Lewistown Field Office 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Amendment 

Attachment 1 

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 

Montana State Office 

September 2015 
MISSION STATEMENT 

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

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

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

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

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

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

future generations under our mandate of multiple-use and sustained 

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

from public lands. 

BLM/MT/PL-15/009+1610 

DOI-BLM-MT-L060-2013-0032-EIS 
State Director Recommendation for Approval 

I hereby recommend for approval the Lewistown Greater Sage-Grouse Resource Management Plan 

Amendment. 

I Ja 
[left intentionally blank] 
September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page 

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

1.1 Description of the Lewistown Field Office Subregional Planning Area ........................... 1-1

1.2 Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................................ 1-6

1.3 Lewistown Field Office Subregional GRSG Conservation Summary ............................... 1-7

1.4 Planning Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 1-11

2. APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT......................................... 2-1

2.1 Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment Instructions .................................... 2-1

2.2 Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions ..................................................................... 2-1

2.2.1 Special Status Species (SSS) ......................................................................................... 2-3

2.2.2 Habitat Restoration/Vegetation Management (VEG) .......................................... 2-10

2.2.3 Fire and Fuels Management (FIRE) .......................................................................... 2-12

2.2.4 Livestock Grazing (LG) ............................................................................................... 2-14

2.2.5 Mineral Resources (MR) ............................................................................................ 2-18

2.2.6 Lands and Realty (LR) ................................................................................................. 2-21

2.2.7 Recreation and Visitor Services (REC) ................................................................... 2-22

2.2.8 Travel and Transportation (TRM) ........................................................................... 2-23

3. CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ................................ 3-1

3.1 Consultation and Coordination ................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1.1 Section 7 Consultation ................................................................................................. 3-2

3.1.2 Native American Consultation ................................................................................... 3-2

3.2 Public Involvement........................................................................................................................ 3-2

4. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Implementing the Plan ................................................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 Maintaining the Plan...................................................................................................................... 4-2

4.3 Changing the Plan ......................................................................................................................... 4-2

4.4 Plan Evaluation, Monitoring, and Adaptive Management ..................................................... 4-2

5. GLOSSARY ..................................................................................................................... 5-1

6. REFERENCES.................................................................................................................. 6-1

TABLES Page 

1-1 Land Management in the Planning Area1 ................................................................................................ 1-4

1-2 Acres of PHMA and GHMA in the Decision Area for the ARMPA ................................................ 1-6

1-3 Acres of GRSG Habitat by County in the Decision Area (BLM Lands Only) ............................... 1-6

1-4 Threats to GRSG in the Lewistown Field Office Subregion as identified by the 

Conservation Objectives Team ................................................................................................................ 1-8

1-5 Key Components of the Lewistown Field Office GRSG ARMPA Addressing COT 

Report Threats ............................................................................................................................................. 1-8

2-1 Summary of Allocation Decisions by GRSG Habitat Management Areas ...................................... 2-3

2-2 Habitat Objectives for GRSG ................................................................................................................... 2-4
ii Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

FIGURES Page 

1-1 Lewistown Subregional Planning Area, Surface Management and Subsurface Estate .................. 1-2

1-2 Lewistown Planning Area, Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Areas across All 

Jurisdictions ................................................................................................................................................... 1-3

1-3 Lewistown Planning Area, Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Areas for BLM 

Administered Lands ..................................................................................................................................... 1-5

Appendix A (Figures 2-1 through 2-11): 

2-1 Lewistown Habitat Management Areas 

2-2 Lewistown GRSG Biologically Significant Units and Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMA) 

2-3 Lewistown Livestock Grazing 

2-4 Lewistown Fluid Minerals (Oil and Gas) 

2-5 Lewistown Locatable Minerals 

2-6 Lewistown Salable Minerals (Mineral Materials) 

2-7 Lewistown Non-Energy Leasable Minerals 

2-8 Lewistown Wind 

2-9 Lewistown Solar 

2-10a Major Rights-of-Way 

2-10b Lewistown Minor Rights-of-Way 

2-11 Lewistown Land Tenure 

APPENDICES

A Approved RMP Amendment Maps 

B Applying Lek Buffer Distances When Approving Actions 

C Required Design Features 

D The Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework 

E Greater Sage-Grouse Disturbance Caps 

F Regional Mitigation Strategy 

G Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations 

H GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat Assessment 

I Adaptive Management Plan 
September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment iii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Full Phrase

ARMPA approved resource management plan amendment 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BMP best management practice 

BSU biologically significant unit 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COA conditions of approval 

COT Conservation Objectives Team 

CSGD Cooperative State Grazing District 

CTTM comprehensive travel and transportation management 

DDCT density and disturbance calculation tool 

DOI US Department of the Interior 

EIS environmental impact statement 

ES&R emergency stabilization and rehabilitation 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

GHMA general habitat management area(s) 

GRSG Greater Sage-Grouse 

kV kilovolt 

LFO Lewistown Field Office 

MFWP Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks 

MSGOT Montana Sage Grouse Oversight Team 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NOA notice of availability 

NRCS National Resource Conservation Service 

NTT National Technical Team 

OHV off-highway vehicle 

PFC proper functioning condition 

PHMA priority habitat management area(s) 

RDF required design feature 

RMP resource management plan 

ROD record of decision 

ROW right-of-way 

SFA sagebrush focal area(s) 

USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service 

WAFWA Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

WSA wilderness study area 
Table of Contents

iv Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

This page intentionally left blank.
September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 1-1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) directs the US Department of the 

Interior (DOI), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to develop and periodically revise or amend its 

resource management plans (RMPs), which guide management of BLM-administered lands. 

This Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (ARMPA) is the result of the March 2010 US 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 12-Month Finding for Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse 

(GRSG; Centrocercus urophasianus) as threatened or endangered (75 Federal Register 13910, March 23, 

2010; USFWS 2010). In that finding, the USFWS concluded that the GRSG was “warranted, but 

precluded” for listing as a threatened or endangered species. 

The USFWS reviewed the status of and threats to the GRSG in relation to the five listing factors 

provided in Section 4(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The USFWS determined that Factor A, 

“the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the habitat or range of the 

GRSG,” and Factor D, “the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms,” posed “a significant threat to 

the GRSG now and in the foreseeable future” (USFWS 2010). The USFWS identified the principal 

regulatory mechanisms for the BLM as conservation measures in RMPs.

1.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE LEWISTOWN FIELD OFFICE SUBREGIONAL PLANNING AREA

The ARMPA planning area boundary includes all lands regardless of jurisdiction (see Figure 1-1, 

Lewistown Subregional Planning Area, Surface Management and Subsurface Estate, and Figure 1-2, 

Lewistown Planning Area, Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Areas across All Jurisdictions). 

Table 1-1, Land Management in the Planning Area1, outlines the amount of surface acres that are 

administered by specific federal agencies, states, local governments, and lands that are privately owned in 

the planning area. The planning area includes other BLM-administered lands that are not allocated as 

habitat management areas for GRSG. The ARMPA does not establish any additional management for 

these lands, which will continue to be managed according to the existing underlying land use plan for the 

areas.
1. Introduction 1-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015
1. Introduction September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 1-3
1. Introduction

1-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Table 1-1

Land Management in the Planning Area1

Surface Land Management Total Surface Land 

Management Acres

BLM2 593,995

Private 5,168,165

State 526,504

Water 12,039

Other federal 1,010,816

Total acres 7,311,519

Source: BLM 2012

1This includes PHMA, GHMA, and nonhabitat.

2

For the purpose of this planning process, all BLM-administered lands have subsurface 

minerals.

The decision area for the ARMPA is BLM-administered lands in GRSG habitat management areas (see 

Figure 1-3, Lewistown Planning Area, Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Areas for BLM 

Administered Lands), and subsurface mineral rights. Any decisions in the ARMPA apply only to BLMadministered lands, including split-estate lands within GRSG habitat management areas. These decisions 

are limited to providing land use planning direction specific to conserving GRSG and its habitat. 

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

habitat management areas (PHMA) and general habitat management areas (GHMA; see Table 1-2, 

Acres of PHMA and GHMA in the Decision Area for the ARMPA).

These are defined as follows: 

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

sustainable GRSG populations. Areas of PHMA largely coincide with areas identified as 

priority areas for conservation in the USFWS’s Conservation Objectives Team (COT)

report. These areas include breeding, late brood-rearing, winter concentration areas, and 

other seasonal habitat. 

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

GRSG populations. They are areas of occupied habitat outside of PHMA.

The ARMPA also identifies specific sagebrush focal areas (SFA), which are an allocation that is a subset 

of PHMA (see Figure 1-3). The SFA was derived from GRSG stronghold areas described by the

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

Refine Land Use Allocations in Highly Important Landscapes. 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.

PHMA (including SFA) and GHMA on BLM-administered lands in the decision area fall within five

counties in central Montana (see Table 1-3, Acres of GRSG Habitat by County in the Decision Area 

(BLM Lands Only)1).
1. Introduction September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 1-5
1. Introduction

1-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Table 1-2

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

Surface Land Management PHMA GHMA

BLM 233,219 112,341

BLM-administered federal mineral estate 294,935 195,168

Source: BLM 2012

Table 1-3

Acres of GRSG Habitat by County in the Decision Area (BLM Lands 

Only)1

County Name ARMPA

PHMA GHMA TOTAL

Chouteau 0 18,696 18,696

Fergus 83,148 55,855 139,003

Judith Basin 0 3,692 3,692

Meagher 0 439 439

Petroleum 150,071 33,659 183,730

Total 233,219 112,341 345,560

Source: BLM 2012

1Does not include subsurface mineral estate under BLM administration.

There is an existing protest resolution decision affecting lands managed within the Lewistown Field 

Office (LFO). It does not allow oil and gas leasing of nominated parcels that would require a special 

stipulation to protect important wildlife values, which includes PHMA and GHMA. Existing fluid mineral 

leases within GRSG habitat that expire can be renominated for leasing, but this would be deferred.

Areas with important wildlife values cannot be leased until the BLM completes a plan 

amendment/environmental impact statement (EIS) or a new/revised RMP/EIS, including oil and gas leasing 

decisions identified in a record of decision (ROD). This ARMPA considers only management actions for 

GRSG and does not address oil and gas leasing options for lands with other important wildlife resource 

values. (The LFO is revising the RMP, which will address oil and gas leasing for the entire LFO planning 

area boundary.)

The Judith Resource Area (BLM 1994) and Headwaters (BLM 1984) RMPs are hereby amended to 

incorporate appropriate GRSG conservation measures.

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

The BLM has prepared this ARMPA and associated EIS to amend RMPs for the LFO containing GRSG 

habitat. This planning process is needed to respond to the USFWS’s March 2010 “warranted, but 

precluded” ESA listing petition decision for GRSG. The USFWS identified the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range and the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms as significant threats. It identified the principal regulatory mechanisms for the BLM as 

conservation measures incorporated into land use plans.

The purpose of the ARMPA is to identify and incorporate appropriate measures in existing land use 

plans to conserve, enhance, and restore GRSG habitat by avoiding, minimizing, or compensating for 
1. Introduction

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 1-7

unavoidable impacts on GRSG habitat in the context of the BLM’s multiple use and sustained yield 

mission under FLPMA.

Changes in management of GRSG habitats are necessary to avoid the continued decline of populations 

across the species’ range. This ARMPA focuses on areas affected by threats to GRSG habitat identified 

by the USFWS in the March 2010 listing decision and in the USFWS 2013 COT Report.

The major threats to GRSG or its habitat that apply to the LFO Subregion are as follows: 

 Infrastructure—Fragmentation of GRSG habitat due to human development activities, such 

as right-of-way (ROW) and renewable energy development

 Infrastructure—Fragmentation of GRSG habitat due to range improvements

 Invasive species—Conversion of GRSG habitat to invasive annual grass-dominated plant 

communities, such as cheatgrass

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

 Grazing—Loss of habitat components due to livestock and large wildlife use

 Agriculture and urbanization—Fragmentation of GRSG habitat or modification of GRSG 

behavior due to conversion of land to agricultural and urban uses

 Prescribed fire—Loss of GRSG sagebrush habitat

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

human uses

 Conifer encroachment—Encroachment of pinyon or juniper into GRSG habitat

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

development

This amendment does not make any decisions regarding new fluid mineral leases.

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

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

GRSG populations. However, coordination and partnerships with private landowners and other agencies 

will be key to ensuring conservation and habitat improvement. This is based on the relatively limited 

level of management authority the LFO has over the designated GRSG habitat in the planning area 

(approximately 15.5 percent).

1.3 LEWISTOWN FIELD OFFICE SUBREGIONAL GRSG CONSERVATION SUMMARY

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

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

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

the USFWS’s March 2010 listing decision, and those threats described in the USFWS’s 2013 COT

report. In the COT report, the USFWS identified threats by GRSG populations across the range and 

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

specific population. 
1. Introduction

1-8 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Table 1-4 identifies the GRSG populations and threats identified by the COT contained in the LFO

Subregion.

Table 1-4

Threats to GRSG in the Lewistown Field Office Subregion as identified by the 

Conservation Objectives Team

Identified GRSG 

Populations from the 

COT Report 

Applicable to the 

Lewistown Field Office 

Subregion

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

Yellowstone Watershed 4 N L Y L L Y Y N Y Y N L N

Belt Mountains 24 Y L Y L L Y L N L Y N L L

Source: USFWS 2013

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

not known to be present, and U = unknown.

Table 1-5 provides a crosswalk as to how the ARMPA for the Lewistown Field Office Subregion 

addresses the threats from the COT report.

Table 1-5

Key Components of the Lewistown Field Office GRSG ARMPA Addressing COT Report 

Threats

Threats to GRSG 

and Its Habitat 

(from COT 

Report)

Key Component of the Lewistown Field Office ARMPA

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

restrictive land use allocations and management actions to be implemented 

if habitat or population hard triggers are met.

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

GRSG for actions that result in habitat loss and degradation.

 Monitor implementation and effectiveness of conservation measures in 

GRSG habitats according to the habitat assessment framework.

All development 

threats, including 

mining, infrastructure, 

and energy 

development

 PHMA—Implement an anthropogenic disturbance cap of 3% within the 

biologically significant unit (BSU) and proposed project analysis areas.

 Convert the 3% disturbance cap to a 5% cap for all sources of habitat 

alteration within a project analysis area under the following circumstance: If 

the BLM determines that the State of Montana has adopted a GRSG habitat 

conservation program that contains comparable components to those 

found in its core area strategy, including an all lands approach for calculating 

anthropogenic disturbances, a clear method for measuring the density of 
1. Introduction

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 1-9

Table 1-5

Key Components of the Lewistown Field Office GRSG ARMPA Addressing COT Report 

Threats

Threats to GRSG 

and Its Habitat 

(from COT 

Report)

Key Component of the Lewistown Field Office ARMPA

operations, and a fully operational density and disturbance calculation tool 

(DDCT).

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

facility per 640 acres.

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

impacts on leks when authorizing actions in GRSG habitat.

 Apply required design features (RDFs) when authorizing actions in GRSG 

habitat.

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

best available science, updated as monitoring information on current 

infrastructure projects becomes available.

Energy 

development—fluid 

minerals1

 PHMA and GHMA—Apply conditions of approval (COAs) to existing fluid 

mineral leases.

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 wind energy development 

with special stipulations).

Infrastructure—major 

ROWs 

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

stipulations).

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

stipulations). 

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).

Mining—salable 

minerals

 PHMA—Closed area (not available for salable minerals), except that they 

may remain open to free use permits and expansion of existing active pits if 

criteria are met.

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

set forth at 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 3461.5(o)(1).

 

1 Oil and gas leasing are not addressed in this ARMPA.
1. Introduction

1-10 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Table 1-5

Key Components of the Lewistown Field Office GRSG ARMPA Addressing COT Report 

Threats

Threats to GRSG 

and Its Habitat 

(from COT 

Report)

Key Component of the Lewistown Field Office ARMPA

Improper livestock 

grazing

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

followed by PHMA.

 Include in the NEPA analysis for renewals and grazing permit/lease 

modifications specific management thresholds, based on the GRSG habitat 

objectives table, land health standards, and ecological site potential. This is

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 

(wild horses and 

burros) management

 Not applicable; free-roaming equids do not occur 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.

 Allow special recreation permits in PHMA only if their effects on GRSG 

and its habitat are neutral or beneficial.

Fire  Identify and prioritize areas that are vulnerable to wildfires and prescribe 

actions important for GRSG protection.

 Prioritize post-fire treatments in PHMA.

Nonnative, invasive 

plant species

 Improve GRSG habitat by restoring native or desirable plants and create 

landscape patterns that most benefit GRSG.

 PHMA and GHMA—Monitor for and treat invasive and noxious weed 

species associated with existing range improvement projects.

 Use integrated vegetation management to control, suppress, and eradicate, 

where possible, noxious and invasive species.

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

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

with specific ecological site conditions.

 Include in all BLM use authorizations terms and conditions on the actions 

needed to meet or progress toward meeting the habitat objectives for 

GRSG.

Pinyon or juniper 

expansion

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

considers tribal cultural values, prioritizing occupied GRSG habitat.

Agricultural 

conversion and 

exurban development

 Retain GRSG habitat under federal management.
1. Introduction

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 1-11

The ARMPA also identifies and incorporates measures for other uses and resources that are designed to 

conserve, enhance, and restore GRSG habitat. Specifically, the ARMPA requires the following

summarized management decisions, subject to valid existing rights:

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

annual grass, and conifer treatments 

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

 Limiting new development where a disturbance cap has been reached in PHMA

 Including GRSG habitat objectives in land health standards, as appropriate

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

standards, and ecological site potential 

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

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

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

use by monitoring and using adaptive management.

The ARMPA adopts key elements of the State of Montana Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation 

Strategy by establishing conservation measures and focusing restoration in the same key areas most 

valuable to the GRSG. The governor issued Executive Order 10-2014, which created the Montana Sage 

Grouse Oversight Team (MSGOT) and the Montana Sage Grouse Habitat Conservation Program. The 

executive order outlines a number of conservation strategies for state agencies to follow for land uses 

and activities in GRSG habitat, in addition to establishing the MSGOT and habitat conservation program.

If the BLM finds that the State of Montana is implementing an effective GRSG habitat conservation 

program, the BLM will review the management goals and objectives to determine if they are being met 

and whether amending the ARMPA is appropriate to achieve consistent and effective conservation and 

GRSG management across all lands, regardless of ownership.

For a full description of the BLM’s ARMPA, see Section 2, Approved Resource Management Plan 

Amendment.

1.4 PLANNING CRITERIA

Planning criteria are based on appropriate laws, regulations, BLM manual and handbook sections, and 

policy directives. Criteria are also based on public participation and coordination with cooperating 

agencies, other federal agencies, state and local governments, and Native American tribes. Planning 

criteria are the standards, rules, and factors used as a framework to resolve issues and develop 

alternatives. Planning criteria are prepared to ensure decision-making is tailored to the issues and to 

ensure that the BLM avoid unnecessary data collection and analysis. Preliminary planning criteria were 

included in the Draft RMPA/Draft EIS and were further refined for the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS. 

Planning criteria carried forward for this ARMPA are as follows:

 The BLM used the USFWS’s Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation 

Objectives: Final Report (USFWS 2013); the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife 
1. Introduction

1-12 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Agencies’ (WAFWA) Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush 

Habitats (Connelly et al. 2004); the US Geological Survey Summary of Science, Activities, 

Programs and Policies that Influence the Rangewide Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) (Manier et al 2013); the Management Plan and Conservation 

Strategies for Sage-Grouse in Montana (MFWP 2005); and other appropriate resources to 

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

 The ARMPA is consistent with the BLM’s National Sage-Grouse Conservation Strategy.

 The ARMPA complies with FLPMA, NEPA, and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

regulations at 40 CFR, Parts 1500-1508, and DOI regulations at 43 CFR, Parts 46 and 1600; 

the BLM H-1601-1 Land Use Planning Handbook, “Appendix C: Program-Specific and 

Resource-Specific Decision Guidance Requirements” (as amended) for affected resource 

programs (BLM 2005); the 2008 BLM NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1; BLM 2008); and all other 

applicable BLM policies and guidance.

 The ARMPA is limited to making land use planning decisions specific to the conservation of 

GRSG habitat.

 The BLM considered allocations and prescriptive standards to conserve GRSG habitat, as 

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

 The ARMPA recognizes valid existing rights.

 Lands addressed in the ARMPA are BLM-administered lands (including surface-estate/splitestate lands) managed by the BLM in GRSG habitats. Any decisions in the ARMPA apply only 

to BLM-administered lands.

 The BLM used a collaborative and multi-jurisdictional approach, where appropriate, to 

determine the desired future condition of BLM-administered lands for the conservation of 

GRSG and their habitats.

 As described by law and policy, the BLM ensured that conservation measures are as 

consistent as possible with other planning jurisdictions within the planning area boundaries.

 The BLM considered a range of reasonable alternatives, including appropriate management 

prescriptions that focus on the relative values of resources, while contributing to the 

conservation of the GRSG and its habitat.

 The BLM analyzed socioeconomic impacts of the alternatives using an accepted input-output 

quantitative model, such as IMPLAN.

 The BLM used current scientific information, research, and technologies and results of 

inventory, monitoring, and coordination to determine appropriate local and regional 

management strategies that will enhance or restore GRSG habitats.

 For BLM-administered lands, all activities and uses within GRSG habitats will follow existing 

land health standards. Guidelines for livestock grazing and other programs will be applicable 

to all alternatives for BLM-administered lands.

 The BLM consulted with Native American tribes to identify sites, areas, and objects 

important to their cultural and religious heritage within GRSG habitats.
1. Introduction

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 1-13

 The BLM coordinated with state, local, and tribal governments to ensure that it considers

provisions of pertinent plans, to resolve inconsistencies between state, local, and tribal 

plans, and to provide ample opportunities for state, local, and tribal governments to 

comment on the development of the RMPA.

 The BLM developed vegetation management objectives, including objectives for managing 

noxious weeds and invasive species and identified the desired future condition for specific 

areas, within GRSG habitat.

 The ARMPA is based on the principles of adaptive management.

 The ARMPA was developed using an interdisciplinary approach to identify alternatives and 

to analyze resource impacts, including cumulative impacts on natural and cultural resources 

and the social and economic environment.

 The most current, approved, BLM corporate spatial data was supported by current 

metadata and was used to ascertain GRSG habitat extent and quality. Data was consistent 

with the principles of the Information Quality Act of 2000 (Data Quality Act).

 State game and fish agencies’ GRSG data and expertise was used to the fullest extent 

practicable in making management determinations on federal lands. State game and fish 

agencies have the responsibility and authority to manage wildlife.

 Analysis of impacts in the plan amendments addressed the resources and resource programs 

identified in the National Technical Team (NTT) report (A Report on National Greater 

Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures; NTT 2011) and alternatives; these contain specific 

management measures for conservation of GRSG habitat.

 Resources and resource programs that do not contain specific management direction for 

GRSG that may be indirectly affected by proposed management actions were identified and 

discussed only to the degree required to fully understand the range of effects of the 

proposed management actions.

 Where more restrictive land use allocations or decisions are made in the Judith Resource 

Area RMP and the Headwaters RMP for other resources (e.g., cultural and riparian), those 

more restrictive land use allocations or decisions remain in effect and are not amended by 

this ARMPA.
1. Introduction

1-14 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

This page intentionally left blank.
September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-1

CHAPTER 2

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

AMENDMENT

2.1 APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT INSTRUCTIONS

This ARMPA is now the baseline plan for managing GRSG in the LFO. It adopts the management 

described in the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-grouse Proposed Resource Management Plan 

Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement (2015), with modifications and clarifications as 

described in the Modifications and Clarifications section of the ROD.

In the event there are inconsistencies or discrepancies between previously approved RMPs and this 

ARMPA, the decisions contained in this ARMPA will be followed, unless there are more restrictive 

decisions in the existing plans. The BLM will continue to tier to statewide, national, and programmatic 

EISs and other NEPA and planning documents, as well as consider and apply RDFs or other management 

protocols contained in other planning documents after appropriate site-specific analysis.

All future resource authorizations and actions in GRSG habitat will conform to or be consistent with the 

decisions in this ARMPA. All existing operations and activities authorized under permits, contracts, 

cooperative agreements or other authorizations will be modified, as necessary and appropriate, to 

conform to this plan amendment within a reasonable time frame. However, this ARMPA does not repeal 

valid existing rights on public lands. These are claims or authorizations that take precedence over the 

decisions developed in this plan. If such authorizations come up for review and can be modified, they will 

also be brought into conformance with this plan amendment as appropriate.

While the Final EIS for the Lewistown Field Office Proposed GRSG RMP Amendment constitutes

compliance with NEPA for the broad-scale decisions made in this ARMPA, the BLM will continue to 

prepare environmental assessments (EAs) and EISs where appropriate as part of implementation level 

planning and decision-making.

2.2 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

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

established for protecting and preserving GRSG and its habitat on public lands managed by the BLM in 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

2-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

LFO. These management decisions are presented by program area. Not all types of decisions were 

identified for each program. A Monitoring Framework is also included (in Appendix D) to describe how 

the implemented program decisions will be monitored.

This section is organized by program area beginning with the Special Status Species (SSS) program, which 

identifies specific goals, objectives, and management actions for GRSG and its habitat. For ease of 

identification into the future, each program area has identified abbreviations (see below) for these 

program areas and each decision in that program is numbered in coordination with the abbreviation:

 Special Status Species (SSS)

 Habitat Restoration/Vegetation Management (VEG)

 Fire and Fuels Management (FIRE)

– Fuels Management 

– Fire Operations

– Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation

 Livestock Grazing (LG)

– Implementation Management Action After Land Health Evaluations

– Riparian Areas and Wet Meadows

– Treatments to Increase Forage for Livestock/Wild Ungulates

– Structural Range Improvement and Livestock Management Tools

 Mineral resources (MR)

– Leased Federal Fluid Mineral Estate

– Coal

– Locatable Minerals

– Nonenergy Leasable Minerals

– Salable Minerals

– Mineral Split Estate

 Lands and Realty (LR)

– Rights-of-Way

– Land Tenure Adjustment 

– Recommend Land Withdrawals

 Recreation (REC)

 Travel and Transportation (TTM)

Table 2-1, Summary of Allocation Decisions by GRSG Habitat Management Areas, is a summary of the 

allocation decisions presented for each GRSG habitat management area.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-3

Table 2-1

Summary of Allocation Decisions by GRSG Habitat Management Areas

Resource PHMA GHMA

Land Tenure Retain Retain

Solar Exclusion Avoidance

Wind Exclusion Avoidance

Major ROWs Avoidance Avoidance

Minor ROWs Avoidance Open

Oil and Gas Apply COA to existing leases Apply COA to existing leases

Geothermal Apply COA to existing leases Apply COA to existing leases

Nonenergy Leasables Closed Open

Salable Minerals Closed Open

Locatable Minerals SFA = Recommend Withdrawal

Other PHMA = Open

Open

Travel Management Limited Limited

Livestock Grazing Open Open

2.2.1 Special Status Species (SSS)

Goal SSS-1: Goal SS-1. Maintain and/or increase GRSG abundance and distribution by 

conserving, enhancing, or restoring the sagebrush ecosystem upon which populations depend, in 

cooperation with other conservation partners.

Objective SSS-1.1: Protect PHMA from anthropogenic disturbances that will reduce distribution or 

abundance of GRSG.

Objective SSS-1.2: Habitat Delineation: Delineate PHMA to encompass the 75% breeding bird density 

map: 233,219 BLM surface acres (19% of total PHMA acres). See Figure 2-1, Lewistown Habitat 

Management Areas (Appendix A, Approved RMP Amendment Maps).

Objective SSS-1.3: Habitat Delineation: Delineate GHMA to encompass the remainder of the habitat 

presented in the 100% breeding bird density map: 112,341 BLM surface acres (11% of total GHMA 

acres). See Figure 2-1, (Appendix A).

Objective SSS-1.4: The habitat objectives in Table 2-2, Habitat Objectives for GRSG, summarize the 

characteristics that research has found represent the seasonal habitat needs for GRSG. The specific 

seasonal components identified in Table 2-2 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 GRSG These habitat indicators are consistent with the rangeland health indicators used by the 

BLM (see Appendix F, Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management 

for Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management for Montana and the Dakotas, in the 

Lewistown Field Office Proposed RMPA/Final EIS).
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

2-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Table 2-2

Habitat Objectives for GRSG

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition Reference

BREEDING, NESTING, AND EARLY BROOD REARING (Seasonal Use Period: March 1 to June 30)

Lek

Security

Proximity of trees Trees or other tall 

structures are not within 

line of sight of lek and 

absent or uncommon 

within 3 kilometers (km) 

(1.9 miles) of the lek.

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(4):967-985.

Collision Risks Fences and other 

structures that pose a high 

collision risk are absent or 

mitigated with visual 

markers.

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(4):967-985.

Stevens, B.S. 2011. Impacts of Fences on Greater 

Sage-Grouse in Idaho: Collision, Mitigation, and 

Spatial Ecology. M.S. thesis. University of Idaho, 

Moscow, Idaho.

Proximity of 

sagebrush to leks

Adjacent protective 

sagebrush cover within 

100 meters (m; 328 feet 

[ft.]) of an active lek.

Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinkes, D. E. Naugle, 2010. SageGrouse Habitat Assessment Framework. U.S. Bureau 

of Land Management, Idaho State Office, Boise, 

Idaho.

Cover Percent of seasonal 

habitat meeting 

desired conditions

Maintain or increase areas 

meeting recommended 

vegetation characteristics 

for nesting habitat within 5 

km (3.1 miles) of active 

GRSG leks.

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(4):967-985.

Holloran, M.J. and S.H. Anderson. 2005. Spatial 

Distribution of Greater Sage-Grouse Nests in 

Relatively Contiguous Sagebrush Habitats. The 

Condor 107(4): 742-755. 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4096476

Taylor, R. L., B. L. Walker, D. E. Naugle, and L. S. 

Mills. 2012. Managing multiple vital rates to 

maximize greater sage-grouse population growth. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 76:336-347.

USDA, NRCS, Montana, Ecological Site 

Descriptions. Accessed January 28, 2014. Available 

at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/

portal/nrcs/detail/mt/technical/

landuse/pasture/?cid=nrcs144p2_057024

Sagebrush cover 10-25% Berkeley, L., J. Smith and M. Szczypinski. 2013. 

Evaluating Sage-Grouse and Habitat Responses to 

Sage-Grouse Friendly Livestock Grazing 

Strategies: 3-yr Preliminary Findings.

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(4):967-985.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-5

Table 2-2

Habitat Objectives for GRSG

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition Reference

Doherty, K.E., D.E. Naugle, B.L. Walker, 2010. 

Greater Sage-Grouse Nesting Habitat: The 

Importance of Managing at Multiple Scales. The 

Journal of Wildlife Management 74 (7):1544-

1553.

Lane, V.R. 2005. Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) Nesting and Brood-Rearing 

Sagebrush Habitat Characteristics in Montana 

and Wyoming. Master’s thesis, Montana State 

University, Bozeman.

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

2007. “A Meta-analysis of Greater Sage-grouse

Centrocercus urophasianus Nesting and Broodrearing Habitats.” Wildlife Biology, 13 (1):42-50.

Sant, E.D., G.E. Simonds, R.D. Ramsey and R.T. 

Larsen. 2014. “Assessment of sagebrush cover 

using remote sensing at multiple spatial and 

temporal scales.” Ecological Indicators 43: 297-305.

Sagebrush height 40-80 centimeters (cm) 

(15.7-31.5 inches) 

individual sagebrush 

available within stand (for 

nesting) with a variety of 

heights (including those 

<40 cm [<15.7 inches]).

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(4):967-985.

Lane, V.R. 2005. “Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) Nesting and Brood-Rearing 

Sagebrush Habitat Characteristics in Montana 

and Wyoming.” Master’s thesis, Montana State 

University, Bozeman.

Predominant 

sagebrush shape

Spreading Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinkes, and D. E. Naugle. 2010. 

Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework. US 

Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office, 

Boise.

Perennial grass 

cover (such as 

bluebunch 

wheatgrass, green 

needlegrass and 

western 

wheatgrass)

≥15% 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(4):967-985.

Lane, V.R. 2005. “Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) Nesting and Brood-Rearing 

Sagebrush Habitat Characteristics in Montana 

and Wyoming.” Master’s thesis, Montana State 

University, Bozeman.

Sant, E.D., G.E. Simonds, R.D. Ramsey and R.T. 

Larsen. 2014. “Assessment of sagebrush cover

using remote sensing at multiple spatial and 

temporal scales.” Ecological Indicators 43: 297-305.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

2-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Table 2-2

Habitat Objectives for GRSG

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition Reference

Perennial grass and 

forb height 

(includes residual 

grasses)

≥18 cm (≥7.1 inches) Berkeley, L., J. Smith and M. Szczypinski. 2013. 

Evaluating Sage-Grouse and Habitat Responses to 

Sage-Grouse Friendly Livestock Grazing 

Strategies: 3 Year Preliminary Findings.

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(4):967-985.

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 sagegrouse nest survival.” Wildlife Biology 20 (6):320-

326.

Hagen, C.A., J.W. Connelly, and M.A. 

Schroedeer. 2007. “A Meta-analysis of Greater 

Sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus Nesting 

and Brood-rearing Habitats.” Wildlife Biology, 13 

(1):42-50.

Taylor, R. L., B. L. Walker, D. E. Naugle, and L. S. 

Mills. 2012. “Managing multiple vital rates to 

maximize greater sage-grouse population 

growth.” Journal of Wildlife Management 76:336-

347.

USDA, NRCS, Montana, Ecological Site 

Descriptions. Internet website: 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/

portal/nrcs/detail/mt/technical/

landuse/pasture/?cid=nrcs144p2_057024

Perennial forb 

cover

≥10% 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(4):967-985.

Sant, E. D., G. E. Simonds, R. D. Ramsey, and R. 

T. Larsen. 2014. “Assessment of sagebrush cover 

using remote sensing at multiple spatial and 

temporal scales.” Ecological Indicators 43:297-305.

LATE BROOD-REARING/SUMMER (Seasonal Use Period: July 1 to October 31)

Cover Percent of seasonal 

habitat meeting 

desired condition

Maintain or increase areas 

meeting recommended 

vegetation characteristics 

for brood rearing habitat 

within 5 km (3.1 miles) of 

active GRSG leks.

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(4):967-985.

Holloran, M. J., and S. H. Anderson. 2005. 

“Spatial distribution of greater sage-grouse nests 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-7

Table 2-2

Habitat Objectives for GRSG

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition Reference

in relatively contiguous sagebrush habitats.” The 

Condor 107(4):742-755.

Taylor, R. L., B. L. Walker, D. E. Naugle, and L. S. 

Mills. 2012. “Managing multiple vital rates to 

maximize greater sage-grouse population 

growth.” Journal of Wildlife Management 76:336-

347.

USDA, NRCS, Montana, Ecological Site 

Descriptions. Internet website: 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/

portal/nrcs/detail/mt/technical/

landuse/pasture/?cid=nrcs144p2_057024

Sagebrush cover 5-25% 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(4):967-985

Lane, V. R. 2005. “Sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) nesting and brood-rearing 

sagebrush habitat characteristics in Montana and 

Wyoming.” Master’s thesis, Montana State 

University, Bozeman.

Hagen, C. A., J. W. Connelly, and M. A. 

Schroedeer. 2007. “A meta-analysis of greater 

sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus nesting and 

brood-rearing habitats.” Wildlife Biology 13:(1):42-

50.

Sant, E. D., G. E. Simonds, R. D. Ramsey, and R. 

T. Larsen. 2014. “Assessment of sagebrush cover 

using remote sensing at multiple spatial and 

temporal scales.” Ecological Indicators 43:297-305.

Sagebrush height 40-80 cm (15.7-31.5 

inches) individual 

sagebrush available within 

stand (for nesting) with a 

variety of heights (including 

those <40 cm [<15.7 

inches]).

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(4):967-985.

Lane, V. R. 2005. “Sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) nesting and brood-rearing 

sagebrush habitat characteristics in Montana and 

Wyoming.” Master’s thesis, Montana State 

University, Bozeman.

Perennial grass and 

forb cover

≥25% 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(4):967-985.

Hagen, C. A., J. W. Connelly, and M. A. 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

2-8 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Table 2-2

Habitat Objectives for GRSG

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition Reference

Schroedeer. 2007. “A meta-analysis of greater 

sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus nesting and 

brood-rearing habitats.” Wildlife Biology 13:(1):42-

50.

Sant, E. D., G. E. Simonds, R. D. Ramsey, and R. 

T. Larsen. 2014. “Assessment of sagebrush cover 

using remote sensing at multiple spatial and 

temporal scales.” Ecological Indicators 43:297-305.

Riparian

areas/mesic 

meadows

80% or more of PHMA in 

Proper Functioning 

Condition (PFC) or higher.

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

Hagenbuck, R. Krapf, C. Noble. 1999. Riparian

Area Management A User Guide to Assessing Proper 

Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for 

Lentic Areas (TR 1737-16). Prepared for the 

United States Department of the Interior and the 

United States Department of Agriculture. BLM, 

National Applied Resource Sciences Center. 

Denver, Colorado.

Schroeder et al. 1999. “Greater Sage-Grouse

(Centrocercus urophasianus).” The Birds of North 

America Online (A. Poole, editor). Cornell 

Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. 

Internet website: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/

species/425/articles/introduction

USDI, BLM. 1997. Record of Decision for 

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines 

for Livestock Grazing Management Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for Montana 

and North and South Dakota. BLM, Montana 

State Office, Billings. August 7, 1997.

Upland and 

riparian perennial 

forb availability

Preferred forbs are 

common with several 

preferred species present.

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(4):967-985.

Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinkes, D. E. Naugle, 2010. SageGrouse Habitat Assessment Framework. U.S. Bureau 

of Land Management, Idaho State Office, Boise.

WINTER (Seasonal Use Period: November 1 to February 28)

Cover and 

Food

Percent of seasonal 

habitat meeting 

desired conditions

Maintain acres meeting 

recommended vegetation 

characteristics for GRSG 

winter ranges when snow 

depth exceeds 12 inches.

Wallestad, R. 1975. Life History and Habitat 

Requirements of Sage Grouse in Central 

Montana. Game Management Division, Montana 

Department of Fish and Game, Helena.

Sagebrush cover ≥10% Wallestad, R. 1975. Life History and Habitat 

Requirements of Sage Grouse in Central 

Montana. Game Management Division, Montana 

Department of Fish and Game, Helena.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-9

Table 2-2

Habitat Objectives for GRSG

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition Reference

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(4):967-985.

Sant, E. D., G. E. Simonds, R. D. Ramsey, and R. 

T. Larsen. 2014. “Assessment of sagebrush cover 

using remote sensing at multiple spatial and 

temporal scales.” Ecological Indicators 43:297-305.

Sagebrush height ≥25cm (≥9.8 inches) 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(4):967-985.

The habitat objectives will be part of the GRSG habitat assessment to be used during land health 

evaluations (see Appendix D, The Greater Sage-Grouse Draft 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 Table 2-2.

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

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

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

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

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

Management Actions

Action SSS-1.1: In undertaking BLM management actions in PHMA and GHMA, and consistent with 

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

buffer-distances identified in the US Geological Survey Report Conservation Buffer Distance Estimates 

for Greater Sage-Grouse – A Review (Open File Report 2014-1239) in accordance with Appendix B,

Applying Lek Buffer Distances When Approving Actions.

Action SSS-1.2: Disturbance: If the 3% anthropogenic disturbance cap is exceeded on lands (regardless 

of land ownership) within GRSG PHMA in any given BSU (see Figure 2-2, Lewistown GRSG 

Biologically Significant Units and Priority Habitat Management Areas [PHMA] [Appendix A]), then no 

further discrete anthropogenic disturbances (subject to applicable laws and regulations, such as the 1872 

hard rock mining law, valid existing rights, etc.) will be permitted by BLM within GRSG PHMA in any 

given BSU until the disturbance has been reduced to less than the cap. (BSU for this RMPA is the 

summary of all the PHMA within a GRSG population as delineated in the COT report.)

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

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

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

(subject to applicable laws and regulations, such as the 1872 Mining Law, as amended, valid existing 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

2-10 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

rights, etc.) will be permitted by BLM within a project analysis area until the disturbance has been 

reduced to less than the cap.

Action SSS-1.3: Development Density: Subject to applicable laws and regulations and valid existing 

rights, if the average density of one energy and mining facility per 640 acres (the density cap) is exceeded 

on all lands (regardless of land ownership) in the PHMA within a proposed project analysis area, then no 

further disturbance from energy or mining facilities will be permitted by BLM: (1) until disturbance in the 

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

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

Action SSS-1.4: Disturbance: Protect PHMA from anthropogenic disturbances that will reduce 

distribution or abundance of GRSG. See Appendix E, Greater Sage-Grouse Disturbance Caps. 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 and (DDCT, the 3% disturbance cap 

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

Action SSS-1.5: Designate SFA as shown on Figure 2-1 (Appendix A) (53,440 acres). SFA will be

managed as PHMA, with the following additional management:

1) Recommended for withdrawal from the General Mining Act of 1872 (as amended), subject 

to valid existing rights. 

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

not limited to land health assessments, wild horse and burro management actions, review of 

livestock grazing permits/leases, and habitat restoration (see specific management sections).

Action SSS-1.6: Implement Adaptive Management Plan (Appendix I).

Action SSS-1.7: Implement Regional Mitigation Strategy (Appendix F).

2.2.2 Habitat Restoration/Vegetation Management (VEG)

Objective VEG-1.1: In all SFA and PHMA, the desired condition is to maintain all lands ecologically 

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

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

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

Objective VEG-1.2: Within the analysis area, vegetation treatments can continue to be used to meet 

or support resource management objectives, given special consideration for the protection and 

maintenance of sagebrush ecosystems is incorporated into the design and implementation of treatments. 

The BLM will continue to cooperate with the Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP) to determine 

wildlife habitat needs.

Management Actions

Action VEG-1.1: In PHMA, prioritize implementation of restoration projects based on environmental 

variables that improve chances for project success in areas most likely to benefit GRSG.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-11

Action VEG-1.2: In PHMA and GHMA, prioritize restoration in seasonal habitats that are thought to 

be limiting GRSG distribution or abundance.

Action VEG-1.3: In PHMA and GHMA, consideration for other threatened, endangered, or sensitive 

species will be evaluated in addition to GRSG when prioritizing restoration projects.

Action VEG-1.4: Manage for suitable GRSG habitat within PHMA.

Action VEG-1.5: In PHMA, require use of native seeds for restoration based on availability, adaptation 

(ecological site potential), and probability of success. Nonnative species will be considered when 

determined to be necessary for emergency stabilization and where required to facilitate natural 

succession of desired native vegetative communities.

Action VEG-1.6: In PHMA, design post-restoration management to ensure long-term persistence. This 

can include changes in current resource management to achieve and maintain the desired condition of 

the restoration that benefits GRSG. Modifications to livestock grazing will be made in accordance with 

BLM grazing regulation 43 CFR, Part 4130.3-3, and after consultation, cooperation, and coordination 

with owners or lessees having lands or managing resources within the affected allotment(s), affected 

cooperative state grazing districts and the interested public, if the grazing permit is being modified to 

make these adjustments. Temporary or long-term adjustments in post-restoration livestock use will be 

implemented by documented agreement or by the decision of the authorized officer in accordance with 

BLM grazing regulation 43 CFR, Part 4160.

Action VEG-1.7: In PHMA, consider potential changes in climate when proposing restoration seeding 

of native plants. Consider collection from the warmer component of the species’ current range when 

selecting native seed.

Action VEG-1.8: Choose appropriate seed mix for the location.

Action VEG-1.9: In PHMA, restore native (or desirable) plants and create landscape patterns that 

most benefit GRSG. Consideration for other threatened, endangered, or sensitive species will be 

evaluated, in addition to GRSG, when creating landscape habitat patterns.

Action VEG-1.10: Make reestablishment of suitable GRSG habitat a high priority for restoration. 

Other restoration efforts within the field office may take precedence over sagebrush habitat projects, 

based on future threatened and endangered species listing decisions, funding sources and requirements, 

access to sites, landowner, and other agency cooperation, potential project success, as well as others. 

Decisions regarding restoration of habitats within the field office will remain at the discretion of the 

authorized officer.

Action VEG-1.11: In PHMA with higher fire frequency, where sagebrush seed is required for GRSG 

habitat restoration, consider establishing seed harvest areas that are managed for seed production that 

receive a priority for protection from outside disturbances.

Action VG-1.12: Remove conifers encroaching into sagebrush habitats, in a manner that considers 

tribal cultural values. Prioritize treatments closest to occupied GRSG habitats and near occupied leks, 

and where juniper encroachment is phase 1 or phase 2. Use of site-specific analysis and principles like 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

2-12 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

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

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

2.2.3 Fire and Fuels Management (FIRE)

Fuels Management 

Objective FIRE-1.1: Design fuel treatments to protect, restore, enhance, or maintain GRSG habitat, 

consistent with vegetation and wildlife habitat objectives.

Management Actions

Action FIRE-1.1: If prescribed fire is used in GRSG habitat, the NEPA analysis for the Burn Plans will

address:

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

 how GRSG goals and objectives will be met by its use;

 how the COT report objectives will be addressed and met; and

 a risk assessment to address how potential threats to GRSG habitat will be minimized.

Prescribed fire as 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 can be used to meet specific 

fuels objectives that will protect GRSG habitat in PHMA (e.g., creation of fuel breaks that will disrupt 

the fuel continuity across the landscape in stands where annual invasive grasses are a minor component 

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

other treatment methods to combat annual grasses and restore native plant communities).

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

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

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

winter range habitat quality.

Action FIRE-1.2: Design fuels management projects in PHMA to strategically and effectively reduce 

wildfire threats in the greatest area. This may require fuels treatments implemented in a more linear 

versus block design.

Action FIRE-1.3: During fuels management project design, consider the utility of using livestock to 

strategically reduce fine fuels and implement grazing management that will accomplish this. Consult with

an interdisciplinary team of resource specialists, as appropriate, to minimize impacts on native perennial 

grasses.

Action FIRE-1.4: Follow the most current RDFs for fire and fuels (Appendix C, Required Design

Features).

Action FIRE-1.5: If prescribed fire is used, the burn plan will clearly indicate how COT objectives will

be addressed and met, and why alternative techniques are not applicable. A fire risk assessment will be 

completed for implementation of prescribed fire used to meet the GRSG goals and objectives in PHMA 

(see Appendix H, GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat Assessment).
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-13

Fire Operations

Objective FIRE-1.2: Manage wildfires to minimize loss of sage-brush and protect GRSG habitat.

Action FIRE-1.6: 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. In PHMA, prioritize suppression, after life and 

property, to conserve the habitat. See Appendix H, which will be completed to help further refine fire 

management actions once this plan is completed.

Action FIRE-1.7: In GHMA, prioritize suppression where wildfires threaten PHMA.

Action FIRE-1.8: Follow the most current RDFs for fire and fuels (Appendix C).

Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation

Action FIRE-1.9: In PHMA, prioritize native seed allocation for use in GRSG habitat in years when 

preferred native seed is in short supply. This may require reallocating native seed from emergency 

stabilization and rehabilitation (ES&R) projects outside of PHMA 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. Where probability of success or native seed availability is low, nonnative seeds may be used, as 

long as they meet GRSG habitat conservation objectives. Reestablishing appropriate sagebrush 

species/subspecies and important understory plants, relative to site potential, should be the highest 

priority for rehabilitation.

Action FIRE-1.10: In PHMA, design post ES&R management to ensure long-term persistence of 

seeded or pre-burn native plants. This can include changes in current resource management to achieve 

and maintain the desired condition of the restoration effort that benefits GRSG. Modifications to 

livestock grazing will be made in accordance with BLM grazing regulation 43 CFR, Part 4130.3-3 and 

after consultation, cooperation and coordination with owners or lessees having lands or managing 

resources within the affected allotment(s), affected cooperative state grazing districts and the interested 

public, if the grazing permit is being modified to make these adjustments. Temporary or long-term 

adjustments in post-restoration livestock use will be implemented by documented agreement or by the 

decision of the authorized officer in accordance with BLM grazing regulation 43 CFR, Part 4160.

Action FIRE-1.11: In PHMA, consider potential changes in climate when proposing restoration seeding 

of native plants. Consider collection from the warmer component of the species’ current range when 

selecting native seed.

Action FIRE-1.12: Develop an appropriate seed mix for the location, based on current climatic data as 

well as soils/ecological site descriptions.

Action FIRE-1.13: Appropriate pre and post treatment monitoring will be established to document 

impacts and success of the treatments.

Action FIRE-1.14: Requirements for resting or deferring areas from livestock grazing following fire will

depend on a variety of factors including resource objectives, the type of fuel, time and intensity of burn, 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

2-14 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

accessibility of the burned area to livestock, and post-burn climatic factors. Compliance with land health 

standards (see Appendix F in the Lewistown Field Office Proposed RMPA/Final EIS).

2.2.4 Livestock Grazing (LG)

Management Actions

Action LG-1.1: GRSG habitat objectives will be considered when evaluating an allotment’s 

conformance with land health standards (see Appendix F in the Lewistown Field Office Proposed 

RMPA/Final EIS) prior to renewing a grazing authorization.

Action LG-1.2: In PHMA and GHMA, conduct land health evaluations and determinations that include 

(at a minimum) indicators and/or measurements of structure/condition/composition of vegetation 

specific to achieving GRSG habitat objectives. Management actions will be developed and implemented 

within one year if land health determinations indicate that an allotment is not meeting standards due to 

current livestock grazing. Appendix D addresses mid-scale monitoring.

Action LG-1.3: Livestock grazing will be allowed on all areas not specifically closed to grazing (570,112 

acres will be open to grazing and 103,806 animal unit months available). See Figure 2-3, Lewistown 

Livestock Grazing (Appendix A).

Action LG-1.4: In PHMA, cooperate with ranchers and other agencies on integrated ranch planning so 

operations with intermingled land ownerships within BLM allotments can be planned as single units.

Action LG-1.5: 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 in SFA, followed by PHMA. In setting workload priorities, precedence will be given to existing 

permits/leases in these areas not meeting Land Health Standards, with focus on those containing riparian 

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

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

The NEPA analysis for renewals and modifications of livestock grazing permits/leases that include lands 

within PHMA will include specific management thresholds, based on GRSG Habitat Objectives (Table 

2-2), 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 can include monitoring for actual use, utilization, and use 

supervision.

At the time a permittee or lessee voluntarily relinquishes a grazing permit or lease, the BLM will

consider whether the public lands where that permitted use was authorized shall remain available for 

livestock grazing or be used for other resource management objectives, such as reserve common 

allotments or fire breaks. This does not apply to or impact grazing preference transfers, which are 

addressed in 43 CFR, 4110.2-3.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-15

Ecological site descriptions, riparian PFC protocols, water quality data, and various types of appropriate 

vegetative, riparian, habitat, and any other applicable data will continue to be used as the basis in 

allotment evaluations to determine conformance to Standards for Land Health and Guidelines for 

Livestock Grazing Management (see Appendix F, in the Lewistown Field Office Proposed RMPA/Final 

EIS).

Action LG-1.6: Allotments that have the best opportunities for conserving, enhancing, or restoring 

habitat for GRSG will receive high priority for monitoring, evaluation, and management.

Action LG-1.7: In PHMA, conduct land health evaluations and determinations that include (at a 

minimum) indicators and/or measurements of structure/condition/composition of vegetation specific to 

achieving GRSG habitat objectives. Management actions will be developed if land health determinations 

indicate that an allotment is not meeting standards due to current livestock grazing. Appendix D

addresses mid-scale monitoring.

Action LG-1.8: The BLM will monitor grazing permits/leases renewed or modified in accordance with 

the direction contained in this guidance as follows: 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

Implementation Management Action After Land Health Evaluations

Action LG-1.9: In PHMA and GHMA, conduct land health evaluations and determinations that include 

(at a minimum) indicators and/or measurements of structure/condition/composition of vegetation 

specific to achieving GRSG habitat objectives. Management actions will be developed if land health 

determinations indicate that an allotment is not meeting standards due to livestock grazing in 

accordance with BLM grazing regulations 43 CFR, Part 4100. Appendix D addresses mid-scale 

monitoring. 

Action LG-1.10: Conserve, enhance, or restore PHMA based on ecological site descriptions (including 

wetlands and riparian areas). If an effective grazing system that meets GRSG habitat objectives is not 

already in place, analyze at least one allotment-specific alternative within the planning unit/permit 

renewal process that conserves, restores, or enhances PHMA.

Action LG-1.11: In PHMA, manage for vegetation composition and structure consistent with 

ecological site potential within the reference state to achieve GRSG seasonal habitat objectives. Natural 

ecological processes that impede localized site potential and that create a mosaic of habitat successional 

patterns will continue to occur.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

2-16 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Action LG-1.12: In PHMA, implement management actions within or outside of the watershed 

planning/permit renewal process to modify grazing management and to meet seasonal GRSG habitat 

objectives. Consider singly, or in combination, for changes in:

 Season or timing of use

 Numbers of livestock (includes temporary non-use or livestock removal)

 Distribution of livestock use

 Intensity of use

 Type of livestock

Action LG-1.13: During drought periods, prioritize evaluating effects of the drought in PHMA, relative 

to their needs for food and cover. Drought management will continue to be in accordance with the 

Montana/Dakotas drought policy (see Appendix I, Drought Policy, in the Lewistown Field Office 

Proposed RMPA/Final EIS). Since there is a lag in vegetation recovery following drought, post-drought

management will be implemented to allow for vegetation recovery that meets GRSG needs in PHMA. In 

accordance with BLM grazing regulation 43 CFR, Part 4130.3-3, consultation, cooperation, and 

coordination with owners or lessees having lands or managing resources within the area, the affected 

cooperative state grazing district, and interested public will be completed prior to adjusting postdrought livestock management if the grazing permit is being modified to make these adjustments. 

Implementation of adjustments will be initiated through documented agreement or by decision of the 

authorized officer in accordance with BLM grazing regulation 43 CFR, Part 4160.

Riparian Areas and Wet Meadows

Action LG-1.14: Riparian-wetland areas will be managed for PFC within the LFO. Within PHMA and 

GHMA, manage wet meadows to maintain a component of perennial forbs with diverse species richness 

relative to site potential (e.g., reference state) to facilitate brood rearing. Also conserve or enhance 

these wet meadow complexes.

Action LG-1.15: Riparian-wetland areas currently achieving PFC will be managed for desired future 

condition and the desired plant community, based on ecological site potential. Other values to be 

considered include important wildlife habitat, water quality impaired streams, fisheries, riparian 

woodland forest, and habitat for currently listed threatened, endangered, and sensitive species.

Action LG-1.16: Riparian-wetland areas with altered potential (i.e., those riparian-wetland areas that 

are incapable of reaching potential because of causes that are outside of the control of the BLM) will be 

managed for their capability.

Action LG-1.17: Human-made water developments, such as reservoirs and stock ponds, can develop 

riparian-wetland characteristics. Those that have the capability to support important wildlife values (such 

as GRSG habitats and fisheries) will be managed for such to the extent practical, with greater 

consideration given to the purpose of the development. When constructing or modifying water 

developments in PHMA, use RDFs (Appendix C) to reduce potential impacts from West Nile virus.

Action LG-1.18: Within PHMA, reduce hot season grazing on riparian and meadow complexes to 

promote recovery or maintenance of appropriate vegetation and water quality. Use fencing/herding 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-17

techniques or seasonal use or livestock distribution changes to reduce pressure on riparian or wet 

meadow vegetation used by GRSG in summer. Hot season use of riparian and wet meadow complexes 

may be authorized where consistent with overall GRSG habitat objectives and where use is currently 

resulting in vegetative conditions that are in conformance with land health standards.

Action LG-1.19: In PHMA, management emphasis will be placed on riparian and wetland potential 

associated with springs and seeps. Water from other sources will be prioritized to develop grazing 

management infrastructure. New water development for diversion from spring or seeps will be 

authorized only when no other sources are available and where such considerations will be neutral or 

beneficial to GRSG.

Action LG-1.20: Analyze springs, seeps, and associated pipelines during the land health evaluation and 

determination process to determine if modifications are necessary to maintain the continuity of the 

predevelopment riparian area within PHMA. Make modifications, where necessary, in accordance with 

Montana water law, considering impacts on other water uses, when such considerations are neutral or 

beneficial to GRSG.

Treatments to Increase Forage for Livestock/Wild Ungulates

Objective LG-1.1: Develop and implement (as budgets and workloads allow) methods for prioritizing 

and restoring sagebrush steppe invaded by nonnative plants.

Action LG-1.21: Evaluate the role of existing seedings that are currently composed of primarily 

introduced perennial grasses in and adjacent to PHMA to determine if they should be restored to 

sagebrush or habitat of higher quality for GRSG. If these seedings are part of a grazing management plan 

that is providing value in conserving or enhancing native rangelands in PHMA and other priority wildlife 

habitats, then no restoration will be necessary. Assess the compatibility of these seedings for GRSG 

habitat or as a component of a grazing system during the land health evaluation and determination 

process.

Action LG-1.22: Integrated vegetation management will be used to control, suppress, and eradicate, 

where possible, noxious and invasive species, in accordance with Chapter 6, sections II and III of BLM 

Handbook H-1740-2. Treat areas that contain cheatgrass and other invasive or noxious species to 

minimize competition and favor establishment of desired species.

Action LG-1.23: Noxious weed control on affected grazing allotments will be implemented through 

Weed Control Cooperative Range Improvement Project Agreements, which requires as a term and 

condition of a grazing authorization that the operator control noxious weeds on the grazing allotment(s) 

they are authorized to use.

Structural Range Improvement and Livestock Management Tools

Action LG-1.24: In PHMA, site and design new structural range improvements and location of 

supplements (salt or protein blocks) to conserve, enhance, or restore said habitat through an improved 

grazing management system relative to GRSG habitat objectives. Structural range improvements, in this 

context, include cattle guards, fences, exclosures, corrals, or other livestock handling structures; 

pipelines, troughs, storage tanks (including movable tanks used in livestock water hauling), windmills, 

ponds/reservoirs, solar panels, and spring developments).
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

2-18 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Action LG-1.25: Potential for invasive species establishment or increase following construction will be 

considered in the project planning process and monitored and treated post-construction. Projects will

be designed to the extent practical to reduce or eliminate the establishment of new two-track roads and 

trails that may be created during construction and maintenance.

Action LG-1.26: When developing or modifying water developments in PHMA and GHMA, use 

applicable RDFs (Appendix C) to reduce potential impacts from West Nile virus.

Action LG-1.27: During the land health evaluation and determination and grazing authorization 

renewal process (typically every 10 years), examine existing structural range improvements and location 

of supplements (salt or protein blocks) to ensure they conserve, enhance or restore PHMA. 

 Identify and mark fences in high and moderate risk areas, as identified by the use of “The 

Fence Collision Risk Tool” (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/) within 

PHMA, based on proximity to lek, lek size, and topography (Stevens 2011, Stevens et al. 

2013).

 During the allotment evaluation and determination and grazing authorization renewal 

process, examine existing structural range improvements to ensure they conserve, enhance, 

or restore PHMA.

 In PHMA and GHMA, monitor for and treat invasive and noxious weed species associated 

with existing range improvement projects.

2.2.5 Mineral Resources (MR)

Leased Federal Fluid Mineral Estate

Management Actions

Action MR-1.1: Allow geophysical exploration within PHMA to obtain exploratory information for 

areas outside of and adjacent to PHMA areas. Allow only geophysical operations by helicopter‐portable 

drilling methods and in accordance with seasonal timing restrictions and other restrictions that may 

apply (see Appendix C).

Action MR-1.2: During implementation level review and decisions, (e.g., approval of an application for 

permit to drill or Sundry Notice) and on completion of the environmental record of review (43 CFR, 

Part 3162.5), include appropriate documentation of compliance with NEPA. In this process evaluate, 

among other things:

 Whether the conservation measure is reasonable (43 CFR, Part 3101.1‐2) with the valid 

existing rights; and

 Whether the action is in conformance with the ARMPA.

The following operating constraints will be applied to existing leases as COAs in PHMA and GHMA. 

Exceptions may be granted by the authorized officer if an environmental review demonstrates that 

effects can be mitigated to an acceptable level, if habitat for the species is not present in the area, or if 

portions of the area can be occupied without affecting GRSG. Exceptions may also be granted where the 

short-term effects on GRSG within PHMA and GHMA are mitigated by the long-term benefits.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-19

Permanent (longer than two months) structures that create movement must be designed or sited to 

minimize impacts on GRSG.

 As reasonable (43 CFR, Part 3101.1‐2), in consideration of valid existing rights, and to 

achieve a net conservation gain, the BLM will require compensatory mitigation when impacts 

cannot be adequately avoided and minimized, and residual impacts will result in habitat loss 

and degradation. Compensatory mitigation actions will align with the recommendations in 

the Regional Mitigation Strategy (see Appendix F), as appropriate. A priority may be given 

to compensatory mitigation actions in the same PHMA as is being impacted, unless a greater 

benefit can be achieved elsewhere. Compensatory mitigation will be considered when no 

feasible options remain to adequately avoid and minimize impacts within and immediately 

adjacent to the impacted site.

 Make applicable RDFs (Appendix C) mandatory as COAs within PHMA and GHMA. RDFs 

provided in Appendix C will be site-specific restrictions applied to permits to drill as 

COAs after the completion of site- specific NEPA analysis. Standard stipulations (see 

Appendix G, Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations) apply to existing leases. See Figure 2-4,

Lewistown Fluid Minerals (Oil and Gas) (Appendix A). Applied RDFs will have to be 

reasonable (43 CFR, Part 3101.1‐2) with the valid existing rights and in conformance with 

the approved Judith and Headwaters RMPs.

Solid Minerals

Management Actions

Coal

Action MR-1.3: At the time an application for a new coal lease or lease modification is submitted to 

the BLM, the BLM will determine whether the lease application area is "unsuitable" for all or certain coal 

mining methods pursuant to 43 CFR, Part 3461.5. PHMA is essential habitat for maintaining GRSG for 

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

Locatable Minerals

Action MR-1.4: Recommend SFA (53,440 acres) for withdrawal from the General Mining Act of 1872 

(as amended), subject to valid existing rights.

Analyze proposed action in Plan of Operations and apply mitigating measures needed to prevent 

unnecessary or undue degradation, as appropriate and in accordance with applicable law.

Action MR-1.5: Locatable minerals exploration and development under the mining laws are not 

authorized under the discretion of the field manager but are reviewed (Notice and Plan of Operations) 

and approved (Plan of Operations) to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation. Proposed actions 

under Plan of Operations will be analyzed on a case-by-case basis in coordination with Montana 

Department of Environmental Quality, and RDFs apply to locatables to the extent consistent with 

applicable law (Appendix C).

Action MR-1.6: See Figure 2-5, Lewistown Locatable Minerals (Appendix A). At a minimum, annual 

compliance inspections will be conducted on each active Notice or Plan of Operations.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

2-20 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Nonenergy Leasable Minerals

Action MR-1.7: Close PHMA to nonenergy leasable mineral leasing. This includes not permitting any 

new leases to expand an existing mine. See Figure 2-7, Lewistown Non-Energy Leasable Minerals

(Appendix A).

Action MR-1.8: For existing nonenergy leasable mineral leases in PHMA, apply all appropriate RDFs 

from Appendix C, whether traditional or solution mining is used to extract resources.

Salable Minerals

Action MR-1.9: 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); 

and

 all applicable RDFs are applied; and [if applicable] the activity is permissible under the 

specific subregional screening criteria.

In GHMA, the BLM will issue permits for salable minerals, where disposal is deemed to be in the public 

interest (Figure 2-6, Appendix A), while providing for reclamation of mined lands and preventing

unnecessary or undue degradation, and meeting goals and objectives for PHMA, surface disturbance 

limits (applies only to PHMA), mitigation and other measures through the application of appropriate 

RDFs (Appendix C). Salable mineral permits are considered on a case-by-case basis and are issued at 

the discretion of the field manager. If activity under the permit application cannot be mitigated based on 

appropriate RDFs and strategies outlined in Appendix F to achieve net conservation gain and prevent 

unnecessary or undue degradation to GRSG habitat.

Action MR-1.10: In PHMA, restore salable mineral pits no longer in use to meet GRSG habitat 

conservation objectives.

Mineral Split Estate

Management Actions

Action MR-1.11: Where the federal government owns the surface and the mineral estate is in nonfederal ownership in PHMA and GHMA, apply appropriate surface use COAs, stipulations, and mineral 

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

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

C).

Action MR-1.12: Where the federal government owns the mineral estate in PHMA and GHMA, and 

the surface estate is in non-federal ownership, apply the same stipulations, COAs, 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.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-21

2.2.6 Lands and Realty (LR)

Objective LR-1.1: 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

Rights-of-Way

Action LR-1.1: PHMA and GHMA will be managed as ROW avoidance areas for high voltage 

transmission lines (100 kilovolt [kV] and over) and large pipelines (24 inches in width and over) (345,560 

acres) with limited exceptions, which must be based on an explicit rationale that biological impacts on 

GRSG are being avoided with the exception. See Figure 2-10a, Major Rights-of-Way (Appendix A).

 PHMA will also be managed as a minor ROW avoidance area (233,219 acres). See Figure 

2-10b, Lewistown Minor Rights-of-Way (Appendix A).

 GMHA will be open to minor ROWs (112,341 acres).

 Where new ROWs are required, collocate new ROWs within existing ROWs or where it 

best minimizes impacts on GRSG and GRSG habitat.

 Appropriate RDFs identified within the terms of the authorization to minimize surfacedisturbing and disruptive activities. See Appendix C for RDFs that may be applied based on 

site-specific project level NEPA analysis.

Action LR-1.2: PHMA will be managed as a ROW exclusion area for wind and solar energy (233,219 

acres) and GHMA will be managed as a ROW avoidance area for wind and solar energy (112,341 acres). 

See Figure 2-8, Lewistown Wind, and Figure 2-9, Lewistown Solar (Appendix A).

Action LR-1.3: When addressing ROW authorizations in PHMA, identify and evaluate opportunities to 

remove, bury, or modify power lines within PHMA. Financial and technical feasibility will be evaluated 

during the environmental analysis process.

Action LR-1.4: Current FLPMA ROWs have a stipulation that when the ROW terminates, the site 

must be remediated and restored by the grant holder to BLM’s satisfaction (43 CFR, Part 2807.19).

Action LR-1.5: Many pre-FLPMA grant authorizations are for water, or electricity, to large areas and 

most of these grants are perpetual or non-expiring. If an amendment is needed the grant will be 

renewed/reauthorized under current authority with additional stipulations and/or mitigation 

requirements. If the pre-FLPMA authorizations are no longer needed, grantees will be required to 

reclaim sites by removing features/fixtures and restoring habitat. Grant authorizations under the Mineral 

Leasing Act will be renewed if they are still being used for their original purposes.

Action LR-1.6: Leases and permits (other than for cabin site leasing), which may be for occupancy, and 

film production, will be considered on a case-by-case basis; however, PHMA will be lease and permit 

avoidance areas. Leases and permits will be allowed in GHMA with appropriate stipulations and 

conservation measures identified within the terms of the authorization to minimize surface-disturbing 

and disruptive activities. Avoidance areas within GHMA may be identified.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

2-22 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Action LR-1.7: The holder of a ROW shall be responsible for weed control on disturbed areas within 

the limits of the ROW. The holder shall be responsible for invasive weed control for the life of the 

ROW. ROW holder is responsible for weed control and monitoring for three years after reclamation 

has been completed. The holder will be responsible for consultation with the authorized officer and/or 

local authorities for acceptable weed control methods.

Action LR-1.8: No utility corridors designated within the planning area.

Action LR-1.9: Consider the likelihood of development of not-yet-constructed surface-disturbing 

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

rights prior to authorizing new projects in PHMA.

Land Tenure Adjustment

Action LR-1.9: Lands classified as PHMA and GHMA will be retained in federal management unless: (1) 

the agency can demonstrate that disposal of the lands, including land exchanges, will provide a net 

conservation gain to the GRSG or (2) the agency can demonstrate that the disposal, including land 

exchanges, of the lands will have no direct or indirect adverse impact on conservation of the GRSG. See 

Figure 2-11, Lewistown Land Tenure (Appendix A).

Action LR-1.10: Land tenure adjustments in the Headwaters planning area will be subject to 

disposal/acquisition criteria identified (BLM 1984, page 20).

Action LR-1.11: Retain important wildlife habitat (one of the three main criteria for land tenure 

adjustments outlined in the Judith Resource Area RMP) (BLM 1994).

Action LR-1.12: Headwaters RMP land ownership adjustment criteria include nesting/breeding habitat 

for game animals (BLM 1984, page 20).

Action LR-1.13: When offered, PHMA will be a priority in consideration of land acquisitions (refer to 

Appendix H, Land Pattern Review and Land Adjustment, in Lewistown Field Office Proposed

RMPA/Final EIS). Consider GRSG for all land tenure actions.

Recommend Land Withdrawals

Action LR-1.14: Withdrawals from minerals on BLM surface (2,686 acres).

Action LR-1.15: SFA (53,440 acres) will be recommended for withdrawal from the General Mining Act 

of 1872 (as amended), subject to valid existing rights.

2.2.7 Recreation and Visitor Services (REC)

Management Actions

Action REC-1.1: Special recreation permits in PHMA may be allowed if they are neutral or beneficial 

for GRSG habitat.

Action REC-1.2: In PHMA, do not construct new recreation facilities (e.g., campgrounds, trails, 

trailheads, and staging areas) unless the development will have a net conservation gain to GRSG habitat 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-23

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

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

2.2.8 Travel and Transportation (TRM)

Management Actions

Action TTM-1.1: BLM-administered lands are designated limited to existing roads, primitive roads, and 

trails yearlong for off-highway vehicle use (OHVs; OHVs are restricted to existing roads, primitive

roads, and trails). Implement a comprehensive travel and transportation management (CTTM) plan to 

designate roads and trails (when travel management plan is complete). Administrative off-road use for 

BLM personnel and BLM authorized activities will be allowed. BLM-implemented CTTM will not apply to 

private or other state or federal lands within the LFO.

Action TTM-1.2: On completion of site-specific projects, roads used for commercial or administrative 

access on BLM-administered lands will be reclaimed, unless the route will provide specific benefits for 

public access, will minimize impacts on the resources, and will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Action TTM-1.3: The BLM will close or restore unauthorized, user created roads and trails to prevent 

resource damage, including impacts on GRSG.

Action TTM-1.4: During route designation and travel planning in PHMA, travel management will

evaluate the need for permanent or seasonal route or area closures where vehicle use is causing or will

cause considerable adverse effects on habitat.

Action TTM-1.5: Through site-specific planning, the BLM will designate roads, primitive roads, and 

trails for motorized use. Roads, primitive roads, and trails will be inventoried, mapped, and analyzed to 

the degree necessary to evaluate and designate the roads, primitive roads, and trails as open, seasonally 

open, or closed (BLM 2003). All CTTM planning shall be completed within 5 years of the signing of the 

ROD. The CTTM planning will be conducted using an interdisciplinary team approach to address all 

resource uses, including administrative, recreation, commercial, and associated modes of travel 

(motorized, mechanized, and nonmotorized types; BLM—Travel and Transportation Handbook [H8342]).

Action TTM-1.6: In PHMA, during site-specific travel and transportation management planning, limit 

route construction to realignment of existing routes if that realignment has a minimal impact on GRSG 

habitat, if it eliminates the need to construct a new road, or if it is necessary for motorist safety.

Action TTM-1.7: In PHMA, during site-specific travel and transportation management planning, use 

existing routes or realignments, as described above, to access valid existing rights that are not yet 

developed. If valid existing rights cannot be accessed via existing routes, then build any new route to the 

absolute minimum standard necessary.

Action TTM-1.8: In PHMA, durinag site-specific travel and transportation management planning, the 

upgrading of existing routes that will change route category (road, primitive road, or trail) or capacity 

may be allowed when there are minimal impacts on GRSG and GRSG habitat, if it is necessary for 

motorist safety, or if it eliminates the need to construct a new road. All upgrades to existing routes will
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

2-24 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and will be subject to valid existing rights (e.g., existing ROWs or 

easements).

Action TTM-1.9: When travel plans are complete, restore roads, primitive roads and trails in PHMA 

that are not designated in travel management plans. This also includes primitive routes/roads that were 

not designated in wilderness study areas (WSA) that have been selected for protection in previous 

RMPs.

Action TTM-1.10: When reseeding roads, primitive roads, and trails in PHMA, use appropriate seed 

mixes and consider the use of transplanted sagebrush.

Action TTM-1.11: 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 shall be considered only after other management strategies and 

alternatives have been explored. The duration of temporary closure or restriction orders shall 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.
September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 3-1

CHAPTER 3

CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC 

INVOLVEMENT

The BLM land use planning activities are conducted in accordance with NEPA requirements, CEQ 

regulations, and DOI and BLM policies and procedures implementing NEPA. The NEPA and associated 

laws, regulations, and policies require the BLM to seek public involvement early in and throughout the 

planning process. Public involvement and agency consultation and coordination, which have been at the

heart of the planning process leading to this ARMPA, were achieved through the following:

 Federal Register notices

 Public and informal meetings

 Individual contacts

 Media releases

 Planning bulletins

 The Rocky Mountain Region – National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy website, 

(http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/sagegrouse/eastern.html)

3.1 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

The BLM collaborated with numerous agencies, municipalities, and tribes throughout the preparation of 

this ARMPA. Outreach and collaboration with cooperating agencies are described in Section 6.3 of the 

Proposed RMPA and Final EIS. Eleven agencies2 accepted the offer to participate in the BLM planning 

process as cooperating agencies. The BLM formally invited them to participate in developing the 

alternatives for the RMPA and EIS and to provide data and other information related to their agency 

responsibilities, goals, mandates, and expertise.

 

2 USFWS, MFWP, United States Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Fergus County 

Commissioners, Petroleum County Commissioners, Judith Basin County Commissioners, Indian Butte Cooperative State 

Grazing District (CSGD), Chain Buttes CSGD, Winnett CSGD, and the Petroleum County Conservation District
3. Consultation, Coordination, and Public Involvement

3-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

3.1.1 Section 7 Consultation 

To comply with Section 7(c) of the ESA, the BLM coordinated with and consulted the USFWS early in 

the planning process. The USFWS provided input on planning issues, data collection and review, and 

alternatives development. The proposed actions under the ARMPA would have No Effect on any 

threatened or endangered species in the planning area.

3.1.2 Native American Consultation

In accordance with FLPMA and its own guidance, the BLM consulted with Native American 

representatives and coordinated with them throughout the planning process. All Native American tribes 

and organizations with interests in the planning area were contacted by mail and encouraged to be 

cooperating agencies. Tribes have been participating in the RMPA/EIS process through meetings and 

other contacts. 

Letters were mailed to the tribes listed below in December 2011. Follow-up letters mailed in September 

2012 invited the tribes to serve as cooperating agencies and offered government-to-government 

consultation. The federally recognized tribes with interests in the planning area are as follows:

 Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation

 Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana

 Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy’s Reservation

 Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation

 Crow Tribe of Montana

 Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap Reservation of Montana

 Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation

 Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho

 Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation of Idaho

No written comments were received from tribal agencies during the scoping period. Between 

September 24 and October 9, 2012, the BLM made follow-up phone calls to the tribes for governmentto-government consultation. The BLM received no comments or requests by any of the tribes for formal 

government-to-government consultation.

As part of the NEPA scoping and consultation process, and as an opportunity to provide comment in 

accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the BLM notified the 

Montana State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) seeking information on historic properties and land 

use planning direction for the ARMPA. The BLM has met its obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA, 

54 USC, Section 306108, as outlined in the National PA and the state protocols. 

3.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The public involvement process, consultation, and coordination conducted for the RMPA are described 

in Chapter 6 of the Proposed RMPA and Final EIS. As required by regulation, public scoping meetings 

were conducted following the publication of the notice of intent to prepare an EIS in the Federal Register 

on December 9, 2011.
3. Consultation, Coordination, and Public Involvement

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 3-3

A notice of availability (NOA) for the Draft RMPA/EIS was published in the Federal Register on 

November 8, 2013, which initiated a 90-day public comment period. The BLM held public comment 

open houses for the Draft RMPA/EIS on December 10 in Lewistown and December 18 in Winnett. The 

comments received on the Draft RMPA and EIS and BLM’s responses were summarized in Appendix O 

of the Proposed RMPA and Final EIS.

The NOA for the Proposed RMPA and Final EIS was published on May 29, 2015, initiating a 30-day 

public protest period and a 60-day Governors Consistency review period. The 30-day protest period 

ended on June 29, 2015, and the BLM received six protest letters.
3. Consultation, Coordination, and Public Involvement

3-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

This page intentionally left blank.
September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 4-1

CHAPTER 4

PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

4.1 IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN

Implementation, after a BLM RMP or RMP amendment is approved, is a continuous and active process. 

Decisions presented as Management Decisions can be characterized as immediate or one-time future 

decisions.

Immediate decisions—These decisions are the land use planning decisions that go into effect when the 

ROD is signed. They include goals, objectives, and allowable uses and management direction, such as 

designating lands as open or closed for salable mineral sales, as open with stipulations for oil and gas 

leasing, and lands for OHV use. These decisions require no additional analysis and guide future land 

management actions and subsequent site-specific implementation decisions in the planning area. 

Proposals for future actions, such as oil and gas leasing, land adjustments, and other allocation-based 

actions, will be reviewed against these land use plan decisions to determine if the proposal is in 

conformance with the plan.

One-time future decisions—These are the decisions that are not implemented until additional decisionmaking and site-specific analysis is completed. Examples are implementation of the recommendations to 

withdraw lands from locatable mineral entry or development of travel management plans. Future onetime decisions require additional analysis and decision-making and are prioritized as part of the BLM 

budget process. Priorities for implementing one-time RMP decisions will be based on the following 

criteria:

 National BLM management direction

 Available resources

General implementation schedule of one-time decisions—Future decisions discussed in this ARMPA will 

be implemented over a period of years, depending on budget and staff availability. After issuing the 

ROD, the BLM will prepare implementation plans that establish tentative time frames for completing 

one-time decisions identified in the ARMPA. These actions require additional site-specific decisionmaking and analysis. 
4. Plan Implementation

4-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

This schedule will assist BLM managers and staff in preparing budget requests and in scheduling work. 

However, the proposed schedule must be considered tentative and will be affected by future funding, 

nondiscretionary workloads, and cooperation by partners and the public. Yearly review of the plan will 

provide consistent tracking of accomplishments and information that can be used to develop annual 

budget requests to continue implementation.

4.2 MAINTAINING THE PLAN

The ARMPA can be maintained as necessary to reflect minor changes in data. Plan maintenance is limited 

to further refining or documenting a previously approved decision incorporated in the plan or clarifying 

previously approved decisions. 

The BLM expects that new information gathered from field inventories and assessments, research, other 

agency studies, and other sources will update baseline data or support new management techniques, 

BMPs, and scientific principles. Where monitoring shows land use plan actions or BMPs are not effective, 

the plan may be maintained or amended, as appropriate. 

Plan maintenance will be documented in supporting records. Plan maintenance does not require formal 

public involvement, interagency coordination, or the NEPA analysis required for making new land use 

plan decisions.

4.3 CHANGING THE PLAN

The ARMPA may be changed, should conditions warrant, through an amendment or revision. A plan 

amendment may become necessary to make major changes or to consider a proposal or action that is 

not in conformance with the plan. The results of monitoring, new data evaluation, or policy and public 

needs changes might also require a plan amendment. If several areas of the plan become outdated or 

otherwise obsolete, a plan revision may become necessary. 

Plans are amended and revised with public input and the appropriate level of environmental analysis 

conducted according to the CEQ procedures for implementing NEPA.

The BLM may revise the GRSG habitat management area maps and associated management decisions 

through plan maintenance or plan amendment/revision, as appropriate. This would come about as new 

information becomes available about GRSG habitat, including seasonal habitats, in coordination with the 

state wildlife agency and the USFWS and as based on best available scientific information.

If it finds that implementing the Montana GRSG Habitat Conservation Program is effective in meeting 

management goals and objectives for GRSG conservation, the BLM, in coordination with the State of 

Montana and the USFWS, and based on best available scientific information, may revise the management 

decisions and associated GRSG habitat management area maps. This would come about through plan 

maintenance decisions to achieve the shared goal of consistent and effective GRSG management and 

conservation across all lands, regardless of ownership.

4.4 PLAN EVALUATION, MONITORING, AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

Plan evaluation is the process by which the plan and monitoring data are reviewed to determine if 

management goals and objectives are being met and if management direction is sound. Land use plan 

evaluations determine if decisions are being implemented, if mitigation measures are satisfactory, if there 
4. Plan Implementation

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 4-3

are significant changes in the related plans of other entities, if there is new data of significance to the 

plan, and if decisions should be amended or revised. Monitoring data gathered over time is examined 

and used to draw conclusions on whether management actions are meeting stated objectives, and if not, 

why not. Conclusions are then used to make recommendations on whether to continue current 

management or to identify what changes need to be made in management practices to meet objectives.

The BLM will use land use plan evaluations to determine if the decisions in the ARMPA, supported by 

the accompanying NEPA analysis, are still valid in light of new information and monitoring data.

Evaluations will follow the protocols established by the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) 

or other appropriate guidance in effect at the time of the evaluation. The monitoring framework for this 

ARMPA can be found in Appendix D.

The ARMPA also includes an adaptive management strategy that includes soft and hard triggers and 

responses. These triggers are not specific to any particular project but identify habitat and population 

thresholds. Triggers are based on the two key metrics that are being monitored during the life of the 

ARMPA: habitat loss and population declines. Soft triggers represent an intermediate threshold 

indicating that management changes are needed at the implementation level to address habitat or 

population losses. If a soft trigger were tripped during the life of the plans, the BLM’s response would be

to apply more conservative or restrictive conservation measures to mitigate for the specific cause in the 

decline of populations or habitats, with consideration of local knowledge and conditions. These 

adjustments will be made to preclude tripping a “hard” trigger (which signals more severe habitat loss or 

population declines). Hard triggers represent a threshold indicating that immediate action is necessary to 

stop a severe deviation from GRSG conservation objectives set forth in the ARMPA. 

The BLM would analyze the hard and soft trigger data as soon as it becomes available after the signing of 

the ROD and then, at a minimum, would analyze it annually thereafter.

In the event that new scientific information becomes available demonstrating that the response to the

hard-wired trigger would be insufficient to stop a severe deviation from GRSG conservation objectives 

set forth in the ARMPA, the BLM would implement interim management direction to ensure that 

conservation options are not foreclosed. The BLM would also undertake any appropriate plan 

amendments or revisions if necessary. More information on the adaptive management strategy can be 

found in the adaptive management direction in Appendix I of this ARMPA.
4. Plan Implementation

4-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

This page intentionally left blank.
September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 5-1

CHAPTER 5

GLOSSARY

Acquisition. Lands can be acquired to facilitate various resource management objectives. Acquisitions, 

including easements, can be completed through exchange, Land and Water Conservation Fund 

purchases, donations, or receipts from the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act sales or exchanges.

Activity plan. A type of implementation plan (see Implementation plan), this usually describes multiple 

projects and applies best management practices to meet land use plan objectives. Examples of activity 

plans are interdisciplinary management plans, habitat management plans, recreation area management 

plans, and grazing plans.

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.

Adaptive management. A type of natural resource management in which decisions are made as part 

of an ongoing science-based process. Adaptive management involves testing, monitoring, and evaluating 

applied strategies and incorporating new knowledge into management approaches that are based on 

scientific findings and the needs of society. Results are used to modify management policy, strategies, and 

practices.

Administrative access. Motorized wheeled cross-country travel for lessees and permittees is limited 

to the administration of a federal lease or permit. Persons or corporations having such a permit or lease 

could perform administrative functions on public lands within the scope of the permit or lease; however, 

this would not preclude modifying permits or leases to limit motorized wheeled cross-country travel 

during further site-specific analysis to meet resource management objectives or standards and guidelines. 

(Off-Highway Vehicle Record of Decision and Proposed Plan Amendment for Montana, North Dakota, 

and Portions of South Dakota, June 2003).

Allotment. An area of land in which one or more livestock operators graze their livestock. Allotments 

generally consist of BLM-administered lands but may include other federally managed, state-owned, and 

private lands. An allotment also may include one or more separate pastures. Livestock numbers and 

periods of use are specified for each allotment. 
5. Glossary

5-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Amendment. The process for considering or making changes in the terms, conditions, and decisions 

of approved resource management plans or management framework plans. 

Animal unit month. The amount of forage necessary to sustain one cow or its equivalent for one 

month. 

Anthropogenic disturbances. Human-created features that include paved highways, graded gravel 

roads, transmission lines, substations, wind turbines, oil and gas wells, geothermal wells and associated 

facilities, pipelines, landfills, agricultural conversion, homes, and mines.

Aquatic. Living or growing in or on the water.

Authorized/authorized use. This is an activity (i.e., resource use) occurring on public lands that is 

both explicitly or implicitly recognized and legalized by law or regulation. This term may refer to those 

activities on public lands for which the BLM, Forest Service, or other appropriate authority has issued a 

formal authorization document, such as a livestock grazing lease/permit, right-of-way grant, coal lease, or 

oil and gas permit to drill. Formally authorized uses typically involve some type of commercial activity, 

facility placement, or event. These formally authorized uses are often limited in time or area. Unless 

constrained or bound by statute, regulation, or an approved land use plan decision, legal activities 

involving public enjoyment and use of public lands, for example, hiking, camping, and hunting, require no 

formal BLM or Forest Service authorization.

Avoidance/avoidance area. These terms usually address mitigation of some activity (i.e., resource 

use). Paraphrasing the CEQ regulations (40 CFR, Part 1508.20), avoidance means to circumvent or 

bypass an impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. Therefore, avoidance 

does not necessarily prohibit a proposed activity, but it may require the relocation of an action, or the 

total redesign of an action to eliminate any potential impacts resulting from it. Also see the definition of 

right-of-way avoidance area.

Baseline. The preexisting condition of a defined area or resource that can be quantified by an 

appropriate measurement. During environmental reviews, the baseline is considered the affected 

environment that exists at the time of the review’s initiation and is used to compare predictions of the 

effects of the proposed action or a reasonable range of alternatives.

Best management practices (BMPs). A suite of techniques that guide or may be applied to 

management actions to aide in achieving desired outcomes. BMPs are often developed in conjunction 

with land use plans, but they are not considered a planning decision unless the plans specify that they are 

mandatory.

Biologically significant unit. Delineation of GRSG habitat based on GRSG interactions between 

population management units to represent local GRSG population habitat and use areas within the 

subregion.

BLM sensitive species. Those species that are not federally listed as endangered, threatened, or 

proposed under the Endangered Species Act but that are designated by the BLM State Director under 

16 USC, Section 1536(a)(2), for special management consideration. By national policy, federally listed 
5. Glossary

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 5-3

candidate species are automatically included as sensitive species. Sensitive species are managed so they 

will not need to be listed as proposed, threatened, or endangered under the Endangered Species Act.

Candidate species. Taxa for which the USFWS has sufficient information on their status and threats 

to propose the species for listing as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act, but 

for which issuing a proposed rule is currently precluded by higher priority listing actions. Separate lists 

for plants, vertebrate animals, and invertebrate animals are published periodically in the Federal Register 

(BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species Manual).

Casual use. Casual use means activities ordinarily resulting in no or negligible disturbance of the public 

lands, resources, or improvements. For casual use examples for rights-of-ways, see 43 CFR, Part 2801.5; 

for casual use examples for locatable minerals, see 43 CFR, Part 3809.5.

Chemical vegetation treatment. Application of herbicides to control invasive species/noxious 

weeds or unwanted vegetation. To meet resource objectives the preponderance of chemical treatments 

would be used in areas where cheatgrass or noxious weeds have invaded sagebrush steppe. 

Collaboration. A cooperative process in which interested parties, often with widely varied interests, 

work together to seek solutions with broad support for managing public and other lands. Collaboration 

may take place with any interested parties, whether or not they are a cooperating agency.

Comprehensive trails and travel management. The proactive interdisciplinary planning, this is onthe-ground management and administration of travel networks (both motorized and nonmotorized) to 

ensure that public access, natural resources, and regulatory needs are considered. It consists of 

inventory, planning, designation, implementation, education, enforcement, monitoring, easement 

acquisition, mapping and signing, and other measures necessary to provide access to public lands for a 

variety of uses, such as recreational, traditional, casual, agricultural, commercial, educational, 

aeronautical, and other purposes.

Condition class (fire regime). This is a measure describing the degree of departure from historical 

fire regimes, possibly resulting in alterations of key ecosystem components, such as species composition, 

structural stage, stand age, canopy closure, and fuel loadings. One or more of the following activities 

may have caused this departure: fire suppression, timber harvesting, livestock grazing, introduction and 

establishment of exotic plant species, insects, or disease, or other management activities.

Conformance. A proposed action would be specifically provided for in the land use plan or, if not 

specifically mentioned, would be clearly consistent with the goals, objectives, or standards of the 

approved land use plan.

Conservation measures. Measures to conserve, enhance, or restore GRSG habitat by reducing, 

eliminating, or minimizing threats. 

Conservation strategy. A strategy outlining current activities or threats that are contributing to the 

decline of a species, along with the actions or strategies needed to reverse or eliminate such a decline 

or threat. Conservation strategies are generally developed for species of plants and animals that are 

designated as BLM sensitive species or that have been determined by the USFWS or National 

Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration-Fisheries to be federal candidates under the ESA.
5. Glossary

5-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Controlled surface use. This is a category of moderate constraint stipulations that allows some use 

and occupancy of public land, while protecting identified resources or values and is applicable to fluid 

mineral leasing and all activities associated with fluid mineral leasing, such as truck-mounted drilling and 

geophysical exploration equipment off designated routes, and construction of wells or pads. CSU areas 

are open to fluid mineral leasing, but the stipulation allows the BLM to require special operational 

constraints, or the activity can be shifted more than 656 feet to protect the specified resource or value.

Cooperating agency. Assists the lead federal agency in developing an environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement. This can be any agency with jurisdiction by law or special expertise for 

proposals covered by NEPA (40 CFR, Part 1501.6). Any tribe or federal, state, or local government 

jurisdiction with such qualifications may become a cooperating agency by agreement with the lead 

agency.

Council on Environmental Quality. An advisory council to the president, established by NEPA. It 

reviews federal programs to analyze and interpret environmental trends and information.

Cultural resources. Locations of human activity, occupation, or use. Cultural resources are 

archaeological, historical, or architectural sites, structures, or places with important public and scientific 

uses and locations of traditional cultural or religious importance to specified social or cultural groups.

Decision area. Public lands and mineral estate within the planning area that are encompassed by GRSG 

designated habitat, which includes PHMA, GHMA, and OHMA.

Deferred/deferred use. To set aside or postpone a particular resource use or activity on the public 

lands to a later time. Generally, when this term is used, the period of the deferral is specified. 

Deferments sometimes follow the sequence time frame of associated serial actions; for example, action 

B will be deferred until action A is completed. 

Designated roads and trails. Specific roads and trails identified by the BLM where some type of 

motorized/nonmotorized use is appropriate and allowed, either seasonally or year-long (H-1601-1, BLM 

Land Use Planning Handbook).

Desired future condition. For rangeland vegetation, the condition of rangeland resources on a 

landscape scale that meet management objectives. It is based on ecological, social, and economic 

considerations during the land planning process. It is usually expressed as ecological status or 

management status of vegetation (species composition, habitat diversity, and age and size class of 

species) and desired soil qualities (soil cover, erosion, and compaction). In a general context, desired 

future condition is a portrayal of the land or resource conditions that are expected to result if goals and 

objectives are fully achieved.

Desired outcomes. A type of land use plan decision expressed as a goal or objective. 

Disruptive activities. Those public land resource uses and activities that are likely to alter the

behavior, displace, or cause excessive stress to animal or human populations at a specific location or 

during a specific time. In this context, disruptive activities refers to those actions that alter behavior or 

displace individuals such that reproductive success is negatively affected or an individual’s physiological 

ability to cope with environmental stress is compromised. This term does not apply to the physical 
5. Glossary

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 5-5

disturbance of the land surface, vegetation, or features. When administered as a land use restriction, 

such as no disruptive activities, this term may prohibit or limit the physical presence of sound above 

ambient levels, light beyond background levels, or the nearness of people and their activities. The term is 

commonly used in conjunction with protecting wildlife during crucial life stages, such as breeding, 

nesting, and birthing, although it could apply to any resource value on public lands. This land use 

restriction is not intended to prohibit all activity or authorized uses.

Diversity. The relative abundance of wildlife species, plant species, communities, habitats, or habitat

features per unit of area.

Easement. A right afforded a person or agency to make limited use of another’s real property for 

access or other purposes.

Ecological Site. A distinctive kind of land with specific physical characteristics that differs from other 

kinds of land in its ability to produce a distinctive kind and amount of vegetation.

Emergency stabilization. Planned actions to stabilize and prevent unacceptable degradation to 

natural and cultural resources, to minimize threats to life or 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 

wildfire.

Endangered species. Any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion 

of its range. Under the Endangered Species Act in the United States, endangered status is more 

protective than threatened status. Designation as endangered (or threatened) is determined by the 

USFWS, as directed by the Endangered Species Act (16 USC, Sections 1531-1544).

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended). Designed to protect critically imperiled species 

from extinction as a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate 

concern and conservation. The ESA is administered by two federal agencies, the USFWS and the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Its purpose is to protect species and also the 

ecosystems they depend on (16 USC, Sections 1531-1544).

Enhance. The improvement of habitat by increasing missing or modifying unsatisfactory components or 

attributes of the plant community to meet GRSG objectives. 

Environmental assessment. A concise public document prepared to provide sufficient evidence and 

analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no 

significant impact. It includes a brief discussion of the need for the proposal, alternatives considered, 

environmental impact of the proposed action and alternatives, and a list of agencies and individuals 

consulted.

Environmental impact statement. A detailed statement prepared by the responsible official in 

which a major federal action that significantly affects the quality of the human environment is described, 

alternatives to the proposed action are provided, and effects are analyzed.
5. Glossary

5-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Evaluation (plan evaluation). The process of reviewing the land use plan and the periodic plan 

monitoring reports to determine whether the land use plan decisions and NEPA analysis are still valid 

and whether the plan is being implemented. 

Exchange. A transaction whereby the federal government receives land or interests in land in exchange 

for other land or interests in land.

Exclusion area. An area identified through resource management planning that is not available for 

right-of-way location under any conditions.

Existing routes. The roads, trails, or ways that are used by motorized vehicles, such as jeeps, allterrain vehicles, and motorized dirt bikes, mechanized uses, such as mountain bikes, wheelbarrows, and 

game carts, pedestrians (hikers), and horseback riders and that are, to the best of the BLM’s knowledge, 

in existence at the time of RMPA/EIS publication. 

Exploration. Active drilling and geophysical operations to determine the presence of a mineral 

resource or the extent of the reservoir or mineral deposit.

Facility, energy or mining. Human-constructed assets designed and created to serve a particular 

function and to afford a particular convenience or service that is affixed to a specific locations, such as 

oil and gas well pads and associated infrastructure.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. Public Law 94-579, October 21, 1976, often 

referred to as the BLM’s “organic act,” which provides most of the BLM’s legislated authority, direction 

policy, and basic management guidance.

Federal mineral estate. Subsurface mineral estate owned by the United States and administered by 

the BLM. Federal mineral estate under BLM jurisdiction is composed of mineral estate underlying BLMadministered lands, privately owned lands, and state-owned lands.

Fire frequency. A general term referring to the recurrence of fire in a given area over time.

Fire Regime Condition Classification System (FRCCS). This measures the extent to which 

vegetation departs from reference conditions or how the current vegetation differs from a particular 

reference condition.

Fire suppression. All work and activities connected with control and fire extinguishing operations, 

beginning with discovery and continuing until the fire is completely extinguished.

Fluid minerals. Oil, gas, coal bed natural gas, and geothermal resources.

Forage. All browse and herbaceous foods that are available to grazing animals.

General sage‐grouse habitat. An area occupied seasonally or year‐round outside of priority habitat. 

The BLM has identified these areas in coordination with respective state wildlife agencies.
5. Glossary

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 5-7

Geographic information system. A system of computer hardware, software, data, people, and 

applications that capture, store, edit, analyze, and display a potentially wide array of geospatial 

information. 

Geophysical exploration. The act of locating deposits of oil and gas resources and better defining the 

subsurface.

Geothermal energy. Natural heat from within the Earth captured for production of electric power, 

space heating, or industrial steam.

Goal. A broad statement of a desired outcome; it is usually not quantifiable and may not have 

established time frames for achievement.

Grant. Any authorization or instrument, such as an easement, lease, license, or permit, that the BLM 

issues under Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 USC, Section 1761 et. seq.), 

and those authorizations and instruments that the BLM and its predecessors issued for like purposes 

before October 21, 1976, under the existing statutory authority. It does not include authorizations 

issued under the Mineral Leasing Act (43 USC, Section 185).

Grazing preference. This represents a superior or priority position against others for the purpose of 

receiving a grazing permit or lease. This priority is attached to base property owned or controlled by 

the permittee or lessee (43 CFR, Part 4100.0-5).

Grazing relinquishment. The voluntary and permanent surrender by an existing permittee or lessee, 

(with concurrence of any base property lienholder), of their priority (preference) to use a livestock 

forage allocation on public land as well as their permission to use this forage. Relinquishments do not 

require the BLM’s consent or approval. The BLM’s receipt of a relinquishment is not a decision to close 

areas to livestock grazing.

Grazing retirement. Ending livestock grazing on a specific area of land.

Grazing system. Scheduled grazing use and non-use of an allotment to reach identified goals or 

objectives by improving the quality and quantity of vegetation. It includes developing pastures, utilization 

levels, grazing rotations, timing and duration of use periods, and necessary range improvements.

Guidelines. Actions or management practices that may be used to achieve desired outcomes, 

sometimes expressed as BMPs. 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. 

Guidelines for grazing administration must conform to 43 CFR, Part 4180.2.

Habitat. An environment that meets a specific set of physical, biological, temporal, or spatial 

characteristics that satisfy the requirements of a plant or animal species or group of species for part or 

all of their life cycle.

High voltage transmission lines. 100 kilovolts and over.

Impact. The effect, influence, alteration, or imprint caused by an action.
5. Glossary

5-8 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Impairment. The degree to which a distance of clear visibility is degraded by man-made pollutants.

Implementation decisions. Decisions that implement land use planning; they are generally appealable 

to the Interior Board of Land Appeals under 43 CFR, Part 4.410. 

Implementation plan. An area or site-specific plan written to implement decisions made in a land use 

plan. Implementation plans include both activity plans and project plans. 

Indicators. Factors that describe resource condition and change that can help the BLM determine 

trends over time.

Indirect impacts. These result from implementing an action or alternative but usually occur later in 

time or are removed in distance and are reasonably certain to occur. 

Integrated ranch planning. A method for ranch planning that looks at all elements of the ranching 

operations, including strategic and tactical planning, rather than approaching planning as separate 

enterprises.

Land health condition. A classification for land health; it includes meeting land health standards and 

not meeting land health standards.

Land tenure adjustments. Landownership or jurisdictional changes. To improve the manageability of 

BLM-administered lands and their usefulness to the public, the BLM has numerous authorities for 

repositioning lands into a more consolidated pattern, disposing of lands, and entering into cooperative 

management agreements. These land pattern improvements are completed primarily through the use of 

land exchanges but also through land sales, jurisdictional transfers to other agencies, and the use of 

cooperative management agreements and leases.

Land use allocation. The identification in a land use plan of the activities and foreseeable development 

that are allowed, restricted, or excluded for all or part of the planning area, based on desired future 

conditions (H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook).

Land use plan. A set of decisions that establish management direction for land within an administrative 

area, as prescribed under the planning provisions of FLPMA; an assimilation of land use plan level 

decisions developed through the planning process outlined in 43 CFR, Part 1600, regardless of the scale 

at which the decisions were developed. The term includes both RMPs and management framework plans 

(from H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook).

Land use plan decision. Establishes desired outcomes and actions needed to achieve them. Decisions 

are reached using the planning process in 43 CFR, Part 1600. When they are presented to the public as 

proposed decisions, they can be protested to the BLM Director; however, they are not appealable to 

Interior Board of Land Appeals.

Large pipelines. Those that are 24 inches in width and over.

Late brood-rearing area. Habitat that includes mesic sagebrush and mixed shrub communities, wet 

meadows, riparian habitats, and some agricultural lands, such as alfalfa fields.
5. Glossary

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 5-9

Leasable minerals. Those minerals or materials designated as leasable under the Mineral Leasing Act 

of 1920. These include energy-related mineral resources such as oil, natural gas, coal, and geothermal, 

and some nonenergy minerals, such as phosphate, sodium, potassium, and sulfur. Geothermal resources 

are also leasable under the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970.

Lease. Section 302 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 provides the BLM’s 

authority to issue leases for the use, occupancy, and development of public lands. Leases are issued for 

purposes such as a commercial filming, advertising displays, commercial or noncommercial croplands, 

apiaries, livestock holding or feeding areas not related to grazing permits and leases, native or 

introduced species harvesting, temporary or permanent facilities for commercial purposes (does not 

include mining claims), residential occupancy, ski resorts, construction equipment storage sites, assembly 

yards, oil rig stacking sites, mining claim occupancy if the residential structures are not incidental to the 

mining operation, and water pipelines and well pumps related to irrigation and non-irrigation facilities. 

The regulations establishing procedures for processing these leases and permits are found in 43 CFR, 

Part 2920.

Lease stipulation. A modification of the terms and conditions on a standard lease form at the time of 

the lease sale.

Lek. A traditional courtship display area attended by male sage‐grouse in or next to sagebrushdominated habitat. A lek is designated based on observations of two or more male sage‐grouse engaged 

in courtship displays. Sub‐dominant males may display on itinerant strutting areas during population 

peaks. Such areas usually fail to become established leks. Therefore, a site where fewer than five males 

are observed strutting should be confirmed active for two years before meeting the definition of a lek 

(Connelly et al. 2000; Connelly et al. 2003, 2004). Each state may have a slightly different definition of 

lek, active lek, inactive lek, occupied lek, and unoccupied leks. Regional planning will use the appropriate 

definition provided by the state of interest.

Lek complex. A lek or group of leks within 1.5 miles of each other between which male GRSG 

may interchange from one day to the next. Fidelity to leks has been well documented. Visits to 

multiple leks are most common among yearlings and less frequent for adult males, suggesting an 

age‐related period of establishment (Connelly et al. 2004).

Active lek. Any lek that has been attended by male sage‐grouse during the strutting season.

Inactive lek. Any lek where sufficient data suggests that there was no strutting activity 

throughout a strutting season. (Absence of strutting grouse during a single visit is insufficient 

documentation to establish that a lek is inactive.) This designation requires documenting either

of the following:

 An absence of GRSG on the lek during at least two ground surveys separated by at 

least seven days. These surveys must be conducted under ideal conditions (April 1‐

May 7 or other appropriate dates, based on local conditions), no precipitation, light 

or no wind, half‐hour before sunrise to one hour after sunrise) 

 A ground check of the exact known lek site late in the strutting season (after April 

15) that fails to find any sign (tracks, droppings, or feathers) of strutting activity. 
5. Glossary

5-10 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Data collected by aerial surveys should not be used to designate inactive status 

because the aerial survey may actually disrupt activities.

Occupied lek. A lek that has been active during at least one strutting season in the past 10 

years.

Unoccupied lek. A lek that has either been destroyed or abandoned.

Destroyed lek. A formerly active lek site and surrounding sagebrush habitat that has been 

destroyed and is no longer suitable for GRSG breeding.

Abandoned lek. A lek in otherwise suitable habitat that has not been active for 10 consecutive 

years. To be designated abandoned, a lek must be inactive (see above criteria) in at least four 

nonconsecutive strutting seasons spanning the 10 years. The site of an abandoned lek should be 

surveyed at least once every 10 years to determine if GRSG have reoccupied it.

Locatable minerals. Those 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 decision. This is made by the BLM to manage public lands. Management decisions 

include both land use plan decisions and implementation decisions.

Mineral. Any naturally formed inorganic material, solid, or fluid inorganic substance that can be 

extracted from the earth; any of various naturally occurring homogeneous substances (as stone, coal, 

salt, sulfur, sand, petroleum, water, or natural gas) obtained usually from the ground. Under federal laws, 

considered as locatable (subject to the general mining laws), leasable (subject to the Mineral Leasing Act 

of 1920), and salable (subject to the Materials Act of 1947).

Mineral entry. The filing of a claim on public land to obtain the right to any locatable minerals it may 

contain.

Mineral estate. The ownership of minerals, including rights necessary for access, exploration, 

development, mining, ore dressing, and transportation operations.

Mineral materials. Common varieties of mineral materials, such as soil, sand and gravel, stone, 

pumice, pumicite, and clay, that are not obtainable under the mining or leasing laws but that can be 

acquired under the Materials Act of 1947, as amended.

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 mining claim may 

contain as many adjoining locations as the locator may make or buy. There are four categories of mining 

claims: lode, placer, mill site, and tunnel site.

Mining Law of 1872. Provides for claiming and gaining title to locatable minerals on public lands. Also 

referred to as the General Mining Laws or Mining Laws.
5. Glossary

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 5-11

Mitigation. Includes specific means, measures, or practices that could reduce, avoid, or eliminate 

adverse impacts. Mitigation can include avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or 

parts of an action, minimizing the impact by limiting the degree of magnitude of the action and its 

implementation, rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitation, or restoring the affected environment, 

reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life 

of the action, and compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or 

environments.

Modification. A fundamental change to the provisions of a lease stipulation, either temporarily or for 

the term of the lease. A modification may include an exemption from or alteration of a stipulated 

requirement. Depending on the specific modification, the stipulation may or may not apply to all other 

sites within the leasehold to which the restrictive criteria applied.

Monitoring (plan monitoring). The process of tracking the implementation of land use plan 

decisions and collecting and assessing data necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of land use planning 

decisions. 

Motorized vehicles or uses. Vehicles that are motorized, including jeeps, trail motorcycles or dirt 

bikes, aircraft, and all-terrain vehicles, such as four-wheelers and three-wheelers.

Multiple-use. The management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are 

used in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people; 

making the most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources or related services over 

areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to changing needs and 

conditions; the use of some land for less than all of the resources; a combination of balanced and diverse 

resource uses that takes into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and 

nonrenewable resources, including recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and 

natural scenic, scientific and historical values; and harmonious and coordinated management of the 

various resources without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the 

environment with consideration being given to the relative values of the resources and not necessarily 

to the combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return or the greatest unit output 

(FLPMA; BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species Manual).

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Public Law 91-190. Establishes 

environmental policy for the nation. Among other things, NEPA requires federal agencies to consider 

environmental values in decision-making.

Net conservation gain. The intent of the North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed Plan 

Amendment is to provide a net conservation gain to GRSG. The BLM would 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 would be required when the BLM undertakes

management actions and, consistent with valid existing rights and applicable law, when it authorizes

third-party actions that result in habitat loss and degradation within priority habitat (core population 

areas and core population connectivity corridors). Net conservation gain is achieved by avoiding, 

minimizing, and compensating for impacts by applying beneficial mitigation actions.
5. Glossary

5-12 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Nonenergy leasable minerals. Those minerals or materials designated as leasable under the Mineral 

Leasing Act of 1920. Nonenergy minerals include resources such as phosphate, sodium, potassium, and 

sulfur.

Nonfunctional condition. Riparian-wetland areas that clearly are not providing adequate vegetation, 

landform, or woody debris to dissipate energies associated with flow events and thus are not reducing 

erosion and improving water quality.

No surface occupancy (NSO). A major constraint where use or occupancy of the land surface for 

fluid mineral exploration or development and all activities associated with fluid mineral leasing, such as

truck-mounted drilling and geophysical exploration equipment off designated routes and construction of 

wells or pads, are prohibited to protect identified resource values. Areas identified as NSO are open to 

fluid mineral leasing, but surface occupancy or surface-disturbing activities associated with fluid mineral 

leasing cannot be conducted on the surface of the land. Access to fluid mineral deposits would require 

horizontal drilling from outside the boundaries of the NSO area.

Noxious weeds. A plant species designated by federal or state law as generally possessing one or more 

of the following characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage; parasitic; a carrier or host of serious 

insects or disease; or nonnative, new, or not common to the United States.

Objective. A description of a desired outcome for a resource. Objectives can be quantified and 

measured and, where possible, have established time frames for achievement.

Occupancy. Full- or part-time residence on public lands and activities that involve residence; the 

construction, presence, or maintenance of temporary or permanent structures that may be used for 

such purposes; or the use of a watchman or caretaker for monitoring. Residence or structures include 

barriers to access, fences, tents, motor homes, trailers, cabins, houses, buildings, and storage for

equipment or supplies (43 CFR, Part 3715.0-5).

Off-highway vehicle (OHV; off-road vehicle). Any motorized vehicle capable of or designated for 

travel on or immediately over land, water, or other natural terrain. The term excludes any 

nonamphibious registered motorboat; any military, fire, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle while 

being used for emergency purposes; any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the BLM 

Authorized Officer or otherwise officially approved; vehicles in official use; and any combat or combat 

support vehicle when used for national defense emergencies (43 CFR, Part 8340.0-5).

Open. Generally denotes an area that is available for a particular use or uses. Refers to specific 

program definitions found in law, regulations, or policy guidance for application to individual programs. 

For example, 43 CFR, Part 8340.0-5, defines the specific meaning of open as it relates to OHV use.

Permitted use. The forage allocated by or under the guidance of an applicable land use plan for 

livestock grazing in an allotment under a permit or lease and expressed in AUMs (43 CFR, Part 4100.0-

5; from H-4180-1, BLM Rangeland Health Standards Manual).

Permittee. A person or company permitted to graze livestock on public land.
5. Glossary

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 5-13

Plan of operations. This is required for all mining activity exploration greater than five acres or 

surface disturbance greater than casual use on certain special category lands. Special category lands are 

described under 43 CFR, Part 3809.11(c), and include such lands as designated Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern, lands within the National Wilderness Preservation System, and areas closed to 

off‐road vehicles, among others. In addition, a plan of operations is required for activity greater than 

casual use on lands patented under the Stock Raising Homestead Act with federal minerals where the 

operator does not have the written consent of the surface owner (43 CFR, Part 3814). The plan of 

operations needs to be filed in the BLM field office with jurisdiction over the land involved. It does not 

need to be on a particular form but must address the information required by 43 CFR, Part 3809.401(b).

Planning area. The geographical area for which resource management plans are developed and 

maintained. The Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS planning area 

boundary includes public lands managed by the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management, within five BLM Districts in Nevada (Battle Mountain, Carson City, Elko, Ely, and 

Winnemucca) and three BLM Field Offices in California (Alturas, Eagle Lake, and Surprise).

Planning criteria. The standards, rules, and other factors developed by managers and interdisciplinary 

teams for their use in forming judgments about decision-making, analysis, and data collection during 

planning. Planning criteria streamlines and simplifies the resource management planning actions.

Planning issues. Concerns, conflicts, and problems with the existing management of public lands. 

Frequently, issues are based on how land uses affect resources. Some issues are concerned with how 

land uses can affect other land uses or how the protection of resources affects land uses. 

Policy. This is a statement of guiding principles, or procedures, designed and intended to influence 

planning decisions, operating actions, or other affairs of the BLM. Policies are established interpretations 

of legislation, executive orders, regulations, or other presidential, secretarial, or management directives.

Prescribed fire. Any fire ignited by management actions to meet specific objectives. A written, 

approved prescribed fire plan must exist and NEPA requirements, where applicable, must be met before 

ignition. 

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 in areas that have been identified as having 

wilderness characteristics and not meeting the wilderness inventory road definition (BLM Manual 6310 –

Conducting Wilderness Characteristics Inventory on BLM Lands).

Priority sage‐grouse habitat. Areas that have been identified as having the highest conservation value 

to maintaining sustainable sage‐grouse populations. These include breeding, late brood‐rearing, and 

winter concentration areas that the BLM has identified in coordination with respective state wildlife 

agencies.

Proper functioning condition. A term describing stream health that is based on the presence of 

adequate vegetation, landform, and debris to dissipate energy, reduce erosion and improve water 

quality.
5. Glossary

5-14 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Public land. Land or interest in land owned by the United States and administered by the Secretary of 

the Interior through the BLM without regard to how the United States acquired ownership, except 

lands on the Outer Continental Shelf and land held for the benefit of Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos (H1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook).

Range improvement. Any activity, structure, or program on or relating to rangelands that is designed 

to improve production of forage, change vegetative composition, control patterns of use, provide water,

stabilize soil and water conditions, and provide habitat for livestock and wildlife. The term includes 

structures, treatment projects, and use of mechanical means to accomplish the desired results.

Range improvement project. An authorized physical modification or treatment that is designed to 

improve production of forage, change vegetation composition, control patterns of use, provide water,

stabilize soil and water conditions, restore, protect, and improve the condition of rangeland ecosystems 

to benefit livestock, wild horses, and burros and fish and wildlife. This definition includes structures, 

treatment projects and use of mechanical devices, or modifications achieved through mechanical means.

Raptor. Bird of prey with sharp talons and a strongly curved beak, such as hawks, owls, falcons, and 

eagles.

Reclamation. The suite of actions taken within an area affected by human disturbance, the outcome of 

which is intended to change the condition of the disturbed area to meet predetermined objectives or to 

make it acceptable for certain defined resources, such as wildlife habitat, grazing, or ecosystem function.

Reference state. The condition where the functional capacities represented by soil/site stability, 

hydrologic function, and biotic integrity are performing at an optimum level under the natural 

disturbance regime. It usually includes what is often referred to as the potential natural plant community.

Rehabilitate. Returning disturbed lands as near to predisturbed condition as is reasonably practical or 

as specified in approved permits.

Renewable energy. Energy resources that constantly renew themselves or that are regarded as 

practically inexhaustible. These include solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, and biomass. Although particular 

geothermal formations can be depleted, the natural heat in the Earth is a virtually inexhaustible reserve 

of potential energy.

Required design feature (RDF). RDFs are required for certain activities in all GRSG habitat. RDFs 

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

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

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

apply to some projects, such as when a resource is not present on a given site, or may require slight 

variations, such as 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, for example, 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.
5. Glossary

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 5-15

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

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

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

Reserve common allotment. An area that is designated in the land use plan as available for livestock 

grazing but reserved as an alternative to grazing in another allotment in order to facilitate rangeland 

restoration treatments and recovery from natural disturbances, such as drought or wildfire. The reserve 

common allotment would provide needed flexibility that would help an agency apply temporary rest 

from grazing where vegetation treatments or management would be most effective.

Resource management plan. A land use plan as prescribed by the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act that establishes, for a given area of land, land use allocations, coordination guidelines 

for multiple-use, objectives, and actions to be achieved.

Restore/restoration. Implementation of passive or active management actions designed to increase or 

maintain perennial herbaceous species and landscape cover of sagebrush so that plant communities are 

more resilient to disturbance and invasive species over the long term. The long‐term goal is to create 

functional, high quality habitat that is occupied by sage‐grouse. A short‐term goal may be to restore the 

landform, soils, and hydrology and to increase the percentage of preferred vegetation, seeding of desired 

species, or treatment of undesired species.

Restriction/restricted use. A limitation or constraint on public land uses and operations. Restrictions 

can be of any kind, but most commonly apply to certain types of vehicle use, temporal or spatial 

constraints, or certain authorizations.

Revision. The process of completely rewriting the land use plan due to changes in the planning area 

affecting major portions of the plan or the entire plan. 

Right-of-way (ROW). An authorization to use a specific piece of public land for a certain project, such 

as roads, pipelines, transmission lines, or communication sites. A ROW grant authorizes rights and 

privileges for a specific use of the land for a specific period. Other land use authorizations, such as 

easements, leases, permits, or licenses, are also categorized under ROWs for this document.

Riparian area. A form of wetland transition between permanently saturated wetlands and upland 

areas. Riparian areas exhibit vegetation or physical characteristics that reflect the influence of permanent 

surface or subsurface water. Typical riparian areas are lands along perennially and intermittently flowing 

rivers and streams, glacial potholes, and the shores of lakes and reservoirs with stable water levels. 

Excluded are ephemeral streams or washes that lack vegetation and depend on free water in the soil.

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.

Rotation. Grazing rotation between pastures in the allotment for the permitted time.

Routes. Multiple roads, trails, and primitive roads; a group or set of roads, trails, and primitive roads 

that represents less than 100 percent of the BLM transportation system. Generically, components of the 

transportation system are described as routes. 
5. Glossary

5-16 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Sagebrush focal areas. Areas identified by the USFWS that represent recognized strongholds for 

GRSG 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.

Sale (public land). A method of land disposal, pursuant to Section 203 of FLPMA, whereby the federal 

government receives a fair-market payment for the transfer of land from federal ownership. Public lands 

determined suitable for sale are offered on the initiative of the BLM. Lands suitable for sale must be 

identified in the RMP. Any lands to be disposed of by sale that are not identified in the current RMP, or 

that meet the disposal criteria identified in the RMP, require a plan amendment before a sale can occur.

Seeding. A vegetation treatment that includes the application of grass, forb, or shrub seed, either 

aerially or from the ground. In areas of gentle terrain, ground applications of seed are often 

accomplished with a rangeland drill. Seeding allows the establishment of native species or placeholder 

species and restoration of disturbed areas to a perennial-dominated cover type, thereby decreasing the 

risk of subsequent invasion by exotic plant species. Seeding would be used primarily as a follow-up 

treatment in areas where disturbance or the previously described treatments have removed exotic plant 

species and their residue.

Short-term effect. This occurs only during or immediately after implementation of the alternative.

Special Recreation Permit (SRP). This is an authorization that allows for recreational uses of public 

lands and related waters. The BLM issues it as a means to control visitor use, to protect recreational 

and natural resources, and to provide for the health and safety of visitors. Commercial SRPs are also 

issued as a mechanism to provide a fair return for the commercial use of public lands.

Special status species. BLM special status species are those listed, candidate, or proposed for listing 

under the Endangered Species Act and those requiring special management consideration to promote 

their conservation and reduce the likelihood and need for future listing under the Endangered Species 

Act that are designated as sensitive by a BLM State Director. All federally listed candidate species, 

proposed species, and delisted species in the five years following delisting are conserved as BLM 

sensitive species. 

Split-estate. This is the circumstance where the surface of a particular parcel of land is owned by a 

different party than the minerals underlying the surface. Split-estates may have any combination of 

surface/subsurface owners: federal/state, federal/private, state/private, or percentage ownerships. When 

referring to the split-estate ownership on a particular parcel of land, it is generally necessary to describe 

the surface/subsurface ownership pattern of the parcel.

Stabilize. The process of stopping further damage from occurring.

Standard. A description of the physical and biological conditions or degree of function required for 

healthy sustainable lands, such as land health standards. To be expressed as a desired outcome (goal). 

Standard lease terms and conditions. Areas may be open to leasing with no specific management 

decisions defined in a resource management plan; however, these areas are subject to lease terms and 

conditions, as defined on the lease form (Form 3100-11, Offer to Lease and Lease for Oil and Gas; and 

Form 3200-24, Offer to Lease and Lease for Geothermal Resources).
5. Glossary

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 5-17

Stipulation (general). A term, condition, or requirement that is specified in an agreement or 

contract.

Stipulation (oil and gas). A provision that modifies standard oil and gas lease terms and conditions in 

order to protect other resource values or land uses and is attached to and made a part of the lease. 

Typical lease stipulations include no surface occupancy (NSO), timing limitations (TL), and controlled 

surface use (CSU). Lease stipulations are developed through the land use planning (RMP) process.

Surface disturbance. Suitable habitat is considered disturbed when it is removed and unavailable for 

immediate Greater Sage‐Grouse use.

 Long‐term removal occurs when habitat is physically removed through activities that replace 

suitable habitat with long-term occupancy of unsuitable habitat such as a road, power line, 

well pad, or active mine. Long‐term removal may also result from any activities that cause 

soil mixing, soil removal, or soil exposure to erosive processes.

 Short-term removal occurs when vegetation is removed in small areas but is restored to 

suitable habitat within less than five years of disturbance, such as a successfully reclaimed 

pipeline, drill hole, or pit.

 Suitable habitat is rendered unusable due to numerous anthropogenic disturbances.

Anthropogenic surface disturbances are those meeting the above definitions and that result 

from human activities.

Surface-disturbing activities. An action that alters the vegetation, surface/near-surface soil 

resources, or surface geologic features, beyond natural site conditions and on a scale that affects other 

public land values. Examples of surface-disturbing activities are operation of heavy equipment to 

construct well pads, roads, pits, and reservoirs; installation of pipelines and power lines; and 

implementing several types of vegetation treatments, such as prescribed fire. Surface-disturbing activities 

may be either authorized or prohibited.

Surface uses. These are all the various activities that may be present on the surface or near-surface,

such as pipelines, of the public lands. It does not refer to those subterranean activities, such as

underground mining, occurring on the public lands or federal mineral estate. When administered as a 

use restriction, such as no surface use, this phrase prohibits all but specified resource uses and activities 

in a certain area to protect particular sensitive resource values and property. This designation typically 

applies to small acreage sensitive resource sites, such as plant community study exclosure, or 

administrative sites, such as government ware-yard, where only authorized agency personnel are 

admitted.

Sustained yield. The achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular 

periodic output of the various renewable resources of the public lands consistent with multiple uses.

Temporary/temporary use. A relative term that must be considered in the context of the resource 

values affected and the nature of the resource uses/activities taking place. Generally, a temporary activity 

is considered to be one that is not fixed in place and is of short duration.

Terrestrial. Living or growing in or on the land.
5. Glossary

5-18 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Threatened species. Any species that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Under the Endangered Species Act, threatened is the 

lesser protected of the two categories, threatened and endangered. It is determined by the USFWS as 

directed by the Endangered Species Act (16 USC, Sections 1531-1544).

Timber. Standing trees, downed trees, or logs that are capable of being measured in board feet.

Timing limitation (TL). The TL stipulation, a moderate constraint, is applicable to fluid mineral 

leasing, all activities associated with fluid mineral leasing, such as truck-mounted drilling and geophysical 

exploration equipment off designated routes, construction of wells or pads, and other surface-disturbing 

activities (i.e., those not related to fluid mineral leasing). Areas identified for TL are closed to fluid 

mineral exploration and development, surface-disturbing activities, and intensive human activity during 

identified time frames. This stipulation does not apply to operation and basic maintenance activities, 

including associated vehicle travel, unless otherwise specified. Construction, drilling, completions, and 

other operations considered to be intensive are not allowed. Intensive maintenance, such as work overs 

on wells, is not permitted. TLs can overlap spatially with NSO and CSU, as well as with areas that have no 

other restrictions.

Trail. A linear route managed for human power, such as hiking or bicycling, stock (such as equestrian), 

or off-highway vehicle forms of transportation or for historical or heritage values. Trails are not 

generally managed for use by four-wheel drive or high-clearance vehicles.

Transfer of grazing preference. The BLM’s approval of an application to transfer grazing preference 

from one party to another or from one base property to another, or both. Grazing preference means a 

superior or priority position against others for the purposes of receiving a grazing permit or lease. This 

priority is attached to base property owned or controlled by the permittee or lessee.

Transition. A shift between two states. Transitions are not reversible by simply altering the intensity 

or direction of factors that produced the change. Instead, they require new inputs, such as revegetation 

or shrub removal. Practices such as these that accelerate succession are often expensive to apply.

Transmission. The movement or transfer of electric energy over an interconnected group of lines and 

associated equipment between points of supply and points at which it is transformed for delivery to 

consumers or is delivered to other electric systems. Transmission is considered to end when the energy 

is transformed for distribution to the consumer.

Transportation system. The sum of the BLM’s recognized inventory of linear features (roads, 

primitive roads, and trails) formally recognized, designated, and approved as part of the BLM’s 

transportation system.

Travel management areas. Polygons or delineated areas where a rational approach has been taken 

to classify areas as open, closed, or limited. These areas have been identified or designated as having a 

network of roads, trails, ways, landing strips, and other routes that provide for public access and travel 

across the planning area. All designated travel routes within travel management areas should have a 

clearly identified need and purpose as well as clearly defined activity types, modes of travel, and seasons 

or time frames for allowable access or other limitations (BLM Handbook H-1601-1 Land Use Planning 

Handbook). 
5. Glossary

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 5-19

Understory. That portion of a plant community growing underneath the taller plants on the site.

Unnecessary or undue degradation. Conditions, activities, or practices that can be characterized by 

one of the following (43 CFR, Part 3809.5):

 Fail to comply with the performance standards in 43 CFR, Part 3809.5, the terms and 

conditions of an approved plan of operations, operations described in a complete notice, 

and other federal and state laws related to environmental protection and protection of 

cultural resources

 Are not “reasonably incident” to prospecting, mining, or processing operations as defined in 

43 CFR, Part 3715. 0-5

 Fail to attain a stated level of protection or reclamation required by specific laws in areas 

such as the California Desert Conservation Area, Wild and Scenic Rivers, BLM-administered 

portions of the National Wilderness System, and BLM-administered National Monuments 

and National Conservation Areas

Utility corridor. A designated parcel of land that is either linear or areal in character. Utility corridors 

are not usually wider than five miles, are limited by technological, environmental, and topographical 

factors, and are set in width as identified by the special use permit or right-of-way issued. Designation 

criteria are set forth in Section 503 of FLPMA for special use permits and rights-of-way and 43 CFR, Part 

2802.11, for rights-of-way. 

Valid existing rights. Documented legal rights or interests in the land that allow a person or entity to 

use said land for a specific purpose and that are still in effect. Such rights include fee title ownership, 

mineral rights, rights-of-way, easements, permits, and licenses. Such rights may have been reserved, 

acquired, leased, granted, permitted, or otherwise authorized over time.

Vegetation treatments. Management practices that change the vegetation structure to a different 

stage of development. Vegetation treatment methods include managed fire, prescribed fire, chemical, 

mechanical, and seeding. 

Vegetation type. A plant community with immediately distinguishable characteristics based on and 

named after the apparent dominant plant species.

WAFWA Management Zone GRSG Conservation Team. WAFWA management zones will be 

used to identify and address cross-state issues, such as regional mitigation and adaptive management 

monitoring response, through WAFWA Management Zone GRSG Conservation Teams (Teams). These 

Teams will convene and respond to issues at the appropriate scale, and will utilize existing coordination 

and management structures to the extent possible.

West Nile virus. A virus that is found in temperate and tropical regions of the world and most 

commonly transmitted by mosquitos. West Nile virus can cause flu-like symptoms in humans and can be 

lethal to birds, including GRSG.

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 
5. Glossary

5-20 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

managed to preserve its natural conditions and that (1) generally appears to have been affected mainly 

by the forces of nature, with human imprints substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least 5,000 acres 

or is large enough to make practical its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may 

also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historic value. 

The definition is contained in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 891).

Wilderness characteristics. Wilderness characteristics include the area’s size, its apparent 

naturalness, and outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. 

They may also include supplemental values. Lands with wilderness characteristics are those that the BLM 

has inventoried and determined to contain wilderness characteristics, as defined in Section 2(c) of the 

Wilderness Act.

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. Unplanned ignitions or prescribed fires that are declared wildfires. Wildfires may be managed 

to meet one or more objectives as specified in the resource management plan, and these objectives can 

change as the fire spreads across the landscape (NWCG #024-2010 Memorandum, April 30, 2010).

Wildland fire. Wildland fire is a general term describing any non-structure fire that occurs in the 

wildland. Wildland fires are categorized into two distinct types, as follows: 

 Wildfires—Unplanned ignitions or prescribed fires that are declared wildfires

 Prescribed fires—Planned ignitions

Wildland fire use. This is a term that is no longer used; these fires are now included in the definition

of wildfire.

Withdrawal. An action that restricts the use of public land and segregates the land from the operation 

of some or all of the public land and mineral laws. Withdrawals are also used to transfer jurisdiction of 

management of public lands to other federal agencies.

Winter concentration areas. GRSG winter habitats which are occupied annually and provide 

sufficient sagebrush cover and food to support birds throughout the entire winter (especially periods 

with above average snow cover). Many of these areas support several different breeding populations of 

sage‐grouse. Sage‐grouse typically show high fidelity for these areas, and loss or fragmentation can result 

in significant population impacts.
September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 6-1

CHAPTER 6

REFERENCES

BLM (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 1984. Headwaters Resource 

Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision. Butte and Lewistown 

Districts. July 1984.

_____. 1994. Approved Judith Resource Area Resource Management Plan. Lewistown District. 

September 1994.

_____. 2003. Off-Highway Vehicle Record of Decision and Proposed Plan Amendment for Montana, 

North Dakota, and Portions of South Dakota. Billings, Montana. June 2003.

_____. 2005. Handbook H-1601-1—Land Use Planning Handbook. Washington, DC. March 11, 2005.

_____. 2008. Handbook H-1790-1—National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, DC. January 2008.

_____. 2012. BLM GIS data.

Chambers, Jeanne C., David A. Pyke, Jeremy D. Maestas, Mike Pellant, Chad S. Boyd, Steven B. 

Campbell, Shawn Espinosa, et al. 2014. Using Resistance and Resilience Concepts to Reduce 

Impacts of Invasive Annual Grasses and Altered Fire Regimes on the Sagebrush Ecosystem and 

Greater Sage-Grouse: A Strategic Multi-Scale Approach. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. Fort 

Collins, Colorado: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station.

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.

Manier, D. J., D. J. A. Wood, Z. H. Bowen, R. M. Donovan, M. J. Holloran, L. M. Juliusson, K. S. Mayne, et 

al. 2013. Summary of Science, Activities, Programs and Policies that Influence the Rangewide 

Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). US Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2013-1098, Fort Collins, Colorado.
6. References

6-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

MFWP (Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks). 2005. Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Sage 

Grouse in Montana–Final. Prepared by Montana Sage Grouse Work Group. February 1, 2005.

NTT (National Technical Team). 2011. National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures/Planning 

Strategy. December 21, 2011.

Stevens, B. S. 2011. “Impacts of fences on greater sage‐grouse in Idaho: Collision, mitigation, and spatial 

ecology.” Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow.

Stevens, B. S., D. Naugle, B. Dennis, J. W. Connelly, T. Griffiths, and K. P. Reese. 2013. “Mapping sagegrouse fence collision risk: Spatially explicit models to target conservation implementation.”

Wildlife Society Bulletin 37:409-415.

USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater SageGrouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered: Notice of 12-Month Petition 

Findings. 75 Federal Register 13910. March 23, 2010.

_____. 2013. Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report. 

US Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. February 2013.
Appendices

Appendix A 

Approved RMP Amendment Maps

Approved RMP Amendment Maps 

Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment
Approved RMP Amendment Maps 

Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment
Approved RMP Amendment Maps 

Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment
Approved RMP Amendment Maps 

Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment
Approved RMP Amendment Maps 

Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment
Approved RMP Amendment Maps 

Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment
Approved RMP Amendment Maps 

Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment
Approved RMP Amendment Maps 

Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment
Approved RMP Amendment Maps 

Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment
Approved RMP Amendment Maps 

Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment
Approved RMP Amendment Maps 

Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment
Approved RMP Amendment Maps 

Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment
Appendix B

Applying Lek Buffer-Distances When 

Approving Actions

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment B-1

APPENDIX B

APPLYING LEK BUFFER DISTANCES WHEN 

APPROVING ACTIONS

BUFFER DISTANCES AND EVALUATION OF IMPACTS TO LEKS

Evaluate impacts to leks from actions requiring National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis. In 

addition to any other relevant information determined to be appropriate (e.g. State wildlife agency 

plans), the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) would assess and address 

impacts from the following activities using the lek buffer-distances as identified in the US Geological 

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

File Report 2014-1239). The BLM would apply the lek buffer-distances specified as the lower end of the 

interpreted range in the report unless justifiable departures are determined to be appropriate (see 

below). The lower end of the interpreted range of the lek buffer-distances is as follows:

 linear features (roads) within 3.1 miles of leks

 infrastructure related to energy development within 3.1 miles of leks

 tall structures (e.g., communication or transmission towers, and transmission lines) within 2 

miles of leks

 low structures (e.g., fences and rangeland structures) within 1.2 miles of leks

 surface disturbance (continuing human activities that alter or remove the natural vegetation) 

within 3.1 miles of leks

 noise and related disruptive activities including those that do not result in habitat loss (e.g., 

motorized recreational events) at least 0.25 miles from leks.

Justifiable departures to decrease or increase from these distances, based on local data, best available 

science, landscape features, and other existing protections (e.g., land use allocations, state regulations) 

may be appropriate for determining activity impacts. The USGS report recognized “that because of 

variation in populations, habitats, development patterns, social context, and other factors, for a 

particular disturbance type, there is no single distance that is an appropriate buffer for all populations 

and habitats across the sage-grouse range”. The USGS report also states that “various protection 
B. Applying Lek Buffer-Distances When Approving Actions

B-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

measures have been developed and implemented... [which have] the ability (alone or in concert with 

others) to protect important habitats, sustain populations, and support multiple-use demands for public 

lands”. All variations in lek buffer-distances would require appropriate analysis and disclosure as part of 

activity authorization.

In determining lek locations, the BLM would 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 would 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 bufferdistance(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 and state regulations), the BLM determines that a lek 

buffer-distance other than the applicable distance identified above offers the same or 

a greater level of protection to GRSG and its habitat, including conservation of 

seasonal habitat outside of the analyzed buffer area; or

– The BLM determines that impacts to GRSG and its habitat are minimized such that 

the project would 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 of the Lewistown Field Office

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment).

FOR ACTIONS IN PRIORITY HABITAT MANAGEMENT AREA (PHMA)

The BLM would apply the lek buffer-distances identified above as required conservation measures to 

fully address the impacts to leks as identified in the NEPA analysis. Impacts should be avoided by locating 

the action outside of the applicable lek buffer-distance(s) identified above.

The BLM may approve actions in PHMA that are within the applicable lek buffer distance identified 

above only if:

 The BLM, with input from the state fish and wildlife agency, determines, based on best 

available science, landscape features, and other existing protections, that a buffer distance 

other than the distance identified above offers the same or greater level of protection to 

GRSG and its habitat, including conservation of seasonal habitat outside of the analyzed 

buffer area. 
B. Applying Lek Buffer-Distances When Approving Actions

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment B-3

Range improvements which do not impact GRSG, or, range improvements which provide a conservation 

benefit to GRSG such as fences for protecting important seasonal habitats, meet the lek buffer 

requirement.

The BLM would explain its justification for determining the approved buffer distances meet these 

conditions in its project decision.
B. Applying Lek Buffer-Distances When Approving Actions

B-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix C

Required Design Features

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment C-1

APPENDIX C

REQUIRED DESIGN FEATURES 

INTRODUCTION

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 plan-level protection is 

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

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

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 
C. Required Design Features

C-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

mosquito species like Cx. tarsalis which prefer newly flooded sites with high primary 

productivity (Knight et al. 2003).

3. Maintain the water level below that of rooted vegetation for a muddy shoreline that is 

unfavorable habitat for mosquito larvae. Rooted vegetation includes both aquatic and upland 

vegetative types. Avoid flooding terrestrial vegetation in flat terrain or low lying areas. 

Aquatic habitats with a vegetated inflow and outflow separated by open water produce 5‐10 

fold fewer Culex mosquitoes than completely vegetated wetlands (Walton and Workman 

1998). Wetlands with open water also had significantly fewer stage III and IV instars which 

may be attributed to increased predator abundances in open water habitats (Walton and 

Workman 1998).

4. Construct dams or impoundments that restrict down slope seepage or overflow by digging 

ponds in flat areas rather than damming natural draws for effluent water storage, or lining 

constructed ponds in areas where seepage is anticipated (Knight et al. 2003).

5. Line the channel where discharge water flows into the pond with crushed rock, or use a 

horizontal pipe to discharge inflow directly into existing open water, thus precluding shallow 

surface inflow and accumulation of sediment that promotes aquatic vegetation.

6. Line the overflow spillway with crushed rock, and construct the spillway with steep sides to 

preclude the accumulation of shallow water and vegetation.

7. Fence pond site to restrict access by livestock and other wild ungulates that trample and 

disturb shorelines, enrich sediments with manure and create hoof print pockets of water 

that are attractive to breeding mosquitoes.

Literature Cited

De Szalay, F. A. and V. H. Resh. 2000. “Factors influencing macroinvertebrate colonization of seasonal 

wetlands: responses to emergent plant cover.” Freshwater Biology. 45: 295‐308.

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. Master’s Thesis. Montana 

State University, Bozeman.

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.
C. Required Design Features

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment C-3

REQUIRED DESIGN FEATURES FOR FLUID MINERAL DEVELOPMENT IN PRIORITY HABITAT

MANAGEMENT AREA (PHMA) AND GENERAL HABITAT MANAGEMENT AREA 

(GHMA)

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 rights-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, 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.

 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 PHMA. Have no tanks at well locations within 

PHMA (minimizes perching and nesting opportunities for ravens and raptors and truck 

traffic). Pipelines must be under or immediately adjacent to the road (Bui et al. 2010).

 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.
C. Required Design Features

C-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

 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 GRSG.

 Cover (e.g., fine mesh netting or use other effective techniques) all drilling and production 

pits and tanks regardless of size to reduce GRSG 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.

 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, broodrearing, or wintering 

season.

 Fit transmission towers with anti-perch devices (Lammers and Collopy 2007).

 Require GRSG-safe fences.

 Locate new compressor stations outside PHMA and design them to reduce noise that may 

be directed towards PHMA.

 Clean up refuse.

 Locate man camps outside of PHMA.
C. Required Design Features

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment C-5

 Use remote monitoring techniques for production facilities and develop a plan to reduce the 

frequency of vehicle use.

Reclamation

 Include objectives for ensuring habitat restoration to meet GRSG habitat needs in 

reclamation practices/sites (Pyke 2011). Address post reclamation management in 

reclamation plan such that goals and objectives are to protect and improve GRSG habitat 

needs.

 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.

Literature Cited

Blickley, J. L., D. Blackwood, and G. L. Patricelli. In preparation. Experimental evidence for avoidance of 

chronic anthropogenic noise by greater sage‐grouse. University of California, Davis.

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. Master’s thesis, Montana 

State University, Bozeman.

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, DC.

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.

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.
C. Required Design Features

C-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

REQUIRED DESIGN FEATURES FOR FIRE & FUELS MANAGEMENT IN PHMA

Fuels Management

1. Where applicable, design fuels treatment objectives to protect existing sagebrush 

ecosystems, modify fire behavior, restore native plants, and create landscape patterns which 

most benefit GRSG habitat.

2. Provide training to fuels treatment personnel on GRSG biology, habitat requirements, and 

identification of areas utilized locally.

3. Use burning prescriptions which minimize undesirable effects on vegetation or soils (e.g., 

minimize mortality of desirable perennial plant species and reduce risk of annual grass 

invasion).

4. Ensure proposed sagebrush treatments are planned with full interdisciplinary input pursuant 

to National Environmental Policy Act and coordination with state fish and wildlife agencies, 

and that treatment acreage is conservative in the context of surrounding GRSG seasonal 

habitats and landscape.

5. Where appropriate, ensure that treatments are configured in a manner that promotes use 

by GRSG.

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 treatments in areas of high fire frequency which facilitate firefighter safety, 

reduce the potential acres burned, and reduce the fire risk to GRSG habitat. Additionally, 

develop maps for GRSG habitat which spatially display current fuels treatment opportunities 

for suppression resources.

9. Give priority for implementing specific GRSG habitat restoration projects in annual 

grasslands, first to sites which are adjacent to or surrounded by PHMA or that reestablish 

continuity between PHMA. Annual grasslands are a second priority for restoration when the 

sites are not adjacent to PHMA, but within two miles of PHMA. The third priority for annual 

grassland habitat restoration projects are sites beyond two miles of PHMA. 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 or one of that referenced in land use 

planning documentation.

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 GRSG leks 

and other habitats (e.g., nesting, wintering and brood rearing) to reduce the availability of 

perch sites for avian predators, as resources permit.

13. Protect wildland areas from wildfire originating on private lands, infrastructure corridors, 

and recreational areas.
C. Required Design Features

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment C-7

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, 

etc.) to aid in controlling wildfire, should wildfire occur near PHMA or important 

restoration areas (such as where investments in restoration have already been made).

Fire Operations

1. Compile district-level information into state-wide GRSG tool boxes. Tool boxes will contain 

maps, listing of resource advisors, contact information, local guidance, and other relevant 

information for each district, which will be aggregated into a state-wide document.

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 resource advisor with GRSG expertise, or who has access to GRSG expertise, to 

all extended attack fires in or near GRSG habitat areas. Prior to the fire season, provide 

training to GRSG resource advisors on wildfire suppression organization, objectives, tactics, 

and procedures to develop a cadre of qualified individuals.

4. On critical fire weather days, pre-position additional fire suppression resources to optimize 

a quick and efficient response in GRSG habitat areas.

5. As appropriate, utilize existing fuel breaks, such as roads or discrete changes in fuel type, as 

control lines in order to minimize fire spread.

6. During periods of multiple fires, ensure line officers are involved in setting priorities.

7. To the extent possible, locate wildfire suppression facilities (i.e., base camps, spike camps, 

drop points, staging areas, heli-bases, etc.) in areas where physical disturbance to GRSG 

habitat can be minimized. These include disturbed areas, grasslands, near roads/trails or in 

other areas where there is existing disturbance or minimal sagebrush cover.

8. 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 GRSG habitat areas 

to minimize noxious weed spread.

9. Minimize unnecessary cross-country vehicle travel during fire operations in GRSG habitat.

10. Minimize burnout operations in key GRSG habitat areas by constructing direct fireline 

whenever safe and practical to do so.

11. Utilize retardant, mechanized equipment, and other available resources to minimize burned 

acreage during initial attack.

12. As safety allows, conduct mop-up where the black adjoins unburned islands, dog legs, or 

other habitat features to minimize sagebrush loss.

13. Adequately document fire operation activities in GRSG habitat for potential follow-up 

coordination activities.
C. Required Design Features

C-8 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

SOLID MINERAL DEVELOPMENT – REQUIRED DESIGN FEATURES

Introduction

The following measures outlined would be applied as RDFs for solid minerals. For locatable minerals, the 

RDFs would be applied to the extent consistent with applicable laws.

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).
C. Required Design Features

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment C-9

 Remove or re‐inject produced water to reduce habitat for mosquitoes that vector West 

Nile virus. If surface disposal of produced water continues, use the following steps for 

reservoir design to limit favorable mosquito habitat:

– Overbuild size of ponds for muddy and non‐vegetated shorelines.

– Build steep shorelines to decrease vegetation and increase wave actions.

– Avoid flooding terrestrial vegetation in flat terrain or low lying areas.

– Construct dams or impoundments that restrict down slope seepage or overflow.

– Line the channel where discharge water flows into the pond with crushed rock.

– Construct spillway with steep sides and line it with crushed rock.

– Treat waters with larvicides to reduce mosquito production where water occurs on 

the surface.

 Require sage‐grouse‐safe fences around sumps.

 Clean up refuse (Bui et al. 2010).

 Locate man camps outside of PHMA.

Reclamation

 Include restoration objectives to meet sage‐grouse habitat needs in reclamation 

practices/sites.

 Address post reclamation management in reclamation plan such that goals and objectives 

are to protect and improve sage‐grouse habitat needs.

 Maximize the area of interim reclamation on long‐term access roads and well pads including 

reshaping, topsoiling and revegetating cut and fill slopes.

 Restore disturbed areas at final reclamation to pre‐disturbance landform and desired plant 

community.

 Irrigate interim reclamation as necessary during dry periods.

 Utilize mulching techniques to expedite reclamation.

Literature Cited

Bergquist, E., P. Evangelista, T. J. Stohlgren, and N. Alley. 2007. Invasive species and coal bed methane 

development in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 

128:381‐394.

Bui, T. D., J. M. Marzluff, and B. Bedrosian. 2010. Common raven activity in relation to land use in 

western Wyoming: implications for greater sage‐grouse reproductive success. Condor 112:65‐

78.

Doherty, M. K. 2007. Mosquito populations in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming: a comparison of 

natural, agricultural and effluent coal bed natural gas aquatic habitats. Thesis. Montana State 

University, Bozeman.
C. Required Design Features

C-10 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Gelbard, J. L., and J. Belnap. 2003. Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in a semiarid landscape. 

Conservation Biology 17:420‐432.

ADDITIONAL SOLID MINERAL DEVELOPMENT RDFS TO BE IMPLEMENTED

 Recommend minimization of surface-disturbing or disrupting activities (including operations 

and maintenance) where needed to reduce the impacts of human activities on GRSG 

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 GRSG 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 GRSG 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 GRSG.

 Set up a schedule for reviewing and revising siting and use criteria with industry.

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.
C. Required Design Features

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment C-11

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.

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. Master’s thesis, Montana 

State University, Bozeman.

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, DC.

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.

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.

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.
C. Required Design Features

C-12 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix D

The Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring 

Framework

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment D-1

APPENDIX D

THE GREATER SAGE-GROUSE DRAFT 

MONITORING FRAMEWORK

D.1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Greater Sage-grouse Monitoring Framework 

(hereafter, monitoring framework) is to describe the methods to monitor habitats and evaluate the 

implementation and effectiveness of the BLM planning strategy (BLM IM 2012-044) to conserve the 

species and its habitat. The regulations for the BLM (43 CFR 1610.4-9) require that land use plans 

establish intervals and standards, as appropriate, for monitoring and evaluations, based on the sensitivity 

of the resource to the decisions involved. Therefore, BLM will use the methods described herein to 

collect monitoring data to evaluate implementation and effectiveness of the Greater Sage-grouse 

(hereafter, sage-grouse) planning strategy and the conservation measures contained in land use plans. 

The type of monitoring data to be collected at the land use plan scale will be described in the 

monitoring plan which will be developed after the signing of the ROD. For a summary of the frequency 

of reporting see Attachment A, An Overview of Monitoring Commitments. Adaptive management will 

be informed by data collected at any and all scales.

To ensure the BLM has the ability to make consistent assessments about sage-grouse habitats across the 

range of the species, this framework lays out the methodology for monitoring the implementation and 

evaluating the effectiveness of BLM actions to conserve the species and its habitat through monitoring 

that informs effectiveness at multiple scales. Monitoring efforts will include data for measurable 

quantitative indicators of sagebrush availability, anthropogenic disturbance levels, and sagebrush 

conditions. Implementation monitoring results will provide information to allow the BLM to evaluate the 

extent that decisions from the BLM resource management plans (RMP) to conserve sage-grouse and its 

habitat have been implemented. Population monitoring information will be collected by state fish and 

wildlife agencies and will be incorporated into effectiveness monitoring as it is made available.

This multi-scale monitoring approach is necessary as sage-grouse are a landscape species and 

conservation is scale-dependent whereby conservation actions are implemented within seasonal habitats 

to benefit populations. The four orders of habitat selection (Johnson 1980) used in this monitoring 

framework are described by Connelly et al. (2003) and Stiver et al. (2014) as first order (broad scale), 

second order (mid-scale), third order (fine scale), and fourth order (site scale) to apply them to sage-
D. The Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

D-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

grouse habitat selection. Habitat selection and habitat use by sage-grouse occurs at multiple scales and is 

driven by multiple environmental and behavioral factors. Managing and monitoring sage-grouse habitats 

are complicated by the differences in habitat selection across the range and habitat utilization by 

individual birds within a given season. Therefore, the tendency to look at a single indicator of habitat 

suitability or only one scale limits the ability for managers to identify the threats to sage-grouse and to 

respond at the appropriate scale. For descriptions of these habitat suitability indicators for each scale, 

see the Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment Framework (HAF; Stiver et al. in press).

Monitoring methods and indicators in this monitoring framework are derived from the current peerreviewed science. Range wide best-available datasets for broad and mid-scale monitoring will be 

acquired. If these exiting datasets are not readily available or are inadequate, but are necessary to 

effectively inform the three measurable quantitative indicators (sagebrush availability, anthropogenic 

disturbance levels, and sagebrush conditions), the BLM will strive to develop datasets or obtain 

information to fill these data gaps. Datasets that are not readily available to inform the fine and site scale 

indicators will be developed. These data will be used to generate monitoring reports at the appropriate 

and applicable geographic scales, boundaries and analysis units: across the range of sage-grouse as 

defined by Schroeder et al. (2004), and clipped by Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

(WAFWA) Management Zone (MZ) (Stiver et al. 2006) boundaries and other areas as appropriate for 

size (e.g., populations based on Connelly et al. 2004; Figure D-1, Map of greater sage-grouse range, 

populations, subpopulations and Priority Areas for Conservation (PACs) as of 2013). This broad and 

mid-scale monitoring data and analysis will provide context for RMP areas; states; priority habitat 

management areas (PHMA), general habitat management areas (GHMA); and Priority Areas for 

Conservation (PACs) as defined in the Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Objectives: Final Report 

(COT, US Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). Throughout the remainder of the document, all of these 

areas will be referred to as “sage-grouse areas”.

This monitoring framework is divided into two sections. The broad and mid-scale methods, described in 

Section D.2, provide a consistent approach across the range of the species to monitor implementation 

decisions and actions, mid-scale habitat attributes (e.g., sagebrush availability and habitat degradation), 

and population changes to determine the effectiveness of BLM planning strategy and management 

decisions (see Table D-1, Indicators for monitoring implementation of the strategy, decisions, sagegrouse habitat, and sage-grouse populations at the broad and mid-scales). For the sage-grouse habitat 

fine and site scales (Section D.3), this framework describes a consistent approach (e.g., indicators and 

methods) for monitoring sage-grouse seasonal habitats. Funding, support, and dedicated personnel for 

broad and mid-scale monitoring will be renewed annually through the normal budget process. For an 

overview of the BLM multi-scale monitoring commitments see Attachment A.

D.2 BROAD AND MID-SCALES

First order habitat selection at the broad scale describes the physical or geographical range of a species. 

The first order habitat, the range of the species, is defined by populations of sage-grouse associated with 

sagebrush landscapes based on Schroeder et al. 2004, Connelly et al. 2004 and population surveys and 

local adjustments based on population or habitat surveys since 2004. There is an intermediate scale 

between the broad and mid-scales that was delineated by WAFWA from floristic provinces within which 

similar environmental factors influence vegetation communities. This scale is referred to as the WAFWA 

Sage-grouse MZs. Although no indicators are specific to this scale, these MZs are biologically meaningful 

as reporting units. 
D. The Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment D-3

Figure D-1

Map of greater sage-grouse range, populations, subpopulations and Priority Areas for 

Conservation (PACs) as of 2013.
D. The Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

D-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Table D-1

Indicators for monitoring implementation of the strategy, decisions, sage-grouse habitat, 

and sage-grouse populations at the broad and mid-scales.

Geographic 

Scales Implementation Habitat

Population 

(State Wildlife 

Agencies)

Availability Degradation Demographics

Broad Scale: 

From the range 

of sage-grouse 

to WAFWA 

Management 

Zones

BLM Planning 

Strategy goal and 

objectives 

Distribution and 

amount of 

sagebrush within 

the range

Distribution and 

amount of energy, 

mining and 

infrastructure 

facilities

WAFWA 

Management 

Zone population 

trend

Mid-scale: From 

WAFWA 

Management 

Zone to 

populations. 

PACs

RMP decisions Mid-scale habitat 

indicators (HAF 

2014; Table D.2 

e.g., percent of 

sagebrush per unit 

area) 

Distribution and 

amount of energy, 

mining and 

infrastructure 

facilities (Table 

D.2)

Individual 

population trend

Second order habitat selection, the mid-scale, includes sage-grouse populations and PACs. The second 

order includes at least 40 discrete populations and subpopulations (Connelly et al. 2004). Populations 

range in area from 150 to 60,000 mi2. PACs range from 20 to 20,400 mi2 and are nested within 

population areas, and populations are nested within Management Zones.

Other mid-scale landscape indicators such as patch size and number, patch connectivity, linkage areas, 

and landscape matrix and edge effects (Stiver et al. in press) will also be assessed. The methods used to

calculate these metrics will be derived from existing literature (Knick et al. 2011, Leu and Hanser 2011, 

Knick and Hanser 2011).

D.2.1 Implementation (Decision) Monitoring

Implementation monitoring is the process of tracking and documenting the implementation (or the 

progress toward implementation) of land use plan decisions. The BLM 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 PHMA, GHMA, at a minimum, for 

the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS. These actions and authorizations as well as 

progress toward completing and implementing activity-level plans will be monitored consistently across 

all planning units and reported to BLM headquarters annually, with a summary report every five years, 

for this Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS. A national-level Land Use Plan 

Implementation Monitoring and Reporting Structure (IMARS) that describes how the BLM will 

consistently and systematically monitor and report implementation level activity plans and 

implementation actions for all plans within the range of sage-grouse will be developed by the 

Implementation Monitoring Team and will be included in the Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved Plan. 

A centralized tracking tool (IMARS) for collection, roll-up and reporting of tabular and spatially explicit 

data will be utilized. BLM will provide data that can be integrated with other conservation efforts 

conducted by state and federal partners.
D. The Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment D-5

D.2.2 Habitat Monitoring

In the USFWS’s 2010 listing decision for the 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 BLM will therefore monitor the relative extent of these threats that remove sagebrush (see 

Table D-2, Relationship between the 18 threats and the three habitat disturbance measures for 

monitoring. Data availability may preclude specific analysis of individual layers), both spatially and 

temporally, on all lands within an analysis area, and to report on amount, pattern and condition at the 

appropriate and applicable geographic scales and boundaries. These 18 threats have been aggregated 

into three broad and mid-scale measures to account for whether the threat predominantly removes 

sagebrush or degrades habitat. The three measures are:

 Measure 1: Sagebrush Availability (percent of sagebrush per unit area)

 Measure 2: Habitat Degradation (percent of human activity per unit area) 

 Measure 3: Density of Energy and Mining (facilities and locations per unit area)

Table D-2

Relationship between the 18 threats and the three habitat disturbance measures for 

monitoring. Data availability may preclude specific analysis of individual layers. See the 

detailed methodology for more information.

USFWS Listing Decision Threat Sagebrush 

Availability

Habitat 

Degradation

Density of 

Energy and 

Mining

Agriculture X

Urbanization X

Wildfire X

Conifer encroachment X

Treatments X

Invasive Species X

Energy (oil and gas wells and development 

facilities) X X

Energy (coal mines) X X

Energy (wind towers) X X

Energy (solar fields) X X

Energy (geothermal) X X

Mining (active locatable, leasable, and salable 

developments) X X

Infrastructure (roads) X

Infrastructure (railroads) X

Infrastructure (power lines) X

Infrastructure (communication towers) X

Infrastructure (other vertical structures) X

Other developed rights of ways X

These three habitat disturbance measures will evaluate disturbance on all lands regardless of land 

ownership. The direct area of influence will be assessed with the goal to account for actual removal of 

sagebrush upon which sage-grouse depend (Connelly et al. 2000) and for habitat degradation as a 
D. The Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

D-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

surrogate for human activity. Measure 1 examines where disturbances have removed plant communities 

that support sagebrush (or have broadly removed sagebrush from the landscape), and therefore 

monitors the change in sagebrush availability, or specifically where and how much of the sagebrush 

community is available within the range of sage-grouse. The sagebrush community is defined as the 

ecological systems that have the capability to support sagebrush vegetation and seasonal sage-grouse 

habitats within the range of sage-grouse (see Section D.2.2.1 below). Measures 2 and 3 (see Section 

D.2.2.2 below) focus on where habitat degradation is occurring using the footprint/area of direct 

disturbance and the number of facilities at the mid-scale to identify the relative amount of degradation 

per geographic unit of interest and in areas that have the capability to support sagebrush and seasonal 

sage-grouse use. Measure 2 is not only a quantification of footprint/area of direct disturbance but also a 

surrogate for those threats most likely to have ongoing activity. In addition, energy development and 

mining activities are typically the most intensive activities in sagebrush habitat. Therefore, measure 3, the 

density of active energy development, production, and mining sites will be monitored to help identify 

areas of particular concern for factors such as noise, dust, traffic, etc., that degrade sage-grouse habitat.

The methods to monitor disturbance found herein differ slightly from methods used in the Sage-Grouse 

Baseline Environmental Report (BER; Manier et al. 2013) that provided a baseline of datasets of 

disturbance across jurisdictions. One difference is that, for some threats, the data in the BER were for 

federal lands only. In addition, threats were assessed individually in that report, using different 

assumptions from those in this monitoring framework about how to quantify the location and magnitude 

of threats. The methodology herein builds on the BER methodology and identifies datasets and 

procedures to utilize the best available data across the range of the sage-grouse and to formulate a 

consistent approach to quantify impact of the threats through time. This methodology also describes an 

approach to combine the threats and calculate the three measures.

D.2.2.1 Sagebrush Availability (Measure 1)

Sage-grouse populations have been found to be more resilient where a percentage of the landscape is 

maintained in sagebrush (Knick and Connelly 2011), which will be determined by sagebrush availability. 

This measure has been divided into two sub-measures to describe sagebrush availability on the 

landscape: 

 Measure 1a) the current amount of sagebrush on the landscape of interest and 

 Measure 1b) the amount of sagebrush on the landscape of interest compared to the amount 

of sagebrush the landscape of interest could ecologically support. 

Measure 1a (the current amount of sagebrush on the landscape) will be calculated using this formula: 

[the existing updated sagebrush layer] divided by [the geographic unit of interest]. The appropriate 

geographic units of interest for sagebrush availability include the species’ range, WAFWA Management 

Zones, populations, and PACs. In some cases these sage-grouse areas will need to be aggregated to 

provide an estimate of sagebrush availability with an acceptable level of accuracy.

Measure 1b (the amount of sagebrush for context within the area of interest) will be calculated using 

this formula: [the existing updated sagebrush layer (EVT)] divided by [pre Euro-American geographic 

extent of lands that could have supported sagebrush (BpS)]. This will provide information during 

evaluations of monitoring data to set the context for a given geographic unit of interest. That 

information could also be used for management options for restoration or mitigation.
D. The Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment D-7

The sagebrush base layer for the sagebrush availability measure will be based on geospatial vegetation 

data adjusted for the threats listed in Table D-2. The following sub-sections of this monitoring 

framework describe the methodology to determine both the current availability of sagebrush on the 

landscape and the context of the amount of sagebrush on the landscape at the broad and mid-scales.

Establishing the Sagebrush Base Layer

The current geographic extent of sagebrush vegetation within the range wide distribution of sage-grouse 

populations will be ascertained using the most recent version of the Existing Vegetation Type (EVT) 

layer in LANDFIRE (2010). 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 range wide 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 to support sagebrush vegetation 

pre Euro-American settlement [LANDFIRE Biophysical Setting (BpS)]. This fifth reason provides a 

reference point for understanding how much sagebrush currently remains in a defined geographic area 

compared with how much sagebrush existed historically (Measure 1b). Therefore, BLM have determined 

that LANDFIRE provides the best available data at broad and mid-scales to serve as a sagebrush base 

layer for monitoring changes in the geographic extent of sagebrush. Along with aggregating the 

sagebrush types into the sagebrush base layer, BLM will aggregate the accuracy assessment reports from 

LANDFIRE to document the cumulative accuracy for the sagebrush base layer. For the long-term, BLM 

through its Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) program and specifically the BLM’S Landscape 

Monitoring Framework (Taylor et al., in press) will provide field data to the LANDFIRE program to 

support continuous quality improvements in their products specifically for rangeland systems to improve 

the LANDFIRE EVT layer.

Within the BLM, field office-wide existing vegetation classification mapping and inventories are available 

that provide a much finer level of data than provided through LANDFIRE. Where available, these finer 

scale products are useful for additional and complimentary mid-scale indicators and local scale analyses 

(see Section D.3, Fine and Site Scale). The fact that these products are not available everywhere limits 

their utility for monitoring at the broad and mid-scale where consistency of data products is necessary 

across broader geographies.

The sagebrush layer based on LANDFIRE EVT will allow for the mid-scale estimation of existing percent 

sagebrush across a variety of reporting units. This sagebrush base layer will be adjusted by changes in 

land cover and successful restoration for future calculations of sagebrush availability (Measures 1a and 

1b).

This layer will be used to determine the trend in other landscape indicators, e.g. 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 bi-annually, will be included in the sagebrush base 

layer. The landscape metrics will be recalculated to examine changes in pattern and abundance of 
D. The Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

D-8 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

sagebrush at the various geographic boundaries. This information will be included in effectiveness 

monitoring (see Section D.2.4).

Data Sources to Establish and Monitor Sagebrush Availability

In much the same manner as how the LANDFIRE data was selected as the data source, described above, 

the criteria for selecting the datasets (Table D-3, Datasets for Establishing and Monitoring Changes in 

Sagebrush Availability) for establishing and monitoring the change in sagebrush availability, Measure 1, 

were threefold:

 Nationally consistent dataset available across the range

 Known level of confidence or accuracy in the dataset

 Dataset is continually maintained with a known update interval

Table D-3

Datasets for Establishing and Monitoring Changes in Sagebrush Availability

Dataset Source Update 

Interval

Most Recent 

Version Year Use

BioPhysical Setting 

(BpS) v1.1

LANDFIRE Static 2008 Denominator for 

Sagebrush Availability 

(Section D.2.2.1)

Existing Vegetation 

Type (EVT) v1.2

LANDFIRE Static 2010 Numerator for 

Sagebrush Availability 

Cropland Data Layer 

(CDL)

National 

Agricultural 

Statistics Service 

(NASS)

Annual 2012 Agricultural Updates; 

removes existing 

sagebrush from 

numerator of 

sagebrush availability

National Land Cover 

Dataset (NLCD) 

Percent 

Imperviousness

Multi-Resolution 

Land 

Characteristics

Consortium 

(MRLC)

5 Year 2011 available in 

March 2014

Urban Area Updates; 

removes existing 

sagebrush from 

numerator of 

sagebrush availability

Fire Perimeters GeoMac Annual 2013 < 1,000 acres Fire 

updates; removes 

existing sagebrush 

from numerator of 

sagebrush availability 

Burn Severity Monitoring Trends 

in Burn Severity 

(MTBS)

Annual 2012 available in 

April 2014

> 1,000 acres Fire 

Updates; removes 

existing sagebrush 

from numerator of 

sagebrush availability 

except for unburned 

sagebrush islands
D. The Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment D-9

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 up to 2008 and version 1.2 

reflects changes on the landscape up to 2010. Version 1.2 will be used as the starting point to develop 

the sagebrush base layer.

Ecological systems from the LANDFIRE EVT to be used in the sagebrush base layer were determined by 

sage-grouse subject matter experts through the identification of the ecological systems that have the 

capability of supporting sagebrush vegetation and could provide suitable seasonal habitat for the sagegrouse (Table D-4, Ecological Systems in BpS and EVT Capable of Supporting Sagebrush Vegetation and 

Could Provide Suitable Seasonal Habitat for Greater Sage-grouse). Two additional vegetation types that 

are not ecological systems were added to the EVT and are Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana Shrubland 

Alliance and Quercus gambelii Shrubland Alliance. These alliances have species composition directly 

related to the Rocky Mountain Lower Montane - Foothill Shrubland ecological system and the Rocky 

Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane Shrubland ecological system, both of which are ecological 

systems in LANDFIRE BpS. In LANDFIRE EVT however, in some map zones, the Rocky Mountain Lower 

Montane - Foothill Shrubland ecological system and the Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane 

Shrubland ecological system were named Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana Shrubland Alliance and 

Quercus gambelii Shrubland Alliance respectively.

Table D-4

Ecological Systems in BpS and EVT Capable of Supporting Sagebrush Vegetation and 

Could Provide Suitable Seasonal Habitat for Greater Sage-grouse.

Ecological System Sagebrush Vegetation that the Ecological System has 

the Capability to Produce

Colorado Plateau Mixed Low Sagebrush 

Shrubland

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longiloba

Artemisia bigelovii

Artemisia nova

Artemisia frigida

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Columbia Plateau Scabland Shrubland Artemisia rigida

Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longicaulis

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longiloba

Artemisia nova

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata

Artemisia tridentata ssp. xericensis

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Artemisia spinescens

Wyoming Basins Dwarf Sagebrush Shrubland and 

Steppe

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longiloba

Artemisia nova

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Artemisia tripartita ssp. rupicola

Columbia Plateau Low Sagebrush Steppe Artemisia arbuscula

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longiloba

Artemisia nova
D. The Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

D-10 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Table D-4

Ecological Systems in BpS and EVT Capable of Supporting Sagebrush Vegetation and 

Could Provide Suitable Seasonal Habitat for Greater Sage-grouse.

Ecological System Sagebrush Vegetation that the Ecological System has 

the Capability to Produce

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe Artemisia cana ssp. cana

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata

Artemisia tridentata ssp. xericensis

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Artemisia tripartita ssp. tripartita

Artemisia frigida

Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Artemisia nova

Artemisia arbuscula

Artemisia tridentata ssp. spiciformis

Northwestern Great Plains Mixed grass Prairie Artemisia cana ssp. cana

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Artemisia frigida

Northwestern Great Plains Shrubland Artemisia cana ssp. cana

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Western Great Plains Sand Prairie Artemisia cana ssp. cana

Western Great Plains Floodplain Systems Artemisia cana ssp. cana

Columbia Plateau Steppe and Grassland Artemisia spp.

Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub-Steppe Artemisia tridentata

Artemisia bigelovii

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill 

Shrubland

Artemisia nova

Artemisia tridentata

Artemisia frigida

Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane 

Shrubland

Artemisia tridentata

Inter-Mountain Basins Curl-Leaf Mountain 

Mahogany Woodland and Shrubland

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Artemisia arbuscula

Artemisia tridentata

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Shrubland Alliance (EVT only)

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Quercus gambelii Shrubland Alliance (EVT only) Artemisia tridentata

Accuracy and Appropriate Use of LANDFIRE Datasets

Because of concerns over the thematic accuracy of individual classes mapped by LANDFIRE, all 

ecological systems listed in Table D-4 will be merged into one value that represents the sagebrush base 

layer. By aggregating all ecological systems, the combined accuracy of the sagebrush base layer (EVT) is 

much greater than if all categories were treated separately.

LANDFIRE performed the original accuracy assessment of their EVT product on a map zone basis. 

There are 20 LANDFIRE map zones that cover the historic range of sage-grouse as defined by 

Schroeder (2004). Attachment C, User and Producer Accuracies for Aggregated Ecological Systems 

within LANDFIRE Map Zones, lists the user and producer accuracies for the aggregated ecological 

systems that make up the sagebrush base layer and also defines user and producer accuracies. The 
D. The Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment D-11

aggregated sagebrush base layer for monitoring had producer accuracies ranging from 56.7% to 100% 

and user accuracies ranging from 57.1% to 85.7%.

LANDFIRE EVT data are not designed to be used at a local level. In reporting the percent sagebrush statistic 

for the various reporting units (Measure 1a), the uncertainty of the percent sagebrush will increase as 

the size of the reporting unit gets smaller. LANDFIRE data should never be used at the pixel level (30m2

resolution of raster data) for any reporting. The smallest geographic extent use of the data for this 

purpose is at the PAC level and for the smallest PACs the initial percent sagebrush estimate will have 

greater uncertainties compared with the much larger PACs.

Agricultural Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer

The dataset for the geographic extent of agricultural lands will come from the National Agricultural 

Statistics Service (NASS) Cropland Data Layer (CDL) 

(http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/Cropland/Release/index.htm). CDL data are generated on an annual 

basis with “estimated producer accuracies for large row crops from the mid 80 to mid-90 percent” 

depending on the State (http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/Cropland/sarsfaqs2.htm#Section3_18.0). 

Readers are referred to the NASS metadata website for specific information on accuracy 

(http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/Cropland/metadata/meta.htm). CDL provided the only dataset that 

matches the three criteria (nationally consistent, known level of accuracy, and periodically updated) for

use in this monitoring framework and represents the best available agricultural lands mapping product.

The CDL data contain both agricultural classes as well as non-agricultural classes. For this effort, as was 

also done in the Baseline Environmental Report (Manier et al. 2013), non-agricultural classes were 

removed from the original dataset. The excluded classes are:

Barren (65 & 131), Deciduous Forest (141), Developed/High Intensity (124), Developed/Low 

Intensity (122), Developed/Med Intensity (123), Developed/Open Space (121), Evergreen Forest 

(142), Grassland Herbaceous (171), Herbaceous Wetlands (195), Mixed Forest (143), Open 

Water (83 & 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 is that once an area is classified 

as agriculture in any year of the CDL, those pixels will remain out of the sagebrush base layer even if a 

new version of CDL classifies that pixel as one of the non-ag classes listed above. The assumption is that 

even though individual pixels may get classified as a non-agricultural class in any given year the pixel has 

not necessarily been restored to a natural sagebrush community that would be included in Table D-4. 

It is further assumed that once an area has moved into agricultural use, it is unlikely that it would be 

restored to sagebrush, however, should that occur, the method and criteria for adding pixels back into 

the sagebrush base layer would follow those found in the Restoration Updates section of this 

framework. 

Urban Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer

The National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) Percent Imperviousness was selected as the best available 

dataset to be used for urban updates. These data are generated on a five-year cycle and specifically 

designed to support monitoring efforts. Other datasets were evaluated and lacked the spatial specificity 

that was captured in the NLCD product. Any new impervious pixel will be removed from the sagebrush 

base layer during the update process. Although the impervious surface layer includes a number of 
D. The Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

D-12 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

impervious pixels outside of urban areas, there are two reasons why this is acceptable for this process. 

First, an evaluation of national urban area datasets did not reveal a layer that could be confidently used 

in conjunction with the NLCD product to screen impervious pixels outside of urban zones because 

unincorporated urban areas were not being included thus leaving large chunks of urban pixels 

unaccounted for in this rule set. Secondly, experimentation with setting a threshold on the percent 

imperviousness layer that would isolate rural features proved to be unsuccessful. No combination of 

values could be identified that would result in the consistent ability to limit impervious pixels outside 

urban areas. Therefore, to ensure consistency in the monitoring estimates, it was determined to include 

all impervious pixels.

Fire Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer

Two datasets were selected for performing fire updates: GeoMac fire perimeters and Monitoring Trends 

in Burn Severity (MTBS). An existing data standard in the BLM requires all fires with sizes greater than 

10 acres to be reported to GeoMac, therefore there will be many small fires less than 10 acres in size 

that will not be accounted for in the fire updates. In the update process using fire perimeters from 

GeoMac, all sagebrush pixels falling within the perimeter of fires less than 1,000 acres in size will be used 

to update the sagebrush layer.

MTBS was selected for use as a means to account for unburned sagebrush islands during the update 

process of the sagebrush base layer. The MTBS program (http://www.mtbs.gov) is an on-going multi-year 

project to consistently map fire severity and fire perimeters across the US. For lands in the western US, 

MTBS only maps burn severity for fires greater than 1,000 acres in size. One of the burn severity classes 

within MTBS is an unburned to low severity class. This burn severity class will be used to represent 

unburned islands of sagebrush within the fire perimeter that will be retained in the sagebrush base layer. 

Areas within the other severity classes within the fire perimeter will be removed from the base 

sagebrush layer during the update process. However, not all wildfires have the same impact on the 

recovery of sagebrush habitat depending largely on soil moisture and temperature regimes. For example, 

cooler, moister sagebrush habitat has a higher potential for recovery or, if needed restoration, than the 

warmer, dryer sagebrush habitat. These areas will likely be detected as sagebrush in future updates to 

LANDFIRE.

Conifer Encroachment adjustment for the Sagebrush Base Layer

Conifer encroachment into sagebrush vegetation reduces the spatial extent of greater sage-grouse 

habitat (Davies et al. 2011, Baruch-Mordo et al. 2013). Conifer species that show propensity for 

encroaching into sagebrush vegetation which results in sage-grouse habitat loss include various juniper 

species 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 Douglasfir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) (Gruell et al. 1986, Grove et al. 2005, Davies et al. 2011).

A rule set for conifer encroachment was developed to be used for determination of the existing 

sagebrush base layer. To capture the geographic extent of sagebrush that is likely to experience conifer 

encroachment, ecological systems within LANDFIRE EVT version 1.2 (NatureServe 2011) were 

identified if they have the capability of supporting the conifer species (listed above) and have the 
D. The Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment D-13

capability of supporting sagebrush vegetation. Those ecological systems (Table D-5, Ecological Systems 

with Conifers Most Likely to Encroach into Sagebrush Vegetation) were deemed to be the plant 

communities with conifers most likely to encroach into sagebrush vegetation. Sagebrush vegetation was 

defined as including sagebrush species (Attachment B, List of All Sagebrush Species and Subspecies 

Included in the Selection Criteria for Building the EVT and BpS Layers) that provide habitat for the 

greater sage-grouse and are included in the Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework. An adjacency 

analysis was conducted to identify all sagebrush pixels that were directly adjacent to these conifer 

ecological systems and these immediately adjacent sagebrush pixels were removed from the sagebrush 

base layer. 

Table D-5

Ecological Systems with Conifers Most Likely to Encroach into Sagebrush Vegetation

EVT Ecological Systems Coniferous Species and Sagebrush Vegetation that 

the Ecological System has the Capability to Produce

Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Pinus edulis

Juniperus osteosperma

Artemisia tridentata

Artemisia arbuscula

Artemisia nova

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Artemisia bigelovii

Artemisia pygmaea

Columbia Plateau Western Juniper Woodland and 

Savanna

Juniperus occidentalis

Pinus ponderosa

Artemisia tridentata

Artemisia arbuscula

Artemisia rigida

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

East Cascades Oak-Ponderosa Pine Forest and 

Woodland

Pinus ponderosa

Pseudotsuga menziesii

Artemisia tridentata

Artemisia nova

Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Pinus monophylla

Juniperus osteosperma

Artemisia arbuscula

Artemisia nova

Artemisia tridentata

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Northern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine 

Woodland and Savanna

Pinus ponderosa

Artemisia tridentata

Artemisia arbuscula

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine-Juniper 

Woodland

Juniperus osteosperma

Juniperus scopulorum

Artemisia nova

Artemisia tridentata

Rocky Mountain Poor-Site Lodgepole Pine Forest Pinus contorta

Pseudotsuga menziesii

Pinus ponderosa

Artemisia tridentata
D. The Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

D-14 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Table D-5

Ecological Systems with Conifers Most Likely to Encroach into Sagebrush Vegetation

EVT Ecological Systems Coniferous Species and Sagebrush Vegetation that 

the Ecological System has the Capability to Produce

Southern Rocky Mountain Pinyon-Juniper 

Woodland

Pinus edulis

Juniperus monosperma

Artemisia bigelovii

Artemisia tridentata

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Artemisia tridentata ssp.vaseyana

Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine 

Woodland

Pinus ponderosa

Pseudotsuga menziesii

Pinus edulis

Pinus contorta

Juniperus spp.

Artemisia nova

Artemisia tridentata

Artemisia arbuscula

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Invasive Annual Grasses Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer

There are no invasive species datasets from 2010 to present (beyond the LANDFIRE data) that meet 

our 3 criteria (nationally consistent, known level of accuracy, and periodically updated) for use in the 

determination of the sagebrush base layer. For a description of how invasive species land cover will be 

incorporated in the sagebrush base layer in the future, see the Monitoring Sagebrush Availability

section below.

Sagebrush Restoration Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer

There are no datasets from 2010 to present that could provide additions to the sagebrush base layer 

from restoration treatments that meet the three criteria (nationally consistent, known level of accuracy, 

and periodically updated) therefore, no adjustments were made to the sagebrush base layer calculated 

from the LANDFIRE EVT (Version 1.2) due to restoration activities since 2010. Successful restoration 

treatments prior to 2010 are assumed to have been captured in the LANDFIRE refresh.

Monitoring Sagebrush Availability

Updating the Sagebrush Availability Sagebrush Base Layer

Sagebrush availability will be updated annually by incorporating changes to the sagebrush base layer 

attributable to agriculture, urbanization, and wildfire. The monitoring schedule for the existing sagebrush 

base layer updates is as follows:

2010 Existing Sagebrush Base Layer = [Sagebrush EVT] minus [2006 Imperviousness Layer] 

minus [2009 and 2010 CDL] minus [2009/10 GeoMac Fires < 1,000 acres] minus [2009/10 

MTBS Fires excluding unburned sagebrush islands] minus [Conifer Encroachment Layer] 

2012 Existing Sagebrush Update = [Base 2010 Existing Sagebrush Layer] minus [2011 

Imperviousness Layer] minus [2011 and 2012 CDL] minus [2011/12 GeoMac Fires < 1,000 

acres] minus [2011/12 MTBS Fires that are greater than 1,000 acres, excluding unburned 

sagebrush islands within the perimeter]
D. The Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment D-15

2013 and beyond Existing Sagebrush Updates = [Previous Existing Sagebrush Update Layer] 

minus [Imperviousness Layer (if new data are available)] minus [Next 2 years of CDL] minus 

[Next 2 years of GeoMac Fires < 1,000 acres] minus [Next 2 years MTBS Fires that are greater 

than 1,000 acres, excluding unburned sagebrush islands within the perimeter] plus 

[restoration/monitoring data provided by the field]

Sagebrush Restoration Updates

Restoration after fire, after agricultural conversion, after seedings of introduced grasses, or after 

treatments of pinyon pine and/or juniper, are examples of updates to the sagebrush base layer that can 

add sagebrush vegetation back in. When restoration has been determined to be successful through 

range wide, consistent, interagency fine and site-scale monitoring, the polygonal data will be used to add 

sagebrush pixels back into the broad and mid-scale sagebrush base layer.

Measure 1b – Context for the change in the amount of sagebrush in a landscape of interest

Measure 1b describes the amount of sagebrush on the landscape of interest compared with the amount 

of sagebrush the landscape of interest could ecologically support. Areas with the potential to support 

sagebrush were derived from the BpS data layer that describes sagebrush pre Euro-American settlement 

(biophysical setting (BpS) v1.2 of LANDFIRE). This measure (1b) will provide information during 

evaluations of monitoring data to set the context for a given geographic area of interest. The 

information could also be used to inform management options for restoration, mitigation and inform 

effectiveness monitoring.

The identification and spatial locations of natural plant communities (vegetation) that are believed to 

have existed on the landscape (BpS) were constructed based on an approximation of the historical (pre 

Euro-American settlement) disturbance regime and how the historical disturbance regime operated on

the current biophysical environment. BpS is composed of map units which are based on NatureServe’s 

(2011) terrestrial ecological systems classification. 

The ecological systems within BpS used for this monitoring framework are those ecological systems that 

have the capability of supporting sagebrush vegetation and could provide seasonal habitat for the sagegrouse. These ecological systems are listed in Table D-4 with the exception of the Artemisia 

tridentata ssp. vaseyana Shrubland Alliance and the Quercus gambelii Shrubland Alliance. Ecological 

systems selected included sagebrush species or subspecies that are included in the Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Assessment Framework and are found in Attachment B.

Attributable to the lack of any reference data, the BpS layer does not have an associated accuracy 

assessment. Visual inspection, however, of the BpS data reveals inconsistencies in the labeling of pixels 

among LANDFIRE map zones. The reason for these inconsistencies between map zones are the decision 

rules used to map a given ecological system will vary between map zones based on different physical, 

biological, disturbance and atmospheric regimes of the region. This can result in artificial edges in the 

map that are an artifact of the mapping process. However, metrics will be calculated at broad spatial 

scales using BpS potential vegetation type, not small groupings or individual pixels, therefore, the 

magnitude of these observable errors in the BpS layer is minor compared with the size of the reporting 

units. Therefore, since BpS will be used to identify broad landscape patterns of dominant vegetation, 

these inconsistencies will only have a minor impact on the percent sagebrush availability calculation.
D. The Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

D-16 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

LANDFIRE BpS data are not designed to be used at a local level. In reporting the percent sagebrush statistic 

for the various reporting units, the uncertainty of the percent sagebrush will increase as the size of the 

reporting unit gets smaller. LANDFIRE data should never be used at the pixel level (30m2) for any 

reporting. The smallest geographic extent use of the data for this purpose is at the PAC level and for 

the smallest PACs the initial percent sagebrush remaining estimate will have greater uncertainties 

compared with the much larger PACs.

Tracking

BLM will analyze and monitor sagebrush availability (Measure 1) on a bi-annual basis and it will be used 

to inform effectiveness monitoring. The 2010 estimate of sagebrush availability will serve as the base 

year and an updated estimate for 2012 will be reported in 2014 after all datasets become available. The 

2012 estimate will capture changes attributable to fire, agriculture, and urban development. Subsequent 

updates will always include new fire and agricultural data and new urban data when available. Restoration 

data that meets criteria of adding sagebrush areas back into the sagebrush base layer will begin to be 

factored in as data allows. Attributable to data availability, there will be a two year lag (approximately) 

between when the estimate is generated and when the data used for the estimate becomes available 

(e.g., the 2014 sagebrush availability will be included in the 2016 estimate).

Future Plans

Geospatial data used to generate the sagebrush base layer will be available through BLM’s EGIS Web 

Portal and Geospatial Gateway or through the authoritative data source. Legacy datasets will be 

preserved, so that trends may be calculated. Additionally, accuracy assessment data for all source 

datasets will be provided on the portal either spatially, where applicable, or through the metadata. 

Accuracy assessment information was deemed vital to share to help users understand the limitation of 

the sagebrush estimates and will be summarized spatially by map zone and included in the Portal.

LANDFIRE plans to begin a remapping effort in 2015. This remapping has the potential to greatly 

improve overall quality of the data products primarily through the use of higher quality remote sensing 

datasets. Additionally, BLM and the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC) are 

working to improve the accuracy of vegetation map products for broad and mid-scale analyses through 

the Grass/Shrub mapping effort in partnership with the MRLC. The Grass/Shrub mapping effort applies 

the Wyoming multi-scale sagebrush habitat methodology (Homer et al. 2009) to spatially depict 

fractional percent cover estimates for five components range and west-wide. These five components are 

percent cover of sagebrush vegetation, percent bare ground, percent herbaceous vegetation (grass and 

forbs combined), annual vegetation, and percent shrubs. One of the benefits of the design of these 

fractional cover maps is that they facilitate monitoring “with-in” class variation (e.g., examination of 

declining trend in sagebrush cover for individual pixels). This “with-in” class variation can serve as one 

indicator of sagebrush quality that cannot be derived from LANDFIRE’s EVT information. The 

Grass/Shrub effort is not a substitute for fine scale monitoring, but will leverage fine scale data to 

support the validation of the mapping products. An evaluation will be conducted to determine if either 

dataset is of great enough quality to warrant replacing the existing sagebrush layers. The earliest possible 

date for this evaluation will not occur until 2018 or 2019 depending on data availability.

D.2.2.2 Habitat Degradation Monitoring (Measure 2)

The measure of habitat degradation will be calculated by combining the footprints of threats identified in 

Table D-2. The footprint is defined as the direct area of influence of “active” energy and infrastructure 
D. The Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment D-17

and is used as a surrogate for human activity. Thus, the footprint of habitat degradation per sage-grouse 

area will be calculated. Although these analyses will try to summarize results at the aforementioned 

meaningful landscape units, some may be too small to appropriately report the metrics and may be 

combined (smaller populations, PACs within a population, etc.). Data sources for each threat are found 

in Table D-6, Geospatial Data Sources for Habitat Degradation (Measure 2). Specific assumptions 

(inclusion criteria for data, width/area assumptions for point and line features, etc.) and methodology for 

each threat, and the combined measure are detailed below. All datasets will be updated annually to 

monitor broad and mid-scale year-to-year. A 5-year summary report will be available to the USFWS.

Habitat Degradation Datasets and Assumptions:

Energy (oil and gas wells and development facilities)

This dataset will be a compilation of two oil and gas well databases: the proprietary IHS Enerdeq® 

database and the BLM Automated Fluid Minerals Support System (AFMSS) database (AFMSS data will be 

used to supplement the IHS data). Point data from wells active within the last ten years from IHS and 

producing wells from AFMSS will be considered as a 5 acre (2.0ha) footprint (BLM WO 2014) centered 

on the well point. Plugged and abandoned wells will be removed, though only if the date of well 

abandonment was prior to the first day of the reporting year (i.e. for the 2010 reporting year a well 

must be plugged and abandoned by 12/31/2009 to be removed).

Additional Measure: Reclaimed Energy-related Degradation This dataset will include those 

wells that have been plugged and abandoned in an effort to measure energy-related degradation 

that has been reclaimed but not necessary fully restored to sage-grouse habitat. This measure 

will establish a baseline by using wells that have been plugged and abandoned within the last ten 

years from the IHS and AFMSS datasets. Time lags for lek attendance in response to 

infrastructure have been documented to be delayed by 2-10 years from energy development 

activities (Harju et al. 2010), while reclamation actions may require two or more years from the 

Final Abandonment Notice. Sagebrush seedling establishment may take six or more years from 

the point of seeding, depending on variables such as annual precipitation, annual temperature, 

and soil type and depth (Pyke, 2011). This ten-year period is conservative, assuming some level 

of habitat improvement ten years after plugging. However, research by Hemstrom et al. (2002) 

proposes an even longer period of greater than 100 years for recovery of sagebrush habitats 

even with active restoration approaches. Direct area of influence will be considered 3 acres 

(1.2ha) (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 and where further investigation at the fine or 

site-scale would be warranted to: (1) quantify the level of reclamation already conducted, and 

(2) evaluate the amount of restoration still required (for sagebrush habitat recovery). At a 

particular level (e.g., population, PACs), these areas and the reclamation efforts/success could be 

used to inform reclamation standards associated with future developments. Once these areas 

have transitioned from reclamation standards to meeting restoration standards, they can be 

added back into the sagebrush availability layer using the same methodology as described for 

adding restoration treatment areas lost to fire and agriculture conversion (see Sagebrush 

Restoration Updates section). This dataset will be updated annually with new plugged and 

abandoned well from the IHS dataset.
D. The Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

D-18 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

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, US Office of 

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) coal mining permit polygons (as available), and 

USGS Mineral Resources Data System (MRDS) mine occurrence points. These data will inform where 

active coal mining may be occurring. Aerial imagery will then be used to manually digitize active coal 

mining surface disturbance in or near these known occurrence areas. While the date of aerial imagery 

varies by scale, the most current data available from ESRI and/or Google will be utilized to locate 

(generally at 1:50,000 and below) and digitize (generally at 1:10,000 and below) active coal mine 

footprints. Coal mine location data source and imagery date will be documented for each digitized coal 

footprint polygon at the time of creation. Sub-surface facility locations (polygon or point location as 

available) will also be collected, if available, and included in density calculations, and added to the active 

surface activity layer as appropriate (if actual footprint can be located).

Energy (wind energy facilities)

This dataset will be a subset of the Federal Aviation Administration Digital Obstacles point file to include 

points where “Type_” = “WINDMILL”. Direct area of influence of these point features will be measured 

by converting to a polygon dataset of three acres (1.2 ha) centered on each tower point (BLM Wind 

Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, 2005). Additionally, we will use Platts Power 

Plants and Generating Units database for transformer stations associated with wind energy sites.

Energy (solar energy facilities)

This dataset will include solar plants in existence or under construction as compiled with the 

proprietary Platts in the Power Plants and Generating Units database. The point data will be buffered to 

represent a three acre (1.2 ha) direct area of influence.

Energy (geothermal energy facilities)

This dataset will include geothermal plants in existence or under construction as compiled with the 

proprietary I.H.S and Platts (Power Plants and Generating Units) databases. The point data will be 

buffered to represent a three acre (1.2 ha) direct area of influence.

Mining (active developments; locatable, leasable, saleable)

This dataset will include active mining locations as compiled with the proprietary InfoMine® database. 

Other data sources will be evaluated as they are identified or become available. The point data will be 

buffered to represent a five acre (2.0 ha) direct area of influence, unless actual surface disturbance is 

available.

Infrastructure (roads)

This dataset will be compiled from the proprietary ESRI® StreetMap Premium for ArcGIS. Dataset 

features that will be used are: Interstates, Major Roads, and Surface Streets to capture most paved and 

“crowned and ditched” roads while not including “two-track” and 4-wheel-drive routes. These minor 

roads, while not included in our broad and mid-scale monitoring, may support a volume of traffic that 

can have deleterious effects to sage-grouse leks. It may be appropriate to consider the frequency and 

type of use of roads in a NEPA analysis for a proposed project. This fine/project scale analysis will 

require more site-specific data than is identified in this monitoring framework. The direct influence area 
D. The Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment D-19

for roads will be represented by 240.2 ft., 84.0 ft., and 40.7 ft. (73.2 m, 25.6 m, and 12.4 m) total widths 

centered on the line feature for Interstates, Major Roads, and Surface Streets respectively (Knick et al. 

2011). The most current dataset will be used for each monitoring update. Note: this is a related but 

different dataset as was used in the Summary of Science, Activities, Programs, and Policies That Influence the 

Rangewide Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse (Manier et al., 2013). Individual BLM planning units may utilize 

different roads layers for fine and site scale monitoring.

Infrastructure (railroads)

This dataset will be a compilation of Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Rail Lines of the USA 

dataset. Non-abandoned rail lines will be used; abandoned rail lines will not be used. The direct influence 

area for railroads will be represented by a 30.8 ft. (9.4m) total width (Knick et al. 2011) centered on 

non-abandoned railroad line feature.

Infrastructure (power lines)

This line dataset will be a compilation from EV Energy Map, Platts/Global Energy of transmission lines, 

substations, electric power generation plants, and energy distribution control facilities. Linear features in 

the dataset attributed as “buried” will be removed from the disturbance calculation. Only “In Service” 

lines will be used, not “Proposed” lines. Direct area of influence will be determined by the kV 

designation: 1-199 kV (100 ft./30.5 m), 200-399 kV (150 ft./45.7 m), 500-699 kV (200 ft./61.0 m), and 

700-or greater kV (250 ft./76.2 m) based on average ROW and structure widths.

Infrastructure (communication towers)

This point dataset will be compiled from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 

communication towers point file; all duplicate points will be removed. It will be converted to a polygon 

dataset by using a direct area of influence of 2.47 acres (1.0 ha) centered on each communication tower 

point (Knick et al. 2011).

Infrastructure (other vertical structures)

This point dataset will be compiled from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Digital Obstacles 

point file. Points where “Type_” = “WINDMILL” will be removed. Duplicate points from the FCC 

communication towers point file will be removed. Remaining features will be converted to a polygon 

dataset using a direct area of influence of 2.47 acres (1.0ha) centered on each vertical structure point 

(Knick et al. 2011).

Other developed rights-of-ways

Currently no additional data sources for other rights-of-ways have been identified; roads, power lines, 

railroads, pipelines, and other known linear features are represented in categories above. Our newly 

purchased IHS data does contain pipeline information, but further investigation is needed to determine if 

the dataset is comprehensive. If additional features representing human activities are identified, they will 

be added to monitoring reports using similar assumptions to the threats above.

Habitat Degradation Threat Combination and Calculation:

The threats targeted for measuring human activity from Table D-2, will be converted to direct area of 

influence polygons as described for each threat above. These threat polygon layers will be combined and 

features dissolved to create one overall polygon layer representing footprints of active human activity in 

the range of sage-grouse. However, individual datasets will be preserved to ascertain which types of 

threats may be contributing to overall habitat degradation. Percentages will be calculated as follows:
D. The Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

D-20 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

This measure has been divided into three sub-measures to describe habitat degradation on the 

landscape:

Measure 2a) Footprint by landscape unit: Divide area of the active/direct footprint within a sagegrouse area by the total area of the sage-grouse area. (% disturbance in landscape unit)

Measure 2b) Active/direct footprint by historic sagebrush potential: Divide area of the active 

footprint that coincides with areas with historic sagebrush potential (BpS calculation from 

habitat availability) within a given landscape unit by the total area with sagebrush potential within 

the landscape unit. (% disturbance on potential historic sagebrush in landscape unit)

Measure 2c) Active/direct footprint by current sagebrush: Divide area of the active footprint 

that coincides with areas of existing sagebrush (EVT calculation from habitat availability) within a 

given landscape unit by the total area that is current sagebrush within the landscape unit. (% 

disturbance on current sagebrush in landscape unit)

D.2.2.3 Density of Energy and Mining (Measure 3)

The measure of density of energy and mining will be calculated by combining the locations of threats 

identified in Table D-2. This will provide an estimate of intensity of human activity or intensity of 

habitat degradation. The number energy facilities and mining locations will be summed and divided by 

the area of meaningful landscape units to calculate density of these activities. Data sources for each 

threat are found in Table D-6. Specific assumptions (inclusion criteria for data, width/area assumptions 

for point and line features, etc.) and methodology for each threat, and the combined measure are 

detailed below. All datasets will be updated annually to monitor broad and mid-scale year-to-year 

changes and 5-year (or longer) trends in habitat degradation.

Table D-6

Geospatial Data Sources for Habitat Degradation (Measure 2).

USFWS Listing Decision 

Threat Data Source Direct Area of Influence

Agriculture National Agriculture Statistics 

Service

Polygon Area

Urbanization USGS Percent Imperviousness Polygon Area

Wildfire Geospatial Multi-Agency 

Coordination Group; Monitoring 

Trends in Burn Severity

Polygon Area

Conifer encroachment LANDFIRE Polygon Area

Energy (oil and gas wells and 

development facilities)

IHS; BLM (AFMSS) 5 ac (2.0 ha)

Energy (reclaimed site degradation) IHS; BLM (AFMSS) 3 ac (1.2 ha)

Energy (coal mines) BLM & FS data; Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement

Polygon Area

Energy (wind towers) Federal Aviation Administration 3 ac (1.2 ha)

Energy (solar fields) Argonne National Laboratory Polygon Area

Energy (geothermal) Argonne National Laboratory Polygon Area or 5 ac (2.0 

ha)
D. The Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment D-21

Table D-6

Geospatial Data Sources for Habitat Degradation (Measure 2).

USFWS Listing Decision 

Threat Data Source Direct Area of Influence

Mining (active locatable, leasable,

and salable developments)

InfoMine Polygon Area or 5 ac (2.0 

ha)

Infrastructure (roads) ESRI StreetMap Premium 40.7-240.2 ft. (12.4-73.2 m)

Infrastructure (railroads) Federal Railroad Administration 30.8 ft. (9.4 m)

Infrastructure (power lines) Platts Transmission Lines 100-250 ft. (30.5-76.2 m)

Infrastructure (communication 

towers)

Federal Communications 

Commission

2.5 ac (1.0 ha)

Infrastructure (other vertical 

structures)

Federal Aviation Administration 2.5 ac (1.0 ha)

Density of Energy and Mining Datasets and Assumptions:

Energy (oil and gas wells and development facilities)

[See Section D.2.2.2]

Energy (coal mines) 

[See Section D.2.2.2]

Energy (wind towers)

[See Section D.2.2.2]

Energy (solar energy facilities)

[See Section D.2.2.2]

Energy (geothermal energy facilities)

[See Section D.2.2.2]

Mining (active developments; locatable, leasable, saleable)

[See Section D.2.2.2]

Density of Energy and Mining Threat Combination and Calculation:

Datasets for energy and mining will be collected in two primary forms: point locations (e.g. wells) and 

polygon areas (e.g. surface coal mining). The following rule set will be used to calculate density for 

meaningful landscape units including standard grids and per polygon:

1. Point locations will be preserved; no additional points will be removed beyond the 

methodology described above. Energy facilities in close proximity (an oil well close to a wind 

tower) will be retained.

2. Polygons will not be merged, nor features further dissolved. Thus, overlapping facilities will 

be retained, such that each individual threat will be a separate polygon data input for the 

density calculation.
D. The Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

D-22 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

3. The analysis unit (polygon or 640 acre section in a grid) will be the basis for counting the 

number of mining or energy facilities per unit area. Within the analysis unit all point features 

will be summed, and any individual polygons will be counted as one (e.g.; a coal mine will be 

counted as one facility within population). Where polygon features overlap multiple units 

(polygons or pixels), the facility will be counted as one in each unit where the polygon 

occurs (e.g. a polygon crossing multiple 640 acre sections would be counted as one in each 

640 acre section for a density per 640 acre section calculation).

4. In methodologies with different sized units (e.g. MZs, populations, etc.) raw counts will be 

converted to densities by dividing by the total area of the unit. Typically this will be 

measured as facilities per 640 acres.

5. For uniform grids, raw facility counts will be reported. Typically this number will also be 

converted to facilities per 640 acres.

6. Reporting may include summaries beyond the simple ones above. Zonal statistics may be 

used to smooth smaller grids to help with display and conveying information about areas 

within meaningful landscape units that have high energy and/or mining activity.

7. Additional statistics for each defined unit may also include adjusting the area to only include 

area with the historic potential for sagebrush (BpS) or areas currently sagebrush (EVT).

Key habitat degradation individual datasets and threat combination datasets will be available through 

BLM’s EGIS Web Portal and Geospatial Gateway. Legacy datasets will be preserved, so that trends may 

be calculated.

D.2.3 Population (Demographics) Monitoring

State wildlife management agencies are responsible for monitoring sage-grouse populations within their 

respective states. WAFWA will coordinate this collection of annual population data by state agencies. 

These data will be made available to BLM through the Sage-grouse Implementation Memorandum of 

Understanding (2013) signed by WAFWA, BLM, NRCS, USGS, Farm Service Agency, and USFWS. An 

amendment to the MOU (2014) will outline a process, timeline, and responsibilities for regular data 

sharing of sage-grouse population and/or habitat information. The Landscape Conservation Management 

and Analysis Portal (LC MAP) will be used as the instrument for state wildlife agencies to annually 

submit population data and analyses that will be accessed by the BLM through a data sharing agreement. 

Population areas were refined from the Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Objectives: Final Report 

(COT) report by individual state wildlife agencies to create a consistent naming nomenclature for future 

data analyses. These population data will be used for analysis at the applicable scale to supplement 

habitat effectiveness monitoring of management actions.

D.2.4 Effectiveness Monitoring

Effectiveness monitoring will provide the information to evaluate BLM actions to reach the objective of 

the planning strategy (BLM IM 2012-044), to conserve sage-grouse populations and its habitat, and the 

objectives in this Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS. Effectiveness monitoring 

methods described here will encompass multiple larger scales, from areas as large as the WAFWA MZ 

to the scale of this RMP. Effectiveness information used for these larger scale evaluations includes alllands 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 a RMP or PACs within a RMP 
D. The Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment D-23

(described in Section D.3). The information will also include the trend of disturbance within these 

areas of interest.

Effectiveness monitoring reported for these larger areas provides the context to then conduct 

effectiveness monitoring at finer scales and haelps focus scarce resources to areas experiencing habitat 

loss, degradation, or population declines. These large area evaluations would not exclude the need for 

concurrent finer scale evaluations where habitat or population anomalies have been identified through 

some other means.

To determine the effectiveness of the sage-grouse planning strategy, the BLM will evaluate the answers 

to the following questions and prepare a broad and mid-scale effectiveness report:

1. Sagebrush Availability and Condition:

a. What is the amount of sagebrush availability and the change in the amount and condition 

of sagebrush? 

b. What is the existing amount of sagebrush on the landscape and the change in the 

amount relative to the pre Euro-American historical distribution of sagebrush (BpS)? 

c. What is the trend and condition of the indicators describing sagebrush characteristics 

important to sage-grouse? 

2. Habitat Degradation and Intensity of Activities: 

a. What is the amount of habitat degradation and the change in that amount? 

b. What is the intensity of activities and the change in the intensity? 

c. What is the amount of reclaimed energy-related degradation and the change in the 

amount? 

3. What is the population estimation of sage-grouse and the change in the population 

estimation? 

4. How is the BLM contributing to changes in the amount of sagebrush? 

5. How is the BLM contributing to disturbance? 

The compilation of broad and mid-scale data (and population trends as available) into an effectiveness 

monitoring report will occur on a 5-year reporting schedule, which may be accelerated to respond to 

critical emerging issues (in consultation with USFWS and state wildlife agencies). In addition, 

effectiveness monitoring results will be used to identify emerging issues and research needs.

To determine the effectiveness of the sage-grouse objectives of this Lewistown Field Office Greater 

Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS, the BLM will evaluate the answers to the following questions and prepare a plan 

effectiveness report:

1. Is this plan meeting the sage-grouse habitat objectives?

2. Are sage-grouse areas within the land use plan meeting, or making progress towards 

meeting, land health standards, including the Special Status Species/ wildlife habitat standard?

3. Is the plan meeting the disturbance objective(s) within sage-grouse areas?
D. The Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

D-24 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

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 RMP will occur on a 5-year reporting schedule (see 

Attachment A) or more often if habitat or population anomalies identify the need to respond to 

critical emerging issues. Data will be made available through the BLM’s EGIS Web Portal and the 

Geospatial Gateway.

Methods: At the broad and mid- biological scales (PACs and above) the BLM will summarize the 

vegetation, disturbance, and population data (when available). Although the analysis will try to 

summarize results for PACs within each sage-grouse population, some populations may be too small to 

appropriately report the metrics and may need to be combined to provide an estimate with an 

acceptable level of accuracy or they will be flagged for more intensive monitoring by the appropriate 

landowner or agency. The BLM will then analyze monitoring data to detect the trend in the amount of 

sagebrush; the condition of the vegetation in the sage-grouse areas (MacKinnon et al. 2011); the trend in 

the amount of disturbance; the change in disturbed areas due to successful restoration; and the amount 

of new disturbance the BLM has permitted. This information could be supplemented with population 

data to understand the correlation between habitat and PACs within a population when population data 

are available. This overall effectiveness evaluation must consider the lag effect response of populations to 

habitat changes (Garton et al. 2011).

Calculating Question 1, Planning Strategy Effectiveness: The amount of sagebrush available in the large area 

of interest will utilize the information from Measure 1a (Section B1, Sagebrush Availability) and calculate 

the change from the 2012 Baseline to the end date of the reporting period. To calculate the change in 

the amount of sagebrush on the landscape to compare with the historical areas with potential to 

support sagebrush, the information from Measure 1b (Section D.2.2.1, Sagebrush Availability) will be 

utilized. To calculate the trend in the condition of sagebrush at the mid-scale, three sources of data will 

be utilized: the BLM Grass/ Shrub mapping effort (Section D.2.2.1, Future Plans); the results from the 

calculation of the landscape indicators such as patch size (described below); and the BLM Landscape 

Monitoring Framework (LMF) and sage-grouse intensification effort (also described below). The LMF and 

sage-grouse intensification effort data is collected in a statistical sampling framework that allows 

calculation of indicator values at multiple scales.

Beyond the importance of sagebrush availability to sage-grouse, the mix of sagebrush patches on the 

landscape at the broad and mid-scale provides the life requisite of space for sage-grouse dispersal needs 

(see the 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 utilized 

using the same data layers derived for sagebrush availability.

The BLM initiated the LMF in 2011 in cooperation with NRCS. The objective of the LMF effort is to 

provide non-biased estimates of vegetation and soil condition and trend using a statistically balanced

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 
D. The Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment D-25

(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 BLM, USFWS, WAFWA, NRCS, 

ARS, state wildlife agencies, and academia. The common indicators that were identified include: species 

composition, foliar cover, height of the tallest sagebrush and herbaceous plant, intercanopy gap, percent 

of invasive species, sagebrush shape, and bare ground. To increase the precision of estimates of 

sagebrush conditions within the range of sage-grouse, additional plot locations in occupied sage-grouse 

habitat (Sage-grouse Intensification) were added in 2013. The common indicators are also collected on 

sampling locations in the NRCS Rangeland Monitoring Survey.

The Sage-grouse Intensification baseline data will be collected over a five year period and an annual Sagegrouse Intensification report will be prepared describing the status of the indicators. Beginning in year 

six, the annual status report will be accompanied with a trend report which will be available on an 

annual basis thereafter contingent upon continuation of the current monitoring budget. This information, 

in combination with the Grass/ Shrub mapping information, the mid-scale habitat suitability indicator 

measures, and the sagebrush availability information will be used to answer Question 1 of the Planning 

Strategy Effectiveness Report.

Calculating Question 2, Planning Strategy Effectiveness: The amount of habitat degradation and the intensity 

of the activities in the area of interest will utilize the information from Measures 2 and 3 (Section 

D.2.2.2, Habitat Degradation). The amount of reclaimed energy-related degradation will be collected by 

the FO on plugged and abandoned and oil/gas well sites. The data will demonstrate that the reclaimed 

sites have yet to meet the habitat restoration objectives for sage-grouse habitat. This information, in 

combination with the amount of habitat degradation, will be used to answer Question 2 of the Planning 

Strategy Effectiveness Report.

Calculating Question 3, Planning Strategy Effectiveness: The change in sage-grouse estimated populations will 

be calculated from data provided by the state wildlife agencies, when available. This population data 

(Section C, Population Monitoring) will be used to answer Question 3 of the Planning Strategy 

Effectiveness Report.

Calculating Question 4, Planning Strategy Effectiveness: The estimated contribution by the BLM to the 

change in the amount of sagebrush in the area of interest will utilize the information from Measure 1a 

(Section D.2.2.1, Sagebrush Availability).This measure is derived from the national data sets that 

remove sagebrush (Table D-2). To determine the relative contribution of the BLM management, the 

current Surface Management Agency geospatial data layer will be used to differentiate the amount of 

change for each management agency for this measure in area of interest. This information will be used 

to answer Question 4 of the Planning Strategy Effectiveness Report.

Calculating Question 5, Planning Strategy Effectiveness: The estimated contribution by the BLM to the 

change in the amount of disturbance in the area of interest will utilize the information from Measure 2a 

(Section D.2.2.2, Habitat Degradation, Percent) and Measure 3 Section D.2.2.2, Habitat 

Degradation, Intensity). These measures are all derived from the national disturbance data sets that 

degrade habitat (Table D-2). To determine the relative contribution of the BLM management, the 

current Surface Management Agency geospatial data layer will be used to differentiate the amount of 

change for each management agency for these two measures in area of interests. This information will 

be used to answer Question 5 of the Planning Strategy Effectiveness Report.
D. The Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

D-26 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Answering the five questions that determine the effectiveness of the BLM Planning Strategy will identify 

areas that appear to be meeting the objectives of the strategy and will facilitate identification of 

population areas for more detailed analysis. Conceptually, if the broad scale monitoring identifies 

increasing sagebrush availability and improving vegetation conditions, decreasing disturbance, and a 

stable or increasing population for the area of interest, there is evidence the objectives of the Planning 

Strategy to maintain populations and their habitats have been met. Conversely, where information 

indicates sagebrush is decreasing and vegetation conditions are degrading, disturbance in sage-grouse 

areas is increasing, and populations are declining relative to the baseline, there is evidence the objectives 

of the Planning Strategy are not being achieved. This would likely result in a more detailed analysis.

At the RMP area, the BLM will summarize the vegetation, disturbance, and population data to determine 

if the RMP is meeting the plan objectives. Effectiveness information used for these evaluations includes 

BLM surface management areas and will help inform where finer scale evaluations are needed such as 

seasonal habitats, corridors, or linkage areas. The information should also include the trend of 

disturbance within the sage-grouse.

Calculating Question 1, Land Use Plan Effectiveness: The condition of vegetation and the allotments meeting 

Land Health Standards in sage-grouse areas will both be used as part of the determination of the 

effectiveness of the RMP in meeting the vegetation objectives in sage-grouse habitat set forth in this 

RMP. The collection of this data will be the responsibility of the Field Office/Ranger District. In order for 

this data to be consistent and comparable, common indicators, consistent methods, and a nonbiased 

sampling framework should be implemented following the principles in the AIM Strategy (Toevs, et al, 

BLM TN 440 BLM Core Indicators and Methods), in the BLM Technical Reference Interpreting 

Indicators of Rangeland Health (Pellant et al. 2005), and the HAF (Stiver et al. in press) or other 

approved WAFWA MZ consistent guidance to measure and monitor sage-grouse habitats. The analysis 

of this information will be used to answer Question 1 of the Land Use Plan Effectiveness Report.

Calculating Question 2, Land Use Plan Effectiveness: The amount of habitat disturbance in sage-grouse areas 

identified in this RMP will be used as part of the determination of the effectiveness of the RMP in 

meeting the disturbance objectives set forth in this RMP. National data sets 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 2 of the Land Use Plan Effectiveness Report.

Calculating Question 3, Land Use Plan Effectiveness: The change in estimated sage-grouse populations will 

be calculated from data provided by the state wildlife agencies, when available and will part of the 

determination of effectiveness. This population data (Section D.2.3) will be used to answer Question 3 

of the Land Use Plan Effectiveness Report.

Results of the effectiveness monitoring process for the RMP will be used to inform the need for finer 

scales investigations, initiate causation determination, and/ or determine if changes to management 

decisions are warranted.

D.3 FINE AND SITE SCALES

Fine scale (third order) habitat selected by sage-grouse is described as the physical and geographic area 

within home ranges including breeding, summer, and winter periods. At this level, habitat suitability 

monitoring should address factors that affect sage-grouse use of, and movements between, seasonal use 

areas. The habitat monitoring at fine and site scale (fourth order) should focus on indicators to describe 
D. The Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment D-27

seasonal home ranges for sage-grouse associated with a lek, or lek group within a population or 

subpopulation area. Fine and site scale monitoring should inform RMP effectiveness monitoring (see 

Section D.2.4.

Site-scale habitat selected by sage-grouse is described as the more detailed vegetation characteristics of 

seasonal habitats. Habitat suitability characteristics include canopy cover and height of sagebrush and the 

associated understory vegetation as well as vegetation associated with riparian areas, wet meadows, and 

other mesic habitats adjacent to sagebrush that may support sage-grouse habitat needs during different 

stages in their annual cycle.

As described in the Conclusion (Section D.4), details and application of monitoring at the fine and site 

scales will be described in the implementation-level monitoring plan of the Lewistown Field Office

Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS. The need for fine and site-scale specific habitat monitoring will vary by 

area depending on proposed projects, existing conditions, habitat variability, threats, and land health. 

Examples of fine and site-scale monitoring include: habitat vegetation monitoring to assess current 

habitat conditions; monitoring and evaluating the success of projects targeting sage-grouse habitat 

enhancement and/or restoration; and habitat disturbance monitoring to provide localized disturbance 

measures to inform proposed project review and potential mitigation for project impacts. Monitoring 

plans should incorporate the principles outlined in the BLM AIM Strategy (Toevs, et. al., 2011) and AIMMonitoring: A Component of the Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy (Taylor, et.al., in 

press). Approved monitoring methods are:

 BLM Core Terrestrial Indicators and Methods, (MacKinnon, et. al, 2011) 

 BLM Technical Reference Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health (Pellant et al. 2005); 

and

 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework. 

Other state-specific disturbance tracking models include: the BLM Wyoming Density and Disturbance 

Calculation Tool (http://ddct.wygisc.org/); and the BLM White River Data Management System 

(WRDMS) in development with the USGS. Population monitoring data (in cooperation with state 

wildlife agencies) should be included during evaluation of the effectiveness of actions taken at the fine 

and site scales.

Fine and site scale sage-grouse habitat suitability indicators for seasonal habitats are identified in the 

HAF. The HAF has incorporated the Connelly et al. (2000) sage-grouse guidelines as well as many of the 

core indicators in the assessment, inventory and monitoring (AIM) strategy (Toevs et al. 2011). There 

may be a need to develop adjustments to height and cover or other site suitability values described in 

the HAF and any such adjustments should be ecologically defensible. However, to foster consistency, 

adjustments to site suitability values at the local scale should be avoided unless there is strong, scientific 

justification for doing so and that justification should be provided. WAFWA MZ adjustments must be 

supported by regional plant productivity and habitat data for the floristic province. If adjustments are 

made to the site scale indicators they must be made using data from the appropriate seasonal habitat 

designation (breeding/nesting, brood-rearing, winter) collected from sage-grouse studies found in the 

relevant area and peer reviewed by the appropriate wildlife management agency(s) and researchers.
D. The Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

D-28 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

When conducting land heath assessments, at a minimum, the BLM should follow Interpreting Indicators 

of Rangeland Health (Pellant, et. al., 2005) and the BLM Core Terrestrial Indicators and Methods, 

(MacKinnon, et. al, 2011). If the assessment is being conducted in sage-grouse areas, the BLM should 

collect additional data to inform the 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 roll-up analysis among management units; will be useful to provide consistent data to inform the 

classification and interpretation of imagery; and will provide condition and trend of the indicators 

describing sagebrush characteristics important to sage-grouse habitat (see Section D.2.4).

D.4 CONCLUSION

This Greater Sage-grouse Monitoring Framework was developed for all of the Final Environmental 

Impact Statements involved in the sage-grouse planning effort. As such, it describes the monitoring 

activities at the broad and mid-scales and sets the stage for BLM to collaborate with partners/other 

agencies to develop the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS Monitoring Plan using 

this Greater Sage-grouse Monitoring Framework as a guide.

D.5 THE GREATER SAGE-GROUSE DISTURBANCE AND MONITORING SUB-TEAM 

MEMBERSHIP

Gordon Toevs (BLM -WO) 

Duane Dippon (BLM-WO) 

Frank Quamen (BLM-NOC) 

David Wood (BLM-NOC) 

Vicki Herren (BLM-NOC) 

Matt Bobo (BLM-NOC) 

Michael “Sherm” Karl (BLM-NOC) 

Emily Kachergis (BLM-NOC) 

Doug Havlina (BLM-NIFC) 

Mike Pellant (BLM-GBRI) 

John Carlson (BLM-MT) 

Jenny Morton (BLM -WY) 

Robin Sell (BLM-CO) 

Paul Makela (BLM-ID) 

Renee Chi (BLM-UT) 

Sandra Brewer (BLM-NV) 

Glenn Frederick (BLM-OR) 

Robert Skorkowsky (USFS) 

Dalinda Damm (USFS) 

Rob Mickelsen (USFS) 

Tim Love (USFS) 

Pam Bode (USFS)

Lief Wiechman (USFWS) 

Lara Juliusson (USFWS) 
D. The Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment D-29

D.6 LITERATURE CITED

Baruch-Mordo, S., J. S. Evans, J. P. Severson, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, J. M. Kiesecker, M. J. Falkowski, 

C. A. Hagen, and K. P. Reese. 2013. Saving sage-grouse from the trees: a proactive solution to 

reducing a key threat to a candidate species. Biological Conservation 167:233-241.

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., Xian, G., Jin, S., Dewitz, J., Homer, C., Yang, L., Barnes, C., Herold, N., and Wickham, J., 

2011. Completion of the 2006 National Land Cover Database for the Conterminous United 

States, PE&RS, Vol. 77(9):858-864.

Connelly, J. W., M. A Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage Sage Grouse 

populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967-985.

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

populations. University of Idaho Station College of Natural Resources Experiment Station 

Bulletin 80. University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.

Connelly, J. W., S. T Knick, M. A. Schroeder, and S. J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation assessment of greater 

sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 

unpublished report, Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA. Internet website: 

http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov/docs/Greater_Sage-grouse_Conservation_Assessment_060404.pdf.

Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month findings for petitions to list the greater sagegrouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as threatened or endangered. Proposed Rule. 75 Fed. Reg. 

13910 (March 23, 2010).

Garton, E. O., J. W. Connelly, J. S. Horne, C. A. Hagen, A. Moser, and M. Schroeder. 2011. Greater 

sage-grouse population dynamics and probability of persistence. Pp. 293 – 382: in 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 (vol. 38). University of California Press, Berkeley, 

California. 

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, Utah. 19 p.

Hemstrom, M. A., M. J. Wisdom, M. M. Rowland, B. Wales, W. J. Hann, and R. A. Gravenmier. 2002. 

Sagebrush-steppe vegetation dynamics and potential for restoration in the Interior Columbia 

Basin, USA. Conservation Biology 16:1243-1255.
D. The Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

D-30 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Homer, C. G., Aldridge, C. L., Meyer, D. K., Coan, M. J., and Bowen, Z. H., 2009, Multiscale sagebrush 

rangeland habitat modeling in southwest Wyoming: US Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2008–1027, 14 p.

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 Series (vol. 38), University of 

California Press, Berkeley, California.

Knick, S. T., and S. E. Hanser. 2011. Connecting pattern and process in greater sage-grouse populations 

and sagebrush landscapes, pages 383-405 in: Knick, S. T. and J. W. Connelly (editors), Greater 

sage-grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian 

Biology No. 38. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, California. 646 p.

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, pages 203-251 in: Knick, S. T. 

and J. W. Connelly (editors), Greater sage-grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape 

species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology No. 38. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, 

California. 646 p.

LANDFIRE. 2006. National existing vegetation type layer. USDI Geological Survey. Internet website: 

http://gisdata.usgs.net/website/lanfire/. Accessed on August, 21 2009.

Leu, M., and S. E. Hanser. 2011. Influences of the human footprint on sagebrush landscape patterns: 

implications for sage-grouse conservation, pages 253-271 in: Knick, S. T. and J. W. Connelly 

(editors), Greater sage-grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. 

Studies in Avian Biology No. 38, Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, California. 646 p.

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 sagegrouse (Centrocercus urophasianus): US Geological Survey Open–File Report 2013–1098, 170 pp.

MacKinnon, W. C., J. W. Karl, G. R. Toevs, J. J. Taylor, M. Karl, C. S. Spurrier, and J. E. Herrick. 2011. 

BLM core terrestrial indicators and methods. Tech Note 440. US Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, Denver, Colorado.

NatureServe. 2011. International Ecological Classification Standard: Terrestrial Ecological Classifications. 

NatureServe Central Databases. Arlington, Virginia, USA. Data current as of 31 July 2011.

Pellant, M., P. Shaver, D. A. Pyke, and J. E. Herrick. 2005. Interpreting indicators of rangeland health, 

version 4. Technical Reference 1734-6. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, National Science and Technology Center, Denver, Colorado. BLM/WO/ST00/001+1734/REV05. 122 pp. 
D. The Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment D-31

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. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Unpublished report. Cheyenne, 

Wyoming, USA. Internet website: http://www.wafwa.org/documents/pdf/GreaterSagegrouseConservationStrategy2006.pdf.

Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinkes, D. E. Naugle, P. D. Makela, D. A. Nance, and J. W. Karl. 2014. Sage-grouse 

habitat assessment framework: multi-scale habitat assessment tool. Bureau of Land Management 

and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Technical Reference in press. US 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado.

Taylor, J., E. J. Kachergis, G. Toevs, J. Karl, M. Bobo, M. Karl, S. Miller, and C. Spurrier. In press. AIMMonitoring: A Component of the Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy. US 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, Denver, 

Colorado.

Toevs, G. R., J. J. Taylor, C. S. Spurrier, W. C. MacKinnon, M. R. Bobo. 2011. Bureau of Land 

Management Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy: for integrated renewable 

resources management. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National 

Operations Center, Denver, Colorado.

USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layer. {YEAR}. Published crop-specific data 

layer [Online]. Internet website: http://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/ (accessed {DATE}; 

verified {DATE}). USDA-NASS, Washington, DC.

US Department of the Interior. 2004. Bureau of Land Management national sage-grouse habitat 

conservation strategy. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

Washington, DC.

US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2011. BLM Memorandum of 

Understanding Washington Office 220-2011-02. BLM Washington Office, Washington DC.

US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) conservation objectives: final report. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, 

Colorado.
D. The Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

D-32 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

ATTACHMENT A: AN OVERVIEW OF MONITORING COMMITMENTS

Broad and Mid-scales

Fine & Site 

Scales Implementation

Sagebrush 

Availability

Habitat 

DegradationPopulation Effectiveness

How will 

the data 

be used?

Tracking and 

documenting 

implementatio

n of RMP 

decisions

Tracking 

changes in land 

cover 

(sagebrush)

Tracking changes 

in disturbance 

(threats) to 

sage-grouse

Tracking trends 

in sage-grouse 

populations 

(and/or leks; as 

determined by 

state wildlife 

agencies)

Characterizing 

the relationship 

among 

disturbance, 

implementation 

actions, and 

sagebrush metrics

Measuring 

seasonal habitat, 

connectivity at 

the fine scale, and 

habitat conditions 

at the site scale, 

calculating 

disturbance

Who is 

collecting 

the data?

BLM FO NOC and 

NIFC

National data 

sets (NOC), 

BLM FOs as 

applicable

State wildlife 

agencies 

through 

WAFWA

Comes from 

other broad and 

mid-scale 

monitoring types, 

analyzed by the 

NOC

BLM FO and SO, 

(with partners) 

including 

disturbance

How often 

are the 

data 

collected, 

reported 

and made 

available to 

USFWS?

Collected and 

reported 

annually; 

summary 

every 5 years

Updated and 

changes 

reported 

annually; 

summary 

reports every 5 

years

Collected and 

changes 

reported 

annually; 

summary 

reports every 5 

years

State data 

reported 

annually per 

WAFWA 

MOU; summary 

reports every 5 

years

Collected and 

reported every 5 

years (coincident 

with RMP 

evaluations)

Collection and 

trend analysis 

ongoing, reported 

every 5 years

What is 

the spatial 

scale?

Summarized 

by RMP with 

flexibility for 

reporting by 

other units

Summarized by 

PACs (size 

dependent) 

with flexibility 

for reporting 

by other units

Summarized by 

PACs (size 

dependent) with 

flexibility for 

reporting by 

other units

Summarized by 

PACs (size 

dependent) 

with flexibility 

for reporting by 

other units

Summarized by 

MZ, and RMP 

with flexibility for 

reporting by 

other units (e.g., 

PAC)

Variable (e.g., 

projects and 

seasonal habitats)

What are 

the 

potential 

personnel 

and budget 

impacts?

Additional 

capacity or reprioritization 

of ongoing 

monitoring 

work and 

budget 

realignment

At a minimum, 

current skills 

and capacity 

must be 

maintained; 

data mgmt. 

cost are TBD

At a minimum, 

current skills 

and capacity 

must be 

maintained; data 

mgmt. and data 

layer purchase 

cost are TBD 

No additional 

personnel or 

budget impacts 

for BLM

Additional 

capacity or reprioritization of 

ongoing 

monitoring work 

and budget 

realignment

Additional 

capacity or reprioritization of 

ongoing 

monitoring work 

and budget 

realignment

Who has 

primary 

and 

secondary 

responsibilities for 

reporting?

BLM FO & SO

BLM Planning

NOC

WO

NOC

BLM SO & 

appropriate 

programs

WAFWA & 

state wildlife 

agencies

BLM SO, NOC

Broad and midscale at the 

NOC, RMP at 

BLM SO

BLM FO & SO

What new 

processes/ 

tools are 

needed?

National 

implementation data sets 

and analysis 

tools 

Updates to 

national land 

cover data 

Data standards 

and roll-up 

methods for 

these data

Standards in 

population 

monitoring 

(WAFWA)

Reporting 

methodologies

Data standards 

data storage; and 

reporting
D. The Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment D-33

ATTACHMENT B - LIST OF ALL SAGEBRUSH SPECIES AND SUBSPECIES INCLUDED IN THE 

SELECTION CRITERIA FOR BUILDING THE EVT AND BPS LAYERS

 Artemisia arbuscula subspecies longicaulis

 Artemisia arbuscula subspecies longiloba

 Artemisia bigelovii

 Artemisia nova

 Artemisia papposa

 Artemisia pygmaea

 Artemisia rigida

 Artemisia spinescens

 Artemisia tripartita subspecies rupicola

 Artemisia tripartita subspecies tripartita

 Tanacetum nuttallii

 Artemisia cana subspecies bolanderi

 Artemisia cana subspecies cana

 Artemisia cana subspecies viscidula

 Artemisia tridentata subspecies wyomingensis

 Artemisia tridentata subspecies tridentata

 Artemisia tridentata subspecies vaseyana

 Artemisia tridentata subspecies spiciformis

 Artemisia tridentata subspecies xericensis

 Artemisia tridentata variety pauciflora

 Artemisia frigida

 Artemisia pedatifida 
D. The Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

D-34 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

ATTACHMENT C – USER AND PRODUCER ACCURACIES FOR AGGREGATED ECOLOGICAL 

SYSTEMS WITHIN LANDFIRE MAP ZONES

LANDFIRE Map Zone Name User 

Accuracy

Producer 

Accuracy

% of Map Zone 

within Historic 

Schroeder

Wyoming Basin 76.9% 90.9% 98.5%

Snake River Plain 68.8% 85.2% 98.4%

Missouri River Plateau 57.7% 100.0% 91.3%

Grand Coulee Basin of the Columbia Plateau 80.0% 80.0% 89.3%

Wyoming Highlands 75.3% 85.9% 88.1%

Western Great Basin 69.3% 75.4% 72.9%

Blue Mountain Region of the Columbia Plateau 85.7% 88.7% 72.7%

Eastern Great Basin 62.7% 80.0% 62.8%

Northwestern Great Plains 76.5% 92.9% 46.3%

Northern Rocky Mountains 72.5% 89.2% 42.5%

Utah High Plateaus 81.8% 78.3% 41.5%

Colorado Plateau 65.3% 76.2% 28.8%

Middle Rocky Mountains 78.6% 73.3% 26.4%

Cascade Mountain Range 57.1% 88.9% 17.3%

Sierra Nevada Mountain Range 0.0% 0.0% 12.3%

Northwestern Rocky Mountains 66.7% 60.0% 7.3%

Southern Rocky Mountains 58.6% 56.7% 7.0%

Northern Cascades 75.0% 75.0% 2.6%

Mogollon Rim 66.7% 100.0% 1.7%

Death Valley Basin 0.0% 0.0% 1.2%

There are two anomalous map zones with 0% user and producer accuracies attributable to no available 

reference data for the ecological systems of interest.

Producer's accuracy is a reference-based accuracy that is computed by looking at the predictions 

produced for a class and determining the percentage of correct predictions. In other words, if I know 

that a particular area is sagebrush (I've been out on the ground to check), what is the probability that 

the digital map will correctly identify that pixel as sagebrush? Omission Error equates to excluding a 

pixel that should have been included in the class (i.e., omission error = 1 - producers accuracy).

User’s accuracy is a map-based accuracy that is computed by looking at the reference data for a class 

and determining the percentage of correct predictions for these samples. For example, if I select any 

sagebrush pixel on the classified map, what is the probability that I'll be standing in a sagebrush stand 

when I visit that pixel location in the field? Commission Error equates to including a pixel in a class 

when it should have been excluded (i.e., commission error = 1 – user’s accuracy).
Appendix E

Greater Sage-Grouse Disturbance Caps

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment E-1

APPENDIX E

GREATER SAGE-GROUSE DISTURBANCE CAPS

In the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) 2010 listing decision for Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG), 

the USFWS identified 18 threats contributing to the destruction, modification, or curtailment of GRSG’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 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

process for projects authorized or undertaken by the BLM. 

DISTURBANCE CAP

This resource management plan (RMP) amendment has incorporated a 3 percent anthropogenic 

disturbance cap within GRSG Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMA) and the subsequent land use 

planning actions if the cap is met:

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

within GRSG PHMA in any given Biologically Significant Unit (BSU), then no further discrete 

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

mining law, valid existing rights, etc.) would be permitted by BLM within GRSG PHMA in any given (BSU) 

until the disturbance has been reduced to less than the cap.

If the 3 percent 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 percent within a project analysis area in PHMA, then no further discrete anthropogenic 

disturbances (subject to applicable laws and regulations, such as the 1872 Mining Law, valid existing 

rights, etc.) would be permitted by BLM within PHMA in a project analysis area until the disturbance has 

been reduced to less than the cap.
E. Greater Sage-Grouse Disturbance Caps

E-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

The disturbance cap applies to the PHMA within both the BSU and at the project authorization scale. 

For the BSUs, west-wide habitat degradation (disturbance) data layers (Table E-1) will be used at a 

minimum to calculate the amount of disturbance and to determine if the disturbance cap has been 

exceeded as the RMPs 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 percent disturbance cap. Details about locatable mining 

activities will be fully disclosed and analyzed in the NEPA process to assess impacts to GRSG and their 

habitat as well as to BLM goals and objectives, and other BLM programs and activities.

Formulas for calculations of the amount of disturbance in the PHMA in a BSU and or in a proposed 

project area are as follows:

 For the BSUs: 

% Degradation Disturbance = (combined acres of the 12 degradation threats1) ÷ (acres 

of all lands within the PHMAs in a BSU) x 100. 

 For the Project Analysis Area: 

% Degradation Disturbance = (combined acres of the 12 degradation threats1 plus the 7 

site scale threats2 and acres of habitat loss1) ÷ (acres of all lands within the PHMA in the 

project analysis area) x 100. 

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 GRSG seasonal habitats, or are not 

currently supporting sagebrush cover (e.g., due to wildfire), are not excluded from the acres of PHMA in 

the denominator of the formula. Information regarding GRSG seasonal habitats, sagebrush availability, 

and areas with the potential to support GRSG populations will be considered along with other local 

conditions that may affect GRSG during the analysis of the proposed project area. 

DENSITY CAP

This RMP amendment 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 one 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 one facility per 640 acres, the proposed project will 

either be deferred until the density of energy and mining facilities is less than the cap or co-located it 

into existing disturbed area (subject to applicable laws and regulations, such as the 1872 Mining Law, 

valid existing rights, etc.). Facilities included in the density calculation (Table E-3) are:

 Energy (oil and gas wells and development facilities)

 Energy (coal mines)

 

1See Table E-1.

2See Table E-2.
E. Greater Sage-Grouse Disturbance Caps

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment E-3

 Energy (wind towers)

 Energy (solar fields)

 Energy (geothermal)

 Mining (active locatable, leasable, and saleable developments)

Project Analysis Area Method for Permitting Surface Disturbance Activities:

 Determine potentially affected occupied leks by placing a four mile boundary around the 

proposed area of physical disturbance related to the project. All occupied leks located 

within the four mile project boundary and within PHMA will be considered affected by the 

project. 

 Next, place a four mile boundary around each of the affected occupied leks. 

 The PHMA within the four mile lek boundary and the four mile project boundary creates 

the project analysis area for each individual project. If there are no occupied leks within the 

four-mile project boundary, the project analysis area will be that portion of the four-mile 

project boundary within the PHMA. 

 Digitize all existing anthropogenic disturbances identified in Table E-1, the seven additional 

features that are considered threats to GRSG (Table E-2), and areas of sagebrush loss. 

Using one meter resolution NAIP imagery is recommended. Use existing local data if 

available. 

 Calculate percent existing disturbance using the formula above. If existing disturbance is less 

than 3 percent anthropogenic disturbance or 5 percent total disturbance, proceed to next 

step. If existing disturbance is greater than 3 percent anthropogenic disturbance or 5 

percent total disturbance, defer the project.

 Add proposed project disturbance footprint area and recalculate the percent disturbance. If 

disturbance is less than 3 percent anthropogenic disturbance or 5 percent total disturbance, 

proceed to next step. If disturbance is greater than 3 percent anthropogenic disturbance or 

5 percent total disturbance, defer project.

 Calculate the disturbance density of energy and mining facilities (listed above). If the 

disturbance density is less than one 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 one facility per 640 acres, averaged across the 

project analysis area, either defer the proposed project or co-locate it into existing 

disturbed area.

 If a project that would exceed the degradation cap or density cap cannot be deferred due to 

valid existing rights or other existing laws and regulations, fully disclose the local and 

regional impacts of the proposed action in the associated NEPA.
E. Greater Sage-Grouse Disturbance Caps

E-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Table E-1

Anthropogenic Disturbance Types for Disturbance Calculations

Data Sources are Described for the West-Wide Habitat Degradation Estimates

Degradation Type Subcategory Data Source Direct Area 

of Influence 

Area 

Source

Energy (oil & gas) Wells IHS; BLM (AFMSS) 5.0ac (2.0ha) BLM WO300

Power Plants Platts (power plants) 5.0ac (2.0ha) BLM WO300

Energy (coal) Mines BLM; USFS; Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement; USGS Mineral 

Resources Data System

Polygon area 

(digitized)

Esri/Google 

Imagery

Power Plants Platts (power plants) Polygon area 

(digitized)

Esri Imagery

Energy (wind) Wind Turbines Federal Aviation 

Administration

3.0ac (1.2ha) BLM WO300

Power Plants Platts (power plants) 3.0ac (1.2ha) BLM WO300

Energy (solar) Fields/Power 

Plants

Platts (power plants) 7.3ac 

(3.0ha)/MW 

NREL

Energy 

(geothermal) 

Wells IHS 3.0ac (1.2ha) BLM WO300

Power Plants Platts (power plants) Polygon area 

(digitized)

Esri Imagery

Mining Locatable 

Developments

InfoMine Polygon area 

(digitized)

Esri Imagery

Infrastructure 

(roads)

Surface Streets 

(Minor Roads)

Esri StreetMap Premium 40.7ft (12.4m) USGS

Major Roads Esri StreetMap Premium 84.0ft (25.6m) USGS

Interstate 

Highways

Esri StreetMap Premium 240.2ft 

(73.2m) 

USGS

Infrastructure 

(railroads)

Active Lines Federal Railroad 

Administration

30.8ft (9.4m) USGS

Infrastructure 

(power lines)

1-199kV Lines Platts (transmission lines) 100ft (30.5m) BLM WO300

200-399 kV 

Lines

Platts (transmission lines) 150ft (45.7m) BLM WO300

400-699kV Lines Platts (transmission lines) 200ft (61.0m) BLM WO300

700+kV Lines Platts (transmission lines) 250ft (76.2m) BLM WO300

Infrastructure 

(communication) 

Towers Federal Communications 

Commission

2.5ac (1.0ha) BLM WO300
E. Greater Sage-Grouse Disturbance Caps

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment E-5

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 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.
E. Greater Sage-Grouse Disturbance Caps

E-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Table E-3

Relationship Between the 18 Threats and the Three Habitat Disturbance Measures for 

Monitoring and Disturbance Calculations

USFWS Listing Decision Threat Sagebrush 

Availability

Habitat 

Degradation

Energy and 

Mining 

Density

Agriculture X

Urbanization X

Wildfire X

Conifer encroachment X

Treatments X

Invasive Species X

Energy (oil and gas wells and development 

facilities)

X X

Energy (coal mines) X X

Energy (wind towers) X X

Energy (solar fields) X X

Energy (geothermal) X X

Mining (active locatable, leasable, and saleable 

developments)

X X

Infrastructure (roads) X

Infrastructure (railroads) X

Infrastructure (power lines) X

Infrastructure (communication towers) X

Infrastructure (other vertical structures) X

Other developed rights-of-way X
Appendix F

Regional Mitigation Strategy

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment F-1

APPENDIX F

REGIONAL MITIGATION STRATEGY

GENERAL

In undertaking US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (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 (GRSG) disturbance as 

identified by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in its 2010 listing decision (75 FR 13910) and 

shown in Table B-2 in the Monitoring Framework (Appendix D of the Lewistown Greater Sage-Grouse 

Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment). Mitigation will follow the regulations from the 

White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 

1508.20; e.g. avoid, minimize, and compensate), hereafter referred to as the mitigation hierarchy. If 

impacts from BLM management actions and authorized third party actions that result in habitat loss and 

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

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

compensatory mitigation will be durable, timely, and in addition to that which would have resulted 

without the compensatory mitigation (see Glossary Terms).

The BLM, via the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Management Zone 

Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Team, will develop a WAFWA Management Zone Regional 

Mitigation Strategy that will inform the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) decision making 

process including the application of the mitigation hierarchy for BLM management actions and third 

party actions that result in habitat loss and degradation. A robust and transparent Regional Mitigation 

Strategy will contribute to GRSG habitat conservation by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing threats 

and compensating for residual impacts to GRSG and its habitat.

The BLM’s Regional Mitigation Manual MS-1794 serves as a framework for developing and implementing 

a Regional Mitigation Strategy. The following sections provide additional guidance specific to the 

development and implementation of a WAFWA Management Zone Regional Mitigation Strategy.
F. Regional Mitigation Strategy

F-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

DEVELOPING A REGIONAL MITIGATION STRATEGY

The BLM, via the WAFWA Management Zone Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Team, will develop a 

WAFWA Management Zone Regional Mitigation Strategy to guide the application of the mitigation 

hierarchy for BLM management actions and third party actions that result in habitat loss and 

degradation. The Strategy should consider any State-level GRSG mitigation guidance that is consistent 

with the requirements identified in this Appendix. The Regional Mitigation Strategy should be developed 

in a transparent manner, based on the best science available and standardized metrics.

As described in Chapter 2 of the Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed Resource 

Management Plan Amendment/Final Environmental Impact Statement, the BLM will establish a WAFWA 

Management Zone Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Team (hereafter, Team) to help guide the 

conservation of GRSG, within 90 days of the issuance of the Record of Decision (ROD). The Strategy 

will be developed within one year of the issuance of the ROD.

The Regional Mitigation Strategy should include mitigation guidance on avoidance, minimization, and 

compensation, as follows:

Avoidance

 Include avoidance areas (e.g. right-of-way avoidance/exclusion areas, no surface occupancy 

areas) already included in laws, regulations, policies, and/or land use plans (e.g. Resource 

Management Plans, State Plans); and

 Include any potential, additional avoidance actions (e.g. additional avoidance best 

management practices [BMPs]) with regard to GRSG conservation. 

Minimization

 Include minimization actions (e.g. required design features [RDFs], BMPs) already included in 

laws, regulations, policies, land use plans, and/or land-use authorizations; and

 Include any potential, additional minimization actions (e.g. additional minimization BMPs) 

with regard to GRSG conservation.

Compensation

 Include discussion of impact/project valuation, compensatory mitigation options, siting, 

compensatory project types and costs, monitoring, reporting, and program administration. 

Each of these topics is discussed in more detail below.

– Residual Impact and Compensatory Mitigation Project Valuation Guidance

 A common standardized method should be identified for estimating the

value of the residual impacts and value of the compensatory mitigation 

projects, including accounting for any uncertainty associated with the 

effectiveness of the projects. 

 This method should consider the quality of habitat, scarcity of the habitat, 

and the size of the impact/project.

 For compensatory mitigation projects, consideration of durability (see 

Glossary Terms), timeliness (see Glossary Terms), and the potential for 
F. Regional Mitigation Strategy

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment F-3

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 GRSG 

(consistent with BLM Manual 6840 – Special Status Species Management, 

section .02).

– Compensatory Mitigation Options

 Options for implementing compensatory mitigation should be identified, 

such as:

o Utilizing certified mitigation/conservation bank or credit exchanges.

o Contributing to an existing mitigation/conservation fund.

o 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 GRSG, regardless of land ownership.

 Sites should be durable (see Glossary Terms).

 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 GRSG and 

are durable.

– Compensatory Mitigation Project Types and Costs

 Project types should be identified that help reduce threats to GRSG (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.
F. Regional Mitigation Strategy

F-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

 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 GRSG conservation has been 

achieved.

– Compensatory Mitigation Program Implementation Guidelines

 Guidelines for implementing the State-level compensatory mitigation 

program should include holding and applying compensatory mitigation funds, 

operating a transparent and credible accounting system, certifying mitigation 

credits, and managing reporting requirements.

INCORPORATING THE REGIONAL MITIGATION STRATEGY INTO SUBSEQUENT 

IMPLEMENTATION LEVEL LAND USE AUTHORIZATION ANALYSES

The BLM will include the avoidance, minimization, and compensatory recommendations from the 

Regional Mitigation Strategy in one or more of the NEPA analysis’ alternatives for BLM management 

actions and third party actions that result in habitat loss and degradation and the appropriate mitigation 

actions will be carried forward into the decision.

IMPLEMENTING A COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PROGRAM

The BLM need to ensure that compensatory mitigation is strategically implemented to provide a net 

conservation gain to the species, as identified in the Regional Mitigation Strategy. In order to align with 

existing compensatory mitigation efforts, this compensatory mitigation program will be managed at a 

State-level (as opposed to a WAFWA Management Zone or a Field Office), in collaboration with our 

partners (e.g. Federal, Tribal, and State agencies).

To ensure transparent and effective management of the compensatory mitigation funds, the BLM will 

enter into a contract or agreement with a third-party to help manage the State-level compensatory 

mitigation funds, within one year of the issuance of the ROD. The selection of the third-party 

compensatory mitigation administrator will conform to all relevant laws, regulations, and policies. The 

BLM will remain responsible for making decisions that affect Federal lands.

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, Part 1508.20(a)) (e.g., may also include avoiding the impact by moving the proposed 

action to a different time or location.)
F. Regional Mitigation Strategy

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment F-5

Compensatory mitigation: Compensating for the (residual) impact by replacing or providing 

substitute resources or environments. (40 CFR, Part 1508.20)

Compensatory mitigation projects: The restoration, creation, enhancement, and/or preservation of 

impacted resources (adopted and modified from 33 CFR, Part 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, Part 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).
F. Regional Mitigation Strategy

F-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix G

Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management 5001 Southgate Drive Billings, Montana 59101-4669

OIL AND GAS LEASE STIPULATIONS

ESTHETICS--To maintain esthetic values, all surface-disturbing activities, semi-permanent and permanent facilities may require special design including location, painting and camouflage to blend with the natural 

surroundings and meet the intent of the visual quality objectives of the Federal Surface Managing Agency 

(SMA).

EROSION CONTROL--Surface-disturbing activities may be prohibited during muddy and/or wet soil periods.

CONTROLLED OR LIMITED SURFACE USE STIPULATION --This stipulation may be modified, consistent with land use documents, when specifically approved in writing by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) with concurrence of the SMA. Distances and/or time periods may be made less restrictive depending on the actual on-ground conditions. The prospective lessee should contact the SMA for more specific locations and information regarding the restrictive nature of this stipulation.

The lessee/operator is given notice that the lands within this lease may include special areas and that such areas 

may contain special values, may be needed for special purposes, or may require special attention to prevent damage to surface and/or other resources. Possible special areas are identified below. Any surface use or 

occupancy within such special areas will be strictly controlled, or if absolutely necessary, excluded. Use or 

occupancy will be restricted only when the BLM and/or the SMA demonstrates the restriction necessary for the protection of such special areas and existing or planned uses. Appropriate modifications to imposed restrictions 

will be made for the maintenance and operations of producing oil and gas wells.

After the SMA has been advised of specific proposed surface use or occupancy on the leased lands, and on 

request of the lessee/operator, the Agency will furnish further data on any special areas which may include:

100 feet from the edge of the rights-of-way from highways, designated county roads and appropriate federally-owned or controlled roads and recreation trails.

500 feet, or when necessary, within the 25-year flood plain from reservoirs, lakes, and ponds and intermittent, ephemeral or small perennial streams: 1,000 feet, or when necessary, within the 100-year flood plain from larger perennial streams, rivers, and domestic water supplies.

500 feet from grouse strutting grounds. Special care to avoid nesting areas associated with strutting 

grounds will be necessary during the period from March 1, to June 30. One-fourth mile from identified 

essential habitat of state and federal sensitive species. Crucial wildlife winter ranges during the period from December 1 to May 15, and in elk calving areas during the period from May 1 to June 30.

300 feet from occupied buildings, developed recreational areas, undeveloped recreational areas receiving concentrated public use and sites eligible for or designated as National Register sites.

Seasonal road closures, roads for special uses, specified roads during heavy traffic periods and on areas 

having restrictive off-road vehicle designations.

On slopes over 30 percent or 20 percent on extremely erodible or slumping soils.

See Notice on Back
NOTICE

APPLICATIONS FOR PERMIT TO DRILL (APDs)--The appropriate BLM field offices are responsible for the receipt, processing, and approval of APDs. The APDs are to be submitted by oil and gas operators pursuant to the requirements found in Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1 -- Approval of Operations on Onshore Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Leases (Circular No. 2538). Additional requirements for the conduct of oil and gas operations can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 43, Part 3160. Copies of Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 

1, and pertinent regulations, can be obtained from the BLM field offices in which the operations are proposed. Early coordination with these offices on proposals is encouraged.

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES--The SMA is responsible for assuring that the leased lands are examined to determine if cultural resources are present and to specify mitigation measures. Prior to undertaking any surface-disturbing activities on the lands covered by this lease, the lessee or operator, unless notified to the contrary by the SMA, shall:

1. Contact the appropriate SMA to determine if a site-specific cultural resource inventory is required. If an inventory is required, then:

2. Engage the services of a cultural resource specialist acceptable to the 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 area of proposed disturbance 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.

3. Implement mitigation measures required by the SMA. Mitigation may include the relocation of proposed lease-related activities or other protective measures such as testing salvage and recordation. Where impacts to cultural resources cannot be mitigated to the satisfaction of the SMA, surface occupancy on 

that area must be prohibited.

The operator shall immediately bring to the attention of the SMA any cultural or paleontological resources discovered as a result of approved operations under this lease, and not disturb such discoveries until directed to 

proceed by the SMA.

ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES--The SMA is responsible for assuring that the leased land is examined prior to undertaking any surface-disturbing activities to determine effects upon any plant or animal species, listed or proposed for listing as endangered or threatened, or their habitats. The findings of this examination may result in some restrictions to the operator's plans or even disallow use and occupancy that 

would be in violation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 by detrimentally affecting endangered or threatened 

species or their habitats.

The lessee/operator may, unless notified by the authorized officer of the SMA that the examination is not 

necessary, conduct the examination on the leased lands at his discretion and cost. This examination must be done 

by or under the supervision of a qualified resources specialist approved by the SMA. An acceptable report must be provided to the SMA identifying the anticipated effects of a proposed action on endangered or threatened 

species or their habitats.

Standard 16-3

Lewistown Field Office North Dakota Field Office Malta Field Office

Havre Field Office Glasgow Field Office
Appendix H

GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat 

Assessment

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment H-1

APPENDIX H

GRSG WILDFIRE AND INVASIVE SPECIES 

HABITAT ASSESSMENT

The following process is a suggestion for a consistent approach in conducting an assessment of the 

Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) habitat and wildfire threat at the local planning area level. Variations to 

this approach may be made based on interdisciplinary team discussion or unique issues in a given 

planning area. This example format is intended to portray the degree of specificity required for offices 

which will complete these assessments. Note that this process has similarities to watershed analysis and 

ecoregional assessments, and as such these documents may prove useful where they exist.

INTRODUCTION

Greater Sage-Grouse Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat Assessments (hereafter referred to as 

“stepdown assessments”) are interdisciplinary evaluations of the threats posed by wildfire and invasive 

species, as well as identification of priority areas/treatment opportunities for fuels management, fire 

management, and restoration. Priority areas are spatial delineations where treatments, management 

actions, or other emphasis should be placed due to factors such as habitat quality, threats, or 

opportunities to conserve, enhance, and restore GRSG habitat. The stepdown assessments will serve as 

a bridge between resource management plans (RMPs) and project level planning, and will position 

planning efforts to conduct project-scale National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) following RMP 

Records of Decision (RODs).

The stepdown assessment process involves four steps, beginning with characterization of the planning 

area and concluding with spatial delineation of priority areas. The content and methods used by the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in these documents should be consistent to ensure that priority 

areas are defined using similar criteria. These criteria and methods should be narratively described such 

that the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and other audiences can understand the factors 

considered.

STEP 1: CHARACTERIZATION OF GREATER SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT

The purpose of this step is to broadly establish context of the planning area and GRSG habitat.
H. GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat Assessment

H-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Location and Spatial Extent

 Describe the location of the planning area, and the relationship of GRSG habitat within the 

planning area.

Relationship to the Larger Scale Setting

 How does the planning area lie within the larger context of GRSG habitat?

Quantifying Habitat within Planning Area

 Brief description of GRSG habitat described in terms of acreage, habitat classes (e.g., priority 

habitat management areas (PHMA), general habitat management areas (GHMA), and/or 

Priority Areas for Conservation (PACs)).

 Note: A summary map showing the planning area with habitat features is appropriate in Step 

1. A tabular summary may also be included.

STEP 2: ISSUES AND KEY MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS

The purpose of this step is to devise management questions related to the issues of fuels management, 

fire management, and restoration. Note that this step should not answer each management question. 

Rather, management questions are answered in Step 4 through specific, quantified data.

Overview

 In coordination with state wildlife agencies, the USFWS, and your interdisciplinary team, 

develop an introductory section here which describes why fire or vegetation conditions 

pose a threat to GRSG in the local planning area. Describe where fire or vegetation 

conditions are a significant threat to GRSG habitat, and where fire, fuels, and restoration 

activities may help enhance habitat. In a brief paragraph or two, summarize the relationships 

between wildland fire, fuels management and invasives/restoration in the planning area. 

Examples would include annual grass/wildfire cycle, juniper encroachment into GRSG 

habitat, recently disturbed areas, etc.

Key Management Questions

Issue #1: Fuels Management

 In narrative format, develop management questions such as:

1. Based on fire risk to important GRSG habitats, what types of fuels treatments 

should be implemented that will reduce the risk? Where should fuels treatments be 

prioritized, and what’s the amount of treatment acres/miles needed for long-term 

enhancement and protection of GRSG habitat?

2. Based on opportunities for fire to improve/restore GRSG habitats, what types of 

fuels treatments should be implemented that will increase ability to allow fire? 

Where should fuels treatments be prioritized, and what amount of treatment is 

needed for long-term enhancement and protection of GRSG habitat?

3. What fuel reduction techniques will be most effective; including, but not limited to 

grazing, prescribed fire, chemical, biological and mechanical treatments?
H. GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat Assessment

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment H-3

4. What are the criteria for defining priority fuels management areas (example would 

be the intersection of high burn probability, PHMA, lek locations, and established 

GRSG population)?

5. Are there opportunities to utilize a coordinated approach across jurisdictional 

boundaries?

6. Are there areas where fuel treatments help restore GRSG habitat as well as reduce 

risk?

Issue #2: Fire Management

 In narrative format, develop management questions such as:

1. Where is the greatest wildfire risk, considering trends in fire occurrence, fuel 

conditions, and highly valued GRSG habitat?

2. Where will fire suppression resources be most successful to mitigate the risk and 

protect GRSG habitats?

3. Where do opportunities exist that could enhance or improve suppression capability 

in important GRSG habitats?

a. For example, increased water availability through installation of heli wells or 

water storage tanks.

b. Decreased response time through pre-positioned resources or staffing 

remote stations.

4. Where should wildfire be managed to achieve RMP objectives for improving or 

restoring GRSG habitat (limiting juniper expansion)?

5. What are the criteria for defining priority fire management areas? An example 

would be the intersection of PHMA, lek locations, and high burn probability.

6. How can fire management be coordinated across jurisdictional boundaries to 

reduce risk or to improve GRSG habitat?

Issue #3: Restoration

 In narrative format, develop management questions such as:

1. Are there opportunities for restoration treatments to conserve, enhance or 

maintain GRSG habitat? Assume that funding is not a constraint, and describe which 

sites are biologically suitable for restoration to GRSG habitat in a reasonable period.

2. Considering the entire planning area, what are the site conditions, such as dominant 

vegetation, elevation, or precipitation zones, where restoration efforts have been 

proven to be most successful in the recent past? An example would be mountain 

sagebrush sites over 5,000’ in elevation, and in a 16” or greater precipitation zone.

3. What are the criteria for defining priority restoration areas? An example would be 

recent burns, moderately disturbed sites, or recovering allotment pastures which 

have not crossed ecological thresholds or become highly degraded. These may or 

may not be covered by existing emergency stabilization and rehabilitation (ESR) 

plans.
H. GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat Assessment

H-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

4. Are there opportunities to utilize a coordinated approach across jurisdictional 

boundaries?

STEP 3: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND TRENDS

The purpose of this step is to develop information relevant to the issues and key questions identified in 

Step 2. It provides a snapshot of the present condition, statement of causal factors, and a summary of 

the trends which are occurring.

Biological Summary of Vegetation, Invasive Species, and Fire Regimes

[In this introductory section, provide a general biological summary of the planning area. Provide a 

narrative description of ecological trends, including description of plant communities, fire regimes, and 

other dominant biological factors affecting GRSG habitat.]

 Describe how fire has influenced current vegetation patterns. Are there large areas of evenaged communities, fine-scale mosaics, annual grass monocultures?

 Describe if fire regimes are intact, or if they are altered. If they are altered, describe why. 

Use fire regime variables such as fire frequency, severity, or size to elucidate your points.

 Describe dominant cover types making up the planning area. These can be broad seral stage 

groupings, general lifeforms, or more fine-scale information such as plant associations, 

habitat types, or ecological systems. Note: this information should be available in the RMP.

 What has been the impact of fire exclusion (e.g., increased conifer encroachment, and 

decadent shrub communities)? 

 What is the current extent of annual grasses and other invasive species?

 What are the effects of invasive species on land health? On trends in plant succession? On 

fire regimes?

Fuels Management

 Describe current fuels management practices within the planning area (what are the types of 

fuels treatments commonly applied to which management issues)?

 How has past fuels management influenced today’s planning area (e.g., creation of mosaics, 

protecting certain features, and increasing invasives)?

 What are causal factors which have created a need for fuels management practices?

 What are the trends in the fuels management program related to budget or capability?

Fire Management

 Describe the current fire suppression workload.

 Describe fire occurrence trends (include discussion of fire size, numbers of starts, ignition 

locations).

 Describe causal factors influencing suppression effectiveness.

 Describe suppression capabilities. Discuss types and numbers of resources within office, 

through interagency agreements, and through resource sharing.
H. GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat Assessment

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment H-5

Restoration

 Describe invasive species which are present in the planning area.

 Describe landscape conditions which may be suitable for restoration within the planning 

area, and the results of recent restoration efforts in the planning area.

 Describe invasive species occurrence.

 Describe causal factors influencing restoration needs.

Methodology

 What are the analysis methods to be utilized and analysis assumptions?

Use of best available Science

 Describe data sets used, such as the FSIM layer, local data, etc. [Many data sets being used 

in RMPs will also be applicable to stepdown assessments].

 What are the elements of science used?

STEP 4: IDENTIFICATION OF TREATMENT OPPORTUNITIES, PRIORITY AREAS, AND 

ACTIONS

The purpose of this step is to utilize the information from steps 2 and 3 in order to quantify the overall 

need for treatment or other actions. Specifically, this step should spatially identify and quantify priority 

areas, using the criteria established in Step 2. Next, this step should identify treatment opportunities 

which fall within priority areas. Furthermore, treatments should be prioritized and an implementation 

schedule developed, reflecting the reality that not every acre in need of treatment can receive action 

within the planning horizon.

Fuels Management

 Spatially delineate priority areas for fuels management, based upon criteria established in 

Step 2. Fuels priority areas should be delineated by type, such as:

– Linear fuel break along roads

– Other linear fuel breaks to create anchor points

– Prescribed burning

– Mechanical (e.g., conifer removal)

– Other mechanical, biological, or chemical treatment

 Quantify the number of acres of needed fuels treatments.

 If they exist, spatially delineate areas where fuel treatments would increase the ability to use 

fire to improve/enhance GRSG habitat?

– Include tables, maps or appropriate information 

 Identify coordination needed between renewable resource, fire management, and fuels 

management staff to facilitate planning and implementation of fuels treatments.

 Quantify a projected level of treatment within fuels management priority areas.

 Identify treatments to be planned within fuels management priority areas.
H. GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat Assessment

H-6 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

 Include a priority or implementation schedule for proposed treatments.

Fire Management

 Spatially delineate priority areas for fire suppression, based upon criteria established in Step 

2. Priority areas for fire management should be delineated by type, such as:

– Initial attack priority areas; 

– Resource pre-positioning and movement priority areas; 

– Remote station staffing priority areas, if appropriate

– Include tables, maps or other supporting information

 Quantify the number of acres of GRSG habitats for aggressive initial attack that were 

identified at highest risk from losing key habitat components.

 Quantify the number and type of suppression resources that will be staged or otherwise 

pre-positioned, as well as the associated conditions, in order to enhance initial attack 

capabilities. 

 Spatially delineate areas where opportunities exist to enhance or improve suppression 

capability.

– Include tables, maps or other supporting information

 Spatially delineate areas where wildfire can be managed to achieve RMP objectives.

– Include tables, maps or appropriate information

 Quantify the number of acres within fire management priority areas.

 Include a priority or implementation schedule for fire suppression proposed actions.

Restoration

 Spatially delineate priority areas for restoration, using criteria established in Step 2. Priority 

areas for restoration should be delineated by type, such as:

– Seeding priority areas (aerial, drill, broadcast, or other); 

– Invasive species priority areas (herbicide, mechanical, biological, combination); 

– Priority areas requiring combinations of treatments (e.g., herbicide followed by 

seeding); 

– Include tables, maps or appropriate information. 

 Identify locations where post-fire restoration treatments should be focused.

– Include tables, maps or appropriate information

 Spatially identify invasive species occurrence.

 Identify coordination needed between renewable resource, fire management, and fuels 

management staff to facilitate planning and implementation of restoration treatments.

 Quantify the projected level of treatment within restoration priority areas.

 Identify treatments to be planned within restoration priority areas.
H. GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat Assessment

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment H-7

 Include a priority or implementation schedule for proposed restoration treatments.

Annual Treatment Needs

1. Based on the information above and within the planning area, what are the annual needs 

based on the key questions and summary statements?

Annual Treatment Abilities

1. Putting GRSG habitat protection and enhancement into perspective with other high valued 

resources and important land management goals, how does the annual need relate to 

capabilities?

2. What are the realistic annual expectations in fire management, fuels management, and 

restoration for the next five years?
H. GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat Assessment

H-8 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix I

Adaptive Management Plan

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment I-1

APPENDIX I

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN

The following provides the BLM’s adaptive management strategy for the Lewistown Field Office Greater 

Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (ARMPA). If the BLM finds that the 

State of Montana is implementing a Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Habitat Conservation Program that is 

effectively conserving the GRSG, 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.

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING

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

monitoring component. The BLM intends 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 rangewide conservation strategies (DOI 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. The GRSG adaptive 

management plan provides regulatory assurance that a means of addressing and responding to unintended 

negative impacts to GRSG and its habitat before consequences become severe or irreversible.

The Montana Sage Grouse Habitat Conservation Program established by the Montana Governor’s 

Executive Order # 10-2014, states under the General Provisions heading, item # 22 “Montana Sage 

Grouse Oversight Team (MSGOT) shall regularly reevaluate the effectiveness of the Conservation 

Strategy, at a minimum annually, as new science, information and data emerge regarding the habitats and 

behavior of sage grouse, and shall recommend such changes as are appropriate.”

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT TRIGGERS

Adaptive management triggers are essential for identifying when potential management changes are needed 

in order to continue meeting GRSG conservation objectives. The BLM will use soft and hard triggers.

Soft Triggers

Soft triggers are indicators that management or specific activities may not be achieving the intended

results of conservation action. The soft trigger is any negative deviation from normal trends in habitat or

population in any given year, or if observed across two to three consecutive years. Metrics include, but
I. Adaptive Management Plan

I-2 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

are not limited to, annual lek counts, wing counts, aerial surveys, habitat monitoring, and density and 

disturbance calculation tool (DDCT) evaluations. BLM field offices, local Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 

(MFWP) offices, and GRSG working groups would evaluate the metrics. The purpose of these strategies

is to address localized GRSG population and habitat changes by providing the framework in which

management would change if monitoring identifies negative population and habitat anomalies.

Each major project (environmental impact statement level) will include adaptive management strategies in 

support of the population management objectives for GRSG set by the State of Montana, and will be 

consistent with this GRSG Adaptive Management Plan. These adaptive management strategies will be

developed in partnership with the State of Montana, project proponents, partners, and stakeholders,

incorporating the best available science.

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

deviation from GRSG objectives as set forth in the BLM plans.

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 will be determined to take effect when 

two of the three metrics exceeds 60 percent of normal variability for the biologically significant unit (BSU)

in a single year, or when any of the three metrics exceeds 40 percent of normal variability for a three-year 

time period within a five-year range of analysis. A minimum of three years is used to determine trends, 

with a five- year period preferred to allow determination of three actual time periods (Y1-2-3, Y2-3-4, Y3-

4-5). Baseline population estimates are established by pre-disturbance surveys, reference surveys and 

account for regional and statewide trends in population levels. Population count data in Montana are 

maintained by 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 Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMA).

Hard Trigger Response

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

deviation from GRSG conservation objectives set forth in the BLM plans. As such, this ARMPA 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 Lewistown 

Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS will be implemented without further action 

by the BLM. Specific “hard-wired” changes in management are identified in Table I-1, Specific 

Management Responses. In addition to the specific changes identified in Table I-1, the BLM will review 
I. Adaptive Management Plan

September 2015 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment I-3

Table I-1

Specific Management Responses

Program Adaptive Management Response

GRSG Management Areas within and adjacent to PHMA where a hard trigger has been 

reached will be the top priority for regional mitigation, habitat 

restoration and fuels reduction treatments.

Vegetation Management PHMA will be the top priority for regional mitigation, habitat restoration 

and fuels reduction treatments.

Wildland Fire Management Reassess GRSG habitat needs to determine if priorities for at risk 

habitats, fuels management areas, preparedness, suppression and 

restoration have changed.

Livestock Grazing For areas not achieving the GRSG habitat objectives due to grazing, 

apply adjustments to livestock grazing to achieve objectives.

Rights of Way – Existing 

Corridors

Retain the corridors as mapped, but limit the size of new lines within 

the corridors to same as existing structures, or not larger than 100 

kilovolt (kV).

Wind Energy Development No change from ARMPA.

Industrial Solar No change from ARMPA.

Comprehensive Travel and 

Transportation Management

If travel management planning has not been completed within GRSG 

habitat, PHMA areas where the hard trigger was met will be the highest 

priority for future travel management planning efforts.

If travel management has been completed within GRSG habitat in the 

PHMA where the hard trigger was met, re-evaluate designated routes to 

determine their effects on GRSG. If routes are found to be causing 

population-level impacts, revise their designation status to reduce the 

effect.

Fluid Minerals No change from ARMPA.

Locatable Minerals No change from ARMPA.

Salable Minerals No change from ARMPA.

Nonenergy Leasable Minerals No change from ARMPA.

available and pertinent data, in coordination with GRSG biologists and managers from multiple agencies 

including the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Resource Conservation Service (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 I-1, and can also include the need to 

amend or revise the resourvce management plan (RMP) to address the situation and modify 

management accordingly. When a hard trigger is hit in a BSU, including those that cross state lines, the 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Management Zone Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Team will convene to determine the causal factor, put project level responses in place, as 

appropriate and discuss further appropriate actions to be applied. (BSU for this ARMPA is the total of all 

the PHMA within a GRSG population as delineated in the Conservation Objective Team [COT] report.) 

Adoption of any further actions at the plan level may require initiating a plan amendment process.

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 will be insufficient to stop a 

severe deviation from GRSG conservation objectives set forth in the BLM plans, the BLM will
I. Adaptive Management Plan

I-4 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

immediately implement a formal directive to protect GRSG and its habitat and to ensure that 

conservation options are not foreclosed. To the extent that it is supported scientifically, this formal 

directive wiull be drawn from the range of alternatives analyzed in the Lewistown Field Office Greater 

Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS.

REFERENCES

DOI (US Department of the Interior). 2004. Bureau of Land Management National Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Conservation Strategy. November 2004.

Stiver, S. J., A. D. Apa, J. R. Bohne, S. D. Bunnell, P. A. Deibert, S. C. Gardner, M. A. Hilliard, et al. 2006. 

Greater Sage-Grouse Comprehensive Conservation Strategy. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies. Unpublished report. Cheyenne, Wyoming.

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) 

Conservation Objectives: Final Report. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 

February 2013.