer will be minor compared with the size of the reporting 

units. Since BpS will be used to identify broad landscape patterns of dominant vegetation, these 

inconsistencies will have only a minor impact on the percent sagebrush availability calculation. 

As with the LANDFIRE EVT, LANDFIRE BpS data are not designed to be used at a local level. 

LANDFIRE data should never be used at the 30m pixel level for reporting. 

20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In conclusion, sagebrush availability data will be used to inform effectiveness monitoring and 

initiate adaptive management actions as necessary. The 2010 estimate of sagebrush availability 

will serve as the base year, and an updated estimate for 2012 will be reported in 2014 after all 

datasets become available. The 2012 estimate will capture changes attributable to wildfire, 

agriculture, and urban development. Subsequent updates will always include new fire and 

agricultural data and new urban data when available. Restoration data that meet the criteria for 

adding sagebrush areas back into the sagebrush base layer will be factored in as data allow. 

Given data availability, there will be a 2-year lag (approximately) between when the estimate is 

generated and when the data used for the estimate become available (e.g., the 2014 sagebrush 

availability will be included in the 2016 estimate). 

Future Plans 

Geospatial data used to generate the sagebrush base layer will be available through the BLM’s 

EGIS web portal and geospatial gateway or through the authoritative data source. Legacy 

datasets will be preserved so that trends may be calculated. Additionally, accuracy assessment 

data for all source datasets will be provided on the portal either spatially, where applicable, or 

through the metadata. Accuracy assessment information was deemed vital to help users 

understand the limitation of the sagebrush estimates; it will be summarized spatially by map zone 

and will be included in the portal. 

LANDFIRE plans to begin a remapping effort in 2015. This remapping has the potential to 

improve the overall quality of data products greatly, primarily through the use of higher-quality 

remote sensing datasets. Additionally, the BLM and the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics 

Consortium (MRLC) are working to improve the accuracy of vegetation map products for broadand mid-scale analyses through the Grass/Shrub mapping effort. The Grass/Shrub mapping effort 

applies the Wyoming multiscale sagebrush habitat methodology (Homer et al. 2009) to depict 

spatially the fractional percent cover estimates for five components rangewide and West-wide. 

These five components are percent cover of sagebrush vegetation, percent bare ground, percent 

herbaceous vegetation (grass and forbs combined), annual vegetation, and percent shrubs. A 

benefit of the design of these fractional cover maps is that they facilitate monitoring “within” 

class variation (e.g., examination of declining trend in sagebrush cover for individual pixels). 

This “within” class variation can serve as one indicator of sagebrush quality that cannot be 

derived from LANDFIRE’s EVT information. The Grass/Shrub mapping effort is not a substitute 

for fine-scale monitoring but will leverage fine-scale data to support the validation of the 

mapping products. An evaluation will be conducted to determine if either dataset is of great 

enough quality to warrant replacing the existing sagebrush layers. At the earliest, this evaluation 

will occur in 2018 or 2019, depending on data availability. 

21 
 

 

 

B.2. Habitat Degradation Monitoring (Measure 2) 

The measure of habitat degradation will be calculated by combining the footprints of threats 

identified in Table 2. The footprint is defined as the direct area of influence of “active” energy 

and infrastructure; it is used as a surrogate for human activity. Although these analyses will try to 

summarize results at the aforementioned meaningful geographic areas of interest, some may be 

too small to report the metrics appropriately and may be combined (smaller populations, PACs 

within a population, etc.). Data sources for each threat are found in Table 6, Geospatial data 

sources for habitat degradation. Specific assumptions (inclusion criteria for data, width/area 

assumptions for point and line features, etc.) and methodology for each threat, and the combined 

measure, are detailed below. All datasets will be updated annually to monitor broad- and midscale year-to-year changes and to calculate trends in habitat degradation to inform adaptive 

management. A 5-year summary report will be provided to the USFWS. 

a. Habitat Degradation Datasets and Assumptions 

Energy (oil and gas wells and development facilities) 

This dataset will compile information from three oil and gas databases: the proprietary IHS 

Enerdeq database, the BLM Automated Fluid Minerals Support System (AFMSS) database, and 

the proprietary Platts (a McGraw-Hill Financial Company) GIS Custom Data (hereafter, Platts) 

database of power plants. Point data from wells active within the last 10 years from IHS and 

producing wells from AFMSS will be considered as a 5-acre (2.0ha) direct area of influence 

centered on the well point, as recommended by the BLM WO-300 (Minerals and Realty 

Management). Plugged and abandoned wells will be removed if the date of well abandonment 

was before the first day of the reporting year (i.e., for the 2015 reporting year, a well must have 

been plugged and abandoned by 12/31/2014 to be removed). Platts oil and gas power plants data 

(subset to operational power plants) will also be included as a 5-acre (2.0ha) direct area of 

influence. 

Additional Measure: Reclaimed Energy-related Degradation. This dataset will include 

those wells that have been plugged and abandoned. This measure thereby attempts to 

measure energy-related degradation that has been reclaimed but not necessarily fully 

restored to sage-grouse habitat. This measure will establish a baseline by using wells that 

have been plugged and abandoned within the last 10 years from the IHS and AFMSS 

datasets. Time lags for lek attendance in response to infrastructure have been documented 

to be delayed 2–10 years from energy development activities (Harju et al. 2010). 

Reclamation actions may require 2 or more years from the Final Abandonment Notice. 

Sagebrush seedling establishment may take 6 or more years from the point of seeding, 

depending on such variables as annual precipitation, annual temperature, and soil type and 

depth (Pyke 2011). This 10-year period is conservative and assumes some level of habitat 

improvement 10 years after plugging. Research by Hemstrom et al. (2002), however, 

22 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

proposes an even longer period—more than 100 years—for recovery of sagebrush habitats, 

even with active restoration approaches. Direct area of influence will be considered 3 acres 

(1.2ha) (J. Perry, personal communication, February 12, 2014). This additional 

layer/measure could be used at the broad and mid scale to identify areas where sagebrush 

habitat and/or potential sagebrush habitat is likely still degraded. This layer/measure could 

also be used where further investigation at the fine or site scale would be warranted to: 1) 

quantify the level of reclamation already conducted, and 2) evaluate the amount of 

restoration still required for sagebrush habitat recovery. At a particular level (e.g., 

population, PACs), these areas and the reclamation efforts/success could be used to inform 

reclamation standards associated with future developments. Once these areas have 

transitioned from reclamation standards to meeting restoration standards, they can be 

added back into the sagebrush availability layer using the same methodology as described 

for adding restoration treatment areas lost to wildfire and agriculture conversion (see 

Monitoring Sagebrush Restoration in Section I.B.1.b., Monitoring Sagebrush Availability). 

This dataset will be updated annually from the IHS dataset. 

Energy (coal mines) 

Currently, there is no comprehensive dataset available that identifies the footprint of active coal 

mining across all jurisdictions. Therefore, point and polygon datasets will be used each year to 

identify coal mining locations. Data sources will be identified and evaluated annually and will 

include at a minimum: BLM coal lease polygons, U.S. Energy Information Administration mine 

occurrence points, U.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement coal mining 

permit polygons (as available), and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Mineral Resources Data 

System mine occurrence points. These data will inform where active coal mining may be 

occurring. Additionally, coal power plant data from Platts power plants database (subset to 

operational power plants) will be included. Aerial imagery will then be used to digitize manually 

the active coal mining and coal power plants surface disturbance in or near these known 

occurrence areas. While the date of aerial imagery varies by scale, the most current data 

available from Esri and/or Google will be used to locate (generally at 1:50,000 and below) and 

digitize (generally at 1:10,000 and below) active coal mine and power plant direct area of 

influence. Coal mine location data source and imagery date will be documented for each 

digitized coal polygon at the time of creation. Subsurface facility locations (polygon or point 

location as available) will also be collected if available, included in density calculations, and 

added to the active surface activity layer as appropriate (if an actual direct area of influence can 

be located). 

Energy (wind energy facilities) 

This dataset will be a subset of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Digital Obstacles 

point file. Points where “Type_” = “WINDMILL” will be included. Direct area of influence of 

these point features will be measured by converting to a polygon dataset as a direct area of 

23 
 

 

 

influence of 3 acres (1.2ha) centered on each tower point. See the BLM’s “Wind Energy 

Development Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement” (BLM 2005). Additionally, Platts 

power plants database will be used for transformer stations associated with wind energy sites 

(subset to operational power plants), also with a 3-acre (1.2ha) direct area of influence. 

Energy (solar energy facilities) 

This dataset will include solar plants as compiled with the Platts power plants database (subset to 

operational power plants). This database includes an attribute that indicates the operational 

capacity of each solar power plant. Total capacity at the power plant was based on ratings of the 

in-service unit(s), in megawatts. Direct area of influence polygons will be centered over each 

point feature representing 7.3ac (3.0ha) per megawatt of the stated operational capacity, per the 

report of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), “Land-Use Requirements for 

Solar Power Plants in the United States” (Ong et al. 2013). 

Energy (geothermal energy facilities) 

This dataset will include geothermal wells in existence or under construction as compiled with 

the IHS wells database and power plants as compiled with the Platts database (subset to 

operational power plants). Direct area of influence of these point features will be measured by 

converting to a polygon dataset of 3 acres (1.2ha) centered on each well or power plant point. 

Mining (active developments; locatable, leasable, saleable) 

This dataset will include active locatable mining locations as compiled with the proprietary 

InfoMine database. Aerial imagery will then be used to digitize manually the active mining 

surface disturbance in or near these known occurrence areas. While the date of aerial imagery 

varies by scale, the most current data available from Esri and/or Google will be used to locate 

(generally at 1:50,000 and below) and digitize (generally at 1:10,000 and below) active mine 

direct area of influence. Mine location data source and imagery date will be documented for each 

digitized polygon at the time of creation. Currently, there are no known compressive databases 

available for leasable or saleable mining sites beyond coal mines. Other data sources will be 

evaluated and used as they are identified or as they become available. Point data may be 

converted to polygons to represent direct area of influence unless actual surface disturbance is 

available. 

Infrastructure (roads) 

This dataset will be compiled from the proprietary Esri StreetMap Premium for ArcGIS. Dataset 

features that will be used are: Interstate Highways, Major Roads, and Surface Streets to capture 

most paved and “crowned and ditched” roads while not including “two-track” and 4-wheel-drive 

routes. These minor roads, while not included in the broad- and mid-scale monitoring, may 

support a volume of traffic that can have deleterious effects on sage-grouse leks. It may be 

24 
 

 

 

appropriate to consider the frequency and type of use of roads in a NEPA analysis for a proposed 

project. This fine- and site-scale analysis will require more site-specific data than is identified in 

this monitoring framework. The direct area of influence for roads will be represented by 240.2ft, 

84.0ft, and 40.7ft (73.2m, 25.6m, and 12.4m) total widths centered on the line feature for 

Interstate Highways, Major Roads, and Surface Streets, respectively (Knick et al. 2011). The 

most current dataset will be used for each monitoring update. Note: This is a related but 

different dataset than what was used in BER (Manier et al. 2013). Individual BLM/USFS 

planning units may use different road layers for fine- and site-scale monitoring. 

Infrastructure (railroads) 

This dataset will be a compilation from the Federal Railroad Administration Rail Lines of the 

USA dataset. Non-abandoned rail lines will be used; abandoned rail lines will not be used. The 

direct are of influence for railroads will be represented by a 30.8ft (9.4m) total width (Knick et 

al. 2011) centered on the non-abandoned railroad line feature. 

Infrastructure (power lines) 

This line dataset will be derived from the proprietary Platts transmission lines database. Linear 

features in the dataset attributed as “buried” will be removed from the disturbance calculation. 

Only “In Service” lines will be used; “Proposed” lines will not be used. Direct area of influence 

will be determined by the kV designation: 1–199 kV (100ft/30.5m), 200–399 kV (150ft/45.7m), 

400–699 kV (200ft/61.0m), and 700-or greater kV (250ft/76.2m) based on average right-of-way 

and structure widths, according to BLM WO-300 (Minerals and Realty Management). 

Infrastructure (communication towers) 

This point dataset will be compiled from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 

communication towers point file; all duplicate points will be removed. It will be converted to a 

polygon dataset by using a direct area of influence of 2.5 acres (1.0ha) centered on each 

communication tower point (Knick et al. 2011). 

Infrastructure (other vertical structures) 

This point dataset will be compiled from the FAA’s Digital Obstacles point file. Points where 

“Type_” = “WINDMILL” will be removed. Duplicate points from the FCC communication 

towers point file will be removed. Remaining features will be converted to a polygon dataset 

using a direct area of influence of 2.5 acres (1.0ha) centered on each vertical structure point 

(Knick et al. 2011). 

Other Developed Rights-of-Way 

Currently, no additional data sources for other rights-of-way have been identified; roads, power 

lines, railroads, pipelines, and other known linear features are represented in the categories 

25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

described above. The newly purchased IHS data do contain pipeline information; however, this 

database does not currently distinguish between above-ground and underground pipelines. If 

additional features representing human activities are identified, they will be added to monitoring 

reports using similar assumptions to those used with the threats described above. 

b. Habitat Degradation Threat Combination and Calculation 

The threats targeted for measuring human activity (Table 2) will be converted to direct area of 

influence polygons as described for each threat above. These threat polygon layers will be 

combined and features dissolved to create one overall polygon layer representing footprints of 

active human activity in the range of sage-grouse. Individual datasets, however, will be 

preserved to indicate which types of threats may be contributing to overall habitat degradation. 

This measure has been divided into three submeasures to describe habitat degradation on the 

landscape. Percentages will be calculated as follows: 

Measure 2a. Footprint by geographic area of interest: Divide area of the active/direct 

footprint by the total area of the geographic area of interest (% disturbance in geographic 

area of interest). 

Measure 2b. Active/direct footprint by historical sagebrush potential: Divide area of the 

active footprint that coincides with areas with historical sagebrush potential (BpS 

calculation from habitat availability) within a given geographic area of interest by the 

total area with sagebrush potential within the geographic area of interest (% disturbance 

on potential historical sagebrush in geographic area of interest). 

Measure 2c. Active/direct footprint by current sagebrush: Divide area of the active 

footprint that coincides with areas of existing sagebrush (EVT calculation from habitat 

availability) within a given geographic area of interest by the total area that is current 

sagebrush within the geographic area of interest (% disturbance on current sagebrush in 

geographic area of interest). 

B.3. Energy and Mining Density (Measure 3) 

The measure of density of energy and mining will be calculated by combining the locations of 

energy and mining threats identified in Table 2. This measure will provide an estimate of the 

intensity of human activity or the intensity of habitat degradation. The number of energy 

facilities and mining locations will be summed and divided by the area of meaningful geographic 

areas of interest to calculate density of these activities. Data sources for each threat are found in 

Table 6. Specific assumptions (inclusion criteria for data, width/area assumptions for point and 

line features, etc.) and methodology for each threat, and the combined measure, are detailed 

26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

below. All datasets will be updated annually to monitor broad- and mid-scale year-to-year 

changes and 5-year (or longer) trends in habitat degradation. 

Table 6. Geospatial data sources for habitat degradation (Measure 2). 

Direct Area of Area 

Degradation Type Subcategory Data Source Influence Source 

Energy (oil & gas) Wells IHS; BLM (AFMSS) 5.0ac (2.0ha) BLM WO300 

Power Plants Platts (power plants) 5.0ac (2.0ha) BLM WO300 

Energy (coal) Mines BLM; USFS; Office of Surface Polygon area Esri/ 

Mining Reclamation and (digitized) Google 

Enforcement; USGS Mineral Imagery 

Resources Data System 

Power Plants Platts (power plants) Polygon area Esri Imagery 

(digitized) 

Energy (wind) Wind Turbines Federal Aviation 3.0ac (1.2ha) BLM WOAdministration 300 

Power Plants Platts (power plants) 3.0ac (1.2ha) BLM WO300 

Energy (solar) Fields/Power Platts (power plants) 7.3ac NREL 

Plants (3.0ha)/MW 

Energy Wells IHS 3.0ac (1.2ha) BLM WO-

(geothermal) 300 

Power Plants Platts (power plants) Polygon area Esri Imagery 

(digitized) 

Mining Locatable InfoMine Polygon area Esri Imagery 

Developments (digitized) 

Infrastructure Surface Streets Esri StreetMap Premium 40.7ft (12.4m) USGS 

(roads) (Minor Roads) 

Major Roads Esri StreetMap Premium 84.0ft (25.6m) USGS 

Interstate Esri StreetMap Premium 240.2ft USGS 

Highways (73.2m) 

Infrastructure Active Lines Federal Railroad 30.8ft (9.4m) USGS 

(railroads) Administration 

Infrastructure 1-199kV Lines Platts (transmission lines) 100ft (30.5m) BLM WO-

(power lines) 300 

200-399 kV Lines Platts (transmission lines) 150ft (45.7m) BLM WO300 

400-699kV Lines Platts (transmission lines) 200ft (61.0m) BLM WO300 

700+kV Lines Platts (transmission lines) 250ft (76.2m) BLM WO300 

Infrastructure Towers Federal Communications 2.5ac (1.0ha) BLM WO-

(communication) Commission 300 

27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a.	 Energy and Mining Density Datasets and Assumptions 

Energy (oil and gas wells and development facilities) 

(See Section I.B.2., Habitat Degradation Monitoring.) 

Energy (coal mines) 

(See Section I.B.2., Habitat Degradation Monitoring.) 

Energy (wind energy facilities) 

(See Section I.B.2., Habitat Degradation Monitoring.) 

Energy (solar energy facilities) 

(See Section I.B.2., Habitat Degradation Monitoring.) 

Energy (geothermal energy facilities) 

(See Section I.B.2., Habitat Degradation Monitoring.) 

Mining (active developments; locatable, leasable, saleable) 

(See Section I.B.2., Habitat Degradation Monitoring.) 

b.	 Energy and Mining Density Threat Combination and Calculation 

Datasets for energy and mining will be collected in two primary forms: point locations (e.g., 

wells) and polygon areas (e.g., surface coal mining). The following rule set will be used to 

calculate density for meaningful geographic areas of interest including standard grids and per 

polygon: 

1)	 Point locations will be preserved; no additional points will be removed beyond the 

methodology described above. Energy facilities in close proximity (an oil well close 

to a wind tower) will be retained. 

2)	 Polygons will not be merged, or features further dissolved. Thus, overlapping 

facilities will be retained, such that each individual threat will be a separate polygon 

data input for the density calculation. 

3)	 The analysis unit (polygon or 640-acre section in a grid) will be the basis for counting 

the number of mining or energy facilities per unit area. Within the analysis unit, all 

point features will be summed, and any individual polygons will be counted as one 

(e.g., a coal mine will be counted as one facility within population). Where polygon 

features overlap multiple units (polygons or pixels), the facility will be counted as one 

in each unit where the polygon occurs (e.g., a polygon crossing multiple 640-acre 

28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sections would be counted as one in each 640-acre section for a density per 640-acresection calculation). 

4)	 In methodologies with different-sized units (e.g., MZs, populations, etc.) raw facility 

counts will be converted to densities by dividing the raw facility counts by the total 

area of the unit. Typically this will be measured as facilities per 640 acres. 

5)	 For uniform grids, raw facility counts will be reported. Typically this number will 

also be converted to facilities per 640 acres. 

6)	 Reporting may include summaries beyond the simple ones above. Zonal statistics 

may be used to smooth smaller grids to help display and convey information about 

areas within meaningful geographic areas of interest that have high levels of energy 

and/or mining activity. 

7)	 Additional statistics for each defined unit may also include adjusting the area to 

include only the area with the historical potential for sagebrush (BpS) or areas 

currently sagebrush (EVT). 

Individual datasets and threat combination datasets for habitat degradation will be available 

through the BLM’s EGIS web portal and geospatial gateway. Legacy datasets will be preserved 

so that trends may be calculated. 

C.	 Population (Demographics) Monitoring 

State wildlife management agencies are responsible for monitoring sage-grouse populations 

within their respective states. WAFWA will coordinate this collection of annual population data 

by state agencies. These data will be made available to the BLM according to the terms of the 

forthcoming Greater Sage-Grouse Population Monitoring Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) (2014) between WAFWA and the BLM. The MOU outlines a process, timeline, and 

responsibilities for regular data sharing of sage-grouse population and/or habitat information for 

the purposes of implementing sage-grouse LUPs/amendments and subsequent effectiveness 

monitoring. Population areas were refined from the “Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report” (COT 2013) by individual state wildlife 

agencies to create a consistent naming nomenclature for future data analyses. These population 

data will be used for analysis at the applicable scale to supplement habitat effectiveness 

monitoring of management actions and to inform the adaptive management responses. 

D.	 Effectiveness Monitoring 

Effectiveness monitoring will provide the data needed to evaluate BLM and USFS actions 

toward reaching the objective of the national planning strategy (BLM IM 2012-044)—to 

conserve sage-grouse populations and their habitat—and the objectives for the land use planning 

29 
 

 

 

area. Effectiveness monitoring methods described here will encompass multiple larger scales, 

from areas as large as the WAFWA MZ to the scale of this LUP. Effectiveness data used for 

these larger-scale evaluations will include all lands in the area of interest, regardless of surface 

ownership/management, and will help inform where finer-scale evaluations are needed, such as 

population areas smaller than an LUP or PACs within an LUP (described in Section II, Fine and 

Site Scales). Data will also include the trend of disturbance within these areas of interest to 

inform the need to initiate adaptive management responses as described in the land use plan. 

Effectiveness monitoring reported for these larger areas provides the context to conduct 

effectiveness monitoring at finer scales. This approach also helps focus scarce resources to areas 

experiencing habitat loss, degradation, or population declines, without excluding the possibility 

of concurrent, finer-scale evaluations as needed where habitat or population anomalies have been 

identified through some other means. 

To determine the effectiveness of the sage-grouse national planning strategy, the BLM and the 

USFS will evaluate the answers to the following questions and prepare a broad- and mid-scale 

effectiveness report: 

1)	 Sagebrush Availability and Condition: 

a.	 What is the amount of sagebrush availability and the change in the amount 

and condition of sagebrush? 

b.	 What is the existing amount of sagebrush on the landscape and the change in 

the amount relative to the pre-EuroAmerican historical distribution of 

sagebrush (BpS)? 

c.	 What is the trend and condition of the indicators describing sagebrush 

characteristics important to sage-grouse?
 

2) Habitat Degradation and Intensity of Activities:
 

a.	 What is the amount of habitat degradation and the change in that amount? 

b.	 What is the intensity of activities and the change in the intensity? 

c.	 What is the amount of reclaimed energy-related degradation and the change in 

the amount? 

3) What is the population estimation of sage-grouse and the change in the population 

estimation? 

4) How are the BLM and the USFS contributing to changes in the amount of sagebrush? 

5) How are the BLM and the USFS contributing to disturbance? 

The compilation of broad- and mid-scale data (and population trends as available) into an 

effectiveness monitoring report will occur on a 5-year reporting schedule (see Attachment A), 

which may be accelerated to respond to critical emerging issues (in consultation with the 

USFWS and state wildlife agencies). In addition, effectiveness monitoring results will be used to 

identify emerging issues and research needs and inform the BLM and the USFS adaptive 

30 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

management strategy (see the adaptive management section of this Environmental Impact 

Statement). 

To determine the effectiveness of the sage-grouse objectives of the land use plan, the BLM and 

the USFS will evaluate the answers to the following questions and prepare a plan effectiveness 

report: 

1) Is this plan meeting the sage-grouse habitat objectives? 

2) Are sage-grouse areas within the LUP meeting, or making progress toward meeting, land 

health standards, including the Special Status Species/wildlife habitat standard? 

3) Is the plan meeting the disturbance objective(s) within sage-grouse areas? 

4) Are the sage-grouse populations within this plan boundary and within the sage-grouse 

areas increasing, stable, or declining? 

The effectiveness monitoring report for this LUP will occur on a 5-year reporting schedule (see 

Attachment A) or more often if habitat or population anomalies indicate the need for an 

evaluation to facilitate adaptive management or respond to critical emerging issues. Data will be 

made available through the BLM’s EGIS web portal and the geospatial gateway. 

Methods 

At the broad and mid scales (PACs and above) the BLM and the USFS will summarize the 

vegetation, disturbance, and (when available) population data. Although the analysis will try to 

summarize results for PACs within each sage-grouse population, some populations may be too 

small to report the metrics appropriately and may need to be combined to provide an estimate 

with an acceptable level of accuracy. Otherwise, they will be flagged for more intensive 

monitoring by the appropriate landowner or agency. The BLM and the USFS will then analyze 

monitoring data to detect the trend in the amount of sagebrush; the condition of the vegetation in 

the sage-grouse areas (MacKinnon et al. 2011); the trend in the amount of disturbance; the 

change in disturbed areas owing to successful restoration; and the amount of new disturbance the 

BLM and/or the USFS has permitted. These data could be supplemented with population data 

(when available) to inform an understanding of the correlation between habitat and PACs within 

a population. This overall effectiveness evaluation must consider the lag effect response of 

populations to habitat changes (Garton et al. 2011). 

Calculating Question 1, National Planning Strategy Effectiveness: The amount of sagebrush 

available in the large area of interest will use the information from Measure 1a (I.B.1., Sagebrush 

Availability) and calculate the change from the 2012 baseline to the end date of the reporting 

period. To calculate the change in the amount of sagebrush on the landscape to compare with the 

historical areas with potential to support sagebrush, the information from Measure 1b (I.B.1., 

Sagebrush Availability) will be used. To calculate the trend in the condition of sagebrush at the 

mid scale, three sources of data will be used: the BLM’s Grass/Shrub mapping effort (Future 

Plans in Section I.B.1., Sagebrush Availability); the results from the calculation of the landscape 

31 
 

 

 

 

 

 

indicators, such as patch size (described below); and the BLM’s Landscape Monitoring 

Framework (LMF) and sage-grouse intensification effort (also described below). The LMF and 

sage-grouse intensification effort data are collected in a statistical sampling framework that 

allows calculation of indicator values at multiple scales. 

Beyond the importance of sagebrush availability to sage-grouse, the mix of sagebrush patches on 

the landscape at the broad and mid scale provides the life requisite of space for sage-grouse 

dispersal needs (see the HAF). The configuration of sagebrush habitat patches and the land cover 

or land use between the habitat patches at the broad and mid scales also defines suitability. There 

are three significant habitat indicators that influence habitat use, dispersal, and movement across 

populations: the size and number of habitat patches, the connectivity of habitat patches (linkage 

areas), and habitat fragmentation (scope of unsuitable and non-habitats between habitat patches). 

The most appropriate commercial software to measure patch dynamics, connectivity, and 

fragmentation at the broad and mid scales will be used, along with the same data layers derived 

for sagebrush availability. 

The BLM initiated the LMF in 2011 in cooperation with the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS). The objective of the LMF effort is to provide unbiased estimates of vegetation 

and soil condition and trend using a statistically balanced sample design across BLM lands. 

Recognizing that sage-grouse populations are more resilient where the sagebrush plant 

community has certain characteristics unique to a particular life stage of sage-grouse (Knick and 

Connelly 2011, Stiver et al. in press), a group of sage-grouse habitat and sagebrush plant 

community subject matter experts identified those vegetation indicators collected at LMF 

sampling points that inform sage-grouse habitat needs. The experts represented the Agricultural 

Research Service, BLM, NRCS, USFWS, WAFWA, state wildlife agencies, and academia. The 

common indicators identified include: species composition, foliar cover, height of the tallest 

sagebrush and herbaceous plant, intercanopy gap, percent of invasive species, sagebrush shape, 

and bare ground. To increase the precision of estimates of sagebrush conditions within the range 

of sage-grouse, additional plot locations in occupied sage-grouse habitat (Sage-Grouse 

Intensification) were added in 2013. The common indicators are also collected on sampling 

locations in the NRCS National Resources Inventory Rangeland Resource Assessment 

(http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/technical/nra/nri/?&cid=stelprdb10416 

20). 

The sage-grouse intensification baseline data will be collected over a 5-year period, and an 

annual sage-grouse intensification report will be prepared describing the status of the indicators. 

Beginning in year 6, the annual status report will be accompanied with a trend report, which will 

be available on an annual basis thereafter, contingent on continuation of the current monitoring 

budget. This information, in combination with the Grass/Shrub mapping information, the midscale habitat suitability indicator measures, and the sagebrush availability information will be 

used to answer Question 1 of the National Planning Strategy Effectiveness Report. 

32 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Calculating Question 2, National Planning Strategy Effectiveness: Evaluations of the amount of 

habitat degradation and the intensity of the activities in the area of interest will use the 

information from Measure 2 (Section I.B.2., Habitat Degradation Monitoring) and Measure 3 

(Section I.B.3., Energy and Mining Density). The field office will collect data on the amount of 

reclaimed energy-related degradation on plugged and abandoned and oil/gas well sites. The data 

are expected to demonstrate that the reclaimed sites have yet to meet the habitat restoration 

objectives for sage-grouse habitat. This information, in combination with the amount of habitat 

degradation, will be used to answer Question 2 of the National Planning Strategy Effectiveness 

Report. 

Calculating Question 3, National Planning Strategy Effectiveness: The change in sage-grouse 

estimated populations will be calculated from data provided by the state wildlife agencies, when 

available. This population data (Section I.C., Population [Demographics] Monitoring) will be 

used to answer Question 3 of the National Planning Strategy Effectiveness Report. 

Calculating Question 4, National Planning Strategy Effectiveness: The estimated contribution by 

the BLM or the USFS to the change in the amount of sagebrush in the area of interest will use 

the information from Measure 1a (Section I.B.1., Sagebrush Availability). This measure is 

derived from the national datasets that remove sagebrush (Table 3). To determine the relative 

contribution of BLM and USFS management, the current Surface Management Agency 

geospatial data layer will be used to differentiate the amount of change for each management 

agency for this measure in the geographic areas of interest. This information will be used to 

answer Question 4 of the National Planning Strategy Effectiveness Report. 

Calculating Question 5, National Planning Strategy Effectiveness: The estimated contribution by 

the BLM or the USFS to the change in the amount of disturbance in the area of interest will use 

the information from Measure 2a (Section I.B.2., Monitoring Habitat Degradation) and Measure 

3 (Section I.B.3., Energy and Mining Density). These measures are all derived from the national 

disturbance datasets that degrade habitat (Table 6). To determine the relative contribution of 

BLM and USFS management, the current Surface Management Agency geospatial data layer 

will be used to differentiate the amount of change for each management agency for these two 

measures in the geographic areas of interest. This information will be used to answer Question 5 

of the National Planning Strategy Effectiveness Report. 

Answers to the five questions for determining the effectiveness of the national planning strategy 

will identify areas that appear to be meeting the objectives of the strategy and will facilitate 

identification of population areas for more detailed analysis. Conceptually, if the broad-scale 

monitoring identifies increasing sagebrush availability and improving vegetation conditions, 

decreasing disturbance, and a stable or increasing population for the area of interest, there is 

evidence that the objectives of the national planning strategy to maintain populations and their 

habitats have been met. Conversely, where information indicates that sagebrush is decreasing 

and vegetation conditions are degrading, disturbance in sage-grouse areas is increasing, and/or 

33 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

populations are declining relative to the baseline, there is evidence that the objectives of the 

national planning strategy are not being achieved. Such a determination would likely result in a 

more detailed analysis and could be the basis for implementing more restrictive adaptive 

management measures. 

With respect to the land use plan area, the BLM and the USFS will summarize the vegetation, 

disturbance, and population data to determine if the LUP is meeting the plan objectives. 

Effectiveness information used for these evaluations includes BLM/USFS surface management 

areas and will help inform where finer-scale evaluations are needed, such as seasonal habitats, 

corridors, or linkage areas. Data will also include the trend of disturbance within the sage-grouse 

areas, which will inform the need to initiate adaptive management responses as described in the 

land use plan. 

Calculating Question 1, Land Use Plan Effectiveness: The condition of vegetation and the 

allotments meeting land health standards (as articulated in “BLM Handbook 4180-1, Rangeland 

Health Standards”) in sage-grouse areas will be used to determine the LUP’s effectiveness in 

meeting the vegetation objectives for sage-grouse habitat set forth in the plan. The field 

office/ranger district will be responsible for collecting this data. In order for this data to be 

consistent and comparable, common indicators, consistent methods, and an unbiased sampling 

framework will be implemented following the principles in the BLM’s AIM strategy (Taylor et 

al. 2014; Toevs et al. 2011; MacKinnon et al. 2011), in the BLM’s Technical Reference 

“Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health” (Pellant et al. 2005), and in the HAF (Stiver et al. 

in press) or other approved WAFWA MZ–consistent guidance to measure and monitor sagegrouse habitats. This information will be used to answer Question 1 of the Land Use Plan 

Effectiveness Report. 

Calculating Question 2, Land Use Plan Effectiveness: Sage-grouse areas within the LUP that are 

achieving land health stands (or, if trend data are available, that are making progress toward 

achieving them)—particularly the Special Status Species/wildlife habitat land health standard— 

will be used to determine the LUP’s effectiveness in achieving the habitat objectives set forth in 

the plan. Field offices will follow directions in “BLM Handbook 4180-1, Rangeland Health 

Standards,” to ascertain if sage-grouse areas are achieving or making progress toward achieving 

land health standards. One of the recommended criteria for evaluating this land health standard is 

the HAF indicators. 

Calculating Question 3, Land Use Plan Effectiveness: The amount of habitat disturbance in sagegrouse areas identified in this LUP will be used to determine the LUP’s effectiveness in meeting 

the plan’s disturbance objectives. National datasets can be used to calculate the amount of 

disturbance, but field office data will likely increase the accuracy of this estimate. This 

information will be used to answer Question 3 of the Land Use Plan Effectiveness Report. 

34 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Calculating Question 4, Land Use Plan Effectiveness: The change in estimated sage-grouse 

populations will be calculated from data provided by the state wildlife agencies, when available, 

and will be used to determine LUP effectiveness. This population data (Section I.C., Population 

[Demographics] Monitoring) will be used to answer Question 4 of the Land Use Plan 

Effectiveness Report. 

Results of the effectiveness monitoring process for the LUP will be used to inform the need for 

finer-scale investigations, initiate adaptive management actions as described in the land use plan, 

initiate causation determination, and/or determine if changes to management decisions are 

warranted. The measures used at the broad and mid scales will provide a suite of characteristics 

for evaluating the effectiveness of the adaptive management strategy. 

II. FINE AND SITE SCALES 

Fine-scale (third-order) habitat selected by sage-grouse is described as the physical and 

geographic area within home ranges during breeding, summer, and winter periods. At this level, 

habitat suitability monitoring should address factors that affect sage-grouse use of, and 

movements between, seasonal use areas. The habitat monitoring at the fine and site scale (fourth 

order) should focus on indicators to describe seasonal home ranges for sage-grouse associated 

with a lek or lek group within a population or subpopulation area. Fine- and site-scale monitoring 

will inform LUP effectiveness monitoring (see Section I.D., Effectiveness Monitoring) and the 

hard and soft triggers identified in the LUP’s adaptive management section. 

Site-scale habitat selected by sage-grouse is described as the more detailed vegetation 

characteristics of seasonal habitats. Habitat suitability characteristics include canopy cover and 

height of sagebrush and the associated understory vegetation. They also include vegetation 

associated with riparian areas, wet meadows, and other mesic habitats adjacent to sagebrush that 

may support sage-grouse habitat needs during different stages in their annual cycle. 

As described in the Conclusion (Section III), details and application of monitoring at the fine and 

site scales will be described in the implementation-level monitoring plan for the land use plan. 

The need for fine- and site-scale-specific habitat monitoring will vary by area, depending on 

proposed projects, existing conditions, habitat variability, threats, and land health. Examples of 

fine- and site-scale monitoring include: habitat vegetation monitoring to assess current habitat 

conditions; monitoring and evaluation of the success of projects targeting sage-grouse habitat 

enhancement and/or restoration; and habitat disturbance monitoring to provide localized 

disturbance measures to inform proposed project review and potential mitigation for project 

impacts. Monitoring plans should incorporate the principles outlined in the BLM’s AIM strategy 

(Toevs et al. 2011) and in “AIM-Monitoring: A Component of the Assessment, Inventory, and 

Monitoring Strategy” (Taylor et al. 2014). Approved monitoring methods are: 

35 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 “BLM Core Terrestrial Indicators and Methods” (MacKinnon et al. 2011); 

	 The BLM’s Technical Reference “Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health” 

(Pellant et al. 2005); and, 

	 “Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework: Multiscale Assessment Tool” (Stiver 

et al. in press). 

Other state-specific disturbance tracking models include: the BLM’s Wyoming Density and 

Disturbance Calculation Tool (http://ddct.wygisc.org/) and the BLM’s White River Data 

Management System in development with the USGS. Population monitoring data (in cooperation 

with state wildlife agencies) should be included during evaluation of the effectiveness of actions 

taken at the fine and site scales. 

Fine- and site-scale sage-grouse habitat suitability indicators for seasonal habitats are identified 

in the HAF. The HAF has incorporated the Connelly et al. (2000) sage-grouse guidelines as well 

as many of the core indicators in the AIM strategy (Toevs et al. 2011). There may be a need to 

develop adjustments to height and cover or other site suitability values described in the HAF; 

any such adjustments should be ecologically defensible. To foster consistency, however, 

adjustments to site suitability values at the local scale should be avoided unless there is strong, 

scientific justification for making those adjustments. That justification should be provided. 

WAFWA MZ adjustments must be supported by regional plant productivity and habitat data for 

the floristic province. If adjustments are made to the site-scale indicators, they must be made 

using data from the appropriate seasonal habitat designation (breeding/nesting, brood-rearing, 

winter) collected from sage-grouse studies found in the relevant area and peer-reviewed by the 

appropriate wildlife management agency(ies) and researchers. 

When conducting land heath assessments, the BLM should follow, at a minimum, “Interpreting 

Indicators of Rangeland Health” (Pellant et. al. 2005) and the “BLM Core Terrestrial Indicators 

and Methods” (MacKinnon et al. 2011). For assessments being conducted in sage-grouse 

designated management areas, the BLM should collect additional data to inform the HAF 

indicators that have not been collected using the above methods. Implementation of the 

principles outlined in the AIM strategy will allow the data to be used to generate unbiased 

estimates of condition across the area of interest; facilitate consistent data collection and rollup 

analysis among management units; help provide consistent data to inform the classification and 

interpretation of imagery; and provide condition and trend of the indicators describing sagebrush 

characteristics important to sage-grouse habitat (see Section I.D., Effectiveness Monitoring). 

36 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

III. CONCLUSION
 

This Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework was developed for all of the Final 

Environmental Impact Statements involved in the sage-grouse planning effort. As such, it 

describes the monitoring activities at the broad and mid scales and provides a guide for the BLM 

and the USFS to collaborate with partners/other agencies to develop the land use plan- specific 

monitoring plan. 

IV. THE GREATER SAGE-GROUSE DISTURBANCE AND MONITORING SUBTEAM 

MEMBERSHIP 

Gordon Toevs (BLM -WO) Robin Sell (BLM-CO) 

Duane Dippon (BLM-WO) Paul Makela (BLM-ID) 

Frank Quamen (BLM-NOC) Renee Chi (BLM-UT) 

David Wood (BLM-NOC) Sandra Brewer (BLM-NV) 

Vicki Herren (BLM-NOC) Glenn Frederick (BLM-OR) 

Matt Bobo (BLM-NOC) Robert Skorkowsky (USFS) 

Michael “Sherm” Karl (BLM-NOC) Dalinda Damm (USFS) 

Emily Kachergis (BLM-NOC) Rob Mickelsen (USFS) 

Doug Havlina (BLM-NIFC) Tim Love (USFS) 

Mike Pellant (BLM-GBRI) Pam Bode (USFS) 

John Carlson (BLM-MT) Lief Wiechman (USFWS) 

Jenny Morton (BLM -WY) Lara Juliusson (USFWS) 

37 
38
 
 

 

LITERATURE CITED
 

Baruch-Mordo, S., J.S. Evans, J.P. Severson, D.E. Naugle, J.D. Maestas, J.M. Kiesecker, M.J. Falkowski, 

C.A. Hagen, and K.P. Reese. 2013. Saving sage-grouse from the trees: A proactive solution to reducing a 

key threat to a candidate species. Biological Conservation 167:233–241. 

Connelly, J.W., S.T Knick, M.A. Schroeder, and S.J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation assessment of Greater 

Sage-Grouse and sagebrush habitats. Unpublished report. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies, Cheyenne, WY. Available at http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov/docs/Greater_Sagegrouse_Conservation_Assessment_060404.pdf. 

Connelly, J.W., K.P. Reese, and M.A. Schroeder. 2003. Monitoring of Greater Sage-Grouse habitats and 

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

Moscow, ID. 

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

populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967–985. 

Davies, K.W., C.S. Boyd, J.L. Beck, J.D. Bates, T.J. Svejcar, and M.A. Gregg. 2011. Saving the 

sagebrush sea: An ecosystem conservation plan for big sagebrush plant communities. Biological 

Conservation 144:2573–2584. 

Fry, J.A., G. Xian, S. Jin, J.A. Dewitz, C.G. Homer, L. Yang, C.A. Barnes, N.D. Herold, and J.D. 

Wickham. 2011. Completion of the 2006 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United 

States. PE&RS 77(9):858–864. 

Garton, E.O., J.W. Connelly, J.S. Horne, C.A. Hagen, A. Moser, and M. Schroeder. 2011. Greater SageGrouse population dynamics and probability of persistence. In Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and 

conservation of a landscape species and its habitats, edited by S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly, 293–382. 

Studies in Avian Biology, vol. 38. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 

Grove, A.J., C.L. Wambolt, and M.R. Frisina. 2005. Douglas-fir’s effect on mountain big sagebrush 

wildlife habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:74–80. 

Gruell, G.E., J.K. Brown, and C.L. Bushey. 1986. Prescribed fire opportunities in grasslands invaded by 

Douglas-fir: State-of-the-art guidelines. General Technical Report INT-198. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 19pp. 

Harju, S.M., M.R. Dzialak, R.C. Taylor, L.D. Hayden-Wing, J.B. Winstead. 2010. Thresholds and time 

lags in effects of energy development on Greater Sage-Grouse populations. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 74(3):437–448. 

39 
 

 

 

 

 

Hemstrom, M. A., M. J. Wisdom, M. M. Rowland, B. Wales, W. J. Hann, and R. A. Gravenmier. 2002. 

Sagebrush-steppe vegetation dynamics and potential for restoration in the Interior Columbia Basin, USA. 

Conservation Biology 16:1243–1255. 

Homer, C.G., C.L. Aldridge, D.K. Meyer, M.J. Coan, and Z.H. Bowen. 2009. Multiscale sagebrush 

rangeland habitat modeling in southwest Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008– 

1027. 14pp. 

Johnson, D.H. 1980. The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource 

preference. Ecology 61:65–71. 

Knick, S.T., and J.W. Connelly (editors). 2011. Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and conservation of a 

landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology, vol. 38. University of California Press, 

Berkeley, CA. 

Knick, S.T., and S.E. Hanser. 2011. Connecting pattern and process in greater sage-grouse populations 

and sagebrush landscapes. In Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and conservation of a landscape species and 

its habitats, edited by S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly, 383–405. Studies in Avian Biology, vol. 38. 

University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 

Knick, S.T., S.E. Hanser, R.F. Miller, D.A. Pyke, M.J. Wisdom, S.P. Finn, E.T. Rinkes, and C.J. Henny. 

2011. Ecological influence and pathways of land use in sagebrush. In Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and 

conservation of a landscape species and its habitats, edited by S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly, 203–251. 

Studies in Avian Biology, vol. 38. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 

LANDFIRE: LANDFIRE Existing Vegetation Type layer. (2013, June – last update.) U.S. Department of 

the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. [Online.] Available at: http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/ [2013, 

May 8]. 

Leu, M., and S.E. Hanser. 2011. Influences of the human footprint on sagebrush landscape patterns: 

implications for sage-grouse conservation. In Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and conservation of a 

landscape species and its habitats, edited by S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly, 253–271. Studies in Avian 

Biology, vol. 38. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 

MacKinnon, W.C., J.W. Karl, G.R. Toevs, J.J. Taylor, M. Karl, C.S. Spurrier, and J.E. Herrick. 2011. 

BLM core terrestrial indicators and methods. Tech Note 440. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management, National Operations Center, Denver, CO. 

Manier, D.J., D.J.A Wood, Z.H. Bowen, R.M. Donovan, M.J. Holloran, L.M. Juliusson, K.S. Mayne, S.J. 

Oyler-McCance, F.R. Quamen, D.J. Saher, and A.J. Titolo. 2013. Summary of science, activities, 

programs, and policies that influence the rangewide conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus): U.S. Geological Survey Open–File Report 2013–1098. 170pp. 

40 
 

 

 

NatureServe. 2011. International ecological classification standard: Terrestrial ecologicalclassifications. 

NatureServe Central Databases, Arlington, VA. Data current as of July 31, 2011. 

Ong, S., C. Campbell, P. Denholm, R. Margolis, and G. Heath. 2013. Land-use requirements for solar 

power plants in the United States. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy 

Technical Report NREL/TP-6A20-56290. 39pp. Available at 

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56290.pdf. 

Pellant, M., P. Shaver, D.A. Pyke, and J.E. Herrick. 2005. Interpreting indicators of rangeland health, 

version 4. Technical Reference 1734-6. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

National Science and Technology Center, Denver, CO. BLM/WO/ST-00/001+1734/REV05. 122pp. 

Perry, J. Personal communication. February 12, 2014. 

Pyke, D.A. 2011. Restoring and rehabilitating sagebrush habitats. In Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and 

conservation of a landscape species and its habitats, edited by S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly, 531–548. 

Studies in Avian Biology, vol. 38. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 

Schroeder, M.A., C.L. Aldridge, A.D. Apa, J.R. Bohne, C.E. Braun, S.D. Bunnell, J.W. Connelly, P.A. 

Deibert, S.C. Gardner, M.A. Hilliard, G.D. Kobriger, S.M. McAdam, C.W. McCarthy, J.J. McCarthy, 

D.L. Mitchell, E.V. Rickerson, and S.J. Stiver. 2004. Distribution of sage-grouse in North America. 

Condor 106: 363–376. 

Stiver, S.J., A.D. Apa, J.R. Bohne, S.D. Bunnell, P.A. Deibert, S.C. Gardner, M.A. Hilliard, C.W. 

McCarthy, and M.A. Schroeder. 2006. Greater Sage‐Grouse comprehensive conservation strategy. 

Unpublished report. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Cheyenne, WY. Available at 

http://www.wafwa.org/documents/pdf/GreaterSage-grouseConservationStrategy2006.pdf. 

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

habitat assessment framework: Multiscale habitat assessment tool. Bureau of Land Management and 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Technical Reference. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO. 

Taylor, J., E. Kachergis, G. Toevs, J. Karl, M. Bobo, M. Karl, S. Miller, and C. Spurrier. 2014. AIMmonitoring: A component of the BLM assessment, inventory, and monitoring strategy. Tech Note 445. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, Denver, CO. 

Toevs, G.R., J.J. Taylor, C.S. Spurrier, W.C. MacKinnon, M.R. Bobo. 2011. Bureau of Land 

Management assessment, inventory, and monitoring strategy: For integrated renewable resources 

management. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, 

Denver, CO. 

41 
 

 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layer. {YEAR}. 

Published crop-specific data layer [online]. USDA-NASS, Washington, D.C. Available at 

http://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/(accessed {DATE}; verified {DATE}). 

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Handbook H-4180-1, 

Release 4-107. Rangeland health standards handbook. Available at 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_handbook. 

Par.61484.File.dat/h4180-1.pdf. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2005. Wind Energy Development 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). BLM Washington Office, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2011. BLM national Greater Sage-Grouse 

land use planning strategy. Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-044. BLM Washington Office, 

Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered and threatened wildlife and 

plants; 12-month findings for petitions to list the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as 

threatened or endangered. Proposed Rule. Federal Register 75: 13910–14014 (March 23, 2010). 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) conservation objectives: Final report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. 

42 
Attachment A. An Overview of Monitoring Commitments 

Broad and Mid Scales Fine and Site 

Implemen- Sagebrush Habitat Scales 

Population Effectiveness tation Availability Degradation 

How will Track and Track changes Track changes in Track trends in Characterize the Measure seasonal 

the data be document in land cover disturbance sage-grouse relationship habitat, 

used? implementation (sagebrush) and (threats) to sage- populations among connectivity at 

ofland use plan inform adaptive grouse habitat (and/or leks; as disturbance, the fine scale, and 

decisions and management and inform determined by implementation habitat conditions 

inform adaptive adaptive state wildlife actions, and at the site scale, 

management management agencies) and sagebrush calculate 

inform adaptive metrics and disturbance, and 

management inform adaptive inform adaptive 

management management 

Who is BLMFOand NOC and NIFC National datasets State wildlife Comes from BLM FO and SO, 

collecting USFS Forest (NOC), BLM agencies other broad- and USFS Forests and 

the data? FOs, and USFS through mid-scale RO (with 

Forests as WAFWA monitoring partners) 

applicable types, analyzed 

by the NOC 

How often 

are the 

data 

collected, 

reported, 

and made 

available 

to 

USFWS? 

Collected and Updated and 

reported changes 

annually; reported 

summary report annually; 

every 5 years summary 

report every 5 

years 

Collected and State data 

changes reported reported 

annually; annually per 

summary report W AFW A 

every 5 years MOU; 

summary report 

every 5 years 

Collected and Collection and 

reported every 5 trend analysis 

years (coincident ongoing, reported 

with LUP every 5 years or 

evaluations) as needed to 

inform adaptive 

management 

What is Summarized by Summarized by Summarized by Summarized by Summarized by Variable (e.g., 

the spatial LUP with PACs (size PACs (size PACs (size MZ and LUP projects and 

scale? flexibility for dependent) dependent) with dependent) with flexibility seasonal habitats) 

reporting by with fl exibility flexibility for with flexibility for reporting by 

other units for reporting by reporting by for reporting by other units (e.g., 

other units other units other units PAC) 

What are Additional At a minimum, At a minimum, No additional Additional Additional 

the capacity or re­ current skills current skills and personnel or capacity or re- capacity or repotential prioritization of and capacity capacity must be budget impacts prioritization of prioritization of 

personnel ongoing must be maintained; data for the BLM or ongoing ongoing 

and budget monitoring maintained; management and the USFS monitoring work monitoring work 

impacts? work and data data layer and budget and budget 

budget management purchase cost are realignment realignment 

realignment costs are TBD TBD 

43 
Who has 1) BLMFO 1) NOC 1) NOC 1) WAFWA 1) Broad and 1) BLMFO& 

primary &SO; 2) wo 2) BLMSO, & state mid scale at USFS Forests 

and USFS USFSRO, wildlife theNOC, 2) BLMSO& 

secondary Forest & & agencies LUPat USFS RO 

responsi- RO appropriate 2) BLMSO, BLMSO, 

bilities for 2) BLM & programs USFSRO, USFSRO 

reporting? USFS NOC 

Planning 

What new National Updates to Data standards Standards in Reporting Data standards 

processes/ implementation national land and roll up population methodologies data storage; and 

tools are datasets and cover data methods for monitoring reporting 

needed? analysis tools these data (WAFWA) 

FO (field office); NIFC (National Interagency Fire Center); NOC (National Operations Center); RO 

(regional office); SO (state office); TBD (to be determined); WO (Washington Office) 

44 
Attachment B. User and Producer Accuracies for Aggregated Ecological Systems within LANDFIRE 

Map Zones 

LANDFIRE Map Zone Name User 

Accuracy 

Producer 

Accuracy 

% of Map Zone 

within Historical 

Schroeder 

Wyoming Basin 76.9% 90.9% 98.5% 

Snake River Plain 68.8% 85.2% 98.4% 

Missouri River Plateau 57.7% 100.0% 91.3% 

Grand Coulee Basin of the Columbia Plateau 80.0% 80.0% 89.3% 

Wyoming Highlands 75.3% 85.9% 88.1% 

Western Great Basin 69.3% 75.4% 72.9% 

Blue Mountain Region of the Columbia Plateau 85.7% 88.7% 72.7% 

Eastern Great Basin 62.7% 80.0% 62.8% 

Northwestern Great Plains 76.5% 92.9% 46.3% 

Northern Rocky Mountains 72.5% 89.2% 42.5% 

Utah High Plateaus 81.8% 78.3% 41.5% 

Colorado Plateau 65.3% 76.2% 28.8% 

Middle Rocky Mountains 78.6% 73.3% 26.4% 

Cascade Mountain Range 57.1% 88.9% 17.3% 

Sierra Nevada Mountain Range 0.0% 0.0% 12.3% 

Northwestern Rocky Mountains 66.7% 60.0% 7.3% 

Southern Rocky Mountains 58.6% 56.7% 7.0% 

Northern Cascades 75.0% 75.0% 2.6% 

Mogollon Rim 66.7% 100.0% 1.7% 

Death Valley Basin 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 

45 
 

 

There are two anomalous map zones with 0% user and producer accuracies, attributable to no 

available reference data for the ecological systems of interest. 

User accuracy is a map-based accuracy that is computed by looking at the reference data for a class and 

determining the percentage of correct predictions for these samples. For example, if I select any 

sagebrush pixel on the classified map, what is the probability that I'll be standing in a sagebrush stand 

when I visit that pixel location in the field? Commission Error equates to including a pixel in a class 

when it should have been excluded (i.e., commission error = 1 – user’s accuracy). 

Producer accuracy is a reference-based accuracy that is computed by looking at the predictions produced 

for a class and determining the percentage of correct predictions. In other words, if I know that a 

particular area is sagebrush (I've been out on the ground to check), what is the probability that the digital 

map will correctly identify that pixel as sagebrush? Omission Error equates to excluding a pixel that 

should have been included in the class (i.e., omission error = 1 – producer’s accuracy). 

46 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment C. Sagebrush Species and Subspecies Included in the Selection Criteria for Building the 

EVT and BpS Layers 

 Artemisia arbuscula subspecies longicaulis 

 Artemisia arbuscula subspecies longiloba 

 Artemisia bigelovii 

 Artemisia nova 

 Artemisia papposa 

 Artemisia pygmaea 

 Artemisia rigida 

 Artemisia spinescens 

 Artemisia tripartita subspecies rupicola 

 Artemisia tripartita subspecies tripartita 

 Tanacetum nuttallii 

 Artemisia cana subspecies bolanderi 

 Artemisia cana subspecies cana 

 Artemisia cana subspecies viscidula 

 Artemisia tridentata subspecies wyomingensis 

 Artemisia tridentata subspecies tridentata 

 Artemisia tridentata subspecies vaseyana 

 Artemisia tridentata subspecies spiciformis 

 Artemisia tridentata subspecies xericensis 

 Artemisia tridentata variety pauciflora 

 Artemisia frigida 

 Artemisia pedatifida 

47 
APPENDIX E

GREATER SAGE-GROUSE DISTURBANCE CAPS

HiLine Approved Plan Appendix E

Disturbance Caps E-1 September 2015

Appendix E

Greater Sage-Grouse Disturbance Caps

In the USFWS’s 2010 listing decision for sage-grouse, the USFWS identified 18 threats contributing to the destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of the sage-grouse’s habitat or range (75 FR 13910 2010. The 18 threats have been 

aggregated into three measures: 

Sagebrush Availability (percent of sagebrush per unit area)

Habitat Degradation (percent of human activity per unit area) 

Density of Energy and Mining (facilities and locations per unit area)

Habitat Degradation and Density of Energy and Mining will be evaluated under the Disturbance Cap and Density Cap 

respectively and are further described in this appendix. The three measures, in conjunction with other information, will 

be considered during the NEPA process for projects authorized or undertaken by the BLM.

Disturbance Cap

This land use plan has incorporated a 3% anthropogenic disturbance cap within Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Priority 

Habitat Management Areas (PHMAs) and the subsequent land use planning actions if the cap is met: 

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

PHMAs in any given Biologically Significant Unit, then no further discrete anthropogenic disturbances 

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

be permitted by the BLM within GRSG PHMAs in any given Biologically Significant Unit until the 

disturbance has been reduced to less than the cap.

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

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

5% within a project analysis area in PHMAs, then no further discrete anthropogenic disturbances (subject 

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

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

than the cap. 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.

The disturbance cap applies to the PHMA within both the Biologically Significant Units (BSU) and at the project 

authorization scale. For the BSUs, west-wide habitat degradation (disturbance) data layers (Table 1) will be used at a 

minimum to calculate the amount of disturbance and to determine if the disturbance cap has been exceeded as the land 

use plans (LUP) are being implemented. Locally collected disturbance data will be used to determine if the disturbance 

cap has been exceeded for project authorizations, and may also be used to calculate the amount of disturbance in the 

BSUs. 

Although locatable mine sites are included in the degradation calculation, mining activities under the 1872 mining law 

may not be subject to the 3% disturbance cap. Details about locatable mining activities will be fully disclosed and 

analyzed in the NEPA process to assess impacts to sage-grouse and their habitat as well as to BLM goals and objectives, 

and other BLM programs and activities.

Formulas for calculations of the amount of disturbance in the PHMA in a BSU and or in a proposed project area are as 

follows:
Appendix E HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 E-2 Disturbance Caps

 For the BSUs: 

% Degradation Disturbance = (combined acres of the 12 degradation threats1) ÷ (acres 

of all lands within the PHMAs in a BSU) x 100. 

 For the Project Analysis Area: 

% Degradation Disturbance = (combined acres of the 12 degradation threats1 plus the 7 

site scale threats2 and acres of habitat loss1) ÷ (acres of all lands within the PHMA in the 

project analysis area) x 100. 

1 see Table 1. 2 see Table 2

The denominator in the disturbance calculation formula consists of all acres of lands classified as PHMA within the 

analysis area (BSU or project area). Areas that are not sage-grouse seasonal habitats, or are not currently supporting 

sagebrush cover (e.g., due to wildfire), are not excluded from the acres of PHMA in the denominator of the formula. 

Information regarding sage-grouse seasonal habitats, sagebrush availability, and areas with the potential to support sagegrouse 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 colocated it into existing disturbed area (subject to applicable laws and regulations, such as the 1872 Mining Law, valid 

existing rights, etc.). Facilities included in the density calculation (Table 3) are:

 Energy (oil and gas wells and development facilities)

 Energy (coal mines)

 Energy (wind towers)

 Energy (solar fields)

 Energy (geothermal)

 Mining (active locatable, leasable, and saleable developments)

Project Analysis Area Method for Permitting Surface Disturbance Activities

 Determine potentially affected occupied leks by placing a four mile boundary around the proposed area of 

physical disturbance related to the project. All occupied leks located within the four mile project boundary and 

within PHMA will be considered affected by the project. 

 Next, place a four mile boundary around each of the affected occupied leks. 

 The PHMA within the four mile lek boundary and the four mile project boundary creates the project analysis 

area for each individual project. If there are no occupied leks within the four-mile project boundary, the project 

analysis area will be that portion of the four-mile project boundary within the PHMA. 

 Digitize all existing anthropogenic disturbances identified in Table 1, the 7 additional features that are 

considered threats to sage-grouse (Table 2), and areas of sagebrush loss. Using 1 meter resolution NAIP 

imagery is recommended. Use existing local data if available. 

 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.
HiLine Approved Plan Appendix E

Disturbance Caps 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.

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 WO-300

Power Plants Platts (power plants) 5.0ac (2.0ha) BLM WO-300

Energy (coal) Mines BLM; USFS; Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement; 

USGS Mineral Resources Data System

Polygon area 

(digitized)

Esri/

Google Imagery

Power Plants Platts (power plants) Polygon area 

(digitized)

Esri Imagery

Energy (wind) Wind Turbines Federal Aviation Administration 3.0ac (1.2ha) BLM WO-300

Power Plants Platts (power plants) 3.0ac (1.2ha) BLM WO-300

Energy (solar) Fields/Power Plants Platts (power plants) 7.3ac (3.0ha)/MW NREL

Energy 

(geothermal)

Wells IHS 3.0ac (1.2ha) BLM WO-300

Power Plants Platts (power plants) Polygon area 

(digitized)

Esri Imagery

Mining Locatable 

Developments

InfoMine Polygon area 

(digitized)

Esri Imagery

Infrastructure 

(roads)

Surface Streets 

(Minor Roads)

Esri StreetMap Premium 40.7ft (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 WO-300

200-399 kV Lines Platts (transmission lines) 150ft (45.7m) BLM WO-300

400-699kV Lines Platts (transmission lines) 200ft (61.0m) BLM WO-300

700+kV Lines Platts (transmission lines) 250ft (76.2m) BLM WO-300

Infrastructure 

(communication) 

Towers Federal Communications Commission 2.5ac (1.0ha) BLM WO-300
Appendix E HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 E-4 Disturbance Caps

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.

Table E-3. Relationship between the 18 threats and the three habitat disturbance measures for monitoring and 

disturbance calculations

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 Priority Habitat 

Management Area 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.

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

HiLine Approved Plan Appendix F

Greater Sage-Grouse Mitigation F-1 September 2015

Appendix F

Greater Sage-Grouse Mitigation

Regional Mitigation for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management

The intent of the HiLine Approved Plan is to provide a net conservation gain to the species. To do so, 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. Refer to Appendix I, Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse 

Habitat, as well as Appendices B through G for more details in this regard. This is also consistent with BLM Manual 

6840 – Special Status Species Management, Section .02B, which states “to initiate proactive conservation measures that 

reduce or eliminate threats to Bureau sensitive species to minimize the likelihood of the need for listing of these species 

under the ESA.”

Actions which result in habitat loss and degradation include those identified as threats which contribute to Greater SageGrouse disturbance as identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in its 2010 listing decision (75 FR 13910) and 

shown in Table 2 in Appendix D, Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework and those identified in the COT report 

and shown in Table2.2-1, Threats to Greater Sage-Grouse in the HiLine District, and Table 2.2-2, Key Components of 

the HiLine Approved Plan Addressing COT Report Threats.

Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Team

The BLM will establish a Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (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. This Team will develop a WAFWA Management Zone Regional 

Mitigation Strategy (hereafter, Regional Mitigation Strategy). The Team will also compile and report on monitoring data 

(including data on habitat condition, population trends, and mitigation effectiveness) from States across the WAFWA 

Management Zone (see Monitoring section). Subsequently, the Team will use these data to either modify the appropriate 

Regional Mitigation Strategy or recommend adaptive management actions (see the Adaptive Management discussion in 

the HiLine Approved Plan and Appendix J).

The BLM will invite governmental and tribal partners to participate in this Team, including the state wildlife agency and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in compliance with the exemptions provided for committees defined in the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act and the regulations that implement that act. The BLM will strive for a collaborative and 

unified approach between Federal agencies (e.g., USFWS, BLM, and USFS), tribal governments, state and local 

government(s), and other stakeholders for Greater Sage-Grouse conservation. The Team will provide advice, and will 

not make any decisions that impact federal lands. The BLM will remain responsible for making decisions that affect 

federal lands in the planning area.

General Mitigation Requirements

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 Sage-Grouse disturbance as identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in its 2010 listing 

decision (75 FR 13910) and shown in Table 2 in the Monitoring Framework (Appendix D). Mitigation will follow the 

regulations from the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR 1508.20; e.g. avoid, minimize, and 

compensate), hereafter referred to as the mitigation hierarchy. If impacts from BLM management actions and authorized 

third-party actions that result in habitat loss and degradation remain after applying avoidance and minimization measures 
Appendix F HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 F-2 Greater Sage-Grouse Mitigation

(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’s Regional Mitigation Manual MS-1794 serves as a framework for developing and implementing a Regional 

Mitigation Strategy. The following sections provide additional guidance specific to the development and 

implementation of a WAFWA Management Zone Regional Mitigation Strategy. 

Developing a WAFWA Management Zone Regional Mitigation Strategy

The BLM, via the WAFWA Management Zone Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Team, will develop a WAFWA 

Management Zone Regional Mitigation Strategy to guide the application of the mitigation hierarchy for BLM/USFS 

management actions and third party actions that result in habitat loss and degradation. The Strategy will be developed 

within one year of the issuance of the Record of Decision. The Strategy should consider any state-level Greater SageGrouse 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. 

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.

 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

 A common standardized method should be identified for estimating the value of the 

residual impacts and value of the compensatory mitigation projects, including accounting 

for any uncertainty associated with the effectiveness of the projects. 

 This method should consider the quality of habitat, scarcity of the habitat, and the size of 

the impact/project.

 For compensatory mitigation projects, consideration of durability (see Glossary), 

timeliness (see Glossary), and the potential for failure (e.g., uncertainty associated with 

effectiveness) may require an upward adjustment of the valuation.

 The resultant compensatory mitigation project will, after application of the above 

guidance, result in proactive conservation measures for Greater Sage-Grouse (consistent 

with BLM Manual 6840 – Special Status Species Management, section .02).
HiLine Approved Plan Appendix F

Greater Sage-Grouse Mitigation F-3 September 2015

 Compensatory Mitigation Options

 Options for implementing compensatory mitigation should be identified, such as:

 Utilizing certified mitigation/conservation bank or credit exchanges.

 Contributing to an existing mitigation/conservation fund.

 Authorized-user conducted mitigation projects.

 For any compensatory mitigation project, the investment must be additional (i.e. 

additionality: the conservation benefits of compensatory mitigation are demonstrably new 

and would not have resulted without the compensatory mitigation project).

 Compensatory Mitigation Siting

 Sites should be in areas that have the potential to yield a net conservation gain to the 

Greater Sage-Grouse, regardless of land ownership.

 Sites should be durable (see Glossary).

 Sites identified by existing plans and strategies (e.g., fire restoration plans, invasive 

species strategies, healthy land focal areas) should be considered, if those sites have the 

potential to yield a net conservation gain to greater sage-grouse and are durable. 

 Compensatory Mitigation Project Types and Costs

 Project types should be identified that help reduce threats to Greater Sage-Grouse (e.g., 

protection, conservation, and restoration projects).

 Each project type should have a goal and measurable objectives.

 Each project type should have associated monitoring and maintenance requirements, for 

the duration of the impact.

 To inform contributions to a mitigation/conservation fund, expected costs for these 

project types (and their monitoring and maintenance), within the WAFWA Management 

Zone, should be identified.

 Compensatory Mitigation Compliance and Monitoring

 Mitigation projects should be inspected to ensure they are implemented as designed, and 

if not, there should be methods to enforce compliance.

 Mitigation projects should be monitored to ensure that the goals and objectives are met 

and that the benefits are effective for the duration of the impact.

 Compensatory Mitigation Reporting

 Standardized, transparent, scalable, and scientifically-defensible reporting requirements 

should be identified for mitigation projects.

 Reports should be compiled, summarized, and reviewed in the WAFWA Management 

Zone in order to determine if Greater Sage-Grouse conservation has been achieved and/or 

to support adaptive management recommendations.

 Compensatory Mitigation Program Implementation Guidelines

 Guidelines for implementing the state-level compensatory mitigation program should 

include holding and applying compensatory mitigation funds, operating a transparent and 

credible accounting system, certifying mitigation credits, and managing reporting 

requirements.
Appendix F HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 F-4 Greater Sage-Grouse Mitigation

Incorporating the Regional Mitigation Strategy into NEPA Analyses

The BLM will include the avoidance, minimization, and compensatory recommendations from the Regional Mitigation 

Strategy in one or more of the NEPA analysis alternatives for BLM management actions and third-party actions that 

result in habitat loss and degradation and the appropriate mitigation actions will be carried forward into the decision.

Implementing a Compensatory Mitigation Program

The BLM needs to ensure that compensatory mitigation is strategically implemented to provide a net conservation gain 

to the species, as identified in the Regional Mitigation Strategy. In order to align with existing compensatory mitigation 

efforts, this compensatory mitigation program will be managed at a State level (as opposed to a WAFWA Management 

Zone, a Field Office, or a Forest), in collaboration with our partners (e.g. federal, tribal, and state agencies). 

To ensure transparent and effective management of the compensatory mitigation funds, the BLM will enter into a 

contract or agreement with a third party to help manage the State-level compensatory mitigation funds, within one year 

of the issuance of the Record of Decision. The selection of the third-party compensatory mitigation administrator will 

conform to all relevant laws, regulations, and policies. The BLM will remain responsible for making decisions that 

affect federal lands.

Glossary Terms

Additionality: The conservation benefits of compensatory mitigation are demonstrably new and would not have 

resulted without the compensatory mitigation project. (Adopted and modified from BLM Manual Section 1794.)

Avoidance mitigation: Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. (40 CFR 

1508.20(a)) (e.g., may also include avoiding the impact by moving the proposed action to a different time or location.)

Compensatory mitigation: Compensating for the (residual) impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or 

environments. (40 CFR 1508.20)

Compensatory mitigation projects: The restoration, creation, enhancement, and/or preservation of impacted resources 

(adopted and modified from 33 CFR 332), such as on-the-ground actions to improve and/or protect habitats (e.g., 

chemical vegetation treatments, land acquisitions, conservation easements). (Adopted and modified from BLM Manual 

Section 1794.)

Compensatory mitigation sites: The durable areas where compensatory mitigation projects will occur. (Adopted and 

modified from BLM Manual Section 1794.)

Durability (protective and ecological): The maintenance of the effectiveness of a mitigation site and project for the 

duration of the associated impacts, which includes resource, administrative/legal, and financial considerations. (Adopted 

and modified from BLM Manual Section 1794.)

Minimization mitigation: Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its 

implementation. (40 CFR 1508.20 (b))

Residual impacts: Impacts that remain after applying avoidance and minimization mitigation; also referred to as 

unavoidable impacts. 

Timeliness: The lack of a time lag between impacts and the achievement of compensatory mitigation goals and 

objectives. (BLM Manual Section 1794)
APPENDIX G

OIL AND GAS LEASE STIPULATIONS AND EXCEPTION, 

MODIFICATION, AND WAIVER CRITERIA

HiLine Approved Plan Appendix G

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria G-1 September 2015

Appendix G

Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations and

Exception, Modification, and Waiver Criteria

“A stipulation included in an oil and gas lease shall be subject to modification or waiver only if the authorized officer 

determines that the factors leading to its inclusion in the lease have changed sufficiently to make the protection provided 

by the stipulation no longer justified or if proposed operations would not cause unacceptable impacts. If the authorized 

officer has determined, prior to lease issuance, that a stipulation involves an issue of major concern to the public, 

modification or waiver of the stipulation shall be subject to public review for at least a 30-day period. In such cases, the 

stipulation shall indicate that public review is required before modification or waiver. If subsequent to lease issuance 

the authorized officer determines that a modification or waiver of a lease term or stipulation is substantial, the 

modification or waiver shall be subject to public review for at least a 30-day period.” (43 CFR 3101.1-4)

The purpose of this appendix is to provide the stipulations that would be applied to future leases within the 

planning area under the Approved Plan.

Exceptions, Modifications, and Waivers

Any requests for exceptions, modifications, and waivers from the stipulations would be processed by the appropriate 

BLM office. The requests for exceptions must be initiated in writing by the operator near the time that the work is 

proposed to be initiated. This requirement is in place due to the unpredictability of weather, animal movement and 

condition, etc. The analysis of a request will typically include the review of potential mitigation measures and 

alternatives (traffic restrictions, alternative scheduling, staged activity, etc.). The request is considered as a unique action 

and is analyzed and documented individually for RMP and NEPA compliance. 

The definitions for exceptions, modifications, and waivers are as follows:

Exception – A one-time exemption for a particular site within the leasehold; exceptions are determined on a case-bycase basis; the stipulation continues to apply to all other sites within the leasehold. An exception is a limited type of 

waiver.

Modification – A change to the provisions of a lease stipulation, either temporarily or for the term of the lease. 

Depending on the specific modification, the stipulation may or may not apply to all sites within the leasehold to which 

the restrictive criteria are applied.

Waiver – A permanent exemption from a lease stipulation. The stipulation no longer applies anywhere within the 

leasehold.

Process for Reviewing and Approving an Exception to, Waiver of, or Modification to a 

Stipulation on a Lease That Has Been Issued (WO IM No. 2008-32)

The authorized officer generally requires the operator to submit a written request for an exception, waiver, or 

modification and information demonstrating that (1) the factors leading to the inclusion of the stipulation in the lease 

have changed sufficiently to make the protection provided by the lease stipulation no longer justified or (2) that the 

proposed operation would not cause unacceptable impacts. Requests from the operator should contain, at a minimum, a 

plan including related on-site or off-site mitigation efforts, to adequately protect affected resources; data collection and 

monitoring efforts; and timeframes for initiation and completion of construction, drilling, and completion operations. 

The operator’s request may be included in an APD, Notice of Staking, Sundry Notice, or letter. The BLM may also 

proactively initiate the process.

During the review process, BLM coordination with other state or federal agencies should be undertaken, as appropriate, 

and documented. For example, it may be appropriate to coordinate the review of wildlife exceptions, waivers, and
Appendix G HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 G-2 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

modifications with the local office of the State wildlife agency. The BLM will also consult with the federal Surface 

Management Agency if other than the BLM.

The BLM staff’s review and recommendations should be documented along with any necessary mitigation and provided 

to the authorized officer for approval or disapproval. The applicant is then provided with a written notification of the

decision. Decisions on exceptions, waivers, and modifications are subject to administrative review by the State Director 

and thereafter may be appealed to the Interior Board of Land Appeals pursuant to 43 CFR Part 4. However, decisions on 

exceptions, waivers, and modifications submitted by the operator after drilling has commenced are final for the 

Department of the Interior and not subject to administrative review by the State Director or appeal pursuant to 43 CFR 

Part 4. 

After drilling has commenced, the BLM may consider verbal requests for, and grant verbal approvals of, exceptions, 

waivers, or modifications. However, the operator must submit a written notice within 7 days after the verbal request. 

The BLM must also confirm verbal approvals in writing. This requirement is provided for in Onshore Oil and Gas Order 

No. 1. Operators should not be encouraged to submit requests unless the delay in completing the well was due to

unforeseen circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the operator or a serious economic or a public health and 

safety problem could result from denial of the request.
HiLine Approved Plan Appendix G

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria G-3 September 2015

Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations

Resource: Air Resource Protection – Controlled Surface Use

Stipulation: Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraint:

Ensure that each diesel-fueled nonroad engine with greater than 200 horsepower (hp) design rating to 

be used during drilling or completion activities meets one of the following two criteria: (1) the engine 

was manufactured to meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) nitrogen oxides (NOx) 

emission standards for Tier 4 nonroad diesel engines, or (2) the engine emits NOx at rates less than or 

equal to EPA emission standards for Tier 4 nonroad diesel engines.

Objective: To protect air resources and ensure compliance with the 1-hour nitrogen dioxide (NO2) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).

Any changes to this stipulation will be made in accordance with the land use plan and/or the regulatory 

provisions for such changes.

Exception: An exception may be granted by the authorized officer if air quality modeling, air quality monitoring, 

or other information demonstrates compliance with the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.

Modification: This stipulation may be modified if the EPA or the Montana Department of Environmental Quality 

(MDEQ) adds, deletes, or revises NOx emission standards for drill rig, completion rig, or nonroad 

engines.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if air quality modeling, air quality monitoring, or other information 

demonstrates that all drilling and completion activity within the lease area will meet the 1-hour NO2

NAAQS. The stipulation may also be waived if the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS is revoked or otherwise 

rendered inapplicable to drilling/completion operations.

Resource: National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Eligible Properties/Districts – No 

Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Occupancy and use is prohibited within the boundaries of cultural properties and archaeological/

historic districts determined to be eligible or potentially eligible to the National Register of Historic 

Places. 

Objective: To protect significant cultural properties and archaeological districts and their settings, and to avoid 

disturbance or inadvertent impacts to these resources. 

Exception: None.

Modification: None.

Waiver: None. 

Resource: Cultural Resource Survey 

Stipulation: An inventory of those portions of the leased lands subject to proposed disturbance may be required 

prior to any surface disturbance to determine if cultural resources are present and to identify needed 

mitigation measures. Prior to undertaking any surface-disturbing activities on the lands covered by 

this lease, the lessee or operator shall: 
Appendix G HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 G-4 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

1. Engage the services of a cultural resource consultant acceptable to the Surface Management 

Agency (SMA) to conduct a cultural resource inventory of the area of proposed surface 

disturbance. The operator may elect to inventory an area larger than the standard ten-acre 

minimum to cover possible site relocation which may result from environmental or other 

considerations. An acceptable inventory report is to be submitted to the SMA for review and 

approval no later than that time when an otherwise complete application for approval of drilling or 

subsequent surface-disturbing operation is submitted. 

2. Implement mitigation measures required by the SMA. Mitigation may include the relocation of 

proposed lease-related activities or other protective measures such as data recovery and extensive 

recordation. Where impacts to cultural resources cannot be mitigated to the satisfaction of the 

SMA, surface occupancy on that area must be prohibited. The lessee or operator shall 

immediately bring to the attention of the SMA any cultural resources discovered as a result of 

approved operations under this lease, and shall not disturb such discoveries until directed to 

proceed by the SMA. 

Objective: Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is required for all actions 

which may affect cultural properties eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. Section 6 of 

the Oil and Gas Lease Terms (Form 3100-11) requires that operations be conducted in a manner that 

minimizes adverse impacts to cultural and other resources. 

Exception: None. 

Modification: None. 

Waiver: None. 

Resource: Cultural Resources and Tribal Consultation

Stipulation: This lease may be found to contain historic properties and/or resources protected under the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act, E.O. 13007, or other statutes and executive orders. The BLM will not 

approve any surface-disturbing activities that may affect any such properties or resources until it 

completes its obligations under applicable requirements of the NHPA and other authorities. The BLM 

may require modification to exploration or development proposals to protect such properties, or 

disapprove any activity that is likely to result in adverse effects that cannot be successfully avoided, 

minimized or mitigated.

Objective: To protect significant historic properties and resources. 

Exception: None. 

Modification: None.

Waiver: None. 

Resource: National Park Service Bear Paw Battlefield – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited in the parcel adjacent to the Bear Paw Battlefield identified as 

T30N, R19E, Sec. 12, SW1/4NE1/4. 
HiLine Approved Plan Appendix G

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria G-5 September 2015

Objective: To avoid disturbance and to protect archaeological properties of the Bear Paw Battlefield. 

Exception: None. 

Modification: None. 

Waiver: None. 

Resource: Paleontological Resources – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within designated paleontological sites/locales. 

Objective: To preserve and protect significant vertebrate fossils and paleontological locales. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the lessee or operator submits a plan which 

demonstrates that the adverse impacts to significant paleontological resources can be mitigated through 

recovery and extensive recordation. Where impacts to paleontological resources cannot be mitigated 

to the satisfaction of the surface management agency (SMA), surface occupancy on that area must be 

prohibited. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the designated paleontological site/locale can be occupied without adversely affecting the 

resource values. 

Waiver: None.

Resource: Paleontological Resource Inventory 

Stipulation: Prior to any surface-disturbing activity in areas known to have a high potential (Class 4 and 5) for 

containing significant paleontological resources, the lessee shall be required to conduct a 

paleontological inventory. The lessee must engage the services of a qualified paleontologist, 

acceptable to the surface management agency (SMA), to conduct the inventory. An acceptable 

inventory report is to be submitted to the SMA for review and approval at the time a surface-disturbing 

plan of operations is submitted. 

Objective: To preserve and protect scientifically significant vertebrate fossils and paleontological locales. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the area has already been inventoried for 

paleontological resources. 

Modification: None.

Waiver: None. 

Resource: Recreation Sites – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within and 500 feet from recreation sites. 

Objective: To recognize and protect the public’s opportunity for quality recreation experiences at those sites 

developed for recreation. Since BLM recreation sites are generally developed to support the use of the 

surrounding lands, 500 feet provides protection for perpetuating those opportunities for which the site 

was developed, reduces the visual intrusion and noise, and protects capital investments at the site. 
Appendix G HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 G-6 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if a site is moved or eliminated. 

Modification: The list of recreation sites may be modified if a site is removed, or if a site is developed in the future. 

Waiver: A waiver may be granted if a site is moved or eliminated. 

Resource: National Historic Trails – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within the National Trail Management Corridor of designated 

National Historic Trails. Designated National Historic Trails include the Lewis and Clark Trail and the 

Nez Perce Trail. 

Objective: To protect the nature and purposes; trail resources, qualities, values and associated settings; and 

primary use or uses of the historic trail, in accordance with the National Trails System Act.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception when the operator submits a comprehensive trail 

inventory, as outlined in Manual 6280, and presents a proposal which demonstrates resource values are 

not affected or that adverse impacts can be adequately mitigated to prevent impacts to:

• the nature and purposes of the National Trail,

• National Trail resources, qualities, values, and associated settings. 

• National Trail primary use or uses.

• the National Trail from the cumulative or trailwide perspective.

Modification: None.

Waiver: None.

Resource: Residential Structures – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within and 500 feet of incorporated city limits or occupied 

dwellings. 

Objective: To ensure a proper distance between development and human occupation for health and safety 

purposes; 500 feet provides for reduced visual intrusion, noise, traffic, and dust. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the public’s health and safety. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold can be 

occupied without adversely affecting the public’s health and safety. 

Resource: Sagebrush Focal Area

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within the Sagebrush Focal Area. 

Objective: To provide the protection needed in order to preserve areas of BLM-administered land identified by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as “strongholds” for Greater Sage-Grouse having the highest 

densities of Greater Sage-Grouse and other criteria important for the persistence of Greater SageGrouse.
HiLine Approved Plan Appendix G

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria G-7 September 2015

Exception: None. 

Modification: None. 

Waiver: None. 

Resource: Soils – Sensitive Soils – Controlled Surface Use 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use will be controlled on sensitive soils. Sensitive soils are determined using a 

combination of slope and soil erodibility. Prior to surface disturbance on sensitive soils, a reclamation 

plan must be approved by the administrative officer. The plan must demonstrate the following: (1) no 

other practicable alternatives exist for relocating the activity, (2) the activity will be located to reduce 

impacts to soil and water resources, (3) site productivity will be maintained or restored, (4) surface 

runoff and sedimentation will be adequately controlled, (5) on- and off-site areas will be protected 

from accelerated erosion, (6) that no areas susceptible to mass wasting would be disturbed and (7) 

surface-disturbing activities will be prohibited during extended wet periods.

Objective: To maintain the chemical, physical, and biotic properties of soils, this includes maintaining soil 

productivity, soil stability, and soil biotic properties. This will prevent excessive erosion, potential 

mass wasting, and improve the likelihood of successful reclamation. 

Exception: The administrative officer may grant an exception to this stipulation if the operator can demonstrate 

that the proposed action will not contribute to degradation of the soil resource (e.g., excessive soil 

erosion, mass wasting, and/or lost productivity) or downslope resource conditions (e.g., reduced water 

quality due to sedimentation).

Modification: The administrative officer may modify the area affected by this stipulation if it is determined that 

portions of the leasehold do not contain sensitive soils.

Waiver: The administrative officer may waive this stipulation if it is determined that the entire leasehold does 

not contain sensitive soils.

Resource: Soils – Badlands, Rock Outcrop – No Surface Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited on badlands and rock outcrop.

Objective: To prevent excessive soil erosion and to avoid disturbing areas subject to potential reclamation 

problems.

Exception: The authorized officer may not grant exceptions to this stipulation. 

Modification: The authorized officer may modify the area affected by this stipulation if it is determined that portions 

of the leasehold do not include these types of areas.

Waiver: The authorized officer may waive this stipulation if it is determined that the entire leasehold does not 

include these types of areas.

Resource: Big Bend of the Milk River ACEC – No Surface Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within the Big Bend of the Milk River ACEC.
Appendix G HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 G-8 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

Objective: To provide the protection needed in order to preserve the qualities that prompted the BLM to designate 

this area as an ACEC. 

Exception: None.

Modification: None.

Waiver: None.

Resource: Frenchman Breaks ACEC – No Surface Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within the Frenchman Breaks ACEC. 

Objective: To provide the protection needed in order to preserve the qualities that prompted the BLM to designate 

this area as an ACEC. 

Exception: None.

Modification: None.

Waiver: None.

Resource: Kevin Rim ACEC – No Surface Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within the Kevin Rim ACEC. 

Objective: To provide the protection needed in order to preserve the qualities that prompted the BLM to designate 

this area as an ACEC. 

Exception: None.

Modification: None.

Waiver: None.

Resource: Malta Geological ACEC – Controlled Surface Use

Stipulation: Prior to any surface-disturbing activity in the Malta Geological ACEC the lessee shall be required to 

conduct a paleontological inventory. The lessee must engage the services of a qualified paleontologist, 

acceptable to the surface management agency (SMA), to conduct the inventory. An acceptable 

inventory report is to be submitted to the SMA for review and approval at the time a surface-disturbing 

plan of operations is submitted. 

Objective: To provide the protection needed in order to preserve the qualities that prompted the BLM to designate 

this area as an ACEC.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the qualities of the ACEC. 
HiLine Approved Plan Appendix G

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria G-9 September 2015

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold can be 

occupied without adversely affecting the qualities of the ACEC.

Resource: Woody Island ACEC – No Surface Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within the Woody Island ACEC.

Objective: To provide the protection needed in order to preserve the qualities that prompted the BLM to designate 

this area as an ACEC.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the qualities of the ACEC. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold can be 

occupied without adversely affecting the qualities of the ACEC. 

Resource: Visual Resources – Controlled Surface Use

Stipulation: In order to retain the existing character of the landscape (VRM Class II Objective), oil and gas 

development activities will be located, designed, constructed, operated, and reclaimed so that activities 

should not attract attention to the casual observer within 2 years from initiation of construction. This 

stipulation does not apply to the operation and maintenance activities.

Objective: To protect visual resource values while allowing energy development and related activities to occur 

that have been mitigated to retain the character of the existing area.

Exception: None.

Modification: None.

Waiver: None.

Resource: Water, Riparian, Wetland, and Floodplains – No Surface Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within perennial or intermittent streams, lakes, ponds, 

reservoirs, 100-year floodplains, wetlands, and riparian areas. 

Objective: To protect the unique biological and hydrological features associated with perennial or intermittent 

streams, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, floodplains, wetlands, and riparian areas. 

Exception: No exceptions would be allowed in streams, natural lakes, or wetlands. An exception may be granted

by the authorized officer for riparian areas, floodplains, and artificial ponds or reservoirs if the operator 

can demonstrate that: (1) there are no practicable alternatives to locating facilities in these areas, (2) 

the proposed actions would maintain or enhance resource functions, and (3) all reclamation goals and 

objectives would be met.

Modification: The authorized officer may modify the boundaries of the stipulated area if it is determined that portions 

of the leasehold do not include these types of areas. 
Appendix G HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 G-10 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

Waiver: The authorized officer may waive this stipulation if it is determined that the entire leasehold does not 

include these types of areas. 

Resource: Source Water Protection Areas – No Surface Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within State-designated Source Water Protection Areas.

Objective: To protect human health by minimizing the potential contamination of public water systems. Source 

water is untreated water from streams, rivers, lakes, or aquifers used to supply public water systems. 

Ensuring that source water is protected from contamination can reduce the costs of treatment and risks 

to public health. This stipulation would protect the State-designated Source Water Protection Areas 

that protect public water systems from potential contamination.

Exception: The authorized officer may not grant exceptions to this stipulation.

Modification: The authorized officer may modify the boundaries of the stipulated area if it is determined that portions 

of the leasehold do not include Source Water Protection Areas.

Waiver: The authorized officer may waive this stipulation if it is determined that the entire leasehold does not 

include Source Water Protection Areas.

Resource: Water, Riparian, and Wetlands – Controlled Surface Use

Stipulation: 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. The plan will address: (a) 

potential impacts to riparian and wetland resources, (b) mitigation to reduce impacts to acceptable 

levels (including timing restrictions), (c) post project restoration, and (d) monitoring (the operator must 

conduct monitoring capable of detecting early signs of changing riparian and/or wetland conditions). 

Objective: To protect the unique biological and hydrological features associated with wetland and riparian areas. 

Disturbances adjacent to wetland and/or riparian areas (including road use) can adversely impact these 

sensitive areas. This stipulation would protect these features from indirect effects produced within the 

adjacent ground. This would also encompass the floodplain along most first to third order streams.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception to this stipulation if the operator can demonstrate that 

the proposed action would not adversely impact wetland or riparian function or associated water 

quality. 

Modification: The area affected by this stipulation can be modified by the authorized officer if it is determined that 

portions of the lease area do not contain wetlands or riparian areas. 

Waiver: This stipulation can be waived by the authorized officer if it is determined that the entire lease area 

does not contain wetlands or riparian areas. 

Resource: Lands with Wilderness Characteristics - Areas 49B, 52L and 53 – No Surface 

Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within areas that are managed to protect wilderness 

characteristics. 

Objective: To protect wilderness characteristics as a priority over other multiple uses.
HiLine Approved Plan Appendix G

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria G-11 September 2015

Exception: None.

Modification: None.

Waiver: None.

Resource: Bald Eagle – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/2 mile of bald eagle nest sites that were active within 

the preceding 5 breeding seasons. 

Objective: To protect bald eagle nesting sites and/or breeding habitat in accordance with the Montana Bald Eagle 

Management Plan. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan which demonstrates that 

the proposed action will not affect the bald eagle or its habitat. If the authorized officer determines 

that the action may have an adverse effect, the operator may submit a plan demonstrating that the 

impacts can be adequately mitigated. This plan must be approved by the BLM. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting bald eagle nest sites or nesting areas. 

The authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting 

actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold is no 

longer capable of supporting bald eagle nest sites or nesting habitat. 

Resource: Bighorn Sheep Lambing – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within bighorn sheep lambing areas. 

Objective: To protect bighorn sheep lambing areas from disturbance and to facilitate long-term maintenance of 

bighorn sheep populations.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area no longer contain lambing habitat for bighorn sheep. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains bighorn sheep lambing areas.

Resource: Bighorn Sheep Range – Controlled Surface Use 

Stipulation: Prior to surface-disturbing or disruptive activities a plan to maintain bighorn sheep habitat will be 

prepared by the proponent and implemented upon approval by the authorized officer. This plan shall 

address how short-term and long-term direct and indirect effects to bighorn sheep range will be 

mitigated based on current science and research (Appendix E.5). 

Objective: To protect bighorn sheep habitat and populations from disturbance and to facilitate long-term 

maintenance of bighorn sheep populations.
Appendix G HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 G-12 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if an environmental review determines that the action, 

as proposed or conditioned, would not compromise the functionality of the habitat for bighorn sheep.

Modification: The authorized officer may modify the area subject to the stipulation if an environmental analysis finds 

that a portion of the area is no longer bighorn sheep habitat and supports no bighorn sheep populations. 

The authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting 

actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived, if it is determined that bighorn sheep populations no longer occupy 

significant portions of the area and there is no reasonable likelihood of functional bighorn sheep 

habitat being restored.

Resource: Black-footed Ferret – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of black-footed ferret habitat.

Objective: To protect black-footed ferret habitat for long-term maintenance of black-footed ferret populations. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer, in consultation with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), determines that portions of the area can be occupied 

without adversely affecting black-footed ferret habitat. The authorized officer may also modify the 

size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual habitat suitability and/or local periods 

of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer, in consultation with USFWS, determines that 

the entire leasehold is no longer considered black-footed ferret habitat. 

Resource: Black-tailed Prairie Dog – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of black-tailed prairie dog habitat.

Objective: To protect prairie dog towns necessary for long-term maintenance of black-tailed prairie dog 

populations. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting prairie dog habitat. The authorized 

officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual habitat 

suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold is no 

longer considered prairie dog habitat. 

Resource: Colonial Waterbirds – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of a waterbird nesting colony. 
HiLine Approved Plan Appendix G

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria G-13 September 2015

Objective: To protect colonial waterbird nesting sites and to maintain regional colonial waterbird populations. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if portions of the area can be occupied without 

adversely affecting waterbird nesting colonies.

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting waterbird nesting colonies. The 

authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual 

habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold is no 

longer capable of supporting nesting waterbirds. 

Resource: Colonial Waterbirds – Timing Limitation 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/2 mile of a waterbird nesting colony from April 1 

through July 15. 

Objective: To protect colonial waterbirds and to maintain colonial waterbird populations. 

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted if the authorized officer determines that portions of the 

area can be occupied without adversely affecting waterbird nesting colonies. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting waterbird nesting colonies. The 

authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual 

habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold is no 

longer capable of supporting nesting waterbirds. 

Resource: Crucial Winter Range – Controlled Surface Use

Stipulation: Prior to surface-disturbing or disruptive activities a plan to maintain functionality of crucial winter 

range for big game and/or Greater Sage-Grouse will be prepared by the proponent and implemented 

upon approval by the authorized officer. Within crucial winter range surface-disturbing or disruptive 

activities will be restricted or prohibited within 6/10 of a mile from any existing surface-disturbing or

disruptive activity. The plan shall address how short-term and long-term direct and indirect effects to 

crucial winter range will be mitigated based on current science and research (Appendix E.5). 

Objective: To protect big game and Greater Sage-Grouse crucial winter range from loss and degradation, and to 

facilitate long-term sustainability of those wildlife populations utilizing crucial winter ranges by 

minimizing mortality of animals through disturbance and disruption.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if an environmental review determines that the action as 

proposed or conditioned (such as exceeding the 6/10 of a mile surface-disturbing or disruptive activity 

restriction) would not compromise the functionality of the crucial winter range. 

Modification: The authorized officer may modify the area subject to the stipulation if an environmental analysis finds 

that a portion of the area no longer contains crucial winter range and populations of wintering animals 

no longer occupy the area. The authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area 

based on studies documenting actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.
Appendix G HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 G-14 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived, if it is determined that wintering animals no longer occupy significant 

portions of the area and there is no reasonable likelihood of future use as crucial winter range.

Resource: Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation

Stipulation: This 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 

a BLM-approved activity that will contribute to a need to list such species or their habitat. The BLM 

may require modifications to or disapprove a 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 

surface-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.

Objective: To protect threatened, endangered species, or special status species. 

Exception: None. 

Modification: None.

Waiver: None. 

Resource: Greater Sage-Grouse Leks (General Habitat Areas) – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 0.6 miles of Greater Sage-Grouse leks. This 

stipulation does not apply within the boundaries of the Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat 

Management Area.

Objective: To protect Greater Sage-Grouse leks to maintain Greater Sage-Grouse populations. 

Exception: The authorized officer, in consultation with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP), may grant an 

exception if portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting Greater Sage-Grouse leks. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer, in consultation with 

MFWP, determines that portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting Greater SageGrouse leks. The authorized officer, in consultation with MFWP, may also modify the size and shape 

of the area based on studies documenting actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer, in consultation with MFWP, determines 

that no portion of the leasehold is within 0.6 mile of the perimeter of an active lek. 

Resource: Greater Sage-Grouse Nesting Habitat (General Habitat Management Areas) –

Controlled Surface Use 

Stipulation: Within Greater Sage-Grouse general habitat surface-disturbing or disruptive activities may be 

restricted or prohibited within 2 miles of Greater Sage-Grouse leks. Prior to surface-disturbing or

disruptive activities a plan to maintain functionality of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat will be prepared by 

the proponent and implemented upon approval by the authorized officer. This plan shall address how 

short-term and long-term direct and indirect effects to nesting and brood-rearing areas will be 

mitigated based on current science and research (Appendix E.5). 
HiLine Approved Plan Appendix G

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria G-15 September 2015

Objective: To protect the integrity of the habitat to maintain or improve Greater Sage-Grouse populations.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if an environmental review determines that the action, 

as proposed or conditioned, would not compromise the functionality of the habitat for Greater SageGrouse and would meet the objective for Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and populations.

Modification: The authorized officer may modify the area subject to the stipulation if an environmental analysis finds 

that a portion of the area is no longer Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and supports no Greater SageGrouse populations.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if no portion of the leasehold is within 2 miles of the perimeter of an 

active lek.

Resource: Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Management Areas – No Surface 

Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Management 

Area and the Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Management Area.

Objective: To protect the integrity of the habitat to maintain or improve Greater Sage-Grouse populations.

Exception: The Authorized Officer may grant an exception to a fluid mineral lease NSO stipulation only where the 

proposed action: 

(i) would not have direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on Greater Sage-Grouse or its habitat; 

or,

(ii) is proposed to be undertaken as an alternative to a similar action occurring on a nearby parcel, 

and would provide a clear conservation gain to Greater Sage-Grouse.

Exceptions based on conservation gain (ii) may only be considered in (a) PHMAs of mixed ownership 

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

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

to a valid Federal fluid mineral lease existing as of the date of this RMP 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 Authorized Officer only with the 

concurrence of the State Director. The Authorized Officer 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 Greater 

Sage-Grouse 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.

Modification: None.

Waiver: None.

Resource: Greater Sage-Grouse Winter Range – Timing Limitation

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited from December 1 through March 31 in Greater Sage-Grouse

winter range.
Appendix G HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 G-16 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

Objective: To protect Greater Sage-Grouse winter range from disturbance during the winter season and to 

facilitate long-term maintenance of wildlife populations.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area no longer contain viable winter range. The dates for the timing restriction may be 

modified if new wildlife use information indicates that the dates are not valid for the leasehold. The 

authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual 

habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains viable winter range.

Resource: Interior Least Tern – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of interior least tern occupied habitat. 

Objective: To protect and maintain habitat needed to support regional interior least tern populations. 

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted if the authorized officer, in consultation with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), determines that portions of the area can be occupied without 

adversely affecting interior least tern occupied habitat. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer, in consultation with 

USFWS, determines that portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting interior least 

tern occupied habitat. The authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on 

studies documenting actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer, in consultation with USFWS, determines that 

the entire leasehold can be occupied without adversely affecting interior least tern occupied habitat. 

Resource: Mountain Plover – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within mountain plover habitat. 

Objective: To protect mountain plover habitat and to maintain mountain plover populations. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if portions of the area can be occupied without 

adversely affecting mountain plover habitat. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting mountain plover habitat. The 

authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual 

habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold is no 

longer mountain plover habitat. 
HiLine Approved Plan Appendix G

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria G-17 September 2015

Resource: Mountain Plover – Timing Limitation 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of mountain plover habitat from April 1 

through July 15. 

Objective: To protect mountain plover habitat and to maintain mountain plover populations. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if portions of the area can be occupied without 

adversely affecting mountain plover habitat. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting mountain plover habitat. The 

authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual 

habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold is no 

longer mountain plover habitat. 

Resource: Pallid Sturgeon – Controlled Surface Use 

Stipulation: Prior to surface-disturbing or disruptive activities occurring in or within 1/2 mile of river or stream 

shorelines identified as pallid sturgeon habitat, a plan to maintain pallid sturgeon habitat would be 

prepared by the proponent and implemented upon approval by the authorized officer.

Objective: To protect and maintain habitat needed to support pallid sturgeon populations. 

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted if the authorized officer, in consultation with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), determines that portions of the area can be occupied without 

adversely affecting pallid sturgeon habitat. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer, in consultation with 

USFWS, determines that portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting pallid 

sturgeon habitat. The authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on 

studies documenting actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer, in consultation with USFWS, determines that 

the entire leasehold can be occupied without adversely affecting pallid sturgeon habitat. 

Resource: Peregrine Falcon – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1 mile of peregrine falcon nest sites active within the 

preceding 7 breeding seasons. 

Objective: To maintain the reproductive potential of raptor nest sites. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts to raptors from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the production potential of raptor nest 

sites. The authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies 

documenting actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.
Appendix G HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 G-18 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains habitat for raptor nest sites. 

Resource: Piping Plover – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of piping plover habitat. 

Objective: To protect piping plover habitat and to maintain regional piping plover populations. 

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted if the authorized officer, in consultation with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), determines that portions of the area can be occupied without 

adversely affecting piping plover habitat. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer, in consultation with 

USFWS, determines that portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting piping 

plover habitat. The authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies 

documenting actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer, in consultation with USFWS, determines that 

the entire leasehold is no longer piping plover habitat. 

Resource: Raptors – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of raptor nest sites that were active within the 

past 7 years. 

Objective: To maintain the reproductive potential of raptor nest sites. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts to raptors from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the production potential of raptor nest 

sites. The authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies 

documenting actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains habitat for raptor nest sites. 

Resource: Raptors – Timing Limitation 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/2 mile of active raptor nest sites from March 1 

through July 31. 

Objective: To maintain the reproductive potential of raptor nest sites. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the production potential of raptor nest 
HiLine Approved Plan Appendix G

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria G-19 September 2015

sites. The authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies 

documenting actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains a raptor nest or has a nest that has not been active in 7 years. 

Resource: Sharp-tailed Grouse Leks – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of sharp-tailed grouse leks. 

Objective: To protect sharp-tailed grouse leks and to maintain sharp-tailed grouse populations. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting sharp-tailed grouse leks. The 

authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual 

habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains sharp-tailed grouse leks. 

Resource: Sharp-tailed Grouse Nesting Habitat – Timing Limitation 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/2 mile of sharp-tailed grouse leks from March 15 

through June 30.

Objective: To protect sharp-tailed grouse nesting habitat necessary for long-term maintenance of sharp-tailed 

grouse populations. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the sharp-tailed grouse populations. 

The authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting 

actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains sharp-tailed grouse nesting habitat. 

Resource: Sprague’s Pipit – Timing Limitation

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited from April 15 through July 15 in Sprague’s pipit habitat.

Objective: To protect Sprague’s pipit habitat necessary for long-term maintenance of Sprague’s pipit populations.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 
Appendix G HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 G-20 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area no longer contain Sprague’s pipit habitat. The dates for the timing restriction may 

be modified if new wildlife use information indicates that the dates are not valid for the leasehold. The 

authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual 

habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains Sprague’s pipit habitat.

Resource: Winter Range – Timing Limitation

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited from December 1 through May 15 in big game winter range.

Objective: To protect big game and Greater Sage-Grouse winter range from disturbance during the winter season 

and to facilitate long-term maintenance of wildlife populations.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area no longer contain viable winter range. The dates for the timing restriction may be 

modified if new wildlife use information indicates that the dates are not valid for the leasehold. The 

authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual 

habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains viable winter range.
APPENDIX H

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

HiLine Approved Plan Appendix H

Best Management Practices H-1 September 2015

Appendix H

Best Management Practices

Introduction

The following Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions are a compilation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

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).

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.
Appendix H HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 H-2 Best Management Practices

General Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Resources

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/

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 BMPs for protecting air resources during oil and gas development and 

production operations. The above-referenced document is supplemented with the following BMPs. Some of the 

following BMPs, or equivalent measures, are required by state air quality regulations for sources meeting certain criteria. 

In those cases, compliance with regulatory requirements is considered to meet equivalent BMPs.

 Fugitive dust emissions would be reduced by:

o restricting the extent of surface impacts during construction activities and ongoing operations by using 

directional drilling to reduce the number of well pads,

o locating linear facilities in the same or parallel trenches and constructing them at the same time,

o mowing rather than removing vegetation,

o using two-track primitive roads whenever possible rather than developing a dirt road,

o applying water or chemical suppressants (e.g., magnesium chloride, calcium chloride, lignin, or sulfonate)

to unpaved roads,

o surfacing roads with chip-seal or asphalt, and

o requiring vehicle speed limits on unpaved roads.

 Fugitive dust and vehicle exhaust emissions (primarily carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, black carbon, sulfur 

dioxide, and nitrogen oxides) would be reduced by restricting vehicle trips by:

o consolidating facilities by using directional drilling and multiwall pads,

o developing centralized liquid collection (water, produced water, and fracturing liquid) facilities and 

production (treatment and product storage) facilities to reduce the number and distance of vehicle trips,

o using shuttles or vanpools for employee commuting,

o using automated equipment and remote telemetry, and 

o using solar power to add automated equipment in areas without access to electricity.

 Non-vehicular engine exhaust emissions would be reduced by:

o electrifying equipment when feasible,

o achieving high levels of emission control on diesel drill rig engines by using Tier 4 drill rig engines or 

engines that have been retrofitted with additional emission controls such as nonselective catalytic 

reduction,

o using natural gas driven engines rather than diesel engines,

o using compressor engines that meet New Source Performance Standards for spark-ignition and 

compression-ignition engines (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 60, Subparts IIII and JJJJ) 

regardless of engine age,

o using alternative energy (solar power, wind power, or both) to power new water source developments, and

o converting power sources at existing water wells to alternative energy sources.
HiLine Approved Plan Appendix H

Best Management Practices H-3 September 2015

 Fugitive volatile organic compound (VOC), hazardous air pollutant (HAP), or methane (a GHG) would be 

reduced by:

o using green completion technology to capture methane (and some VOC and HAP) emissions during 

completion and routing them to sales pipelines,

o using flaring rather than venting, but only in cases in which product capture is not feasible,

o using closed tanks rather than open tanks or pits,

o installing vapor recovery units on storage tanks,

o using closed-loop drilling,

o replacing pneumatic (natural gas) pumps with electric or solar pumps,

o optimizing glycol circulation rates on glycol dehydrators,

o replacing wet seals with dry seals in centrifugal compressors,

o replacing worn rod packing in reciprocating compressors,

o installing automated plunger lift systems in natural gas wells, and

o monitoring and repairing equipment leaks.

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 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 of threatened 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.
Appendix H HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 H-4 Best Management Practices

 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, as amended in 2006, 

2012. (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee. Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines: The State of 

the Art in 2012. Edison Electric Institute and APLIC. Washington, D.C. Available online at 

http://www.aplic.org/uploads/files/11218/Reducing_Avian_Collisions_2012watermarkLR.pdf.)

 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 deadbird 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.

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 MDT’s 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.
HiLine Approved Plan Appendix H

Best Management Practices H-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.

Grazing Management BMPs (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 HiLine District 

are presented in Appendix H.

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/
Appendix H HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 H-6 Best Management Practices

Management of Land Boundaries

Developed by: Department of the Interior and Bureau of Land Management

Publication reference: DOI 600 DM 5 and BLM H-9600-1

Available from: Online at: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/cadastralsurvey/cadastral_review_of.html.

Description: The Departmental Manual 600 Chapter 5, Standards for Federal Lands Boundary Evidence and BLM H9600-1, Cadastral Survey Handbook, provides general information regarding BLM BMPs for management of public land 

boundaries. Samples of Management of Land Boundaries BMPs are available with a brief description of types of BMPs 

and terminology.

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: 2012

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://deq.mt.gov/wqinfo/nonpoint/2012NonpointPlan/NPSPlan_Complete_07162012.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.
HiLine Approved Plan Appendix H

Best Management Practices H-7 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 collocated 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 authorized officer, 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.
Appendix H HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 H-8 Best Management Practices

• Accelerated erosion, soil loss, and impacts to water quality would be reduced by diverting stormwater and 

trapping sediment during activity. 

• Pitless or above ground 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.

• 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 ROWs, 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.

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.
HiLine Approved Plan Appendix H

Best Management Practices H-9 September 2015

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

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

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_instruction/2009/IM

_2009-043.htm.

 Solar Energy Development Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement: http://www.solareis.anl.gov/

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

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.
Appendix H HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 H-10 Best Management Practices

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.

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
APPENDIX I

MITIGATION MEASURES AND CONSERVATION ACTIONS FOR 

GREATER SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT

HiLine Approved Plan Appendix I

Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for I-1 September 2015

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Appendix I

Mitigation Measures and Conservation

Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Introduction

These Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat are a compilation of management 

strategies and project design features employed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to mitigate impacts from 

surface disturbance in priority and general sage-grouse habitat in order to meet the goals and objectives set forth in the 

BLM National Sage-grouse Conservation Strategy and in individual land use plans. They apply to activities such as road 

or pipeline construction, range improvements, and permitted land uses or recreation activities. These guidelines are 

presented as an appendix for easy reference as they apply to many resources and were derived from many laws and other 

guidelines such as the Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Sage-grouse in Montana, the BLM National 

Technical Team Report (WO IM No. 2012-044, BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy), 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA), Conservation Strategy for Greater Sage-grouse, and 

others. These Mitigation Measures and Conservations Actions must be used in accordance with the “no net unmitigated 

loss” standard enunciated in Appendix F of this Approved Plan and Chapter 2 of the HiLine Proposed RMP/Final EIS.

The guidelines are primarily included to provide consistency within the Montana/Dakotas BLM in how management 

practices and requirements are identified and applied to avoid and mitigate environmental impacts and resource and land 

use conflicts in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Consistency in this sense does not mean that identical requirements would 

be applied for all similar types of land use activities, nor does it mean that the requirements or guidelines for a single 

land use activity would be identical in all areas.

There are two ways the mitigation guidelines are used in the RMP and EIS process: (1) as part of the planning criteria in 

developing the RMP alternatives; and (2) in the analytical processes of both developing the alternatives and analyzing 

the impacts of the alternatives. In the first case, an assumption is made that any one or more of the mitigation measures

or conservation actions will be appropriately included as conditions of relevant actions being proposed or considered in 

each alternative. In the second case, the mitigations are used (1) to develop a baseline for measuring and comparing 

impacts among the alternatives; (2) to identify other actions and alternatives that should be considered; and (3) to help 

determine whether more stringent or less stringent mitigations should be considered. 

The EIS for the RMP does not decide or dictate the exact wording or inclusion of these guidelines. Rather, the 

guidelines are used in the RMP and EIS process as a tool to help develop the RMP alternatives and to provide a baseline 

for comparative impact analysis in arriving at RMP decisions. These guidelines will be used in the same manner in 

analyzing activity plans and other site-specific proposals. These guidelines 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 guidelines and any development of 

program-specific standard stipulations will be handled in another forum, including appropriate public involvement and 

input.

Purpose

The purpose of these mitigation measures and conservation actions is to mitigate impacts from surface disturbance in 

priority and general sage-grouse habitat in order to meet the goals and objectives set forward in the BLM National Sagegrouse Conservation Strategy and in individual land use plans. Application of mitigation measures and conservation 

actions will reserve for the BLM the right to modify the operations of surface-disturbing and/or disruptive activities as 

part of the statutory requirements for environmental protection. Those measures selected for implementation will be 

identified in the Record of Decision (ROD) or Decision Record (DR) for those activities and will inform a potential 

lessee, permittee, or operator of the requirements that must be met when using BLM lands and minerals. These measures

have been written in a format that will allow for either their direct use as stipulations or operating standards and/or in 
Appendix I HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 I-2 Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

addition to specific or specialized mitigation following the submission of a detailed development plan or other project 

proposal and an environmental analysis. These operating standards are given as acceptable methods for mitigating 

anticipated effects and achieving the desired plan outcomes but are not prescribed as the only method for achieving the 

outcomes. 

Those resource activities or programs currently without a standardized set of permit or operation stipulations can use the 

mitigation measures and conservation actions for Greater Sage-Grouse as stipulations or as conditions of approval, or as 

a baseline for developing specific stipulations for a given activity or program. Resource activities or programs with a 

standardized set of permit or operation stipulations will also use Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for 

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat.

These mitigation measures and conservation actions are primarily written for priority sage-grouse habitats. Within 

general habitat the mitigation measures and conservation actions applied are determined at a project-by-project level and 

may be similar in many cases to the priority habitat measures. A selection of mitigation measures and conservation 

actions for general habitat is also included for some programs. At the project level, in order to prioritize certain general 

habitat areas over marginal or substandard sage-grouse habitat areas, consideration should be given to: 

 The capability of the habitat to provide connectivity among priority areas.

 Habitats occupied by sage-grouse where enhancing general sage-grouse habitat can offset losses to habitat 

and/or populations elsewhere within the habitat.

 The potential to replace lost priority habitat or needed changes in total priority habitat due to perturbations 

and/or disturbances, providing connectivity between priority areas, and restoring historical habitat functionality 

to support meeting objectives to maintain or enhance connectivity. 

Threats to Greater Sage-Grouse and Their Habitat

A number of threats and risks to Greater Sage-Grouse and their habitat have been identified during conservation 

planning efforts and assessments. Range wide issues were covered in listing decisions made by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service in 2007 and 2010. In addition, the BLM National Technical Team Report (WO IM No. 2012-044) 

covered BLM program areas with the potential to impact Greater Sage-Grouse populations. The 2005 Management Plan 

and Conservation Strategies for Sage-Grouse in Montana - Final identified twelve major issues:

 Fire Management

 Grazing Management

 Harvest Management 

 Noxious Weed Management 

 Mining and Energy Development

 Outreach and Education 

 Power Lines and Generation Facilities 

 Predation 

 Recreational Disturbance 

 Roads and Motorized Vehicles 

 Vegetation 

 Managing Other Wildlife in Sage-Grouse Habitats 

Conservation Actions

These mitigation measures and conservation actions for Greater Sage-Grouse would be implemented on a projectspecific basis in sage-grouse priority habitat, 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. The mitigation would be 

requirements, procedures, management practices, or design features that the BLM, through issuance of the Record of 

Decision (ROD), would adopt as operational requirements. 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 
HiLine Approved Plan Appendix I

Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for I-3 September 2015

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

local regulatory and resource agencies. Because mitigation measures change or are modified based on new information, 

the guidelines will be updated periodically.

In the very early stages of the development of siting and design plans, project developers shall coordinate with 

appropriate federal, state, and local agencies that regulate activities that affect Greater Sage-Grouse and their habitats to 

determine what expected level of mitigation will be needed to ensure the RMP goals and objectives can be met within 

the proposed action. An environmental review shall demonstrate how the mitigation measures and conservation actions 

being applied to the project lead to impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative) that do not cause the BLM to authorize 

actions that would exceed habitat level thresholds causing goals and objectives for the priority area to not be met. This 

will analyze at the project level at least two considerations to examine functionality of sage-steppe systems and 

thresholds where populations are known to be impacted:

 At the landscape scale, priority areas should be maintained with enough land cover composed of adequate 

sagebrush habitat to provide Greater Sage-Grouse needs to meet priority habitat objectives. This is measured 

using broad-scale habitat classification to determine the amount of potential habitat based on ecological sites 

against habitat lost to permanent to short-term habitat loss from disturbances such as agricultural tillage, fire, 

etc. 

 At the local population scale discrete anthropogenic disturbances should be avoided, minimized, or mitigated to 

maintain the highest quality habitat. The actual impact to sage-grouse will depend on the amount of direct 

disturbance, the level of activity associated with the direct disturbance that leads to indirect disturbance, and the 

cumulative effects of the disturbance level, habitat loss and habitat degradation. 

In analyzing the impact from a project, consideration should be given to the type of activity, the amount of 

anthropogenic disturbance to seasonal Greater Sage-Grouse habitat utilized by the local population, and the landscape 

context. The BLM will analyze and disclose how permitted actions, including included mitigation measures and 

conservation actions, affect the ability of priority area goals and objectives to be met and ensure permitted activities are 

in conformance with the RMP.

Priority Habitat

Travel Management

Travel management should evaluate, during site-specific travel planning, the need for permanent or seasonal road or area 

closures to protect Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat areas.

Use existing roads or realignments to access valid existing rights that are not yet developed. If valid existing rights 

cannot be accessed via existing roads, then any new roads would be constructed to the absolute minimum standard 

necessary.

Allow no upgrading of existing routes that would change route category (road, primitive road, or trail) or capacity unless 

the upgrading would have minimal or beneficial impacts on Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, is necessary for motorist 

safety, or eliminates the need to construct a new road.

Reclaim roads, primitive roads and trails not designated in travel management plans. This also includes primitive 

route/roads that were not designated in Wilderness Study Areas and within lands with wilderness characteristics that 

have been selected for protection.

When reclaiming roads, primitive roads and trails, use appropriate seed mixes and consider the use of transplanted 

sagebrush.
Appendix I HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 I-4 Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Evaluate impacts of existing roads, including two-tracks, in relation to known lek locations and Greater Sage-Grouse

winter ranges. 

Consider the use of speed bumps where appropriate to reduce vehicle speeds near leks, such as during oil and gas 

development. 

Manage on-road travel and OHV use in sage-grouse habitat to avoid disturbance during critical times such as winter, 

breeding and nesting periods. 

Plan or permit organized events to avoid impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Manage motorized and mechanized travel to minimize impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse and their habitat by developing 

standards for future roads to give to BLM, FS, BIA, state, county, and private parties. 

Manage motorized and mechanized travel to minimize impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse by enforcement of existing OHV 

and travel management plans. 

Provide educational opportunities for users of OHVs dealing with the possible effects they may have on Greater SageGrouse. 

Develop a transportation management plan across ownership boundaries in Greater Sage-Grouse habitats. 

Participate in travel planning efforts and educate the general public about the impacts of roads on Greater Sage-Grouse

and their habitat. 

Consider buffers, removal, realignment, or seasonal closures where appropriate to avoid degradation of habitat. 

Reclaim closed roads with locally adapted native plant species beneficial to sage-grouse. 

Close and reclaim travel ways in sage-grouse habitat where appropriate. 

Recreation

Document leks where recreational viewing is occurring. 

Provide educational materials to the public describing effects of concentrated recreational activities and the importance 

of seasonal ranges to Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Issue special use permits for certain activities with distance and timing restrictions to maintain the integrity of breeding, 

nesting and winter habitat. 

Lands and Realty

Within designated ROW corridors encumbered by existing ROW authorizations, new ROWs should be co-located to the 

extent practical and feasible with the entire footprint of the proposed project within the existing disturbance associated 

with the authorized ROWs. 

Subject to valid, existing rights, where new ROWs associated with valid existing rights are required, co-locate new 

ROWs within existing ROWs or where it best minimizes Greater Sage-Grouse impacts. Use existing roads, or 

realignments as described above, to access valid existing rights that are not yet developed. If valid existing rights cannot 

be accessed via existing roads, then build any new road constructed to the absolute minimum standard necessary.

Upon project completion, roads used for commercial access on public lands would be reclaimed unless, based on sitespecific analysis, the route provides specific benefits for public access and does not contribute to resource conflicts.
HiLine Approved Plan Appendix I

Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for I-5 September 2015

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

For powerlines:

 Document the segment(s) of line detrimental to Greater Sage-Grouse.

 Determine by cooperative action – agencies, utilities, and landowners – whether or not modification of poles to 

limit perching will prevent electrocution of raptors and decrease predation on Greater Sage-Grouse. 

 Emphasize the following if perch prevention modifications do not work to protect Greater Sage-Grouse and 

sagebrush habitat: 

o reroute the line using distance, topography, or vegetative cover; or 

o bury the line. 

 Explore opportunities for technical assistance and funding. 

 Remove power line when use is completed. 

 Encourage the use of off-grid systems such as solar, natural gas micro-turbines, and wind power where feasible 

in sage-grouse habitats. 

 Use the best available information for siting power lines on important breeding, brood-rearing, and winter 

habitat in an appropriate vicinity of the proposed line. 

 Initiate collision prevention measures using guidelines (Avian Power Line Action Committee 1994) on 

identified segments. Measures are subject to restriction or modification for wind and ice loading or other 

engineering concerns, or updated collision prevention information.

 Remove power lines that traverse sage-grouse habitats when facilities being serviced are no longer in use or 

when projects are completed. 

Livestock Grazing

Conducting Land Health Assessments and Permit 

Renewals in Priority Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Land Health Assessments

When conducting land health assessments:

 Prioritize allotments that have the best opportunities for conserving, enhancing or restoring habitat for sage‐

grouse.

 Include (at a minimum) indicators and measurements of structure/condition/composition of vegetation specific 

to achieving sage‐grouse habitat objectives (Doherty, et al. 2011). If local/state seasonal habitat objectives are 

not available, use sage‐grouse habitat recommendations from Connelly, et al. (2000b) and Hagen, et al. 2007.

Permit Renewals

When conducting permit renewals:

 If an effective grazing system that meets sage‐grouse habitat requirements is not already in place, analyze at 

least one alternative that conserves, restores or enhances sage‐grouse habitat in the NEPA document prepared 

for the permit renewal if the size of the allotment and/or cooperative opportunities warrant it.

 Work cooperatively on integrated ranch planning within sage-grouse habitat so ranch operations with deeded 

BLM allotments can be planned as single units. 

 Analyze springs, seeps and associated pipelines to determine if modifications are necessary to maintain the 

continuity of the predevelopment riparian area within priority sage‐grouse habitats. Make modifications where 

necessary, considering impacts to other water uses when such considerations are neutral or beneficial to sage‐

grouse. Only authorize new spring or seep developments where the impacts to sage-grouse would be neutral or 

beneficial. 

 Evaluate the role of existing seedings that are currently composed of primarily introduced perennial grasses in 

and adjacent to priority sage‐grouse habitats to determine if they should be restored to sagebrush steppe for 

sage‐grouse. If these seedings are part of an AMP/Conservation Plan or if they provide value in conserving or 

enhancing the rest of the priority habitats, then no restoration would be necessary. Assess the compatibility of 
Appendix I HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 I-6 Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

these seedings for sage‐grouse habitat or as a component of a grazing system during the land health assessments 

(Davies, et al. 2011).

 Evaluate existing structural range improvements and location of supplements (salt or protein blocks) to make 

sure they conserve, enhance or restore sage‐grouse habitat.

o This includes evaluating methods to reduce outright sage‐grouse strikes and mortality, through 

removing, modifying or marking fences in high risk areas within priority sage‐grouse habitat based on 

proximity to lek, lek size, and topography (Christiansen 2009, Stevens 2011).

 Monitor for, and treat invasive species associated with existing range improvements (Gelbard and Belnap 2003 

and Bergquist, et al. 2007).

Include terms and conditions on grazing permits and leases that assure plant growth requirements are met, and residual 

forage remains available for Greater Sage-Grouse hiding cover. Utilize techniques appropriate for uplands vs. 

riparian/meadow areas and enhancement vs. reclamation/restoration. Across all these types of projects consider singly, 

or in combination, changes as necessary: 

 Season or timing of use;

 Numbers of livestock (includes temporary non‐use or livestock removal);

 Distribution of livestock use;

 Intensity of use (utilization or stubble height objectives)

 Kind of livestock (e.g., cattle, sheep, horses, llamas, alpacas and goats)

 Class of livestock (e.g., yearlings versus cow calf pairs) 

Within riparian areas specifically, consider practices such as: 

 Within priority sage‐grouse habitat, reduce hot season grazing on riparian and meadow complexes to promote 

recovery or maintenance of appropriate vegetation and water quality. Utilize fencing/herding techniques or 

seasonal use or livestock distribution changes to reduce pressure on riparian or wet meadow vegetation used by 

sage‐grouse in the hot season (summer).

 Ensure the sustainability of desired soil conditions and ecological processes within upland plant communities 

following implementation of strategies to protect riparian areas. This can be achieved by: 

o protecting natural wet meadows and springs from over-use while developing water for livestock, and 

o planning the location, design, and construction of new fences to minimize impacts on Greater SageGrouse.

Range Management Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions

Design any new structural range improvement and location of supplements (salt or protein blocks) to conserve, enhance, 

or sage-grouse habitat through an improved grazing management system relative to sage-grouse objectives. Structural 

range improvements in this context include, but are not limited to: cattleguards, fences, exclosures, corrals, or other 

livestock handling structures; pipelines, troughs, storage tanks (including moveable tanks used in livestock water 

hauling), windmills, ponds/reservoirs, solar panels, and spring developments.

Discourage concentration of livestock on sage-grouse leks and winter habitat.

If portions of existing fences are found to pose a threat to Greater Sage-Grouse, mitigate through moving or modifying 

posts, increasing the visibility of the fences by flagging, or by designing “take-down” fences. 

Pesticides and Herbicides Use

 Evaluate ecological consequences of using pesticides to control grasshoppers or other insects. 

 Evaluate ecological consequences of broadcast herbicide use on forbs and other important sage-grouse foods. 

 Minimize use of pesticides and herbicides in Greater Sage-Grouse nesting, breeding and brood-rearing habitat.

Noxious Weed Management

 Promote measures that prevent the introduction and spread of weed seeds and other reproducing plant parts.
HiLine Approved Plan Appendix I

Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for I-7 September 2015

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

 Develop and implement management techniques that minimize the risk of infestation. 

 Where feasible, isolate livestock from known infestations and avoid vehicle movement through infested areas.

 Use weed-free seed for reestablishment of vegetation. 

 Eliminate unnecessary soil disturbance and vehicle access/movement into occupied Greater Sage-Grouse

habitat. 

 Limit vehicle use to established roads only. 

 Regularly monitor access points and roads for weed establishment. 

 Develop partnerships with regional public and private land management units.

 Establish goals and set priorities that encompass the needs of both livestock and wildlife managers so all parties 

are working under a similar plan.

 Conduct monitoring and develop follow-up procedures for treated areas. 

 Educate all field personnel on weed identification, the manner in which weeds spread, and methods of treating 

weed infestations. 

 Employ integrated weed management treatment methods such as a combination of biological and cultural, such 

as grazing, mowing, or seeding treatments in conjunction with herbicides to manage weeds in Greater SageGrouse habitat. 

 Use the most selective herbicides where chemical treatment is appropriate, to minimize loss of non-target plant 

species. 

 Restore plant communities with desired species adapted to the site, using proven management techniques where 

biologically feasible. A restoration program may be necessary if conditions prevent natural plant species. 

Fluid Minerals

In cases where federal oil and gas leases have been issued without adequate stipulations for the protection of Greater 

Sage-Grouse or their habitats being provided in the applicable RMP decision, as revised or amended, include mitigation 

measures and conservation actions as permit conditions of approval (COAs) when approving exploration and 

development activities through completion of the environmental record of review or an environmental assessment, as 

appropriate (43 CFR 3162.5).

General or typical COAs are mitigation measures that may be required when processing Applications for Permits to Drill 

(APDs), Sundry Notice Drilling Plans, and Surface Use Plans when they are: 1) not specifically addressed in those plans 

or existing lease stipulations; and 2) needed to mitigate impacts to resource values identified at the onsite inspection or 

during review of the plans. The use of COAs is intended to reduce, mitigate, or minimize impacts from development but 

they do not necessarily avoid or preclude resulting significant impacts from the project.

The COAs also allow the BLM to prescribe resource protection measures for lands that were previously leased with 

varying sets of lease stipulations. However, for lands that are already leased, BLM restrictions on development, not 

required to comply with existing laws, must be reasonable and consistent with existing lease rights. The COAs must not 

constrain or restrict development beyond the measures anticipated or authorized by the lease terms or regulations and/or 

interfere with the lessee’s opportunity to economically recover the oil and gas resources, considering the lease as a 

whole.

Evaluation of these COAs will consider during the NEPA process:

 Whether the conservation measure is “reasonable” (43 CFR 3101.1‐2) and consistent with valid existing rights;

 Whether the action is in conformance with the approved RMP; and

 The effectiveness of the mitigation measures proposed.

When incorporated into BLM’s program in the Record of Decision (ROD), mitigation approaches and conservation 

practices detailed in the Surface Use Plan of Operations (see 43CFR 3162-1(f)) shall address, at a minimum, the 

proposed project’s anticipated noise, density and amount of disturbance, mechanical movement (e.g., pumpjacks), 

permanent and temporary facilities, traffic, phases of development over time, offsite mitigation, and expected periods of 

use. Following larger-scale considerations for minimizing impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse this section contains BMPs 

that will be included, as applicable, as COAs to address to categories of concern. Due to site-specific circumstances, 

some categories may not apply to some projects and/or may require slight variations from the approach described. It is 
Appendix I HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 I-8 Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

anticipated the applicability and/or variation in approach will be limited to project siting and configuration. Additional 

mitigation measures may be identified and required during individual planning. Applicants will be required to discuss 

any proposed variations with BLM staff. All variations will require appropriate analysis and disclosure as part of future 

project authorizations. Those design features that do not apply to a given project will need to be described as part of the 

project file along with an appropriate rationale.

The following hierarchical approach and guidelines should be followed during project development to address these and 

other areas of concern for Greater Sage-Grouse:

Density and Amount of Disturbance

Do not allow new surface occupancy on Federal leases within priority habitat areas, including winter concentration 

areas during any time of the year (Doherty, et al. 2008, Carpenter, et al. 2010). Where this is not possible due to 

valid existing rights and development requirements for the specific geologic and fluid mineral resources, consider 

the following disturbance and surface occupancy limits to the extent practicable:

If the lease is partially or entirely within priority habitat areas:

 Subject to topographic and other environmental constraints, require any development within priority habitat 

to be placed in the area least harmful to sage-grouse based on vegetation, topography, or other habitat 

features.

 To the extent possible and consistent with valid existing rights, limit disturbances to an average of one site 

per 640 acres on average, with no more than 3% direct surface disturbance in the analysis area. 

 When additional mitigation is necessary, conduct it in the impacted priority sage‐grouse habitat areas when 

possible or, if that is not possible, in general sage‐grouse habitat with the ability to increase sage‐grouse 

populations tied to the impacted priority area(s). 

Breeding and Nesting Habitat

To limit impacts to breeding and nesting habitat, surface-disturbing and disruptive activities shall be prohibited or 

restricted within 2 miles of a lek consistent with valid existing rights. If the entire lease is entirely within the 2‐mile 

perimeter of a lek, require any development to be placed at the part of the lease farthest from the lek, or based 

depending on topography and other habitat features, in an area demonstrably the least harmful to sage‐grouse.

To ensure comprehensive planning relative to sage-grouse conflicts, complete Master Development Plans or PODS 

during planning and review of projects involving multiple proposed disturbances within a logical geographic area, 

with an exception for individual wildcat (exploratory) wells.

Encourage unitization when deemed necessary for proper development and operation of an area or to facilitate more 

orderly (e.g., phased and/or clustered) development as a means of minimizing adverse impacts to sage‐grouse (see 

Federal Lease Form, 3100‐11, Sections 4 and 6).

Brood-Rearing Habitat

Apply a seasonal timing restriction on exploratory drilling that avoids construction, drilling, completion, and 

reclamation surface‐disturbing activities during the nesting and early brood‐rearing seasons in all priority sage‐

grouse habitats for this period.

Best Management Practices for Fluid Mineral Development

Prioritize pad development based on suitability of habitat; construct pads that are in less suitable habitat (i.e., along 

existing roadways or within degraded habitats) during the breeding season, and construct pads located in more suitable 

habitat prior to or after the critical breeding season.

Avoid sagebrush, but if disturbance is necessary, interim reclamation should include sage plantings/seedings and/or the 

use of minimum disturbance practices to protect sage on well pads and pipelines.
HiLine Approved Plan Appendix I

Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for I-9 September 2015

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

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.

 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 reclaim 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 pumpjack) to minimize impacts to Greater 

Sage-Grouse. 

 Cover (e.g., fine mesh netting or use other effective techniques) all drilling and production pits and tanks 

regardless of size to reduce Greater 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)

 Mitigate pit and impoundment construction to reduce or eliminate threats from West Nile virus.

 Limit noise to less than 10 decibels above ambient measures (20-24 dBA) at sunrise at the perimeter of a lek 

during active lek season (Patricelli, et al. 2010; Blickley, et al. In preparation). 

 Require noise shields when drilling during the lek, nesting, brood-rearing, or wintering season. 

 Fit transmission towers with anti-perch devices (Lammers and Collopy 2007).

 Locate new compressor stations outside priority habitats and design them to reduce noise that may be directed 

towards priority habitat.

 Clean up refuse.

Reclamation

 Include objectives for ensuring habitat restoration to meet Greater 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 Greater Sage-Grouse habitat needs.
Appendix I HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 I-10 Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

 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. 

Solid Minerals

Recommend minimization of surface-disturbing or disrupting activities (including operations and maintenance) where 

needed to reduce the impacts of human activities on Greater Sage-Grouse habitats. Apply these measures during activity 

level planning.

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 timeframe. 

Use off-site mitigation or purchase conservation easements with industry dollars to offset habitat losses. 

Remove facilities and infrastructure when use is completed. 

Allow no surface use in nesting habitat from March 1 through June 15. 

Restrict maintenance and related activities in Greater Sage-Grouse breeding/nesting complexes – March 1 through June 

15 – between the hours of 4:00 – 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 – 10:00 p.m. 

Allow no surface use activities within Greater Sage-Grouse wintering areas from December 1 through March 31.

Use minimal surface disturbance to install roads and pipelines and reclaim site of abandoned wells to natural 

communities. 

Locate storage facilities, generators, and holding tanks outside the line of sight and sound of breeding habitat. 

See conservation actions related to preventing the spread of weeds and controlling infestations of noxious weeds. 

Engage industry as a partner to develop and establish new sources of seed of native plant species for restoration of sites 

disturbed by development. 

Design impoundments and manage discharge so as not to degrade or inundate leks, nesting sites, and wintering sites. 

Protect natural springs from any source of disturbance or degradation from energy-related activities. 

Provide for long-term monitoring of siting requirements to examine effects of current and future development on sagegrouse. 

Set up a schedule for reviewing and revising siting and use criteria with industry. 

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.
HiLine Approved Plan Appendix I

Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for I-11 September 2015

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

 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 

Greater 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).

 Mitigate pit and impoundment construction to reduce or eliminate threats from West Nile virus

 Remove or re-inject produced water to reduce habitat for mosquitoes that vector West Nile virus. If surface 

disposal of produced water continues, limit favorable mosquito habitat through reservoir design.

 Require Greater Sage-Grouse-safe fences around sumps.

 Clean up refuse.

Reclamation

 Include restoration objectives to meet Greater 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 Greater 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.

Wildfire Suppression, Fuels Management and Fire Rehabilitation

Wildfire Suppression

In Greater Sage-Grouse habitat areas, prioritize suppression, immediately after life and property, to conserve the habitat. 

The BLM will protect sage-grouse habitat during wildfire suppression activities as described in the National Fire 

Suppression Guidelines and the current fire management plan. 

Apply Fire Management BMPs (see WO-IM-2011-138) as appropriate. 

Fire Management Best Management Practices for Sage-Grouse Conservation

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. 
Appendix I HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 I-12 Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

3. Assign a sage-grouse resource advisor to all extended attack fires in or near key sage-grouse habitat areas. Prior 

to the fire season, provide training to sage-grouse resource advisors on wildfire suppression organization, 

objectives, tactics, and procedures to develop a cadre of qualified individuals. 

4. On critical fire weather days, pre-position additional fire suppression resources to optimize a quick and efficient 

response in sage-grouse habitat areas. 

5. During periods of multiple fires, ensure line officers are involved in setting priorities. 

6. To the extent possible, locate wildfire suppression facilities (i.e., base camps, spike camps, drop points, staging 

areas, heli-bases) in areas where physical disturbance to sage-grouse habitat can be minimized. These include 

disturbed areas, grasslands, near roads/trails or in other areas where there is existing disturbance or minimal 

sagebrush cover. 

7. Power-wash all firefighting vehicles, to the extent possible, including engines, water tenders, personnel 

vehicles, and ATVs 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. 

Fuels Management

Design and implement fuels treatments with an emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems. 

 Do not reduce the existing sagebrush canopy cover unless a fuels management objective requires additional 

reduction in sagebrush cover to meet strategic protection of priority Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and conserve 

habitat quality for the species. Closely evaluate the benefits of the fuel break against the additional loss of 

sagebrush cover in an environmental analysis.

 Apply appropriate seasonal restrictions for implementing fuels management treatments according to the type of 

seasonal habitats present in a priority area.

 Allow no treatments in known winter range unless the treatments are designed to strategically reduce wildfire 

risk or enhance habitat around or in the winter range and will maintain habitat quality. 

 Do not use fire to treat sagebrush in less than 12-inch precipitation zones (e.g., Wyoming big sagebrush or other 

xeric sagebrush species). However, if as a last resort and after all other treatment opportunities have been 

explored and site-specific variables allow, the use of prescribed fire for fuel breaks that would disrupt the fuel 

continuity across the landscape could be considered, in stands where cheatgrass is a very minor component in 

the understory.

 Monitor and control invasive vegetation post-treatment.

 Require use of native seeds for fuels management treatment based on availability, adaptation (site potential), 

and probability of success. Where probability of success or native seed availability is low, non-native seeds 

may be used as long as they meet sage-grouse habitat objectives.

 Design post-fuels management projects to ensure long-term persistence of seeded or pre-treatment native plants. 

This may require temporary or long-term changes in livestock grazing management, wild horse and burro 

management, travel management, or other activities to achieve and maintain the desired condition of the fuels 

management project. 

 Design fuels management projects in priority Greater Sage-Grouse habitat to strategically and effectively 

reduce wildfire threats in the greatest area. This may require fuels treatments implemented in a more linear 

versus block design. 

 For the project to be approved the authorizing official should consider: 
HiLine Approved Plan Appendix I

Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for I-13 September 2015

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

o biological and physical limitations of the site and the impact on Greater Sage-Grouse;

o management objectives for the site, including those for wildlife, are clearly defined;

o potential for weed invasion and successional trends are well understood;

o capability exists to manage the post-burn site properly, including a funded monitoring schedule, to 

achieve a healthy sagebrush community. 

Develop local or regional guidelines or consider the following guidelines if fire is used as a tool: 

 Analyze cumulative effects of sagebrush treatment by considering ecological units, evaluate the degree of 

fragmentation, and maintain a good representation of mature sagebrush.

 Predict effects for the length of time necessary for sagebrush to return to desired condition for determine 

treatment types and intervals.

 Identify suitable patch size based on site-specific characteristics of the natural community and treat patches in a 

mosaic pattern that provides sagebrush cover for snow capture, hiding cover, and a seed source.

 Use available literature to research the effects of fire on sagebrush communities.

 Use caution in reducing sagebrush cover in and following drought periods.

During fuels management project design, consider the utility of using livestock to strategically reduce fine fuels, and 

implement grazing management that will accomplish this objective. 

Consult with ecologists to minimize impacts to native perennial grasses.

Develop criteria for managing fuels and other risks to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. 

Identify all Greater Sage-Grouse habitats and prioritize on the basis of risk of loss to wildfire. 

Develop appropriate actions on a site by site basis, such as using existing roads as fire breaks. 

Develop treatments to improve habitats over the long term if sagebrush stands do not meet objectives for Greater SageGrouse, such as confining treatments to small patches. 

Consider mechanical treatment as the primary method and prescribed fire as a secondary method to remove conifers that 

encroach on Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, except where forested habitat is limited. 

Avoid treatments to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat in areas that are susceptible to invasion by cheatgrass or other invasive 

plant species. Treatment will be accompanied by restoration, and reseeding if necessary, to re-establish native 

vegetation. 

Protect sagebrush along riparian zones, meadows, lakebeds, and farmlands that include Greater Sage-Grouse habitat.

Wash vehicles and heavy equipment for fires prior to arrival at a new location to avoid introduction for noxious weeds. 

Apply Fuels Management BMPs (see WO IM 2011-138) as appropriate.

Fuels Management Best Management Practices for Sage-Grouse Conservation

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-grouse 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). 
Appendix I HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 I-14 Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

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 sage-grouse seasonal 

habitats and landscape. 

5. Where appropriate, ensure that treatments are configured in a manner (e.g., strips) that promotes use by sagegrouse (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 2 miles of key habitat. The third priority for 

annual grasslands habitat restoration projects are sites beyond 2 miles of key habitat. The intent is to focus 

restoration outward from existing, intact habitat. 

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 Rehabilitation

Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation (ES&R)

Prioritize native seed allocation for use in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat in years when preferred native seed is in short 

supply. This may require reallocation of native seed from ES&R projects outside of priority Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

to those inside it. Use of native plant seeds for ES&R seedings is required based on availability, adaptation (site 

potential), and probability of success (Richards, et al. 1998). Where probability of success or native seed availability is 

low, non-native seeds may be used as long as they meet Greater Sage-Grouse habitat conservation objectives (Pyke 

2011). Re-establishment of appropriate sagebrush species/subspecies and important understory plants, relative to site 

potential, shall be the highest priority for rehabilitation efforts. 

Design post-ES&R management to ensure long term persistence of seeded or pre-burn native plants. This may require 

temporary or long-term changes in livestock grazing, wild horse and burro, and travel management, etc. to achieve and 

maintain the desired condition of ES&R projects to benefit Greater Sage-Grouse.
HiLine Approved Plan Appendix I

Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for I-15 September 2015

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Consider potential changes in climate when proposing post-fire seedings using native plants. Consider seed collections 

from the warmer component within a species’ current range for selection of native seed.

Assure that long-term wildfire rehabilitation objectives are consistent with the desired natural plant community. 

Revegetate burned sites in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat within one year unless natural recovery of the native plant 

community is expected. Areas disturbed by heavy equipment will be given priority consideration.

Emphasize native plant species adapted to the site that are readily available and economically and biologically feasible. 

Monitor the site and treat for noxious weeds. 

Restoration

Prioritize implementation of restoration projects based on environmental variables that improve chances for project 

success in areas most likely to benefit Greater Sage-Grouse.

Prioritize restoration in seasonal habitats that are thought to be limiting sage-grouse distribution and/or abundance.

Include sage-grouse habitat parameters as defined by Connelly, et al. (2000); Hagen, et al. (2007) or, if available, state 

sage-grouse conservation plans and appropriate local information in habitat restoration objectives. 

Require use of native seeds for restoration based on availability, adaptation (ecological site potential), and probability of 

success. Where probability of success or adapted seed availability is low, non-native seeds may be used as long as they 

support Greater Sage-Grouse habitat objectives.

Design post-restoration management to ensure long term persistence. This could include changes in livestock grazing 

management, wild horse and burro management and travel management, etc. to achieve and maintain the desired 

condition of the restoration effort that benefits Greater Sage-Grouse.

Consider potential changes in climate when proposing restoration seedings when using native plants. Consider 

collection from the warmer component of the species current range when selecting native species.

Restore native plants and create landscape patterns which most benefit Greater Sage-Grouse.

Make re-establishment of sagebrush cover and desirable understory plants (relative to ecological site potential) the 

highest priority for restoration efforts.

In fire prone areas where sagebrush seed is required for Greater Sage-Grouse habitat restoration, consider establishing 

seed harvest areas that are managed for seed production and are a priority for protection from outside disturbances.

Map and inventory areas believed to be impacted by conifer expansion. If conifer encroachment is a concern, options for 

treatment include: 

 Prescribed fires when and where feasible, 

 Remove trees mechanically when feasible, and 

 Apply herbicides when and where feasible. 

Evaluate the site potential and desired condition, and develop specific objectives accordingly within specific landscapes. 

If sagebrush is lacking: 

 Develop and implement grazing practices that influence sagebrush growth, 

 Inter-seed historical breeding and winter habitats with the appropriate sagebrush species, 

 Identify and promote seed sources for habitat restoration efforts, 

 Reclaim and/or re-seed areas disturbed by treatments when necessary, and 

 Promote sage plantings, where appropriate, on project areas occurring within Greater Sage-Grouse habitats. 
Appendix I HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 I-16 Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

If mature sagebrush dominates with suppressed herbaceous understory: 

 Identify areas of dense mature cover that do not appear to be serving as quality habitat and analyze these areas 

within the context of a larger landscape, 

 Design sagebrush treatments to be compatible with Greater Sage-Grouse needs, 

 Develop specific objectives for Greater Sage-Grouse in breeding or winter habitats, and 

 If treatment is deemed appropriated, interrupt seral stages within the appropriate patch size using the 

appropriate method, such as brush beating, chaining, chemical means, prescribed fire, etc. that is compatible 

with local conditions. 

If residual understory is lacking in sagebrush stands:

 Manage grazing by domestic livestock and wild herbivores to retain and promote adequate residual cover in all 

breeding habitats with an emphasis on nesting areas. 

 Ensure that grazing allotment plans include objectives for Greater Sage-Grouse in sage-grouse habitats. 

 Monitor allotment plans and regulations, and make changes where necessary. 

 Include native grasses in all reclamation and restoration activities. 

Other Wildlife

Initiate studies to better understand Greater Sage-Grouse mortality rates, the factors that influence these rates and the 

effectiveness of management actions to change them. These studies should determine the relationships between 

predation, habitat fragmentation, and habitat condition.

Implement actions to improve the structure and composition of sagebrush communities to meet desired conditions for 

Greater Sage-Grouse seasonal habitats. 

Maintain and restore sagebrush communities where appropriate for Greater Sage-Grouse populations. 

Reduce man-made issues and conifer encroachment in Greater Sage-Grouse breeding, nesting, and wintering habitats. 

 Reduce the availability of predator “subsidies” such as human-made den sites (nonfunctioning culverts, old 

foundations, wood piles) and supplemental food sources (garbage dumps, spilled grains, etc.) that contribute to 

increased predator numbers.

 Placement of power poles should follow prescription detailed in the discussion transmission lines. 

 Placement of fences should follow prescriptions detailed in the discussion of grazing management, and 

 Treatment of conifer encroachment should be implemented in ways to minimize loss of sagebrush habitats. 

General Habitat

Within general habitat mitigation measures and conservation actions will mirror management actions in the selected 

alternative. Mitigation measures would be applied during activity level planning if an evaluation of the project area 

indicates the presence of important wildlife species seasonal wildlife habitat or other resource concern. Exceptions may 

be granted by the authorized officer if an environmental review demonstrates that effects could be mitigated to an 

acceptable level, habitat for the species is not present, or portions of the area can be occupied without affecting a 

particular species. Exceptions may also be granted where the short-term effects are mitigated by the long-term benefits 

(e.g., prescribed fire or forest health treatments).

In addition to actions below and in the HiLine Approved Plan, best management practices for all resources may be found 

in Appendix H and will help form the COAs applied to specific projects. These practices would be implemented at the 

discretion of the appropriate Field Office on a project-specific basis in general habitat, 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 and in many cases may mirror those for priority habitat. Mitigation of surface-disturbing or 

disruptive activities would be applied where needed to minimize impacts and could be applied consistent with the oil and 

gas stipulations outlined in the Fluid Minerals section of Chapter 2. The mitigation would be requirements, procedures, 
HiLine Approved Plan Appendix I

Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for I-17 September 2015

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

management practices or design features that the BLM, through issuance of the Record of Decision, would adopt as 

operational requirements. The BLM may add additional site-specific restrictions as deemed necessary by further 

environmental analysis and as developed through consultation with other federal, state, and local regulatory and resource 

agencies.

Greater Sage-Grouse Leks

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided within 0.6 miles of Greater Sage-Grouse leks.

Greater Sage-Grouse Nesting Habitat

Surface-disturbing or disruptive activities may be restricted or prohibited within 2 miles of active leks.

Prioritize activities based on suitability of habitat; construct projects that are in less suitable habitat (i.e., along existing 

roadways or within degraded habitats) during the breeding season, and construct projects located in more suitable habitat 

prior to or after the critical breeding season.

Avoid sagebrush, but if disturbance is necessary, interim reclamation should include sage plantings/seedings and/or the 

use of minimum disturbance practices to protect sage on well pads, pipelines, and other disturbances.

Manage produced water to reduce the spread of West Nile virus within Greater Sage-Grouse habitat areas. 

Roads 

 Design roads to an appropriate standard no higher than necessary to accommodate their intended purpose.

 Do not issue ROWs to counties on energy development roads, unless for a temporary use consistent with all 

other terms and conditions included in this document.

 Establish speed limits 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, operations (fracture stimulation, liquids gathering, etc.), and facilities.

 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 drilling and production pits and tanks 

regardless of size to reduce Greater 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 from non-native plant species. (e.g., by washing vehicles and equipment.)

 Mitigate pit and impoundment construction to reduce or eliminate augmenting threats from West Nile virus.

Include restoration objectives to meet Greater Sage-Grouse habitat needs in reclamation practices/sites. Address postreclamation management in reclamation plans such that goals and objectives are to enhance or restore Greater SageGrouse habitat.
Appendix I HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 I-18 Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

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.

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.

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.

De Szalay, F.A. and V.H. Resh. 2000. Factors influencing macroinvertebrate colonization of seasonal wetlands: 

responses to emergent plant cover. Freshwater Biology. 45: 295-308.

Doherty, M.K. 2007. Mosquito populations in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming: a comparison of natural, agricultural 

and effluent coal bed natural gas aquatic habitats. M.S. Thesis. Montana State University, Bozeman, U.S.A.

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.

Gelbard, J.L., and J. Belnap. 2003. Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in a semiarid landscape. Conservation 

Biology 17:420-432.

Knight, R.L., W.E. Walton, G.F. Meara, W.K. Riesen and R. Wass. 2003. Strategies for effective mosquito control in 

constructed treatment wetlands. Ecological Engineering. 21: 211-232.

Lammers, W.M., and M.W. Collopy. 2007. Effectiveness of avian predator perch deterrents on electric transmission 

lines. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2752-2758.

Lyon, A.G. and S.H. Anderson. 2003. Potential gas development impacts on sage grouse nest initiation and movement. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 31: 486-491.

Patricelli, G.L., J.L. Blickley, and S. Hooper. 2010. Incorporating the impacts of noise pollution into greater sage-grouse 

conservation planning. 27th Meeting of the Western Agencies Sage and Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Technical 

Committee Workshop. Twin Falls, Idaho, USA.

Pyke, D.A. 2011. Restoring and rehabilitating sagebrush habitats. pp. 531-548 in S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly (editors). 

Greater sage-grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology 38. 

University of California Press. Berkeley, CA.

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.
APPENDIX J

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR GREATER SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT MANAGEMENT

HiLine Approved Plan Appendix J

Adaptive Management Strategy J-1 September 2015

Appendix J

Adaptive Management Strategy for Greater 

Sage-Grouse 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. On February 1, 2008, the Department of the Interior published its Adaptive 

Management Implementation Policy (522 DM 1). The adaptive management strategy presented within this EIS complies 

with this policy and direction.

In relation to the BLM’s National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy, adaptive management will help identify if 

sage-grouse conservation measures presented in this EIS contain the needed level of certainty for effectiveness. 

Principles of adaptive management will be 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 reducing threats 

to that species. The following provides the BLM adaptive management strategy for the HiLine Proposed RMP/Final 

EIS. 

If the BLM finds that the State of Montana is implementing a GRSG Habitat Conservation Program that is effectively 

conserving the GRSG, in addition to the change in disturbance cap noted above, the BLM will review the management 

goals and objectives to determine if they 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 the BLM continues to meet its 

objective of conserving, enhancing and restoring GRSG habitat by reducing, minimizing or eliminating threats to that 

habitat.

Adaptive Management and Monitoring

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

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

habitat conditions related to the goals and objectives of the plan and other range-wide conservation strategies (BLM 

2004; Stiver, et al. 2006; USFWS 2013). The information collected through the Monitoring Framework Plan outlined in 

Appendix D will be used by the BLM to determine when adaptive management hard and soft triggers (discussed below) 

are met. 

Montana State Executive Order No.10-2014 contains the following language regarding adaptive management:

Monitoring/Adaptive Response: Proponents of new projects are expected to coordinate with the Program and 

the permitting agency to determine which leks need to be monitored and what data should be collected and 

reported. Generally, monitoring plans should include an evaluation of affected leks as well as reference leks for 

control purposes. If declines in affected leks (using a three-year running average during any five year period 

relative to trends on reference leks) are determined to be caused by the project, the operator will propose 

adaptive management responses to increase the number of birds. If the operator cannot demonstrate a 

restoration of bird numbers to baseline levels (established by pre-disturbance surveys, reference surveys and 

taking into account regional and statewide trends) within three years, operations will cease until such numbers 

are achieved. In the interim, the operator, permitting agency and the Program will create additional adaptive 

management efforts to restore sage grouse population numbers and baseline numbers, as well as restore project 

operations. Natural occurrences and their effects on sage grouse and sagebrush habitat will be considered in 

all cases. The [Montana Sage Grouse Oversight Team] shall review the work being conducted around this issue 
Appendix J HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 J-2 Adaptive Management Strategy

by the State of Wyoming and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and shall recommend any further adjustments 

to this stipulation that may be appropriate.

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. 

Montana BLM Greater Sage-Grouse Adaptive Management Plan

The Greater Sage-Grouse adaptive management plan provides regulatory assurance that a means of addressing and 

responding to unintended negative impacts to greater sage-grouse and its habitat is in place before consequences become 

severe or irreversible. This adaptive management plan:

 utilizes science-based soft and hard adaptive management triggers, and

 addresses multiple scales of data.

Adaptive Management Triggers

Adaptive management triggers are essential for identifying when potential management changes are needed in order to 

continue meeting Greater Sage-Grouse conservation objectives. The BLM will use soft and hard triggers.

Soft Triggers:

Soft triggers are indicators that management or specific activities may not be achieving the intended results of 

conservation 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 density disturbance calculation tool (DDCT) evaluations. BLM 

field offices, local MFWP offices, and sage-grouse working groups will evaluate the metrics. The purpose of these 

strategies is to address localized Greater Sage-Grouse population and habitat changes by providing the framework in 

which management will change if monitoring identifies negative population and habitat anomalies.

Each major project (EIS level) will include adaptive management strategies in support of the population management 

objectives for Greater Sage-Grouse set by the State of Montana, and will be consistent with this Greater Sage-Grouse 

Adaptive Management Plan. These adaptive management strategies will be developed in partnership with the State of 

Montana, project proponents, partners, and stakeholders, incorporating the best available science.

Soft Triggers Response: 

Soft triggers require immediate monitoring and surveillance to determine causal factors and may require curtailment of 

activities in the short or long term, as allowed by law. The project level adaptive management strategies will identify 

appropriate responses where the project’s activities are identified as the causal factor. The 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 will be 

considered a catastrophic indicator that the species is not responding to conservation actions, or that a larger-scale impact 

is having a negative effect.

Hard triggers are focused on three metrics: 1) number of active leks, 2) acres of available habitat, and 3) population 

trends based on annual lek counts.

Within the context of normal population variables, hard triggers shall be determined to take effect when two of the three 

metrics exceeds 60% of normal variability for the BSU in a single year, or when any of the three metrics exceeds 40% of 
HiLine Approved Plan Appendix J

Adaptive Management Strategy J-3 September 2015

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 MFWP. 

Estimates of population are determined based upon survey protocols determined by MFWP, and are implemented 

consistently throughout the state. Population counts are tracked for individual leks and are then summarized for each 

PHMA. The BLM will assess the hard triggers annually when the state population data become available, beginning 

with the first data available after the ROD. The BLM will utilize the most recent habitat data available at the time the 

population data are available.

Hard Trigger Response:

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

Sage-Grouse conservation objectives set forth in the BLM plans. Upon determination that a hard trigger has been 

tripped, the BLM will immediately defer issuance of discretionary authorizations for new actions within the Biologically 

Significant Unit for a period of 90 days. The Proposed Plan/Final EIS also includes a “hard-wired” plan-level response; 

that is, it provides that, upon reaching the trigger, a more restrictive alternative, or an appropriate component of a more 

restrictive alternative analyzed in the EIS will be implemented without further action by the BLM. Specific “hardwired” changes in management are identified in Table J-1, Specific Management Responses. In addition to the specific 

changes identified in BLM 2015, Table 2.2, the BLM will review available and pertinent data, in coordination with 

Greater Sage-Grouse biologists and managers from multiple agencies including the USFWS, NRCS, and the State of 

Montana, to determine the causal factor(s) and implement a corrective strategy. The corrective strategy will include the 

changes identified in Table J-1, and could also include the need to amend or revise the RMP to address the situation and 

modify management accordingly.

Table J-1

Specific Management Responses to Greater Sage-Grouse Hard Triggers

Program Adaptive Management Response

Sage-Grouse 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 Greater Sage-Grouse 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 Greater Sage-Grouse 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 Approved Plan.

Industrial Solar No change from Approved Plan.

Comprehensive Travel and

Transportation Management

If travel management planning has not been completed within Greater Sage-Grouse 

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 Greater Sage-Grouse habitat in the 

PHMA where the hard trigger was met, re-evaluate designated routes to determine their 

effects on Greater Sage-Grouse. If routes are found to be causing population-level 

impacts, revise their designation status to reduce the effect.

Fluid Minerals No change from Approved Plan.

Locatable Minerals No change from Approved Plan.

Salable Minerals No change from Approved Plan.

Non-energy Leasable Minerals No change from Approved Plan.
Appendix J HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 J-4 Adaptive Management Strategy

In addition to implementing the hard wired plan-level response, in the event that new scientific information becomes 

available demonstrating that the hard wired response would be insufficient to stop a severe deviation from sage-grouse 

conservation objectives set forth in the BLM plans, the BLM will immediately implement a formal directive to protect 

Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat and to ensure that conservation options are not foreclosed. To the extent that it is 

supported scientifically, this formal directive will be drawn from the range of alternatives analyzed in the RMP 

Amendments/Revisions.

When a hard trigger is hit in a BSU, including those that cross state lines, the WAFWA Management Zone Greater SageGrouse 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. Adoption of any further actions at the plan level may 

require initiating a plan amendment process.
APPENDIX K

USFWS CONCURRENCE

HiLine Approved Plan Appendix K

USFWS Concurrence K-1 September 2015

Appendix K

USFWS Concurrence
Appendix K HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 K-2 USFWS Concurrence
APPENDIX L

STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH AND GUIDELINES FOR LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

MANAGEMENT

HiLine Approved Plan Appendix L

Standards and Guidelines L-1 September 2015

Appendix L

Standards for Rangeland Health

and

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management

The BLM developed Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Montana, 

North Dakota, and South Dakota which was approved by the Secretary of the Interior in August 1997. The following 

standards and guidelines apply to the HiLine District.

Standards for Rangeland Health

Standards are statements of physical and biological condition or degree of function required for healthy sustainable 

rangelands. Achieving or making significant and measurable progress towards these functions and conditions is required 

of all uses of public rangelands. Historical data, when available, should be used when assessing progress towards these 

standards.

Standard #1: Uplands are in proper functioning condition.

This means that soils are stable and provide for capture, storage and safe release of water appropriate to soil type, climate 

and landform. The amount and distribution of ground cover (i.e., litter, live and standing dead vegetation, microbiotic 

crusts, and rock/gravel) for identified ecological site(s) or soil-plant associations are appropriate for soil stability.

Evidence of accelerated erosion in the form of rills and/or gullies, erosional pedestals, flow patterns, physical soil 

crusts/surface scaling and compaction layers below the soil surface is minimal. Ecological processes including 

hydrologic cycle, nutrient cycle and energy flow are maintained and support healthy biotic populations. Plants are 

vigorous, biomass production is near potential and there is a diversity of species characteristic of and appropriate to the 

site. Assessing proper functioning conditions will consider use of historical data.

As indicated by:

Physical Environment

 erosional flow patterns

 surface litter

 soil movement by water and wind

 soil crusting and surface sealing

 compaction layer

 rills

 gullies

 cover amount

 cover distribution

Biotic Environment

 community richness

 community structure

 exotic plants

 plant status

 seed production

 recruitment

 nutrient cycle
Appendix L HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 L-2 Standards and Guidelines

Standard #2: Riparian and wetland areas are in proper functioning condition.

This means that the functioning condition of riparian-wetland areas is a result of the interaction among geology, soil, 

water and vegetation. Riparian-wetland areas are functioning properly when adequate vegetation, landform or large 

woody debris is present to dissipate stream energy associated with high water flows, thereby reducing erosion and 

improving water quality; filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development; improve flood water 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 

native fish production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses appropriate for the area that will support greater species 

richness.

The riparian-wetland vegetation is a mosaic of species richness and community structure serving to control erosion, 

shade water, provide thermal protection, filter sediment, aid floodplain development, dissipate energy, delay flood water, 

and increase recharge of groundwater where appropriate to landform. The stream channels and flood plain dissipate 

energy of high water flows and transport sediment appropriate for the geomorphology (e.g., gradient, size, shape, 

roughness, confinement, and sinuosity), climate, and landform. Soils support appropriate riparian-wetland vegetation, 

allowing water movement, filtering sediment, and slowing ground water movement for later release. Stream channels 

are not entrenching beyond natural climatic variations and water levels maintain appropriate riparian-wetland species.

Riparian areas are defined as land directly influenced by permanent water. It has visible vegetation or physical 

characteristics reflective of permanent water influence. Lake shores and streambanks are typical riparian areas. 

Excluded are such sites as ephemeral streams or washes that do not exhibit the presence of vegetation dependent upon 

free water in the soil. Assessing proper functioning conditions will consider use of historical data.

As indicated by:

Hydrologic

 floodplain inundated in relatively frequent events (1-3 years)

 amount of altered streambanks

 sinuosity, width/depth ratio, and gradient are in balance with the landscape setting (i.e., landform, geology, and 

bioclimatic region)

 upland watershed not contributing to riparian degradation

Erosion/Deposition

 floodplain and channel characteristics; i.e., rocks, coarse and/or woody debris adequate to dissipate energy

 point bars are being created and older point bars are being vegetated

 lateral stream movement is associated with natural sinuosity

 system is vertically stable

 stream is in balance with water and sediment being supplied by the watershed (i.e., no excessive erosion or 

deposition)

Vegetation

 reproduction and diverse age class of vegetation

 diverse composition of vegetation

 species present indicate maintenance of riparian soil moisture characteristics

 streambank vegetation is comprised of those plants or plant communities that have deep binding root masses

capable of withstanding high streamflow events

 utilization of trees and shrubs

 riparian plants exhibit high vigor

 adequate vegetative cover present to protect banks and dissipate energy during high flows

 where appropriate, plant communities in the riparian area are an adequate source of woody debris
HiLine Approved Plan Appendix L

Standards and Guidelines L-3 September 2015

Standard #3: Water quality meets Montana state standards.

This means that surface and ground water on public lands fully support designated beneficial uses described in the 

Montana Water Quality Standards. Assessing proper functioning conditions will consider use of historical data.

As indicated by:

 dissolved oxygen concentration

 pH

 turbidity

 temperature

 fecal coliform

 sediment

 color

 toxins

 others: ammonia, barium, boron, chlorides, chromium, cyanide, endosulfan, lindane, nitrates, phenols, 

phosphorus, sodium, sulfates, etc.

Standard #4: Air quality meets Montana state standards.

This means that air quality on public lands helps meet the goals set out in the State of Montana Air Quality 

Implementation Plan. Efforts will be made to limit unnecessary emissions from existing and new point or non-point 

sources.

The BLM management actions or use authorizations do not contribute to air pollution that violates the quantitative or 

narrative Montana Air Quality Standards or contributes to deterioration of air quality in selected class area.

As indicated by:

Section 176(c) Clean Air Act which states that activities of all federal agencies must conform to the intent of the 

appropriate State Air Quality Implementation Plan and not:

 cause or contribute to any violations of ambient air quality standards

 increase the frequency of any existing violations

 impede the State’s progress in meeting their air quality goals

Standard #5: Habitats are provided to maintain healthy, productive and diverse 

populations of native plant and animal species, including special status species 

(federally threatened, endangered, candidate or Montana species of special 

concern as defined in BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species Management).

This means that native plant and animal communities will be maintained or improved to ensure the proper functioning of 

ecological processes and continued productivity and diversity of native plant lifeforms. Where native communities exist, 

the conversion to exotic communities after disturbance will be minimized. Management for indigenous vegetation and 

animals is a priority. Ecological processes including hydrologic cycle, and energy flow, and plant succession are 

maintained and support healthy biotic populations. Plants are vigorous, biomass production is near potential, and there is 

a diversity of plant and animal species characteristic of and appropriate to the site. The environment contains 

components necessary to support viable populations of a sensitive/threatened and endangered species in a given area 

relative to site potential. Viable populations are wildlife or plant populations that contain an adequate number of 

reproductive individuals distributed on the landscape to ensure the long-term existence of the species. Assessing proper 

functioning conditions will consider use of historical data.
Appendix L HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 L-4 Standards and Guidelines

As indicated by:

 plants and animals are diverse, vigorous and reproducing satisfactorily; noxious weeds are absent or 

insignificant in the overall plant community

 spatial distribution of species is suitable to ensure reproductive capability and recovery

 a variety of age classes are present

 connectivity of habitat or presence of corridors prevents habitat fragmentation

 species richness (including plants, animals, insects and microbes) are represented

 plant communities in a variety of successional stages are represented across the landscape

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management

Guidelines for management of herbivory (including domestic animals and wildlife) are preferred or advisable approaches 

to ensure that standards can be met or that significant progress can be made toward meeting the standard(s). Responsible 

state and federal wildlife agencies must be involved in this management if standards are to be achieved.

Guidelines are provided to maintain or improve resource conditions in upland and riparian habitats. In both riparian and 

upland habitats, these guidelines focus on establishing and maintaining proper functioning conditions. The application 

of these guidelines is dependent on individual management objectives. Desired future conditions in plant communities 

and streambank characteristics will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Guideline #1: Grazing will be managed in a manner that will maintain the proper balance between soils, water, and 

vegetation over time. This balance varies with location and management objectives, historic use, and natural 

fluctuations, but acceptable levels of use can be developed that are compatible with resource objectives. 

Guideline #2: Manage grazing to maintain watershed vegetation, species richness, and floodplain function. Maintain 

riparian vegetative cover and structure to trap and hold sediments during run-off events to build streambanks, recharge 

aquifers, and dissipate flood energy. Grazing management should promote deep-rooted herbaceous vegetation to 

enhance streambank stability. Where non-native species are contributing to proper functioning conditions, they are 

acceptable. Where potential for palatable woody shrub species (willows, dogwood, etc.) exists, promote their growth 

and expansion within riparian zones. 

Guideline #3: Pastures and allotments will be managed based on their sensitivity and suitability for livestock grazing. 

Where determinations have not been previously documented, suitability for grazing will be determined by: topography, 

slope, distance from water, vegetation habitat types, and soil types must be considered when determining grazing 

suitability. Unsuitable areas should be excluded from grazing. 

Guideline #4: Management strategies for livestock grazing will ensure that long-term resource capabilities can be 

sustained. End of season stubble heights, streambank moisture content, and utilization of herbaceous and woody 

vegetation are critical factors which must be evaluated in any grazing strategy. These considerations are essential to 

achieving long-term vegetation or stream channel objectives and should be identified on a site-specific basis and used as 

terms and conditions. 

Guideline #5: Grazing will be managed to promote desired plants and plant communities of various age classes, based 

on the rate and physiological conditions of plant growth. Management approaches will be identified on a site-specific 

basis and implemented through terms and conditions. Caution should be used to avoid early spring grazing use when 

soils and streambanks are wet and susceptible to compaction and physical damage that occurs with animal trampling. 

Likewise, late summer and fall treatments in woody shrub communities should be monitored closely to avoid excessive 

utilization. 

Guideline #6: The development of springs and seeps or other projects affecting water and associated resources shall be 

designed to protect the ecological functions and processes of those sites. 
HiLine Approved Plan Appendix L

Standards and Guidelines L-5 September 2015

Guideline #7: Locate facilities (e.g., corrals, water developments) away from riparian-wetland areas. 

Guideline #8: When provided, supplemental salt and minerals should not be placed adjacent to watering locations or in 

riparian-wetland areas so not to adversely impact streambank stability, riparian vegetation, water quality, or other 

sensitive areas (i.e., key wildlife wintering areas). Salt and minerals should be placed in upland sites to draw livestock 

away from watering areas or other sensitive areas and to contribute to more uniform grazing distribution. 

Guideline #9: Noxious weed control is essential and should include: cooperative agreements, public education, and 

integrated pest management (mechanical, biological, chemical). 

Guideline #10: Livestock management should utilize practices such as those referenced by the NRCS published 

prescribed grazing technical guide to maintain, restore or enhance water quality. 

Guideline #11: Grazing management should maintain or improve habitat for federally listed threatened, endangered, 

and sensitive plants and animals.

Guideline #12: Grazing management should maintain or promote the physical and biological conditions to sustain 

native populations and communities. 

Guideline #13: Grazing management should give priority to native species. Non-native plant species should only be 

used in those situations where native seed is not readily available in sufficient quantities, where native plant species 

cannot maintain or achieve standards, or where non-native plant species provide an alternative for the management and 

protection of native rangelands. 

Guideline #14: Allotment monitoring determines how ongoing management practices are affecting rangeland. To do 

so, the evaluations should be based on: 1. measurable management objectives; 2. permanent and/or repeatable

monitoring locations; and; 3. short-term and long-term data. 
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX M

RECLAMATION

HiLine Approved Plan Appendix M

Reclamation M-1 September 2015

Appendix M

Reclamation

Introduction

Reclamation will be required for surface-disturbing activities. Some activities/areas such as permanent roads/trails and 

open travel management areas would be exempt. Other such activities/areas will be reviewed for exemption during the 

site-specific environmental analysis. Reclamation is not the restoration of a site; instead, the long-term objective of 

reclamation is to set the course for eventual ecosystem restoration. A reclamation plan appropriate in detail and 

complexity and tailored to a specific surface-disturbing activity will be required and made a stipulation and/or condition 

of approval of any action/activity. The level of detail for the reclamation plan shall reflect the complexity of the project, 

the environmental concerns generated during project review, and the reclamation potential for the site. This appendix 

details the elements that need to be considered during predisturbance authorization of any surface-disturbing activity and 

the post-disturbance steps required to assure timely and proper reclamation of a site. 

The reclamation plan will provide a framework to develop project-specific and site-specific reclamation actions and 

guide land management efforts toward a planned future condition for any surface-disturbing activity. Early coordination 

between Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and project proponents is necessary to produce the appropriate plan. The 

reclamation plan will serve as a binding agreement between a project proponent(s) and the BLM for the expected 

reclamation condition of the disturbed lands and must be periodically reviewed and modified as necessary to adjust to 

changing conditions or to correct for an oversight. The reclamation plan will include sufficient monitoring requirements, 

reports, and components to ensure the reclamation plan is current. 

In preparing and reviewing reclamation plans, the BLM and the project proponent must set reasonable, achievable, and 

measurable reclamation goals/objectives that are consistent with the land use plan and are ecologically feasible. 

Achievable goals/objectives will ensure reclamation and encourage a project proponent(s) to conduct research on 

different aspects of reclamation for different environments. These goals/objectives should be based on available 

information and techniques, should offer incentives to both parties, and as a result, should generate useful information 

for future use.

Objectives

The short-term objective is to immediately stabilize disturbed areas and to provide the necessary conditions to achieve 

the long-term objective.

The long-term objective is to facilitate eventual ecosystem reconstruction for the purpose of maintaining a safe and 

stable landscape and meeting the desired outcomes.

Reclamation Requirements

The following reclamation requirements apply to all surface-disturbing activities, including BLM initiated activities, and 

must be addressed in each reclamation plan. These requirements also must be met prior to release of the bond and/or the 

reclamation liability. Where these reclamation requirements differ from other applicable federal, laws, rules, and 

regulations, those requirements supersede this policy. State and/or local statutes or regulations may also apply.

Manage all waste materials.

 Segregate, treat, remove, and/or bio-remediate contaminated soil material in accordance with applicable laws, 

regulations, and policy.
Appendix M HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 M-2 Reclamation

 Bury only authorized waste materials on site. Buried material must be covered with a minimum of three feet of 

suitable material or meet other program standards.

 Ensure all waste materials moved off-site are transported to an authorized disposal facility.

Ensure subsurface integrity, and eliminate sources of ground and surface water contamination.

 Properly plug all drill holes and other small openings.

 Stabilize, properly back fill, cap, and/or restrict from entry all open shafts, underground workings, and other 

openings. 

 Control sources of contamination and implement best management practices to protect surface and ground 

water quality. 

Ensure surface stability, re-establish slope stability, and desired topographic diversity.

 Evaluate erosion susceptibly prior to disturbance.

 Implement the appropriate erosion control and sediment containment measures/devices when and where needed 

(e.g., erosion control mats/blankets, mulch, waterbars, silt fences, straw wattles, surface roughening, etc.)

 Inspect and maintain all runoff and erosion control structures on a regular schedule and after major runoff event.

 Reconstruct the landscape to the approximate original contour. However, at the discretion of the authorized 

officer, if the disturbed area has stabilized and if returning the original contour will cause additional 

disturbance, then re-contouring may not be required.

 Maximize geomorphic stability and topographic diversity of the reclaimed topography.

 Eliminate highwalls, cut slopes, and/or topographic depressions on site, unless otherwise approved.

 Minimize sheet and small rill erosion on or adjacent to the reclaimed area. There shall be no evidence of mass 

wasting, head cutting, large rills or gullies, head or down cutting in drainages, or general slope instability on or 

adjacent to the reclaimed area.

Reconstruct and stabilize water courses and drainage features.

 Reconstruct drainage basins and reclaim impoundments to maintain the drainage pattern, profile, and dimension 

to approximate the natural features found in nearby naturally functioning basins.

 Reconstruct and stabilize stream channels, drainages, and impoundments to exhibit similar hydrologic 

characteristics found in stable naturally functioning systems.

Maintain the biological, chemical, and physical integrity of topsoil.

 Identify, delineate, and salvage topsoil based on a site-specific soil evaluation, including depth, chemical and 

physical properties. 

 Protect all stored topsoil from erosion, degradation, noxious weed and invasive plant infestations, and 

contamination. Topsoil that is not re-spread within 30 days shall be covered with a tackifier, mulch, or other 

approved cover. Piling subsurface soil on top of topsoil will be prohibited.

 Maintain stored topsoil viability by incorporating into the disturbed landscape. 

 Seed topsoil stored beyond one growing season with desired vegetation. 
HiLine Approved Plan Appendix M

Reclamation M-3 September 2015

 Identify topsoil storage with appropriate signage.

Prepare site for revegetation.

 Redistribute topsoil and subsoil in a manner similar to the original vertical profile.

 Reduce compaction to an appropriate depth (generally below the root zone) prior to redistribution of topsoil, to 

accommodate desired plant species.

 Provide suitable surface and subsurface physical, chemical, and biological properties to support the long term 

establishment and viability of the desired plant community.

 Protect seed and seedling establishment (e.g., erosion control matting, mulching, hydro-seeding, surface 

roughening, fencing, etc.)

 Defer grazing until reclamation goals and objectives are met.

Establish a desired self-perpetuating native plant community.

 Determine appropriate species composition and cover based on information from the appropriate Ecological 

Site Descriptions (ESDs) and/or plant community descriptions. 

 Establish species composition, diversity, structure, and total ground cover appropriate for the desired plant 

community as described in the appropriate Ecological Site Description.

 Enhance critical resource values (e.g., wildlife habitat), where appropriate, by augmenting plant community 

composition, diversity, and/or structure.

 Select genetically appropriate and locally adapted native plants based on the site characteristics and ecological 

setting that meet desired plant community objectives.

 Select non-native plants only as an approved short-term and non-persistent alternative to native plants. Ensure 

the non-natives will not hybridize, displace, impede, or offer long-term competition to the desired plant 

community outlined in the ESDs, and are designed to aid in the re-establishment of native plant communities.

 Do not apply nitrogen fertilizer when annual bromes are found on site or have the potential to invade the site 

from nearby infestations.

Reestablish a complementary visual composition 

 Ensure the reclaimed landscape features blend into the adjacent area and conform to the land use plan decisions.

 Ensure the reclaimed landscape does not result in a change to the scenic quality of the area.

Manage Invasive Plants

 Inventory for and treat noxious weeds before initiating surface-disturbing activities. Inventory for and consider 

treating non-native and naturalized plants before initiating surface-disturbing activities.

 Develop an invasive plant management plan.

 Control invasive plants utilizing an integrated pest management approach.

 Monitor invasive plant treatments.
Appendix M HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 M-4 Reclamation

Develop and implement a reclamation monitoring and reporting strategy.

 Monitor for the success of the vegetation management objectives and reclamation goals.

 Conduct compliance and effectiveness monitoring in accordance with a BLM (or other surface management 

agency) approved monitoring protocol (e.g. Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) Strategy).

 Evaluate monitoring data for compliance with and success of the outlined goals and objectives written in the 

reclamation plan.

 Document and report monitoring data and recommend revised reclamation strategies.

 Implement revised reclamation strategies as needed.

 Repeat the process of monitoring, evaluating, documenting/reporting, and implementing, until reclamation 

goals and vegetation management objectives are achieved.

Seeding

Disturbed areas will be seeded. As much seeding as possible will be conducted during the fall before the ground freezes. 

Occasional seeding may occur in the spring as long as favorable conditions exist. Seeding will not be allowed in frozen 

or saturated soil conditions except for when approved by the authorized officer or winter seeding of sagebrush on snow. 

Reseeding will be required when a satisfactory stand is not obtained.

The seed mixture shall be planted in the amounts specified in pounds of pure live seed (PLS) per acre. There shall be no 

invasive or non-native weed seeds in the mixture. Seed shall be tested for purity and germination and the viability 

testing shall be done in accordance with Montana State law(s). Tetrazolium test (TZ) will be allowed for germination 

testing. Test results will be made available for BLM review, if requested. Commercial seed shall be either State

Certified or tested weed-free seed. The seed mixture container shall be tagged in accordance with State law(s) and 

available for inspection. The amount of seed planted will be enough so that upon germination, the soil is adequately 

covered.

Table M-1 lists approved species that could be included for a particular site, along with recommended seeding rates for a 

pure stand. The species listed are not all-inclusive as some sites may warrant other species. Approved species will be 

used on all BLM surface land and on private surface unless the landowner requests otherwise. Using species that are 

already present in an area increases the probability that the area will be revegetated successfully. Soil sampling may also 

be necessary to ensure that the species in the seed mix will establish on the site. After the vegetation survey and/or soil 

sampling has been completed, a mix should be developed using species listed in Table M-1; no monocultures (pure 

stand) will be allowed. The mixture should be diverse enough to show a variety of native desirable plants upon 

germination. The percentage of each species in the mixture will determine the percentage of that species’ pure-stand 

seeding rate used. Forbs and shrubs may be included in the seed mixtures; however, they should not be included when 

herbicides are used to control invasive weeds. Cover or nurse crops may be used in certain situation, where warranted.
HiLine Approved Plan Appendix M

Reclamation M-5 September 2015

Table M-1

Recommended Species, Cultivars, and Pure Stand Seeding Rates

Plant Species Scientific Name

Recommended

Cultivar1

Drill Seeding Rate2,3

PLS lbs/acre4

Grasses

Bluebunch Wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria spicata Goldar 6

Green Needlegrass Nassella viridula Lodorm 5

Sandberg Bluegrass Poa secunda High Plains 2

Prairie Junegrass Koeleria macrantha NA 1

Blue Grama Bouteloua gracilis Bad River 2

Needle and Thread Hesperostipa comata NA 6

Indian Ricegrass Achnatherum hymenoides Rimrock 6

Prairie Sandreed Calamovilfa longifolia Goshen 4

Inland Saltgrass Distichlis spicata NA 5

Alkali Sacaton Sporobolus airoides NA 1

Western Wheatgrass Pascopyrum smithii Rosana 8

Forbs

Dotted Gayfeather Liatris punctata NA 6.4

Western Yarrow Achillea millefolium Great Northern 0.5

Purple Prairie Clover or 

White Prairie Clover

Dalea purpurea

Dalea candida

Bismark 

Antelope 3

Prairie Coneflower Ratibida columnifera NA 1.5

Shrubs

Fourwing Saltbush Atriplex canescens Wytana 0.5

Silver Buffaloberry Shepherdia argenta Sakakawea 0.5 - 1

Wyoming Big Sagebrush5 Artemisia tridentata NA 3

Silver Sagebrush5 Artemisia cana NA 2

Wood's Rose Rosa woodsii NA 0.5 - 1

Winterfat6 Krascheninnikovia lanata Open Range <.5

1 Other cultivars adapted to the area are acceptable.

2

Seeding rates are given for 12-inch drill rows.

3 When broadcast seeding, double the pounds per acre seeded.

4

Pure Live Seed

5 These shrubs should always be broadcast seeded; seeding rates listed are for broadcast seeding.

6 These shrubs should always be broadcast seeded; seeding rates listed are for broadcast seeding.

Sources: NRCS Montana Technical Note, Plant Materials MT-46(Rev. 1); NRCS Montana Technical Note, Range MT-33; Granite 

Seed Company, Lehi, UT.
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX N

OIL AND GAS BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL)

HiLine Approved Plan Appendix N

Oil and Gas BMPs (General Conditions of Approval) N-1 September 2015

Appendix N

Oil and Gas Best Management Practices

(General Conditions of Approval)

General or typical conditions of approval (COAs) are mitigation measures that may be considered when processing 

Applications for Permits to Drill (APDs), Sundry Notice Drilling Plans, and Surface Use Plans when they are: 1) not 

specifically addressed in those plans or existing lease stipulations; and 2) needed to mitigate impacts to resource values 

identified at the onsite inspection or during review of the plans.

The COAs also allow the BLM to prescribe resource protection measures for lands that were previously leased with 

varying sets of lease stipulations. However, for lands that are already leased BLM restrictions on development, not 

required to comply with existing laws, must be reasonable and consistent with existing lease rights. The COAs must not 

constrain or restrict development beyond the measures anticipated or authorized by the lease terms or regulations and/or 

interfere with the lessee’s opportunity to economically recover the oil and gas resources, considering the lease as a 

whole.

The following list is not all-inclusive, but presents some general or typical conditions of approval that may be considered 

in the planning area to address potential impacts at the time of site-specific lease operations. The wording of the 

conditions of approval may be modified or additional conditions of approval may be developed to address site-specific 

conditions. An exception, waiver, and modification may be added to a COA during the permitting process, if the permit 

condition serves a purpose similar to a traditional lease stipulation, such as a timing limitation or a permit condition that

restricts development in a particular area. It is important to note that these conditions do not apply to routine operation 

and maintenance of production facilities.

Historic Properties and/or Cultural Resources

The affected area may be found to contain historic properties and/or resources protected under the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA), American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act, E.O. 13007, or other statutes and executive orders. The BLM will not approve any surface-disturbing 

activities that may affect any such properties or resources until it completes its obligations under applicable requirements 

of the NHPA and other authorities. The BLM may require modification to exploration or development proposals to 

protect such properties, or disapprove any activity that is likely to result in adverse effects that cannot be successfully 

avoided, minimized or mitigated.

Occupancy and use would be avoided if possible within, and for a distance of 300 feet from the boundaries of cultural 

properties and archaeological/historic districts determined to be eligible or potentially eligible to the National Register of 

Historic Places. This includes cultural properties designated for conservation use, scientific use, traditional use, public 

use, and experimental use. Defined archaeological districts include but are not limited to: Sweet Grass Hills ACEC, Big 

Bend of the Milk River ACEC, Kevin Rim ACEC, and the Medicine Rock, Fantasy and Laundry Springs sites.

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible within 1/2 mile of the boundaries of cultural 

properties determined to be of particular importance to Native American groups, determined to be Traditional Cultural

Properties, and/or designated for traditional use. Such properties include (but are not limited to) burial locations, 

pictograph/petroglyph sites, vision quest locations, plant gathering locations, and areas considered sacred or used for 

religious purposes.

An inventory of those portions of the affected area subject to proposed disturbance may be required prior to any surface 

disturbance to determine if cultural resources are present and to identify needed mitigation measures. Prior to 

undertaking any surface-disturbing activities on the lands covered by a lease, the lessee or operator shall: 
Appendix N HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 N-2 Oil and Gas BMPs (General Conditions of Approval)

1. Engage the services of a cultural resource consultant acceptable to the Surface Management Agency (SMA) to 

conduct a cultural resource inventory of the area of proposed surface disturbance. The operator may elect to 

inventory an area larger than the standard ten-acre minimum to cover possible site relocation which may result 

from environmental or other considerations. An acceptable inventory report is to be submitted to the SMA for 

review and approval no later than that time when an otherwise complete application for approval of drilling or 

subsequent surface-disturbing operation is submitted. 

2. Implement mitigation measures required by the SMA. Mitigation may include the relocation of proposed leaserelated activities or other protective measures such as data recovery and extensive recordation. Where impacts 

to cultural resources cannot be mitigated to the satisfaction of the SMA, surface occupancy on that area must be 

prohibited. The lessee or operator shall immediately bring to the attention of the SMA any cultural resources 

discovered as a result of approved operations under this lease, and shall not disturb such discoveries until 

directed to proceed by the SMA. 

The operator is responsible for informing all persons in the area who are associated with this project that they will be 

subject to prosecution for knowingly disturbing historic or archaeological sites, or for collecting artifacts. If historic or 

archaeological materials are uncovered during construction, the operator is to immediately stop work that might further 

disturb such materials, and contact the authorized officer. Within five working days the authorized officer will inform 

the operator as to:

 whether the materials appear eligible for the National Register of Historic Places;

 the mitigation measures the operator will likely have to undertake before the site can be used (assuming in situ 

preservation is not necessary); and

 a timeframe for the authorized officer to complete and expedited review under 36 CFR 800.11 to confirm, 

through the State Historic Preservation Officer, that the findings of the authorized officer are correct and that 

mitigation is appropriate.

If the operator wishes, at any time, to relocate activities to avoid the expense of mitigation and/or the delays associated 

with the process, the authorized officer will assume responsibility for whatever recordation and stabilization of the 

exposed materials may be required. Otherwise, the operator will be responsible for mitigation costs. The authorized 

officer will provide technical and procedural guidelines for the conduct of the mitigation. Upon verification from the 

authorized officer that the required mitigation has been completed, the operator will then be allowed to resume 

construction.

National Historic Trails

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible within 1/4 mile of designated National Historic 

Trails (Lewis and Clark Trail and Nez Perce Trail).

Noise

Install remote monitoring systems (e.g., Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) or Computer Assisted 

Operations (CAOs)), where feasible, to mitigate the noise and disruptions associated with increased field truck traffic. 

Limitations to the feasibility of implementing this recommendation may exist due to the age of the field, the lack of 

appropriate infrastructure, and the remote nature of the area.

Muffle and maintain all motorized equipment according to manufacturers' specifications in an effort to achieve the 

recommended standard of 55 dBA (with an average day/night noise level of 49 dBA) for noise impacts to sensitive 

receptors at 1/4 mile from the source. When background noise exceeds 55 dBA, noise levels will be no greater than 5 

dBA above background at 1/4 mile. 
HiLine Approved Plan Appendix N

Oil and Gas BMPs (General Conditions of Approval) N-3 September 2015

Paleontological Resources

Surface-disturbing activities would be avoided if possible within designated paleontological sites/locales.

In areas known to have high potential (Class IV and V) for containing significant paleontological resources and in the 

Malta Geological ACEC, the Lessee would be required to conduct a paleontological inventory prior to any surface 

disturbance. The Lessee must engage the services of a qualified paleontologist, acceptable to the surface management 

agency, to conduct the inventory. An acceptable inventory report is to be submitted to the BLM for review and approval 

at the time a surface-disturbing plan of operations is submitted.

Inadvertent Discovery – Upon discovery of significant paleontological materials during operations, work in the 

immediate area of the find shall be diverted and the find will be reported to the authorized officer immediately. 

Stabilization of the find to prevent further physical damage or erosion should be undertaken as feasible and protective 

measures to prevent looting should be initiated. An evaluation of the paleontological discovery will be made by a BLMpermitted paleontologist within an appropriate timeframe to determine the appropriate action(s) to minimize the loss of 

any significant paleontological values. The operator will bear the cost of any required paleontological appraisals, 

collection of fossils, or salvage of any fossils of significant scientific interest discovered during the operation.

Collection Restrictions – The operator shall provide a background briefing for all project personnel describing 

procedures and notifications required in the event of discoveries by project personnel. Supervisory personnel shall 

advise project personnel of restrictions for collection of significant fossils. Supervisory personnel are also required to 

enforce collection restrictions.

Recreation Sites

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible within and 500 feet from recreation sites.

Residential Structures

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible within and 500 feet from incorporated city 

limits or occupied residential structures. 

Install signage notifying the public of the area of increased activity.

Remotely monitor well production where practical and technically feasible.

Water, Riparian Areas/Wetlands, Floodplains

Surface-disturbing activities would be avoided if possible within perennial or intermittent streams (as indicated by 

obligate wetland species or hydric soils); lakes, ponds, and reservoirs; floodplains; wetlands; and riparian areas. 

Surface-disturbing activities may be controlled within and 300 feet from riparian/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. The plan will address: (1) potential impacts to riparian and wetland resources, 

(2) mitigation to reduce impacts to acceptable levels (including timing restrictions), (3) post project restoration, and (4) a 

detailed monitoring plan that would show the controlled use is compatible with wetland and riparian objectives 

(including habitat and water quality). 

Limit construction of drainage crossings to no-flow periods or low-flow periods.

Minimize the area of disturbance within ephemeral and intermittent drainage channel environments.
Appendix N HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 N-4 Oil and Gas BMPs (General Conditions of Approval)

Prohibit construction of well sites, access roads, and pipelines within 300 feet of surface water and/or riparian areas. 

Exceptions would be granted by the BLM based on an environmental analysis and site-specific mitigation plans.

Implement minor routing variations during access road layout to avoid steep slopes adjacent to ephemeral or intermittent 

drainage channels. Maintain a 100-foot-wide buffer strip of natural vegetation where possible (not including wetland 

vegetation) between all construction activities and ephemeral and intermittent drainage channels.

Do not install culverts on ephemeral drainages. The use of culverts on intermittent drainage crossings would be analyzed 

on a case-by-case basis. Design all drainage-crossing structures to carry 25- to 50-year discharge events or as otherwise 

directed by the BLM.

Design channel crossings to minimize changes in channel geometry and subsequent changes in flow hydraulics.

Maintain vegetation barriers occurring between construction activities and ephemeral and intermittent channels.

Minimize construction activities in areas of steep slopes and install special slope-stabilizing structures if construction 

cannot be avoided in these areas.

Install runoff and erosion control measures such as water bars, berms, and interceptor ditches as needed.

Include adequate drainage control devices and measures in the road design (e.g., road berms and drainage ditches, 

diversion ditches, cross drains, culverts, outsloping, and energy dissipaters) at sufficient intervals and intensities to 

adequately control and direct surface runoff above, below, and within the road environment in order to avoid erosionconcentrated flows. Use erosion control devices in conjunction with the surface runoff and drainage control devices and 

measures such as temporary barriers, ditch blocks, erosion stops, mattes, mulches, and vegetative covers. Implement a 

revegetation program as soon as possible to re-establish the soil protection afforded by a vegetal cover.

Design and construct interception ditches, sediment traps, water bars, and revegetation and soil stabilization measures if 

needed.

Construct channel crossings for buried pipelines such that the pipe is buried a minimum of four feet below the channel 

bottom.

Regrade disturbed channel beds to the original geometric configuration with the same or very similar bed material.

Upon completion of construction activities, restore topography to near pre-existing contours at well sites, other facility 

sites, and along access roads and pipelines. Replace up to 12 inches of topsoil or suitable plant-growth material over all 

disturbed surfaces. Apply fertilizer, seed (specified in a reclamation plan), and mulch as required.

Ensure that the project complies with EO 11990 (floodplains protection) and RMP management directives that relate to 

protection of water resources. These regulations require avoidance of stream channels to the maximum practicable 

extent. Where total avoidance is not practicable, implement measures to minimize impacts to streams and associated 

floodplains/floodways. Where streams and floodplains cannot be avoided, the operators would be required to show the 

BLM authorized officer why such resources cannot be totally avoided and how impacts would be minimized during the 

APD process.

Case wells during drilling, and case and cement all wells in accordance with Onshore Order No. 2 to protect accessible 

high-quality aquifers. High-quality aquifers are those with known water quality of 10,000 ppm TDS or less. The 

protection of high-quality aquifers involves well casing and welding of sufficient integrity to contain all fluids under 

high pressure during drilling and well completion. Further, ensure that wells adhere to the appropriate BLM cementing 

policy.

Construct reserve pits so that a minimum of one-half of the total depth is below the original ground surface on the lowest 

point within the pit. To prevent seepage of fluids, utilize drilling mud gel or poly liners to line reserve pits in areas 

where subsurface material would not contain fluids. Liners would be of sufficient strength and thickness to withstand 
HiLine Approved Plan Appendix N

Oil and Gas BMPs (General Conditions of Approval) N-5 September 2015

normal installation and use. The liner would be impermeable (i.e., having a permeability of less than 10-7cm/sec) and 

chemically compatible with all substances which may be put in the pit.

Maintain two feet of freeboard on all reserve pits to ensure the reserve pits are not in danger of overflowing. Shut down 

drilling operations until the problem is corrected if leakage is found outside the pit.

Extract hydrostatic test water used in conjunction with pipeline testing and all water used during construction activities 

from sources with sufficient quantities and through appropriation permits approved by the State of Montana.

Discharge all concentrated water flows within access road rights-of-way onto or through an energy dissipater structure 

(e.g., rip-rapped aprons and discharge points) and discharge into undisturbed vegetation.

Develop and implement a stormwater pollution plan for stormwater runoff at drill sites as required per Montana 

Department of Environmental Quality stormwater MPDES permit requirements.

Coordinate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to determine the specific Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 

permit requirements and conditions (including the potential requirement of compensatory mitigation) for each facility 

that occurs in waters of the U.S. to prevent the occurrence of significant impact to such waters.

Ensure that the project must comply with all applicable requirements of the CWA, including the requirement to obtain an 

MPDES permit.

Evaluate all project facility sites for occurrence and distribution of waters of the U.S., special aquatic sites, and 

jurisdictional wetlands. Locate all project facilities out of these sensitive areas. If complete avoidance is not possible, 

minimize impacts through modification and minor relocations. Coordinate activities that involve dredge or fill into 

wetlands with the Corps of Engineers.

Soils

Prior to any surface disturbance on sensitive soils a reclamation plan must be approved by the authorized officer. The 

plan must demonstrate that no other practicable alternatives exist for relocating the activity. The plan must include a 

detailed description of how the activity would: (1) control wind and water erosion; (2) control surface runoff; (3) 

minimize sediment production; (4) maintain site productivity; and (5) complete reclamation. The plan will consider 

avoidance, size limitations, timing restrictions (e.g. limiting wet condition road usage), physical mitigation, and off-site 

mitigation. Sensitive soils are defined as those with severe erosion ratings (wind and water). 

Surface-disturbing activities would be avoided if possible on badlands, rock outcrop, or slopes susceptible to mass 

failure. The authorized officer may grant an exception to this requirement for pipelines if the operator submits a 

reclamation plan that clearly demonstrates effects from the proposed actions can be adequately mitigated. An exception 

may also be granted if an activity would occur on a previously disturbed area if the operator submits a reclamation plan 

that clearly demonstrates effects from the proposed actions can be adequately mitigated.

Stabilization efforts shall be completed within 30 days of the initiation of construction activities.

Reduce the area of disturbance to the absolute minimum necessary for construction and production operations while 

providing for the safety of personnel. Where possible, disturbance should be limited to the topping of shrubs and 

grasses. The operator should avoid off-road vehicle activity.

Where feasible, locate buried pipelines immediately adjacent to roads to avoid creating separate areas of disturbance and 

in order to reduce the total area of disturbance.

Reclamation shall not be conducted using frozen or saturated soil material.

Where possible, minimize disturbance to vegetated cut-and-fill areas on existing improved roads.
Appendix N HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 N-6 Oil and Gas BMPs (General Conditions of Approval)

Construction, drilling, completion, pipeline installation, interim or final reclamation activities shall not be performed 

during periods when the soil is too wet to adequately support equipment/vehicles. If such equipment/vehicles create ruts 

in excess of 3 inches deep, operations must cease as the soil will be deemed too wet to adequately support 

equipment/vehicles. If safety, disrepair, erosion and/or excessive rutting problems are discovered, the operator will be 

responsible to repair, improve and/or maintain the roads to assure safety, stability and to limit soil erosion/rutting.

Additional measures can be found in Appendix J, Reclamation.

Visual Resources

Minimizing potential visual impacts from pumpjack units should include consideration of whether a well can be 

relocated to take advantage of distance, vegetation, or topography to reduce its visibility or contrast with the 

characteristic landscape from the point of view of recreational use of BLM land. When it can be used, site selection can 

be critical (as is color choice) in reducing the contrast of a pumpjack unit.

Since the visual impact potential of a pumpjack unit depends on location, Visual Resource Management (VRM) land 

classification, and visibility from BLM land in and near recreation sites, a determination of impact would require 

analysis of the specific circumstances surrounding a well. This would occur when the operator submits an APD.

Wastes, Hazardous and Solid

Recycle drilling mud to the extent feasible.

Drilling mud could be provided to private landowners for use as stock pond sealant.

Use closed-loop systems with above-ground steel tankage for exotic drilling mud operations.

Recycle completion fluids to the extent feasible. 

Provide receptacles for trash and construction debris generated during construction and operations prior to transport in 

closed containers to a county sanitarian-approved landfill for disposal.

Recycle used oil and methanol to the extent feasible. 

Investigate the feasibility of using produced water in well drilling and completion processes.

Use lined produced-water evaporation pits at high-volume central facilities. 

To minimize undue exposure to hazardous situations, require measures that would preclude the public from entering 

hazardous areas and place warning signs alerting the public to truck traffic.

Institute a Hazard Communication Program for all operator employees and require subcontractor programs in accordance 

with OSHA 29 CFR 1910.1200. These programs are designed to educate and protect the employees and subcontractors 

with respect to any chemicals or hazardous substances that may be present in the workplace. As every chemical or 

hazardous material is brought on location, require that a Material Safety Data Sheet accompany that material and become 

part of the file kept at the field office as required by 29 CFR 1910.1200. Ensure that all employees receive the proper 

training in storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous substances.

Inventory and report chemical and hazardous materials in accordance with the Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title III 40 CFR Part 335, if quantities exceeding 10,000 pounds or the threshold planning 

quantity (TPQ) are to be produced or stored in association with the proposed action. Submit the appropriate Section 311 

and 312 forms at the required times to the state and county emergency management coordinators and the local fire 

departments.
HiLine Approved Plan Appendix N

Oil and Gas BMPs (General Conditions of Approval) N-7 September 2015

Transport and/or dispose of any hazardous wastes, as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 

in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations.

Design operations to severely limit or eliminate the need for extremely hazardous substances, and avoid the creation of 

hazardous wastes as defined by RCRA wherever possible.

Write and implement Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans as appropriate in accordance with 40 

CFR Part 112 to prevent discharge of oil into navigable waters of the United States.

Manage gas transmission system equipment maintenance fluids such as used oil and antifreeze through third-party or inhouse recyclers.

Implement the system-wide SPCC, expanded when necessary to cover new facilities, as required by the Clean Water Act 

(40 CFR 112.7).

Recycle methanol to minimize the need for disposal. 

Provide portable toilets for field operations.

Wildlife

Bald Eagle

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible within 1/2 mile of bald eagle nest sites that were 

active within the preceding 5 breeding seasons.

Bighorn Sheep Lambing

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible within bighorn sheep lambing areas.

Bighorn Sheep Range

Prior to surface-disturbing or disruptive activities a plan to maintain bighorn sheep habitat will be prepared by the 

proponent and implemented upon approval by the authorized officer. This plan shall address how short-term and longterm direct and indirect effects to bighorn sheep range will be mitigated based on current science and research.

Black-footed Ferret

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible within 1/4 mile of black-footed ferret habitat.

Black-tailed Prairie Dog

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible within 1/4 mile of black-tailed prairie dog 

habitat.

Colonial Waterbirds

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible within 1/4 mile of a waterbird nesting colony. 

Additionally, surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided from April 1 through July 15 within 1/2 mile 

of a waterbird nesting colony.

Minimize or avoid disturbance near important nesting and foraging areas such as Nelson Reservoir, Whitewater Lake, 

Pea Lake, Hewitt Lake, and other areas identified by the BLM based on the most current information available.
Appendix N HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 N-8 Oil and Gas BMPs (General Conditions of Approval)

Crucial Winter Range

Prior to surface-disturbing or disruptive activities a plan to maintain functionality of crucial winter range for big game 

and/or Greater Sage-Grouse will be prepared by the proponent and implemented upon approval by the authorized officer. 

Within crucial winter range surface-disturbing or disruptive activities would be avoided if possible within 6/10 of a mile 

from any existing surface-disturbing or disruptive activity. The plan shall address how short-term and long-term direct 

and indirect effects to crucial winter range will be mitigated based on current science and research.

Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation

This 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 a BLM-approved activity that will contribute to a need to list 

such species or their habitat. The BLM may require modifications to or disapprove a 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 surfacedisturbing 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.

Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Management Areas

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible within the boundaries of all Greater SageGrouse Priority Habitat Management Areas. Additional conservation measures and BMPs applicable in PHMA can be 

found in Appendix M, Greater Sage-Grouse.

Greater Sage-Grouse General Habitat Management Areas

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible within 0.6 mile of Greater Sage-Grouse leks. 

Additional conservation measures and BMPs applicable in GHMA can be found in Appendix M, Greater Sage-Grouse.

Within Greater Sage-Grouse general habitat surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible 

within 2 miles of sage-grouse leks to protect nesting and brood rearing habitat March 1 – June 15. Prior to surfacedisturbing or disruptive activities a plan to maintain functionality of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat will be prepared by the 

proponent and implemented upon approval by the authorized officer. This plan shall address how short-term and longterm direct and indirect effects to nesting and brood-rearing areas will be mitigated based on current science and 

research.

Require a one-day notice prior to any planned activity so that the pad site and any undeveloped access route or pipeline 

can be nest-dragged to determine the presence or absence of active nests. Require a second nest-drag survey if drilling 

activity begins more than two days after completion of pad construction.

Prioritize pad development based on suitability of habitat; construct pads that are in less suitable habitat (i.e., along 

existing roadways or within degraded habitats) during the breeding season, and construct pads located in more suitable 

habitat prior to or after the critical breeding season.

Avoid sagebrush, but if disturbance is necessary, interim reclamation should include sage plantings/seedings and/or the 

use of minimum disturbance practices to protect sage on well pads and pipelines.

Manage produced water to reduce the spread of West Nile virus within sage-grouse habitat areas. Implement the 

following impoundment construction techniques and measures to eliminate water sources that support breeding 

mosquitoes:

 Overbuild the size of ponds to accommodate a greater volume of water than is discharged. This will result in 

non-vegetated and muddy shorelines that breeding mosquitoes avoid.
HiLine Approved Plan Appendix N

Oil and Gas BMPs (General Conditions of Approval) N-9 September 2015

 Build steep shorelines to reduce shallow water and aquatic vegetation around the perimeter of impoundments. 

Construction of steep shorelines also will increase wave action that deters mosquito production.

 Maintain the water level below rooted vegetation for a muddy shoreline that is unfavorable habitat for mosquito 

larvae. Rooted vegetation includes both aquatic and upland vegetative types. Always avoid flooding terrestrial 

vegetation in flat terrain or low-lying areas.

 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.

 Fence pond sites 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.

 Use adulticides to target adult mosquito populations and larvicides to control the hatching of mosquito larvae, 

using approved pesticides and utilizing licensed applicators with a Pesticide Use Plan.

Greater Sage-Grouse Winter Range 

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible from December 1 through March 31 in Greater 

Sage-Grouse winter range.

Interior Least Tern

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible within 1/4 mile of interior least tern occupied 

habitat. 

Mountain Plover

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible within mountain plover habitat. Additionally, 

surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible from April 1 through July 15 within 1/4 mile of 

mountain plover habitat.

Pallid Sturgeon 

Prior to surface-disturbing or disruptive activities occurring in or within 1/2 mile of river or stream shorelines identified 

as pallid sturgeon habitat, a plan to maintain pallid sturgeon habitat would be prepared by the proponent and 

implemented upon approval by the authorized officer. Any proposed development would require consultation with the 

USFWS which could result in a revised buffer distance.

Peregrine Falcon

Surface disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible within 1 mile of peregrine falcon nest sites 

active within the preceding 7 breeding seasons.

Piping Plover

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible within 1/4 mile of piping plover habitat.

Potential piping plover nesting habitat near drilling and construction sites at Nelson Reservoir and Whitewater Lake will 

be identified and appropriate surveys will be conducted for this species prior to oil and gas activities. A timing 

stipulation during the nesting season would protect nesting piping plovers, but would not protect the function and utility 

of the site for subsequent nesting activity or occupancy. Therefore, no surface occupancy would apply to all new 

developments as well as to modifications of existing developments within 1/4 mile of piping plover nest sites, piping 

plover nesting habitat, and designated critical habitat (critical habitat is on the Bowdoin NWR). This condition of 

approval will minimize threats and disturbances to piping plovers, and prevent fragmentation and degradation of piping 
Appendix N HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 N-10 Oil and Gas BMPs (General Conditions of Approval)

plover nesting habitat and critical habitat. Waivers, exceptions, and modifications may apply if it is determined that the 

factors leading to its inclusion have changed sufficiently to make the protection provided by the condition of approval no 

longer justified, so long as the proposed operations would have “No Effect” on piping plovers and would not “Adversely 

Modify” piping plover critical habitat.

Raptors

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible within 1/4 mile of raptor nest sites that were 

active within the past 7 years. Additionally, surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided from March 1 

through July 31 within 1/2 mile of active raptor nest sites.

Install and maintain power line facilities to reduce raptor collisions and electrocutions, and discourage perching and nestbuilding on infrastructure.

Conduct nesting raptor surveys in suitable nesting habitats within 1/2 mile of proposed disturbance. Surveys could be 

conducted throughout the year; however, any potential nest sites located must be resurveyed during the breeding season 

to determine activity. Construction activities would be avoided within one mile of an active nest of listed or sensitive 

raptor species, and 1/2 to 3/4 mile (depending upon species or line of sight) of an active nest of other raptor species from 

March 1 through August 31, or until fledging and dispersal of the young. The nature of the restrictions and the 

protection radius would vary according to the raptor species involved and would be determined by the BLM.

Sharp-tailed Grouse Leks

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided within 1/4 mile of sharp-tailed grouse leks.

Sharp-tailed Grouse Nesting Habitat

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible from March 15 through June 30 within 1/2 mile 

of sharp-tailed grouse nesting habitat.

Sprague’s Pipit

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible from April 15 through July 15 in Sprague’s 

pipit habitat.

Winter Range

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible from December 1 through May 15 within 

identified big game winter range. Within winter ranges, locate disturbances so that specific important vegetation types, 

as identified by the BLM, would be avoided where possible.
APPENDIX O

FIRE AND EMERGENCY STABILIZATION AND REHABILITATION

HiLine Approved Plan Appendix O

Fire and Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation O-1 September 2015

Appendix O

Fire and Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation

Fire

The following table compares fire management categories. The table is an excerpt from the Fire/Fuels Management Plan 

Environmental Assessment/Plan Amendment for Montana and the Dakotas (2003), and can be found on the internet at

http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/prog/fireaviation/fire_management_plans/state_plan.html.

Table O-1

Fire Management Category Descriptions

Category A:

Fire is not desired at all

(None of this category is in 

the planning area)

Category B:

Unplanned fire is likely to 

cause negative effects

Category C:

Fire is desired to manage 

ecosystems, but current 

vegetative condition 

creates constraints on use

Category D:

Fire is desired; no 

constraints on its use

(None of this category is in 

the planning area)

Fire Management 

Activities:

• Mitigation and 

suppression required 

• Fire should not be used 

to manage fuels

Fire Management 

Activities:

• Suppression required 

• Fire and non-fire fuels 

treatments may be used

Fire Management 

Activities: 

• Suppression may be 

required 

• Fire and non-fire fuels 

treatments may be used

Fire Management 

Activities: 

• Suppression may not be 

necessary 

• Both fire and non-fire 

treatments could be used

Rationale for 

Categorization: 

• Direct threats to life or 

property 

• Ecosystems not fire 

dependent 

• Long fire return intervals

Rationale for 

Categorization: 

• Unplanned ignitions 

would have negative 

effects on ecosystems 

unless mitigated

Rationale for 

Categorization: 

• Significant ecological, 

social, or political 

constraints 

Rationale for 

Categorization: 

• Few ecological, social, 

or political constraints 

• Less need for fuels 

treatment

Fire Suppression 

Considerations: 

• Emphasis on prevention, 

detection, and rapid 

suppression response and 

techniques

Fire Suppression 

Considerations: 

• Emphasis on 

prevention/education and 

suppression

Fire Suppression/Use 

Considerations: 

• Emphasis on reducing 

unwanted ignitions, 

resource threats, and fuels 

accumulations

Fire Suppression/Use 

Considerations: 

• Emphasis on using 

planned and unplanned 

wildfire to achieve 

resource objectives

Multiple Fire 

Priority: 

1 Highest

Multiple Fire 

Priority: 

1 High

Multiple Fire 

Priority: 

1 Medium

Multiple Fire 

Priority: 

1 Lowest

1 If multiple fires were burning, Categories A and B would generally receive priority for fire management resources.
Appendix O HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 O-2 Fire and Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation

Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation (ES&R)

Introduction

Emergency stabilization plans and/or rehabilitation plans are prepared after a wildland fire to minimize threats to life or 

property and stabilize and prevent unacceptable degradation to natural and cultural resources resulting from the effects of 

the fire, in a cost-effective and expeditious manner. Not all fires need emergency stabilization and/or rehabilitation.

The Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Handbook (H-1742-1) provides detailed information 

specific to BLM policies, standards, and procedures used in the Burned Area ES&R programs. The Handbook is 

intended to be the primary guidance to BLM ES&R activities. ES&R activities and treatment undertaken in the HiLine 

District will follow the Handbook guidance. ES&R activities and treatments in Wilderness Study Areas will comply 

with policy in the Management of BLM Wilderness Study Areas (BLM Manual 6330). As updates and revisions to the 

departmental manuals are completed, conformance to the new direction will supersede the criteria included herein.

Emergency stabilization is defined as “Planned actions to stabilize and prevent unacceptable degradation to natural and 

cultural resources, to minimize threats to life and property resulting from the effects of a fire, or to repair/

replace/construct physical improvements necessary to prevent degradation of land or resources. Emergency Stabilization 

actions must be taken within one year following containment of a wildland fire.” (620 DM 3.3E)

Rehabilitation is defined as “Efforts undertaken within three years of containment of a wildland fire to repair or improve 

fire-damaged lands unlikely to recover naturally to management approved conditions, or to repair or replace minor 

facilities damaged by fire.” (620 DM 3.3M)

Emergency stabilization and rehabilitation funds are not used for rehabilitation of wildland fire suppression efforts; this 

includes rehabilitating firelines, helispots, fire camp, etc. Costs for rehabilitating wildland fire suppression efforts will 

be funded by the wildland fire project code.

Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Protocols 

Emergency stabilization protection priorities are: 1) human life and safety; and 2) property and unique biological 

resources (designated Critical Habitat for Federal and State listed, proposed or candidate threatened and endangered 

species) and significant heritage sites (620 DM 3.7A). Burned area rehabilitation protection priorities are: 1) to repair or 

improve lands damaged directly by a wildland fire; and 2) to rehabilitate or establish healthy, stable ecosystems in the 

burned area (620 DM 3.8A).

Emergency Stabilization

The objective of emergency stabilization is “To determine the need for and to prescribe and implement emergency 

treatments to minimize threats to life or property or to stabilize and prevent unacceptable degradation to natural and 

cultural resources resulting from the effects of a fire.” (620 DM 3.4A)

Emergency stabilization plans are prepared by an interdisciplinary team, immediately following a wildland fire and 

specify emergency treatments and activities to be carried out within one year following containment of the wildfire. 

Generally, activities are only prescribed within the perimeter of a burned area. 

Allowable emergency stabilization actions are limited to the following items, grouped by issue topic:

Human Life and Safety

• Replacing or repairing minor facilities essential to public health and safety when no other protection options are 

available.
HiLine Approved Plan Appendix O

Fire and Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation O-3 September 2015

Soil/Water Stabilization

• Placing structures to slow soil and water movement.

• Stabilizing soil to prevent loss of degradation or productivity.

• Increasing road drainage frequency and/or capacity to handle additional post-fire runoff.

• Installing protective fences or barriers to protect treated or recovering areas.

Designated Critical Habitat for Federal/State Listed, Proposed, or Candidate Species

• Conducting assessments of critical habitat in those areas affected by emergency stabilization treatments.

• Seeding or planting to prevent permanent impairment of designated Critical Habitat for Federal and State listed, 

proposed or candidate threatened and endangered species.

Critical Heritage Resources

• Conducting assessments of significant heritage sites in those areas affected by emergency stabilization 

treatments.

• Stabilizing critical heritage resources.

• Patrolling, camouflaging, burying significant heritage sites to prevent looting.

Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Areas and Protection Priority Areas

• Prioritize native seed allocation for use in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat in years when preferred native seed is in 

short supply. Where probability of success or native seed availability is low, non-native seeds may be used as 

long as they meet sage-grouse habitat conservation objectives. Re-establishment of appropriate sagebrush 

species/subspecies and important understory plants, relative to site potential, shall be the highest priority for 

rehabilitation efforts. 

• Design post-ES&R management to ensure long term persistence of seeded or pre-burn native plants.

• Consider potential changes in climate when proposing post-fire seedings using native plants. Consider seed 

collections from the warmer component within a species’ current range for selection of native seed.

Invasive Plants

• Seeding to prevent establishment of invasive plants, and direct treatment of invasive plants. Such actions will 

be specified in the emergency stabilization plan only when immediate action is required and when standard 

treatments are used that have been validated by monitoring data from previous projects, or when there is 

documented research establishing the effectiveness of such actions.

• Using integrated pest management techniques to minimize the establishment of non-native invasive species 

within the burned area. When there is an existing approved management plan that addresses non-native 

invasive species, emergency stabilization treatments may be used to stabilize the invasive species.

Monitoring

• Monitoring of treatments and activities for up to three years from date of fire containment.

Burned Area Rehabilitation

The objectives of rehabilitation are: 1) to evaluate actual and potential long-term post- fire impacts to critical cultural and 

natural resources and identify those areas unlikely to recover naturally from severe wildland fire damage; 2) to develop 

and implement cost-effective plans to emulate historical or pre-fire ecosystem structure, function, diversity, and 

dynamics consistent with approved land management plans, or if that is infeasible, then to restore or establish a healthy, 

stable ecosystem in which native species are well represented; and 3) to repair or replace minor facilities damaged by 

wildland fire (620 DM 3.4B).
Appendix O HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 O-4 Fire and Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation plans are prepared by an interdisciplinary team as a separate plan, independent of an emergency 

stabilization plan. The rehabilitation plan specifies non-emergency treatments and activities to be carried out within 

three years following containment of a wildfire. Generally, rehabilitation activities are prescribed only within the 

perimeter of a burned area. 

Allowable rehabilitation actions are limited to the following items, grouped by issue topic:

Lands Unlikely to Recover Naturally

• Repair or improve lands unlikely to recover naturally from wildland fire damage by emulating historical or prefire ecosystem structure, function, diversity, and dynamics consistent with existing land management plans.

Weed Treatments

• Chemical, manual, and mechanical removal of invasive species, and planting of native and non-native species, 

restore or establish a healthy, stable ecosystem even if this ecosystem cannot fully emulate historical or pre-fire 

conditions.

Tree Planting

• Tree planting to reestablish burned habitat, reestablish native tree species lost in fire, prevent establishment of 

invasive plants.

Repair/Replace Fire Damage to Minor Facilities

• Repair or replace fire damage to minor operating facilities (e.g., fences, campgrounds, interpretive signs and 

exhibits, shade shelters, wildlife guzzlers, etc.) Rehabilitation may not include the planning or replacement of 

major infrastructure, such as visitor centers, residential structures, administration offices, work centers and 

similar facilities. Rehabilitation does not include the construction of new facilities that did not exist before the

fire, except for temporary and minor facilities necessary to implement burned area rehabilitation efforts.

Monitoring

• Monitoring of treatments and activities for up to three years from date of fire containment.

 After three years, the long-term monitoring of an ES&R project will be officially transferred to a designated 

resource program. Long-term responsibility for tracking the ES&R investment should be identified early in the 

ES&R planning process through an interdisciplinary team. The resource program is encouraged to conduct an 

evaluation at the five-year interval to identify management changes needed to ensure project success in reaching 

the intended objectives. (WO-IM-2010-195, 9/3/2010).

Policies on timeframes for ES&R planning funding, and implementation are very specific. ES&R treatments must be 

implemented, to the extent possible, before additional damage occurs to the burned area, immediately down slope of the 

burned area, or before undesirable vegetation becomes established. Treatments must be implemented at a time that will 

ensure a high or maximum probability of success. The ES&R Program timeframes in relations to tasks and 

responsibilities are shown in Table O-2.

Due to the broad spectrum of situations encountered in emergency stabilization and/or rehabilitation, several options of 

possible treatments, either separately or in combination, must be considered. The ES&R Handbook list several 

treatments under the Treatment Guidance section.
HiLine Approved Plan Appendix O

Fire and Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation O-5 September 2015

Table O-2

ES&R Program Timeframes, Tasks and Responsibilities

Event Timeframes Task

Wildfire occurs. Immediately Manager assigns a Resource Advisor (RA).

While the fire is still burning, the RA, in 

consultation with resource specialists and the 

appropriate Manager, decides if ES&R is 

warranted bases on Values-at-Risk/

Resources-at-Risk. If it is decided that 

ES&R is warranted, the RA is to notify the 

Central Montana Fire Zone (CMFZ) or 

District Office ES&R lead, prior to 

containment. The CMFZ or District Office 

ES&R Lead will then notify the State Office 

ES&R Program Lead of the scope of the fire

and the anticipated fire containment date.

Initial ES Plan needed. Submit Form

1310-2 plus supplemental attachments 

(both 2822 and 2881 may be indicated on 

Form, although funding under 2881 may 

not occur until the following fiscal year).

Within 7 days of fire 

containment

Concurrently to State ES&R Program Lead, 

National ES&R Program Lead, and Denver 

Budget Office (BC-612).

Complete ES Plan needed. 

Prepare/Submit complete ES Plan.

Within 21 days of fire 

containment

<$100,000 submit to State ES&R Program 

Lead. ≥$100,000 submit to State ES&R 

Program Lead (for review) and concurrently 

to National ES&R Program Lead.

Receive approval/disapproval of ES Plan. Within 6 working days of 

receipt by Approval 

Office

Requesting Office receives memo approving 

funding, or need for revision on a plan by 

plan basis. State Director or acting has 

funding approval authority for plans 

<$100,000. Bureau Budget Officer, after 

concurrence with Assistant Director WO-200 

or their designee, has funding approval 

authority for plans ≥$100,000. 

Receive notification of ES funding 

approval.

Immediately Local fire office enters project data into 

NFPORS.

BAR Plan needed. Prepare/Submit BAR 

Plan.

Timely, ideally soon after 

submitting ES Plan, but 

no later than Sept. 5

annually

To State ES&R Program Lead and National 

ES&R Program Lead. Field Office. Local 

fire office enters project data into NFPORS.

Receive approval/disapproval of BAR 

Plan funding.

Before October 31 

annually

Funding for BAR Plans is approved via the 

Annual Work Plan.

Accomplishment Report and Funding 

Request Form for next FY 2881 funds.

Early September To State ES&R Program Lead for review 

and submission to National ES&R Program 

Lead for concurrence. Funding for years 2 

and 3 is approved via the Annual Work Plan.

Close-out Report. Early September of 3rd

year

To State ES&R Program Lead for review 

and submission to National ES&R Program 

Lead.
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX P

RECREATION SITES AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

HiLine Approved Plan Appendix P

Recreation Sites and Management Areas P-1 September 2015

Appendix P

Recreation Sites and Management Areas

The BLM released Handbook H-8320-1, Planning for Recreation and Visitor Services, on August 22, 2014. The 

handbook assists BLM staff in the planning and management of recreation and visitor services on public land. The 

release of the handbook coincided with the final development of the HiLine Proposed RMP/Final EIS. Accordingly, not 

all recreation and visitor services decisions in this Approved Plan follow the recommended format provided in the 

handbook. As a result of following guidance in the earlier handbook, the Approved Plan contains both land use 

planning-level and implementation-level decisions for recreation and visitor services. Implementation-level decisions 

for recreation management areas and recreation sites are presented below.

Recreation Sites

Any existing recreational facilities, such as picnic tables or fire rings, would be removed from areas that would not be 

managed as recreation sites. Whether or not to remove or maintain livestock exclosure fences would be analyzed on a 

case-by-case basis. The BLM will manage 49 recreation sites and facilities (Table P-1 and Appendix A2, Map H). 

Recreation sites and facilities will be maintained and managed to promote resource value protection, public safety and 

health, quality facilities, visitor experiences, management efficiency, and value-based returns. New sites could be 

developed commensurate with public demand, resource constraints, and management capabilities. Priority will be given 

to new sites that have partnership funding strategies and are consistent with established management guidelines.

In Priority Habitat Management Areas, the BLM will not construct new recreation facilities (e.g., campgrounds, trails, 

trailheads, staging areas) unless the development would have a net conservation gain to Greater Sage-Grouse 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.

Table P-1

BLM-Managed Recreation Sites and Facilities

Recreation Site Name

Blaine County

Anita Fishing Reservoir

BR-12 Watchable Wildlife Reservoir

Don Fishing Reservoir

Floyd Flynn Fishing Reservoir

FR Fishing Reservoir 

North Faber Fishing Reservoir

Reser Fishing Reservoir

Salmo Fishing Reservoir

South Cassidy Fishing Reservoir (BR-19)

Glacier County

Sullivan Bridge Boat Take Out Area

Hill County

Fresno OHV

Gauging Station Boat Take Out Area
Appendix P HiLine Approved Plan

September 2015 P-2 Recreation Sites and Management Areas

Recreation Site Name

Liberty County

Moffat Bridge Boat Take Out Area

Pugsley Bridge Recreation Area

Phillips County

Batosh Fishing Reservoir

Buffington Day Use Picnic Area

Camp Creek Campground/Watchable Wildlife Area

Cottonwood Riparian Protection Area

Current Fishing Reservoir

Karsten Coulee Fishing Reservoir

King Fishing Reservoir

Lark Fishing Reservoir

Montana Gulch Campground

Paleface Fishing Reservoir

Plutz Fishing Reservoir

PR-18 Fishing Reservoir

PR-20 Fishing Reservoir

PR-54 Fishing Reservoir

Rebate Fishing Reservoir

Sagebrush Fishing Reservoir

Sentinel Fishing Reservoir

Shallow Fishing Reservoir

Taint Fishing Reservoir

Thunder Cloud Fishing Reservoir

Whiteface Fishing Reservoir

Wrangler Fishing Reservoir

Valley County

Atlas Fishing Reservoir

Big Fishing Reservoir

Bitter Creek WSA/Watchable Wildlife Area

Faraasen Park Recreation Area

Glasgow OHV

Helen Fishing Reservoir

Hose Fishing Reservoir

Langen Fishing Reservoir

Paulo Fishing Reservoir

Timber Creek Ridge

Troika Fishing Reservoir

Valley Fishing Reservoir

Wards Dam Watchable Wildlife Area
HiLine Approved Plan Appendix P

Recreation Sites and Management Areas P-3 September 2015

Special Recreation Management Areas and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

The BLM has established a three-tier system of lands managed for recreation where Special Recreation Management 

Areas (SRMAs) will be given management priority to provide quality recreation opportunities and visitor experiences. 

Extensive Recreation Management Areas (ERMAs) will also require specific management consideration, but 

commensurate with the management of other resources and resource uses. All remaining lands will be managed as 

public lands not designated as recreation management areas (LND), and would generally be managed only to address 

basic recreation and visitor services and resource stewardship needs such as visitor safety and use, and user conflicts. 

The three Recreation Management Area categories are described below. For more complete descriptions, see BLM 

2015, Appendix S.

 Special Recreation Management Areas

SRMAs are administrative units where the existing or proposed recreation opportunities and recreation setting 

characteristics are recognized for their unique value, importance and/or distinctiveness, especially as compared 

to other areas used for recreation. 

 Extensive Recreation Management Areas

ERMAs are administrative units that require specific management consideration in order to address recreation 

use, demand or recreation and visitor services program investments.

 Public Lands Not Designated as Recreation Management Areas

All remaining public lands not designated as recreation management areas would generally be managed only to 

address basic recreation and visitor services and resource stewardship needs such as visitor safety and use, and 

user conflicts.

The existing and proposed SRMAs and ERMAs in the HiLine planning area were evaluated in the HiLine Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS (BLM 2015, Appendix S). A summary listing of areas designated as SRMAs and ERMAs in this 

Approved Plan is shown below.

Table P-2

SRMAs and ERMAs in the HiLine District

Name SRMA ERMA

BR-12 Watchable Wildlife Area 

Cottonwood Riparian Area 

Faraasen Park 

Fresno OHV Area 

Glasgow OHV Area 

Little Rocky Mountains SRMA 

Marias River 

Paulo Reservoir 

South Phillips Recreation Complex 

Sweet Grass Hills 

Timber Creek Ridge 

Troika Reservoir 
This page intentionally left blank.