BLM

North Dakota 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Draft 

Resource Management Plan Amendment 

and Environmental Impact Statement 

US Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

September 2013 
The Bureau of Land Management’s multiple-use mission is to sustain the health and productivity of the 

public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. The Bureau accomplishes this 

by managing such activities as outdoor recreation, livestock grazing, mineral development, and energy 

production, and by conserving natural, historical, cultural, and other resources on public lands. 

BLM/MT/PL-13/013 

DOI-BLM-MT-C030-2013-120-EIS 

Cover Photo: Steve Ting 
United States Department of the Interior 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
 

North Dakota Field Office
 

gg 23'd Avenue West - Suite A
 

Dickinson, North Dakota 58601-2619
 

In Reply Refer To: www.blm.eov/mt 

August 28, 20 | 3 

Dear Reader: 

Enclosed for your review and comment is the Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Resource 

Management Plan Amendment (RMPA)/Draft Environmental lmpact Statement (DEIS) for the 

North Dakota Field Office (NDFO). This document has been prepared by the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) with assistance from the following cooperating agencies: North Dakota 

Game and Fish Department, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Bowman County Commissioners, and 

Bowman-Slope Conservation District. 

The DEIS considers and analyzes four alternatives that address future management of 

approximately 30,030 acres of federal surface and 396,053 acres of federal mineral estate in 

southwestern North Dakota administered by the BLM's NDFO. Alternative D is identified as 

the agency's preferred alternative. Although a preferred alternative has been identified, a final 

decision has not been made. The final decision, which will be documented in a Record of 

Decision, will be made after consideration of the comments received on the DEIS and after a 

proposed RMPA/final EIS is released. 

This DEIS consists of an Executive Summary, Chapters I through 6, References, Glossary, 

Index, and Appendices (including figures). Compact disc copies of the document may be 

obtained through the NDFO, or a copy of the document may be viewed at: 

http : //www. blm. gov/mt/st/en/fo/north-dakota-field.html 

You are invited to review and comment on the DEIS. The public review period for the DEIS is 

90 calendar days from the publication date of the Notice of Availability in the Federol Register by 

the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). lnformation regarding public meeting dates and 

times to discuss the DEIS and provide comment will be released through the news media and 

website (identified in letterhead) after the publication of the EPA Federol Register Notice of 

Availability. 

Written comments can be submitted to: North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse ElS, 5001 

Southgate Drive, Billings, MT 59l0l. Comments can also be submitted to this email address: 

blm_mt-nd-sageJrouse@blm.gov. Comments will be fully considered and evaluated in the 

preparation of the Proposed RMPA and Final ElS, and all substantive comments will be 

addressed. 
Comments will be most useful if they are specific, mention pamicular Pages where appropriate, 

and address one or more of the following: 

. inaccuracies or discrepancies in information 

. identification of new information relevant to the analysis 

. identification of new impacts, alternatives, or mitigntion measures 

. specific suggestions for improving management direction 

Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifring 

information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment -- including your personal 

identifying information -- may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us to 

withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that 

we will be able to do so. 

We appreciate your help in this planning effort and look forward to your continued interest 

and participation. For additional information or clarification regarding this document, please 

contact Ruth Miller, Project Lead, at (406) 896-5023 or myself at (70ll 727-7700. 

Sincerely, 
North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse

Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment and

Environmental Impact Statement

BLM/MT/PL-13/013

DOI-BLM-MT-C030-2013-120-EIS

1. Responsible Agency: United States Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

2. Type of Action: Administrative (X) Legislative ( ) 

3. Document Status: Draft (X) Final ( ) 

4. Abstract: The draft resource management plan amendment (RMPA)/environmental impact statement 

(EIS) has been prepared by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) with assistance from the 

following cooperating agencies: North Dakota Game and Fish Department, US Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Bowman County Commissioners, and Bowman-Slope Conservation District.

The draft EIS considers and analyzes four alternatives that address future management of 

approximately 30,030 acres of federal surface and 396,053 acres of federal mineral estate in 

southwestern North Dakota administered by the BLM’s North Dakota Field Office (NDFO). 

Alternative A is a continuation of current management (No Action Alternative). Under this 

alternative, use of BLM-administered lands and resources would continue to be managed under the 

North Dakota RMP, as amended. Alternative B describes management actions taken directly from 

the Sage-Grouse National Technical Team (NTT) A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Measures. Alternative C describes management actions submitted by various citizen 

groups. Alternative D describes management actions developed by adapting the NTT measures to 

North Dakota. Alternative D is the BLM’s current preferred alternative. Alternative D is not a final 

agency decision but instead an indication of the agency’s preliminary preference that reflects the best 

combination of decisions to achieve BLM goals and policies, meet the purpose and need, address the 

key planning issues, and consider the recommendations of cooperating agencies and BLM specialists.

Major issues discussed in the draft EIS include: Greater Sage-Grouse, realty actions, oil and gas, 

minerals, travel and transportation management, grazing, and fuels management. The alternatives 

present a range of management actions to achieve the goal of Greater Sage-Grouse conservation for 

the NDFO. When completed, the Record of Decision for the RMPA/EIS will provide allowable uses 

and management actions for select resources and resource uses to conserve Greater Sage-Grouse 

and habitat.

5. Review Period: Comments on the Draft RMPA/EIS will be accepted for 90 days following publication 

of the Notice of Availability by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the Federal 

Register. The comment period will be announced in press releases and the website: 

http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/fo/north_dakota_field.html
6. For further information contact: 

Ruth Miller, Team Leader 

Bureau of Land Management

Montana State Office

5001 Southgate Drive

Billings, MT 59101

(406) 896-5023
September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

ES. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................ES-1

ES.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................ES-1

ES.2 Purpose and Need......................................................................................................................ES-4

ES.3 Proposed Action.........................................................................................................................ES-5

ES.4 Scoping ..........................................................................................................................................ES-5

ES.5 Issues..............................................................................................................................................ES-6

ES.5.1 Issues Specific to North and South Dakota ..........................................................ES-7

ES.6 Planning Criteria..........................................................................................................................ES-7

ES.7 Management Alternatives ...................................................................................................... ES-10

ES.7.1 Alternative A (No Action)...................................................................................... ES-11

ES.7.2 Elements Common to Alternatives B, C, and D............................................... ES-11

ES.7.3 Alternative B.............................................................................................................. ES-12

ES.7.4 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. ES-12

ES.7.5 Alternative D (Agency Preferred) ........................................................................ ES-12

ES.8 Environmental Consequences .............................................................................................. ES-13

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

1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Purpose and Need........................................................................................................................1-3

1.3 Proposed Action...........................................................................................................................1-3

1.4 Description of the Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Area.....................................................1-4

1.4.1 Overview .........................................................................................................................1-4

1.5 BLM Planning Process..................................................................................................................1-5

1.5.1 Implementation of Land Use Plans............................................................................1-6

1.5.2 Monitoring .......................................................................................................................1-7

1.6 Scoping and Identification of Issues..........................................................................................1-7

1.6.1 The Scoping Process.....................................................................................................1-7

1.6.2 Scoping Comments .......................................................................................................1-8

1.6.3 Issues Identified ..............................................................................................................1-8

1.6.4 Issues Considered but Not Further Analyzed......................................................1-10

1.6.5 Issues Beyond the Scope of the Plan.......................................................................1-11

1.7 Development of Planning Criteria ..........................................................................................1-12

1.8 Relationship to Other Policies, Plans, and Programs.........................................................1-15

1.8.1 National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy................................................1-15

1.8.2 Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-043, Greater Sage-Grouse Interim 

Management Policies and Procedures .........................................................................1-16

1.8.3 National Level Programmatic EISs and Agreements...........................................1-16

1.8.4 Relevant Plan Amendments.......................................................................................1-17

1.8.5 National Grasslands Leasing Decisions ..................................................................1-17

1.8.6 Greater Sage‐Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation 

Objectives Final Report..............................................................................................1-18

1.8.7 Summary of Science, Activities, Programs, and Policies that Influence 

the Range-Wide Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) .................................................................................................................1-18

1.8.8 Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Greater 

Sage-Grouse in North Dakota .................................................................................1-19
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter Page

ii North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

1.8.9 Off-Highway Vehicle Record of Decision and Proposed Plan 

Amendment for Montana, North Dakota, and Portions of South Dakota....1-19

1.8.10 County Plans.................................................................................................................1-20

2. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES..................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Introduction to Alternatives......................................................................................................2-2

2.3 Alternatives Development for the North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Plan 

Amendment....................................................................................................................................2-3

2.3.1 Develop a Reasonable Range of Alternatives .........................................................2-3

2.4 Resulting Range of Alternatives.................................................................................................2-3

2.4.1 Management Common to All Alternatives..............................................................2-6

2.4.2 Alternative A (No Action)...........................................................................................2-7

2.4.3 Elements Common to Alternatives B, C, and D....................................................2-7

2.4.4 Alternative B...................................................................................................................2-8

2.4.5 Alternative C ................................................................................................................2-10

2.4.6 Alternative D (Agency Preferred) ...........................................................................2-11

2.5 Regional Mitigation Strategy.....................................................................................................2-13

2.6 Monitoring for the Greater Sage-grouse Planning Strategy..............................................2-13

2.7 Adaptive Management ...............................................................................................................2-15

2.7.1 Adaptive Management and Monitoring...................................................................2-15

2.7.2 Adaptive Management Plan........................................................................................2-16

2.8 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ..................................................................2-17

2.8.1 National Technical Team Conservation Measures Not Applicable to 

North Dakota...............................................................................................................2-17

2.8.2 Eliminate Livestock Grazing from BLM-Administered Lands............................2-17

2.9 Considerations for Selecting a Preferred Alternative........................................................2-19

2.9.1 Recommendations and Resulting Actions..............................................................2-19

2.10 Summary Comparison of Alternatives ..................................................................................2-20

2.10.1 How to Read Table 2-3..............................................................................................2-23

2.11 Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in North Dakota by Alternative ...........2-43

2.12 Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences..................................................2-46

3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Organization of Chapter 3 .........................................................................................................3-1

3.2.1 WAFWA Management Zone Data............................................................................3-3

3.3 Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse......................................................................3-4

3.3.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ................................................................................3-6

3.3.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-10

3.3.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-10

3.4 Lands and Realty .........................................................................................................................3-11

3.4.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-13

3.4.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-16

3.4.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-18

3.5 Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands)....................................3-18

3.5.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-19
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter Page

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS iii

3.5.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-22

3.5.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-24

3.6 Wildland Fire Management and Ecology ...............................................................................3-25

3.6.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-26

3.6.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-27

3.6.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-29

3.7 Fluid Minerals...............................................................................................................................3-29

3.7.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-29

3.7.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-34

3.7.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-39

3.8 Coal................................................................................................................................................3-39

3.8.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-39

3.8.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-41

3.8.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-41

3.9 Locatable Minerals......................................................................................................................3-41

3.9.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-41

3.9.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-42

3.9.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-42

3.10 Mineral Materials.........................................................................................................................3-42

3.10.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-42

3.10.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-43

3.10.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-43

3.11 Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management................................................3-43

3.11.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-43

3.11.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-46

3.11.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-46

3.12 Recreation ....................................................................................................................................3-46

3.12.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-46

3.12.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-47

3.12.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-48

3.13 Range Management.....................................................................................................................3-48

3.13.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-49

3.13.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-51

3.13.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-54

3.14 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ............................................................................3-55

3.14.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-55

3.14.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-56

3.15 Air Resources..............................................................................................................................3-56

3.15.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-56

3.15.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-60

3.15.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-60

3.16 Climate ..........................................................................................................................................3-60

3.16.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-61

3.16.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-62

3.16.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-62

3.17 Soil Resources.............................................................................................................................3-63

3.17.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-64
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter Page

iv North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

3.17.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-64

3.17.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-65

3.18 Water Resources........................................................................................................................3-65

3.18.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-66

3.18.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-66

3.18.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-70

3.19 Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue..................................................................3-70

3.19.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-71

3.19.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-71

3.19.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-71

3.20 Renewable Energy ......................................................................................................................3-81

3.20.1 Conditions of the Planning Area ..............................................................................3-82

3.20.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands...............................................................3-83

3.20.3 Trends............................................................................................................................3-84

3.21 Social and Economic Conditions.............................................................................................3-84

3.22 Environmental Justice.................................................................................................................3-92

4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.............................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................4-1

4.1.1 Analytical Assumptions.................................................................................................4-2

4.1.2 General Methodology for Analyzing Impacts..........................................................4-6

4.1.3 Incomplete or Unavailable Information....................................................................4-7

4.2 Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse......................................................................4-8

4.2.1 Methods and Assumptions..........................................................................................4-8

4.2.2 Nature and Type of Effects .........................................................................................4-9

4.2.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.....................................................................4-14

4.2.4 Alternative A.................................................................................................................4-14

4.2.5 Alternative B.................................................................................................................4-19

4.2.6 Alternative C ................................................................................................................4-24

4.2.7 Alternative D ................................................................................................................4-28

4.2.8 Impacts Summary.........................................................................................................4-33

4.3 Lands and Realty .........................................................................................................................4-40

4.3.1 Methods and Assumptions........................................................................................4-40

4.3.2 Nature and Type of Effects .......................................................................................4-41

4.3.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.....................................................................4-42

4.3.4 Alternative A.................................................................................................................4-43

4.3.5 Alternative B.................................................................................................................4-44

4.3.6 Alternative C ................................................................................................................4-45

4.3.7 Alternative D ................................................................................................................4-46

4.4 Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands)....................................4-46

4.4.1 Methods and Assumptions........................................................................................4-46

4.4.2 Nature and Type of Effects .......................................................................................4-48

4.4.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.....................................................................4-53

4.4.4 Alternative A.................................................................................................................4-53

4.4.5 Alternative B.................................................................................................................4-56

4.4.6 Alternative C ................................................................................................................4-59

4.4.7 Alternative D ................................................................................................................4-61
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter Page

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS v

4.5 Wildland Fire Management and Ecology ...............................................................................4-63

4.5.1 Methods and Assumptions........................................................................................4-63

4.5.2 Nature and Type of Effects .......................................................................................4-63

4.5.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.....................................................................4-66

4.5.4 Alternative A.................................................................................................................4-66

4.5.5 Alternative B.................................................................................................................4-68

4.5.6 Alternative C ................................................................................................................4-71

4.5.7 Alternative D ................................................................................................................4-72

4.6 Fluid Minerals...............................................................................................................................4-74

4.6.1 Methods and Assumptions........................................................................................4-74

4.6.2 Nature and Type of Effects .......................................................................................4-76

4.6.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.....................................................................4-78

4.6.4 Alternative A.................................................................................................................4-78

4.6.5 Alternative B.................................................................................................................4-79

4.6.6 Alternative C ................................................................................................................4-85

4.6.7 Alternative D ................................................................................................................4-85

4.7 Coal................................................................................................................................................4-87

4.8 Locatable Minerals......................................................................................................................4-87

4.9 Mineral Materials.........................................................................................................................4-87

4.9.1 Methods and Assumptions........................................................................................4-87

4.9.2 Nature and Type of Effects .......................................................................................4-89

4.9.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.....................................................................4-89

4.9.4 Alternative A.................................................................................................................4-89

4.9.5 Alternative B.................................................................................................................4-89

4.9.6 Alternative C ................................................................................................................4-90

4.9.7 Alternative D ................................................................................................................4-91

4.10 Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management................................................4-91

4.10.1 Methods and Assumptions........................................................................................4-91

4.10.2 Nature and Type of Effects .......................................................................................4-92

4.10.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.....................................................................4-93

4.10.4 Alternative A.................................................................................................................4-93

4.10.5 Alternative B.................................................................................................................4-93

4.10.6 Alternative C ................................................................................................................4-94

4.10.7 Alternative D ................................................................................................................4-94

4.11 Recreation ....................................................................................................................................4-94

4.11.1 Methods and Assumptions........................................................................................4-94

4.11.2 Nature and Type of Effects .......................................................................................4-95

4.11.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.....................................................................4-97

4.11.4 Alternative A.................................................................................................................4-97

4.11.5 Alternative B.................................................................................................................4-98

4.11.6 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-100

4.11.7 Alternative D ............................................................................................................. 4-101

4.12 Range Management.................................................................................................................. 4-102

4.12.1 Methods and Assumptions..................................................................................... 4-102

4.12.2 Nature and Type of Effects .................................................................................... 4-103

4.12.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.................................................................. 4-107

4.12.4 Alternative A.............................................................................................................. 4-107
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter Page

vi North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

4.12.5 Alternative B.............................................................................................................. 4-110

4.12.6 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-113

4.12.7 Alternative D ............................................................................................................. 4-115

4.13 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ......................................................................... 4-117

4.13.1 Methods and Assumptions..................................................................................... 4-117

4.13.2 Nature and Type of Effects .................................................................................... 4-118

4.13.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.................................................................. 4-118

4.13.4 Alternative A.............................................................................................................. 4-119

4.13.5 Alternative B.............................................................................................................. 4-119

4.13.6 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-119

4.13.7 Alternative D ............................................................................................................. 4-119

4.14 Air Resources........................................................................................................................... 4-120

4.14.1 Methods and Assumptions..................................................................................... 4-120

4.14.2 Nature and Type of Effects .................................................................................... 4-120

4.14.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.................................................................. 4-121

4.14.4 Alternative A.............................................................................................................. 4-121

4.14.5 Alternative B.............................................................................................................. 4-121

4.14.6 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-122

4.14.7 Alternative D ............................................................................................................. 4-123

4.15 Climate ....................................................................................................................................... 4-123

4.15.1 Methods and Assumptions..................................................................................... 4-123

4.15.2 Nature and Type of Effects .................................................................................... 4-124

4.15.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.................................................................. 4-124

4.15.4 Alternative A.............................................................................................................. 4-124

4.15.5 Alternative B.............................................................................................................. 4-125

4.15.6 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-126

4.15.7 Alternative D ............................................................................................................. 4-126

4.16 Soil Resources.......................................................................................................................... 4-127

4.16.1 Methods and Assumptions..................................................................................... 4-127

4.16.2 Nature and Type of Effects .................................................................................... 4-128

4.16.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.................................................................. 4-129

4.16.4 Alternative A.............................................................................................................. 4-129

4.16.5 Alternative B.............................................................................................................. 4-130

4.16.6 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-132

4.16.7 Alternative D ............................................................................................................. 4-133

4.17 Water Resources..................................................................................................................... 4-134

4.17.1 Methods and Assumptions..................................................................................... 4-134

4.17.2 Nature and Type of Effects .................................................................................... 4-135

4.17.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.................................................................. 4-138

4.17.4 Alternative A.............................................................................................................. 4-138

4.17.5 Alternative B.............................................................................................................. 4-139

4.17.6 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-141

4.17.7 Alternative D ............................................................................................................. 4-142

4.18 Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue............................................................... 4-143

4.18.1 Methods and Assumptions..................................................................................... 4-143

4.18.2 Nature and Type of Effects .................................................................................... 4-144

4.18.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.................................................................. 4-147
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter Page

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS vii

4.18.4 Alternative A.............................................................................................................. 4-147

4.18.5 Alternative B.............................................................................................................. 4-149

4.18.6 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-151

4.18.7 Alternative D ............................................................................................................. 4-153

4.19 Renewable Energy ................................................................................................................... 4-155

4.19.1 Methods and Assumptions..................................................................................... 4-155

4.19.2 Nature and Type of Effects .................................................................................... 4-156

4.19.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives.................................................................. 4-156

4.19.4 Alternative A.............................................................................................................. 4-157

4.19.5 Alternative B.............................................................................................................. 4-157

4.19.6 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-158

4.19.7 Alternative D ............................................................................................................. 4-159

4.20 Social and Economic Conditions.......................................................................................... 4-160

4.20.1 Methods and Assumptions..................................................................................... 4-160

4.20.2 Alternative A.............................................................................................................. 4-161

4.20.3 Alternative B.............................................................................................................. 4-163

4.20.4 Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 4-164

4.20.5 Alternative D ............................................................................................................. 4-166

4.21 Environmental Justice.............................................................................................................. 4-167

4.22 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts............................................................................................... 4-167

4.23 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ............................................ 4-168

4.24 Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity.............. 4-169

5. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................5-1

5.1.1 Cumulative Analysis Methodology.............................................................................5-1

5.1.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions................................5-2

5.2 Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse......................................................................5-5

5.2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................5-5

5.2.2 WAFWA Management Zone 1 Analysis..................................................................5-5

5.3 Lands and Realty .........................................................................................................................5-11

5.4 Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands)....................................5-13

5.4.1 Alternative A.................................................................................................................5-13

5.4.2 Alternative B.................................................................................................................5-14

5.4.3 Alternative C ................................................................................................................5-14

5.4.4 Alternative D ................................................................................................................5-15

5.5 Wildland Fire Management and Ecology ...............................................................................5-15

5.6 Fluid Minerals...............................................................................................................................5-16

5.7 Coal................................................................................................................................................5-17

5.8 Locatable Minerals......................................................................................................................5-17

5.9 Mineral Materials.........................................................................................................................5-17

5.10 Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management................................................5-17

5.11 Recreation ....................................................................................................................................5-18

5.12 Range Management.....................................................................................................................5-19

5.13 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ............................................................................5-20

5.14 Air Quality....................................................................................................................................5-20

5.15 Climate ..........................................................................................................................................5-21
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter Page

viii North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

5.16 Soil Resources.............................................................................................................................5-21

5.17 Water Resources........................................................................................................................5-23

5.18 Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue..................................................................5-24

5.19 Renewable Energy ......................................................................................................................5-25

5.20 Social and Economic Conditions.............................................................................................5-26

5.21 Environmental Justice.................................................................................................................5-27

6. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ........................................................................ 6-1

6.1 Public Involvement........................................................................................................................6-1

6.1.1 Scoping Process..............................................................................................................6-2

6.2 Consultation and Coordination ................................................................................................6-3

6.3 Cooperating Agencies .................................................................................................................6-4

6.4 List of Preparers............................................................................................................................6-5

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

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

INDEX ...............................................................................................................................INDEX-1
ix North Dakota Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

TABLES Page

ES-1 Land Ownership within the Planning Area..........................................................................................ES-4

ES-2 Range-Wide Planning Issues for the North Dakota Field Office....................................................ES-6

1-1 Land Ownership within the Planning Area............................................................................................1-5

1-2 Range-Wide Planning Issues for the North Dakota Field Office......................................................1-9

2-1 USFWS-Identified Threats to GRSG and Their Habitat and Applicable BLM RMP 

Resource Programs for Addressing Threats.........................................................................................2-4

2-2 Comparative Summary of Alternatives ................................................................................................2-21

2-3 Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D.........................................................................................2-25

2-4 Summary of Impacts to GRSG in North Dakota ...............................................................................2-43

2-5 Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences.................................................................2-46

3-1 Preliminary Priority Habitat and Preliminary General Habitat Occurring on 

BLM-Administered Lands and non-BLM Lands in the Planning Area ..............................................3-7

3-2 Surface Ownership within the Planning Area .....................................................................................3-13

3-3 GRSG Habitat within City Limits...........................................................................................................3-14

3-4 Transmission Lines within GRSG Habitat............................................................................................3-14

3-5 Communication Towers within GRSG Habitat..................................................................................3-15

3-6 Vertical Obstructions within GRSG Habitat.......................................................................................3-15

3-7 Wind Turbines within GRSG Habitat...................................................................................................3-16

3-8 Active ROW Authorizations within the Planning Area....................................................................3-17

3-9 Vegetation Communities within GRSG Habitat on BLM-Administered Lands...........................3-22

3-10 PFC Assessment for Riparian Habitat on BLM-Administered Lands ............................................3-23

3-11 PFC Assessment for Wetland Habitat on BLM-Administered Lands ...........................................3-24

3-12 Wildland Fire within GRSG Habitat......................................................................................................3-27

3-13 Planning Area Fire Regime Condition Class........................................................................................3-28

3-14 Oil and Gas Activity by Field in the Planning Area............................................................................3-31

3-15 Open to Oil and Gas Leasing within GRSG Habitat.........................................................................3-32

3-16 Closed to Oil and Gas Leasing within GRSG Habitat.......................................................................3-32

3-17 Oil and Gas Leases within GRSG Habitat............................................................................................3-32

3-18 Oil and Gas Leases Held by Production within GRSG Habitat......................................................3-33

3-19 Oil and Gas Wells within GRSG Habitat.............................................................................................3-33

3-20 Federal Mineral Status in the North Dakota Planning Area............................................................3-34

3-21 Oil and Gas Federal Mineral Status in the North Dakota Decision Area ...................................3-35

3-22 Oil and Gas Potential in Relation to Greater GRSG PPH and PGH.............................................3-35

3-23 Existing Oil and Gas Leases on Federal Mineral Estate....................................................................3-36

3-24 Drilling Activity within GRSG Habitat1.................................................................................................3-37

3-25 Oil and Gas Leasing Categories in PPH and PGH .............................................................................3-38

3-26 Coal Potential within GRSG Habitat.....................................................................................................3-40

3-27 Surface Coal Leases within GRSG Habitat..........................................................................................3-41

3-28 Miles of Roads within GRSG Habitat....................................................................................................3-44

3-29 Acres of Roads within GRSG Habitat...................................................................................................3-44

3-30 Miles of Railroads within GRSG Habitat..............................................................................................3-45

3-31 Acres of Railroads within GRSG Habitat.............................................................................................3-45

3-32 Recreation Activities and Participants..................................................................................................3-47

3-33 Grazing Allotments within GRSG Habitat...........................................................................................3-50

3-34 Fences within GRSG Habitat ..................................................................................................................3-51

3-35 North Dakota Field Office Planning Area – Grazing Allocation on BLM-Administered 

Lands.............................................................................................................................................................3-51

3-36 North Dakota Field Office Planning Area – AUMs by Allotment..................................................3-52
TABLES (continued) Page

x North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

3-37 North Dakota Field Office Planning Area– Allotments and AUMs by Habitat Category........3-53

3-38 North Dakota Field Office Planning Area – Land Health Assessment .........................................3-54

3-39 Air Quality Monitor Values in Billings and Dunn Counties (2009-2011).....................................3-57

3-40 Air Quality Index Report (2009-2011).................................................................................................3-58

3-41 Annual Average Deposition (2004-2011) ............................................................................................3-59

3-42 Major Soil Orders on BLM-Administered Lands................................................................................3-64

3-43 Summary of NRCS Farmlands on BLM-administered Lands...........................................................3-65

3-44 Streams on BLM-Administered Lands in the Planning Area............................................................3-67

3-45 Federally Listed Species with the Potential to Inhabit the Planning Area ....................................3-72

3-46 North Dakota Field Office BLM Sensitive Species with the Potential to Inhabit the 

Planning Area ..............................................................................................................................................3-74

3-47 Wind Potential on Slopes <15% on BLM-administered Lands........................................................3-83

3-48 Cattle and Sheep Inventory and Estimated Annual Forage Requirement in Impact Area 

Counties.......................................................................................................................................................3-89

3-49 Population by Race and Ethnicity (2010) .............................................................................................3-93

4-1 Estimated Number of Wells and Associated Disturbance ................................................................4-4

4-2 Disturbance Associated with Existing Wells Pads and Projected Active Well Pads 

under Alternative A ..................................................................................................................................4-16

4-3 Disturbance Associated with Existing Wells Pads and Projected Active Well Pads 

under Alternative B...................................................................................................................................4-20

4-4 Disturbance Associated with Existing Wells Pads and Projected Active Well Pads 

under Alternative C ..................................................................................................................................4-25

4-5 Disturbance Associated with Existing Wells Pads and Projected Active Well Pads 

under Alternative D..................................................................................................................................4-29

4-6 Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in North Dakota by Alternative ..........................4-34

4-7 Comparison of Lands and Realty Indicators by Alternative ............................................................4-40

4-8 ROW Avoidance and Exclusion Areas by Alternative .....................................................................4-43

4-9 Comparison of Vegetation Indicators by Alternative .......................................................................4-47

4-10 Acres Open to and Unallocated for Grazing under All Alternatives............................................4-53

4-11 ROW Exclusion and Avoidance Areas in GRSG Habitat under each Alternative.....................4-54

4-12 Acres Leased for Minerals or Available for Leasing in Sagebrush Habitat under each 

Alternative...................................................................................................................................................4-55

4-13 Comparison of Wildland Fire Management and Ecology Indicators by Alternative..................4-63

4-14 Comparison of Lands and Realty Actions Across Alternatives......................................................4-67

4-15 Relative Comparison of Fuels Treatment and Fire Suppression Costs Across 

Alternatives.................................................................................................................................................4-68

4-16 Comparison of Fluid Minerals Indicators by Alternative..................................................................4-75

4-17 Oil and Gas Leasing Categories, Alternative A1.................................................................................4-80

4-18 Oil and Gas Leasing Categories in General Habitat, Alternative B...............................................4-83

4-19 Comparison of Mineral Materials Indicators by Alternative ...........................................................4-88

4-20 Comparison of Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management Indicators 

by Alternative .............................................................................................................................................4-92

4-21 Areas Open/Closed to New Road Construction by Alternative ..................................................4-93

4-22 Comparison of Recreation Indicators by Alternative.......................................................................4-95

4-23 Comparison of Range Management Indicators by Alternative .................................................... 4-102

4-24 Fluid Mineral Impacts on Range Management by Alternative (PH and GH)............................. 4-109

4-25 Comparison of ACEC Indicators by Alternative ............................................................................ 4-118

4-26 ACECs by Alternative ........................................................................................................................... 4-119
TABLES (continued) Page

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS xi

4-27 Comparison of Air Resource Indicators by Alternative................................................................ 4-120

4-28 Comparison of Climate Change Indicators by Alternative........................................................... 4-124

4-29 Comparison of Soils Resources Indicators by Alternative ........................................................... 4-127

4-30 Quantitative Impact Summary by Alternative for Soils................................................................. 4-129

4-31 Comparison of Water Resources Indicators by Alternative ....................................................... 4-134

4-32 Quantitative Impact Summary by Alternative for Water Resources......................................... 4-138

4-33 Comparison of Special Status Species-Other Indicators by Alternative ................................... 4-144

4-34 BLM-Administered Lands Managed as ROW Exclusion and Avoidance Areas....................... 4-156

4-35 “Good” or Better Wind Potential That Would Be Managed as ROW Exclusion and 

Avoidance Areas..................................................................................................................................... 4-157

4-36 Wind Potential Affected by Alternative B ........................................................................................ 4-158

4-37 Wind Potential Affected By Alternative C ....................................................................................... 4-159

4-38 Wind Potential Affected By Alternative D....................................................................................... 4-160

4-39 Employment and Labor Income Generated from Grazing on Allotments Covered 

under the RMPA ..................................................................................................................................... 4-161

4-40 Employment and Labor Income Generated from Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development on BLM in the Decision Area.................................................................................... 4-162

5-1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects, Plans, or Actions that Comprise 

the Cumulative Impact Scenario ..............................................................................................................5-4

6-1 Cooperating Agencies ................................................................................................................................6-4

DIAGRAMS Page

3-1 Population Change for the Three-County Impact Area...................................................................3-85

3-2 Employment Distribution in the Three-County Impact Area and North Dakota .....................3-86

3-3 Oil Production in the Three-County Impact Area and North Dakota ........................................3-90

APPENDICES

A Figures

B Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Required Design Features and Best Management Practices

C Oil and Gas Stipulations

D Area of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation of Relevance and Importance Criteria

E Regional Mitigation Strategy

F Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

G Land Pattern Review and Land Adjustment

H Drought Policy

I GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat Assessment
Table of Contents

xii North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

This page intentionally left blank.
September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS xiii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Full Phrase

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

AIM Assessment, Inventory and Monitoring

AMP Allotment Management Plan

APD Application for Permit to Drill

AQI air quality index

AQRV air quality related value

AUM animal unit month

bbls million barrels

BER Baseline Environmental Report

BLM United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management

BMP best management practice

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CO carbon monoxide

COA conditions of approval

COT Conservation Objectives Team

CSU controlled surface use

DOI Department of the Interior

EIS environmental impact statement

EPA US Environmental Protection Agency

ERMA Extensive Recreation Management Area

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973

ES&R emergency stabilization and rehabilitation

ESD Ecological Site Descriptions

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

Forest Service United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

FRCC fire regime condition classes

GH general habitat

GHG greenhouse gas

GIS geographic information systems

GRSG Greater Sage-Grouse

ha hectare

HAF Habitat Assessment Framework

IM Instruction Memorandum

IMPROVE Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Kg kilogram

kV kilovolt

kWh/m^2/day kilowatt hours per square meter per day
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued) Full Phrase

xiv North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

MCF thousand cubic feet

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

MOU memorandum of understanding

MW megawatt

MZ Management Zone

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NDDoH North Dakota Department of Health

NDFO North Dakota Field Office

NDGFD North Dakota Game and Fish Department

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended

NH4 ammonium

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NO3 nitrates

NOx nitrogen oxides

NRCS National Resource Conservation Service

NSO no surface occupancy

NTT National Technical Team

OHV off-highway vehicle

PAC Priority Area for Conservation

PCPI per capita personal income

PFC proper functioning condition

PGH preliminary general habitat

PH priority habitat

PM2.5 particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns 

PM10 particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 10 microns 

PPH preliminary priority habitat

ppb parts per billion

ppm parts per million

RDF required design feature

RFDS reasonable foreseeable development scenario

RMP resource management plan

RMPA resource management plan amendment

ROD Record of Decision

ROW right-of-way

SGI Sage-Grouse Initiative

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SO4 sulfates

SRP special recreation permit

SRMA Special Recreation Management Area

T&E threatened and endangered
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued) Full Phrase

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS xv

TL timing limitation

TPI total personal income

USC United States Code

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USG Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups

USGS US Geological Society

WAFWA Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Table of Contents

xvi North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

This page intentionally left blank.
Executive Summary

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.1 INTRODUCTION

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

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to 

develop and periodically revise or amend its resource management plans 

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

In March 2010, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) published its listing 

decision for the Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) as “Warranted but Precluded” 

(75 Federal Register 13910, March 23, 2010). Inadequacy of regulatory 

mechanisms was identified as a major threat in the USFWS finding on the 

petition to list the GRSG under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The USFWS 

has identified conservation measures in RMPs as the principal regulatory 

mechanism for protecting GRSG on BLM-administered lands. Based on the 

identified threats to the GRSG and the USFWS timeline for making a listing 

decision on this species, the BLM needs to incorporate objectives and adequate 

conservation measures into RMPs to conserve GRSG and to avoid the potential 

for its being listed as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA. In 

response to the USFWS findings, the BLM will evaluate the adequacy of its RMPs 

and will address, as necessary, amendments to RMPs throughout the range of 

the GRSG.

Consistent with the National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy, the BLM is 

preparing several environmental impact statements (EISs), with associated plan 

amendments. These documents will address a range of alternatives focused on 

specific conservation measures across the range of the GRSG. Several on-going 

RMP revisions will also be addressing specific conservation measures. The

amendments will be coordinated under two administrative planning regions 

across the entire range of the GRSG. The Rocky Mountain Region and the 

Great Basin Region boundaries are drawn roughly to correspond with the 

threats identified by the USFWS in the 2010 listing decision, along with the 
Executive Summary (Introduction)

ES-2 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) management 

zones framework (Stiver et al. 2006). The management zones reflect ecological 

and biological issues and similarities. In addition, management challenges within 

management zones are similar, and GRSG and their habitats are likely 

responding similarly to environmental factors and management actions. The 

Rocky Mountain Region consists of land use plans in North Dakota, South 

Dakota, Wyoming, and Colorado and in portions of Montana and Utah. The 

Great Basin Region consists of land use plans in California, Nevada, Oregon, and 

Idaho and in portions of Utah and Montana.

As identified above, this change in direction is the result of the March 2010 

publication of the USFWS 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater 

Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered. In this 

document, the agency concluded that the GRSG is warranted for listing as a 

threatened or endangered species. The USFWS reviewed the status and threats 

to the GRSG in relation to the five listing factors provided in Section 4(a)(1) of 

the ESA. The USFWS determined that factor A, “the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or curtailment of the habitat or range of the Greater 

Sage-Grouse,” and factor D, “the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms,” both posed “a significant threat to the Greater Sage-Grouse now 

and in the foreseeable future” (75 Federal Register 13910, March 23, 2010). This 

plan amendment, along with the other plans cited above, proposes to address 

both listing factors A and D (above) and proposes to provide consistency in the 

management of GRSG habitat.

This plan amendment addresses GRSG habitat within the North Dakota Field 

Office (NDFO). The BLM Montana State Office has mapped this habitat 

preliminarily, in coordination with the North Dakota Game and Fish 

Department (NDGFD). GRSG habitat falls into one of the two following 

categories:

• Preliminary Priority Habitat (PPH)—Areas that have been 

identified as having the highest conservation value to maintaining 

sustainable GRSG populations. These areas include breeding, late 

brood-rearing, and winter concentration areas. 

• Preliminary General Habitat (PGH)—Areas of seasonal or 

year-round habitat outside of priority habitat.

Through the land use planning process and plan amendment, the BLM will refine 

PPH and PGH data to (1) delineate priority habitat (PH) and to analyze actions 

within PH areas to conserve GRSG habitat functionality, or where possible, 

improve habitat functionality; and (2) to identify general habitat (GH) areas and 

analyze actions within GH areas that provide for major life history function (e.g., 

breeding, migration, or winter survival). This is to maintain genetic diversity 

needed for sustainable GRSG populations.
Executive Summary (Introduction)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS ES-3

Range-wide, approximately 51 percent of sagebrush habitat within GRSG

management zones is BLM-administered land; within the NDFO, approximately 

three percent of GRSG habitat is on BLM-administered lands. Changes in 

management of GRSG habitats are needed to avoid the continued decline of 

populations that are anticipated across the species’ range. Range-wide, adaptive 

management strategies will focus on areas affected by threats to GRSG habitat, 

such as wildfire, energy development, disease, and infrastructure development, 

depending on the threats within each subregion of the Rocky Mountain and 

Great Basin regions. The BLM administers a large portion of GRSG habitat 

within the affected states; because of this, changes in its management of GRSG

habitats is anticipated to have a considerable impact on existing GRSG

populations across the range of GRSG.

The planning area for the North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse RMP 

Amendment (RMPA)/EIS is composed of the BLM-administered lands, the US 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest Service) lands, the State of 

North Dakota lands, USFWS-managed lands, and private lands (Table ES-1, 

Land Ownership within the Planning Area). These areas are in Bowman, Slope, 

and Golden Valley Counties in southwestern North Dakota. Unlike other 

RMPAs that are part of the National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy, for 

this amendment, the Forest Service is not a cooperating agency; therefore, the 

North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS does not address a range of 

alternatives for Forest Service surface/federal minerals. Figure 1-1, Project 

Planning Area (Appendix A, Figures) is a map of the planning area.

The planning area incorporates the PPH, the historic GRSG distribution zone 

(PGH), as well as additional lands not designated as PPH or PGH. Though the 

planning area includes private lands, the decision area includes only BLM federal 

surface and federal minerals in this amendment. Management direction and 

actions outlined in this RMPA apply only to these BLM-administered lands in the 

planning area and to federal mineral estate under BLM administration that may 

lie beneath other surface ownership.

The current GRSG habitat on BLM-administered lands in the NDFO consists of 

32,900 acres of PPH (seven percent of all PPH in planning area) and 80 acres of 

PGH (less than one percent of all PGH in planning area). PPH and PGH were 

mapped in cooperation with the NDGFD. Table ES-1 shows the acreage of 

PPH and PGH by landowner, and Figure 1-1 (Appendix A), shows areas 

mapped as PPH and PGH.
Executive Summary (Introduction)

ES-4 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table ES-1

Land Ownership within the Planning Area

Bowman County Slope County Golden Valley 

County Planning Area

PPH

Acres

PGH

Acres

PPH

Acres

PGH

Acres

PPH

Acres

PGH

Acres

Planning 

Area 

Acres1

PPH

Acres

PGH

Acres

Surface Ownership

BLM 32,900 80 0 0 0 0 33,030 32,900 80

Forest 

Service 0 11 56,691 26,608 9,858 3,244 140,432 66,549 29,863

State lands 15,281 5,047 5,318 5,824 951 0 40,894 21,550 10,871

Private 213,230 111,508 102,105 88,140 19,987 1,368 741,607 335,322 201,016

Water 2,778 2 1,926 469 45 0 6,416 4,749 471

USFWS 0 0 0 0 0 0 638 0 0

Total 264,189 116,648 166,040 121,041 30,841 4,612 963,017 461,070 242,301

Federal Mineral Estate2

Total 68,232 39,815 81,988 65,869 17,071 4,221 396,053 167,291 109,905

Source: BLM 2012a

1

Planning area acres include additional acres that are not PPH or PGH on BLM-administered lands. 2 Includes federal mineral estate under BLM administration that may lie beneath other surface ownership

ES.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

The BLM is preparing RMP amendments with associated EISs for RMPs 

containing GRSG habitat. This effort responds to the USFWS’s March 2010 

“warranted, but precluded” ESA listing petition decision. Inadequacy of 

regulatory mechanisms was identified as a significant threat in the USFWS 

finding on the petition to list the GRSG. The USFWS identified the principal 

regulatory mechanism for the BLM as conservation measures embedded in 

RMPs. Changes in management of GRSG habitats are necessary to avoid the 

continued decline of populations that are anticipated across the species’ range. 

These plan amendments (BLM plans being amended across the entire GRSG 

range) would focus on areas affected by threats to GRSG habitat identified by 

the USFWS in the March 2010 listing decision. A threats cross-walk table is 

included in Chapter 2, Proposed Action and Alternatives, to show what 

threats are being addressed in the range of alternatives for this RMPA/EIS. 

The purpose for the RMP amendments is to identify and incorporate 

appropriate conservation measures to conserve, enhance and/or restore GRSG

habitat by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing threats to that habitat.
Executive Summary (Purpose and Need)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS ES-5

Because BLM administers a large portion of GRSG habitat within the affected 

states, changes in BLM management of GRSG habitats are anticipated to have a 

considerable beneficial impact on present and future GRSG populations and 

could reduce the need to list the species as threatened or endangered under 

the ESA.

ES.3 PROPOSED ACTION

This proposed North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS provides future 

management direction to maintain or increase GRSG abundance and 

distribution by conserving, enhancing, or restoring the sagebrush ecosystem on 

which populations depend throughout the North Dakota portion of WAFWA 

Management Zone (MZ) 1 (Stiver et al. 2006). MZ 1 includes all of Montana 

(except the Dillon Field Office), North Dakota, South Dakota, and northeastern 

Wyoming. Proposed amendments to the North Dakota RMP (BLM 1988a) 

would include allowable uses and management actions for select resources and 

resource uses. Allowable uses are those that are allowed, restricted, or 

prohibited and may include stipulations. The decisions to be made are (1) to 

delineate PH and GH and (2) to identify the management actions, restrictions, 

and constraints that would be placed on allowable uses on BLM-administered 

lands to conserve, restore, and enhance GRSG habitat.

ES.4 SCOPING

Scoping is an early and open process for determining the scope, or range, of 

issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues to consider in the 

planning process. Scoping is designed to meet the public involvement 

requirements of FLPMA and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended (NEPA). It identifies the affected public and agency concerns, and 

defines the relevant issues and alternatives that will be examined in detail in the 

plan amendment. A planning issue is defined as a major controversy or dispute 

regarding management or uses on BLM-administered lands that can be 

addressed through a range of alternatives.

A 60-day public scoping period was initiated on December 9, 2011, with the 

publication in the Federal Register of a notice of intent to begin a planning effort. 

The scoping period was extended through a notice of extension, published 

February 10, 2012, and ended on March 23, 2012. This cooperative process 

included soliciting input from interested state and local governments, tribal 

governments, other federal agencies and organizations, and individuals to 

identify the scope of issues to be addressed in the plan amendment and to assist 

in formulating reasonable alternatives. The scoping process is an excellent 

method for opening dialogue between the BLM and the public about managing 

GRSG and their habitats on BLM-administered lands. This process also identifies

the concerns of those who have an interest in this subject and in the GRSG

habitats. As part of the scoping process, the BLM also requested that the public 

submit nominations for potential Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

(ACECs) for GRSG and their habitat.
Executive Summary (Scoping)

ES-6 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Scoping included an open-house meeting in Bowman, North Dakota, on January 

17, 2012. In addition, news releases notified the public of the scoping period and 

invited them to provide written comments. Public comments obtained during 

the scoping period were used to define the relevant issues that would be 

addressed by a reasonable range of alternatives in the North Dakota Greater 

Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS. 

The National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy Scoping Summary Report 

(BLM 2012b) is available at the project website for the national conservation 

effort: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/sagegrouse.html. The discussion 

below provides an overview of the scoping results both range-wide and specific 

to North Dakota.

ES.5 ISSUES

Issues to be addressed in the North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS

were identified by the public and the agencies during the scoping process for the 

range-wide planning effort. The issues identified in the Scoping Summary Report, 

and other resource and use issues identified in the BLM Planning Handbook and 

Manual (H-1610-1), were considered in developing the alternatives brought 

forward for analysis. Range-wide issues identified in the Scoping Summary 

Report that are applicable for North Dakota are included in Table ES-2, 

Range-Wide Planning Issues for the North Dakota Field Office.

Table ES-2

Range-Wide Planning Issues for the North Dakota Field Office

Issue Planning Issue 

Category Planning Issue

1. Greater Sage-Grouse 

and habitat

How would the BLM use the best available science to delineate

PPH, PGH, and no-habitat categories and accurately monitor the 

impact of land uses on GRSG?

2. Energy and mineral 

development

How would energy and mineral development, including renewable 

energy, be managed within GRSG habitat, while recognizing valid 

existing rights?

3. Livestock grazing What measures would the BLM put into place to protect and 

improve GRSG habitat, while maintaining permitted grazing use?

4. Vegetation management How would the BLM conserve, enhance, or restore GRSG habitat,

such as sagebrush communities and minimize or prevent the 

introduction or spread of noxious weeds and invasive species?

5. Lands and realty What opportunities exist to adjust public land ownership that 

would increase management efficiency for GRSG and GRSG

habitat?

6. Social, economic, and 

environmental justice

How could the BLM promote or maintain activities that provide 

social and economic benefit to local communities, while providing 

protection for GRSG habitat?
Executive Summary (Issues)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS ES-7

Table ES-2

Range-Wide Planning Issues for the North Dakota Field Office

Issue Planning Issue 

Category Planning Issue

7. Recreation and travel 

management

How would motorized, nonmotorized, and mechanized travel be 

managed to provide access to federal lands and a variety of 

recreation opportunities, while protecting GRSG habitat?

8. Fire management What measure should be undertaken to manage fuels and wildland 

fires, while protecting GRSG habitat?

9. Special management 

areas

What special management areas would the BLM designate to 

benefit the conservation, enhancement, and restoration of GRSG

and habitat?

10. Drought/climate change How would the BLM incorporate the impacts of a changing 

climate on GRSG habitat?

ES.5.1 Issues Specific to North and South Dakota 

Issues discussed in the comments for North and South Dakota included GRSG

habitat, energy and mineral development, livestock grazing, and water resources 

(as related to West Nile virus and GRSG). No additional unique comment 

themes were identified outside of the issues identified in the range-wide analysis 

(Table ES-2).

ES.6 PLANNING CRITERIA

Planning criteria are the standards, rules, and factors used as the sideboards to 

resolve issues and develop alternatives. Planning criteria are based on 

appropriate laws, regulations, BLM manual sections, and policy directives. 

Criteria also were based on public participation and coordination with 

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

Indian tribes. Planning criteria are prepared to ensure that decision making is 

tailored to the issues and to ensure that the BLM avoids unnecessary data 

collection and analysis.

• The BLM will use the USFWS’s Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report (USFWS 

2013),WAFWA Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-Grouse and 

Sagebrush Habitats (Connelly et al. 2004), US Geological Society’s 

(USGS) Summary of Science, Activities, Programs and Policies that 

Influence the Rangewide Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) (Manier et al. 2013), and any other 

appropriate resources, to identify GRSG habitat requirements and 

best management practices (BMPs).

• The approved RMPAs will be consistent with the BLM’s National 

Sage-Grouse Conservation Strategy.
Executive Summary (Planning Criteria)

ES-8 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

• The approved RMPAs will comply with FLPMA, NEPA, and Council 

on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at 40 Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR), Parts 1500-1508, and Department of the Interior 

regulations at 43 CFR, Part 46, and 43 CFR, Part 1600; the BLM H1601-1 Land Use Planning Handbook, “Appendix C: Program-Specific 

and Resource-Specific Decision Guidance Requirements” for 

affected resource programs; the 2008 BLM NEPA Handbook (H1790-1; BLM 2008a); and all other applicable BLM policies and 

guidance.

• The RMPAs will be limited to making land use planning decisions 

specific to the conservation of GRSG habitat.

• The BLM will consider allocations and prescriptive standards to 

conserve GRSG habitat, as well as objectives and management 

actions to restore, enhance, and improve GRSG habitat.

• The RMPAs will recognize valid existing rights.

• Lands addressed in the RMPAs will be BLM-administered lands 

(including surface-estate/split estate lands) managed by the BLM in 

GRSG habitats. Any decisions in the RMPAs/revisions will apply only 

to BLM-administered lands.

• The BLM will use a collaborative and multijurisdictional 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 will strive to ensure that 

conservation measures are as consistent as possible with other 

planning jurisdictions within the planning area boundaries.

• The BLM will consider 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 will analyze socioeconomic impacts of the alternatives, 

using an accepted input-output quantitative model, such as IMPLAN.

• The BLM will endeavor to use current scientific information, 

research, and technologies and the results of inventory, monitoring, 

and coordination to determine appropriate local and regional 

management strategies that will enhance or restore GRSG habitat.

• For BLM-administered lands, all activities and uses within GRSG

habitats will follow existing land health standards. Guidelines for 

livestock grazing and other programs that have developed guidelines

will be applicable to all alternatives for BLM-administered lands.
Executive Summary (Planning Criteria)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS ES-9

• The BLM will consult with Native American tribes to identify sites, 

areas, and objects important to their cultural and religious heritage 

within GRSG habitats.

• The BLM will coordinate with state, local, and tribal governments to 

ensure that it considers provisions of pertinent plans, seeks to 

resolve inconsistencies between state, local, and tribal plans, and 

provides ample opportunities for state, local, and tribal governments 

to comment on the development of amendments or revisions.

• The RMPAs will be based on the principles of adaptive management.

• Reasonable foreseeable development scenarios and planning for 

fluid minerals will follow BLM Handbook H-1624-1 (BLM 1990) and 

current fluid minerals manual guidance for fluid mineral (oil and gas, 

coal-bed methane, oil shale) and geothermal resources.

• The RMPAs will be developed using an interdisciplinary approach to 

prepare reasonable foreseeable development scenarios, 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 will be 

supported by current metadata and will be used to ascertain GRSG

habitat extent and quality. Data will be consistent with the principles 

of the Information Quality Act of 2000.

• State game and fish agencies’ GRSG data and expertise will be used 

to the fullest extent practicable in making management 

determinations on federal lands.

• Analysis of impacts in the plan amendments will address the 

resources and resource programs identified in the National 

Technical Team (NTT) report (A Report on National Greater SageGrouse Conservation Measures; NTT 2011) and alternatives that 

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 will be identified and discussed only 

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

the proposed management actions.

An additional criterion was received in public scoping comments during the 

scoping period (December 9, 2011, to March 23, 2012) and was added to the 

list of planning criteria. This comment was that state game and fish agencies have 

the responsibility and authority to manage wildlife.
Executive Summary (Management Alternatives)

ES-10 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

ES.7 MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

Alternatives development is the heart of the planning process. Land use planning 

and NEPA regulations require the BLM to formulate a reasonable range of 

alternatives. Alternatives development is guided by established planning criteria 

(as outlined in 43 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], Part 1610).

The basic goal of alternative development is to produce feasible, distinct,

potential management scenarios that:

• Address the identified major planning issues

• Explore opportunities to enhance management of resources and 

resource uses

• Resolve conflicts among resources and resource uses

• Meet the purpose of and need for the RMP or RMPA

Between May and September 2012, the planning team met to develop 

management goals and to identify objectives and actions to address the goals. 

The various groups, along with cooperating agencies, met numerous times 

throughout this period to refine their work. Through this process, the planning 

team developed one no action alternative (A) and three action alternatives (B, 

C, and D). The action alternatives were designed to address the 10 planning 

issues (refer to Section 1.6.3, Issues Identified), to fulfill the purpose and need 

for the RMPA (outlined in Section 1.2, Purpose and Need), and to meet the 

multiple use mandates of FLPMA (43 US Code, Section 1716).

The three resulting action alternatives (Alternatives, B, C, and D) offer a range 

of possible management approaches. Their purpose is to respond to planning 

issues and concerns identified through public scoping and to maintain or 

increase GRSG abundance and distribution in the planning area. While the goal 

is the same across alternatives, each alternative contains a discrete set of 

objectives, allowable uses, and management actions constituting a separate RMP 

amendment. The goal is met in varying degrees, with the potential for different 

long-range outcomes and conditions. Conservation measures in the alternatives 

are focused on PH and GH, depending on the alternative’s objective. The PH 

and GH have been delineated by the NDGFD, in coordination with the BLM.

The relative emphasis given to particular resources and resource uses differs as 

well, including allowable uses, restoration measures, and specific direction 

pertaining to individual resource programs. When resources or resource uses 

are mandated by law or are not tied to planning issues, there are typically few 

or no distinctions between alternatives.

The alternatives are directed toward responding to USFWS-identified issues and 

threats to GRSG and their habitat. All of the action alternatives were developed 

to employ resource programs to address the USFWS-identified threats. A 
Executive Summary (Management Alternatives)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS ES-11

complete description of all decisions proposed for each alternative is included in 

Chapter 2. Summaries of the alternatives are presented below and maps are 

included in Appendix A.

ES.7.1 Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative A meets the CEQ requirement that a no action alternative be 

considered. This alternative continues current management direction and 

prevailing conditions derived from existing planning documents. Goals and 

objectives for resources and resource uses are based on the 1988 North 

Dakota RMP and Record of Decision, along with associated amendments, 

activity and implementation level plans, and other management decision 

documents. Laws, regulations, and BLM policies that supersede RMP decisions 

would apply.

No PH or GH would be delineated under Alternative A. Goals and objectives 

for BLM-administered lands and mineral estate would not change. Appropriate 

and allowable uses and restrictions pertaining to such activities as mineral 

leasing and development, recreation, right-of-way development, and livestock 

grazing would also remain the same. The BLM would not modify existing or 

establish additional criteria to guide the identification of site-specific use levels 

for implementation activities.

ES.7.2 Elements Common to Alternatives B, C, and D

All action alternatives include two basic components: delineated PH and GH and

required design features.

Delineate Lands as Priority and General Habitat

Under Alternatives B, C, and D, PPH and PGH data would be refined for two 

purposes. First, it would delineate PH and analyze actions within PH to conserve 

GRSG habitat functionality, or where possible, improve habitat functionality. 

Second, it would delineate GH and analyze actions within GH that provide for 

major life history function (e.g., breeding, migration, and winter survival) in 

order to maintain genetic diversity needed for sustainable GRSG populations. 

The areas delineated as PH and GH would be the same under each alternative; 

however, the allowable uses and management actions within PH and GH may 

vary between alternatives to meet the goal of the RMPA and objectives of the 

alternative.

Required Design Features

Required design features (RDFs) are means, measures, or practices intended to 

reduce or avoid adverse environmental impacts. This RMPA proposes a suite of 

design features that would establish the minimum specifications for certain 

activities, such as water developments, mineral development, and fire and fuels 

management), and would mitigate adverse impacts. These design features would 

be required to provide a greater level of regulatory certainty than through 

implementation of BMPs.
Executive Summary (Management Alternatives)

ES-12 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

In general, the RDFs are accepted practices that are known to be effective when 

implemented properly at the project level. However, their applicability and 

overall effectiveness cannot be fully assessed, except at the project-specific level,

when the project location and design are known. Because of site-specific 

circumstances, some features may not apply to some projects (e.g., a resource is 

not present on a given site) or may require slight variations from what is 

described in the RMPA (e.g., a larger or smaller protective area). All variations 

in design features would require appropriate analysis and disclosure as part of 

future project authorizations. Additional mitigation measures may be identified 

and required during individual project development and environmental review. 

The proposed RDFs are presented in Appendix B, Greater Sage-Grouse 

Habitat Required Design Features and Best Management Practices.

ES.7.3 Alternative B

GRSG conservation measures in A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Measures (NTT 2011) were used to form BLM management 

direction under Alternative B. Management actions by the BLM, in concert with 

other state and federal agencies, and private landowners play a critical role in 

the future trends of GRSG populations. To ensure BLM management actions are 

effective and based on the best available science, the National Policy Team 

created a NTT in August of 2011. The BLM’s objective for chartering this 

planning strategy was to develop new or revised regulatory mechanisms, 

through RMPs, to conserve and restore the GRSG and its habitat on BLMadministered lands range‐wide over the long term. Conservation measures 

under Alternative B are focused on PH (areas that have the highest conservation 

value to maintaining or increasing sage‐grouse populations). These conservation 

measures include protections such as right-of-way exclusion and fluid mineral

leasing closure.

ES.7.4 Alternative C

During scoping for the National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy, 

individuals and conservation groups submitted management direction 

recommendations for protection and conservation of GRSG and habitat at the 

range-wide level. These recommendations, in conjunction with resource 

allocation opportunities and internal sub-regional BLM input, were reviewed in 

order to develop BLM management direction for GRSG under Alternative C. 

Conservation measures under Alternative C are focused on both PH and GH

(seasonal or year-round habitat outside of PH). 

ES.7.5 Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

Alternative D, the agency-preferred alternative, seeks to allocate limited 

resources among competing human interests, land uses, and the conservation of 

natural resource values, while sustaining and enhancing ecological integrity 

across the landscape, including plant, wildlife, and fish habitat. This alternative 

incorporates local adjustments to A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Measures (NTT 2011) to provide a balanced level of protection, 
Executive Summary (Management Alternatives)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS ES-13

restoration, enhancement, and use of resources and services to meet ongoing 

programs and land uses. Conservation measures under Alternative D are 

focused on both PH and GH.

ES.8 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The purpose of the environmental consequences analysis in this RMPA/EIS is to 

determine the potential for significant impacts of the federal action on the 

human environment. CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA state that the 

human environment is interpreted comprehensively to include the natural and 

physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment (40 

CFR, Part 1508.14). The federal action is the BLM’s selection of an RMPA that 

will provide a consistent framework for its management of the GRSG and its 

habitat on BLM-administered lands. This would be in concert with its allocation 

of resources, in accordance with the multiple-use and sustained yield mandates 

of FLPMA.

Management actions proposed in Chapter 2 are primarily planning-level 

decisions and typically would not result in direct on-the-ground changes. 

However, by planning for uses on BLM-administered surface estate and federal 

mineral estate during the planning horizon for the North Dakota RMP, this 

impact analysis focuses on impacts that could eventually result in on-the-ground 

changes. Impacts for some resources or resource uses, such as livestock grazing 

and off-highway vehicle use, could be confined to the BLM-administered surface 

estate. Other impacts, such as energy and minerals and requirements to protect 

GRSG from such activity, could apply to all BLM-administered federal mineral 

estate (including split-estate). Some BLM management actions may affect only 

certain resources under certain alternatives. This impact analysis in Chapter 4, 

Environmental Consequences, identifies impacts that may enhance or improve a 

resource as a result of management actions, as well as those impacts that have 

the potential to impair a resource.
Executive Summary (Environmental Consequences)

ES-14 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 1

Introduction

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 1-1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

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

United States 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.

In March 2010, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) published its listing

decision for the Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) as “Warranted but Precluded”

(75 Federal Register 13910, March 23, 2010). Inadequacy of regulatory 

mechanisms was identified as a major threat in the USFWS finding on the 

petition to list the GRSG under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The USFWS 

has identified conservation measures in RMPs as the principal regulatory 

mechanism for protecting GRSG on BLM-administered lands. Based on the 

identified threats to the GRSG and the USFWS timeline for making a listing 

decision on this species, the BLM needs to incorporate objectives and adequate 

conservation measures into RMPs to conserve GRSG and avoid the potential of 

its being listed as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA. In 

response to the USFWS findings, the BLM will evaluate the adequacy of its RMPs 

and will address, as necessary, amendments to RMPs throughout the range of 

the GRSG.

Consistent with national policy, the BLM is preparing several environmental 

impact statements (EISs), with associated plan amendments. These documents 

will address a range of alternatives focused on specific conservation measures 

across the range of the GRSG. Several on-going RMP revisions will also be 

addressing specific conservation measures. The plan amendments will be 

coordinated under two administrative planning regions across the entire range 

of the GRSG. The Rocky Mountain Region and the Great Basin Region

boundaries are drawn roughly to correspond with the threats identified by the 

USFWS in the 2010 listing decision, along with the Western Association of Fish 
1. Introduction (Introduction)

1-2 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) management zones framework (Stiver et al. 

2006). The management zones reflect ecological and biological issues and 

similarities. In addition, management challenges within management zones are 

similar and GRSG and their habitats are likely responding similarly to 

environmental factors and management actions. The Rocky Mountain Region 

consists of land use plans in North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and 

Colorado and in portions of Montana and Utah. The Great Basin Region 

consists of land use plans in California, Nevada, Oregon, and Idaho and in 

portions of Utah and Montana.

As identified above, this change in direction is the result of the March 2010

publication of the USFWS 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater 

Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered. In this 

document, the USFWS concluded that the GRSG is warranted for listing as a 

threatened or endangered species. The USFWS reviewed the status and threats 

to the GRSG in relation to the five listing factors provided in Section 4(a)(1) of 

the ESA. The USFWS determined that factor A, “the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or curtailment of the habitat or range of the Greater 

Sage-Grouse,” and factor D, “the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms,” both posed “a significant threat to the Greater Sage-Grouse now 

and in the foreseeable future” (75 Federal Register 13910, March 23, 2010). This 

plan amendment, along with the other plans cited above, proposes to address

both listing factors A and D (above) and proposes to provide consistency in the 

management of GRSG habitat.

This plan amendment addresses GRSG habitat within the BLM North Dakota 

Field Office (NDFO) The BLM Montana State Office has mapped this habitat 

preliminarily, in coordination with the North Dakota Game and Fish 

Department (NDGFD). GRSG habitat falls into one of the two following 

categories:

• Preliminary Priority Habitat (PPH)—Areas that have been 

identified as having the highest conservation value to maintaining 

sustainable GRSG populations. These areas include breeding, late 

brood-rearing, and winter concentration areas.

• Preliminary General Habitat (PGH)—Areas of seasonal or 

year-round habitat outside of priority habitat.

Through the land use planning process and plan amendment, the BLM will refine 

PPH and PGH data to (1) delineate priority habitat (PH) and analyze actions 

within PH areas to conserve GRSG habitat functionality, or where possible, 

improve habitat functionality; and (2) identify general habitat (GH) areas and 

analyze actions within GH areas that provide for major life history function (e.g., 

breeding, migration, and winter survival) in order to maintain genetic diversity 

needed for sustainable GRSG populations.
1. Introduction (Introduction)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 1-3

Range-wide, approximately 51 percent of sagebrush habitat within GRSG

management zones is BLM-administered land; within the NDFO, approximately 

three percent of GRSG habitat is on BLM-administered lands. Changes in 

management of GRSG habitats are needed to avoid the continued decline of 

populations that are anticipated across the species’ range. Range-wide, adaptive 

management strategies will focus on areas affected by threats to GRSG habitat, 

such as wildfire, energy development, disease, and infrastructure development, 

depending on the threats within each subregion of the Rocky Mountain and 

Great Basin regions. The BLM administers a large portion of GRSG habitat 

within the affected states; because of this, changes in its management of GRSG

habitats is anticipated to have a considerable impact on existing GRSG

populations across the range of GRSG.

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

The BLM is preparing RMP amendments with associated EISs for RMPs 

containing GRSG habitat. This effort responds to the USFWS’s March 2010 

“warranted, but precluded” ESA listing petition decision. Inadequacy of 

regulatory mechanisms was identified as a significant threat in the USFWS 

finding on the petition to list the GRSG. The USFWS identified the principal 

regulatory mechanism for the BLM as conservation measures embedded in 

RMPs. Changes in management of GRSG habitats are necessary to avoid the 

continued decline of populations that are anticipated across the species’ range. 

These plan amendments (BLM plans being amended across the entire GRSG 

range) would focus on areas affected by threats to GRSG habitat identified by 

the USFWS in the March 2010 listing decision. A threats cross-walk table is 

included in Chapter 2, Proposed Action and Alternatives, to show what 

threats are being addressed in the range of alternatives for this RMP 

Amendment (RMPA)/EIS. 

The purpose for the RMP amendments is to identify and incorporate 

appropriate conservation measures to conserve, enhance and/or restore GRSG 

habitat by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing threats to that habitat.

Because BLM administers a large portion of GRSG habitat within the affected 

states, changes in BLM management of GRSG habitats are anticipated to have a 

considerable beneficial impact on present and future GRSG populations and 

could reduce the need to list the species as threatened or endangered under 

the ESA.

1.3 PROPOSED ACTION

This proposed North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS provides future 

management direction to maintain or increase GRSG abundance and 

distribution by conserving, enhancing, or restoring the sagebrush ecosystem on 

which populations depend throughout the North Dakota portion of WAFWA 

Management Zone (MZ) 1 (Stiver et al. 2006). Overall, MZ 1 includes all of 

Montana (except the Dillon Field Office), North Dakota, South Dakota, and 
1. Introduction (Proposed Action)

1-4 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

northeastern Wyoming. However, this RMPA amendment provides 

management direction only for the NDFO.

Proposed amendments to the North Dakota RMP (BLM 1988a) would include 

allowable uses and management actions for select resources and resource uses.

Allowable uses are those that are allowed, restricted, or prohibited and may 

include stipulations. Allowable uses also identify lands where specific uses are 

excluded to protect resource values. Management actions include measures that 

will guide future and day-to-day activities to conserve GRSG and GRSG habitat. 

In addition, this amendment identifies required design features (RDFs) and best 

management practices (BMPs). Implementation decisions generally constitute 

site-specific on-the-ground actions and are not addressed in the North Dakota 

Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS.

The decisions to be made are (1) to delineate PH and GH and (2) to identify the 

management actions, restrictions, and constraints that would be placed on 

allowable uses on BLM-administered lands to conserve, restore, and enhance 

GRSG habitat.

1.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE GREATER SAGE-GROUSE PLANNING AREA

1.4.1 Overview

The planning area for the North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS is 

composed of BLM-administered lands, US Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

Forest Service (Forest Service) lands, State of North Dakota lands, USFWSmanaged lands, and private lands (Table 1-1, Land Ownership within the 

Planning Area). These lands are in Bowman, Slope, and Golden Valley Counties

in southwestern North Dakota (Figure 1-1, Project Planning Area, Appendix 

A, Figures).

The planning area incorporates the PPH, the historic GRSG distribution zone 

(PGH), as well as additional lands not designated as PPH or PGH. Though the 

planning area includes private lands, the decision area includes only BLM federal 

surface and federal minerals in this amendment. Management direction and 

actions outlined in this EIS apply only to these BLM-administered lands in the 

planning area and to federal mineral estate under BLM jurisdiction that may lie 

beneath other surface ownership. Unlike other RMPAs that are part of the 

National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy, for this amendment, the 

Forest Service is not a cooperating agency; therefore, the North Dakota

Greater Sage- Grouse RMPA/EIS does not address a range of alternatives for 

Forest Service surface/federal minerals.
1. Introduction (Description of the Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Area)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 1-5

Table 1-1

Land Ownership within the Planning Area

Bowman County Slope County Golden Valley 

County Planning Area

PPH

Acres

PGH

Acres

PPH

Acres

PGH

Acres

PPH

Acres

PGH

Acres

Planning 

Area 

Acres1

PPH

Acres

PGH

Acres

Surface Ownership

BLM 32,900 80 0 0 0 0 33,030 32,900 80

Forest 

Service 0 11 56,691 26,608 9,858 3,244 140,432 66,549 29,863

State lands 15,281 5,047 5,318 5,824 951 0 40,894 21,550 10,871

Private 213,230 111,508 102,105 88,140 19,987 1,368 741,607 335,322 201,016

Water 2,778 2 1,926 469 45 0 6,416 4,749 471

USFWS 0 0 0 0 0 0 638 0 0

Total 264,189 116,648 166,040 121,041 30,841 4,612 963,017 461,070 242,301

Federal Mineral Estate2

Total 68,232 39,815 81,988 65,869 17,071 4,221 396,053 167,291 109,905

Source: BLM 2012a

1

Planning area acres include additional acres that are not PPH or PGH on BLM-administered lands. 2 Federal mineral estate under BLM jurisdiction that may lie beneath other surface ownership

The current GRSG habitat on BLM-administered lands in the NDFO consists of 

32,900 acres of PPH (seven percent of all PPH in the planning area) and 80 acres

of PGH (less than 1 percent of all PGH in the planning area). PPH and PGH 

were mapped in cooperation with the NDGFD. Table 1-1 provides acres of 

PPH and PGH by landowner, and Figure 1-1 (Appendix A) includes areas 

mapped as PPH and PGH.

1.5 BLM PLANNING PROCESS

FLPMA requires the BLM to use RMPs as tools by which “present and future 

use is projected” (43 United States Code [USC], Section 1701 [a][2]). FLPMA’s 

implementing regulations for planning, 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

Part 1600, state that land use plans are a preliminary step in the overall process 

of managing BLM-administered lands. The regulations state that the plans are 

“designed to guide and control future management actions and the development 

of subsequent, more detailed and limited scope plans for resources and uses”

(43 CFR Part 1601.0-2). Public participation and input are important 

components of land use planning.
1. Introduction (BLM Planning Process)

1-6 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

The BLM uses a nine-step planning process when developing or revising RMPs,

as required by 43 CFR, Part 1600, and planning program guidance in the BLM 

handbook H-1601-1, Land Use Planning Handbook (BLM 2005). The planning 

process is designed to identify the uses of BLM-administered lands desired by 

the public and to consider these uses to the extent that they are consistent with 

the laws established by Congress and the policies of the executive branch of the 

federal government.

Once an RMP is approved, a plan may be changed through amendment. An 

amendment is initiated by the need to consider monitoring and evaluation 

findings, new data, new or revised policy, or a change in circumstances. It may 

also be initiated by a proposed action that may result in a change in the scope of 

resource uses or a change in the terms, conditions, and decisions of the 

approved plan. If a decision is made to prepare a document per the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), the amending process 

follows the same procedure required for preparation and approval of the plan, 

but the focus is limited to that portion of the plan being amended (43 CFR Part

1610.5-5).

The planning process is issue driven and is undertaken to resolve management 

issues and problems, as well as to take advantage of management opportunities. 

The BLM uses the public scoping process to identify planning issues to revise or 

modify an existing plan. The scoping process (see Section 1.6.1, The Scoping 

Process) is also used to introduce the public to preliminary planning criteria, 

which set the parameters for conducting the planning process.

1.5.1 Implementation of Land Use Plans

When an approved land use plan or land use plan amendment decision 

document (e.g., decision record) is signed, most of the land use plan decisions in 

the plan are effective immediately and require no additional planning or NEPA

analysis. Upon approval of the land use plan, subsequent implementation 

decisions are put into effect by developing activity-level or project-specific 

implementation plans. An activity-level plan typically describes multiple projects 

in detail that will lead to on-the-ground action. These plans traditionally focus

on single resource programs (e.g., habitat management plans, allotment

management plans, recreation management plans, etc.). Implementation 

decisions are made with the appropriate level of NEPA analysis along with any 

procedural and regulatory requirements for individual programs.

The BLM develops strategies to facilitate implementation of land use plans. An 

implementation strategy lists prioritized decisions that will help achieve the 

desired outcomes of one or more land use plans and can be implemented given 

existing or anticipated resources. Developing implementation strategies enables 

the BLM to prioritize the preparation of implementation decisions. 

Implementation strategies can include such steps as (1) developing a framework 

to portray the work; (2) identifying priorities for a given timeframe; (3) 
1. Introduction (Description of the Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Area)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 1-7

developing a budget for a given timeframe; and (4) developing an outreach 

strategy to support implementation.

1.5.2 Monitoring

The regulations in 43 CFR 1610.4-9 require that land use plans establish 

intervals and standards for monitoring, based on the sensitivity of the resource 

decisions involved. Land use plan monitoring is the process of tracking the 

implementation of land use planning decisions (implementation monitoring) and 

collecting data/information necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of land use 

planning decisions (effectiveness monitoring). The level and intensity of 

monitoring will vary, depending on the sensitivity of the resource or area and 

the scope of the proposed management activity. See Chapter 2 for more 

information related to monitoring in North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse 

RMPA/EIS.

1.6 SCOPING AND IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES

1.6.1 The Scoping Process

Scoping is an early and open process for determining the scope, or range, of 

issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues to consider in the 

planning process. Scoping is designed to meet the public involvement 

requirements of FLPMA and NEPA. It identifies the affected public and agency 

concerns and defines the relevant issues and alternatives that will be examined 

in detail in the plan amendment. A planning issue is defined as a major 

controversy or dispute regarding management or uses on BLM-administered

lands that can be addressed through a range of alternatives.

A 60-day public scoping period was initiated on December 9, 2011, with the 

publication in the Federal Register of a notice of intent to begin a planning effort. 

The scoping period was extended through a notice of extension, published 

February 10, 2012, and ended on March 23, 2012. This cooperative process 

included soliciting input from interested state and local governments, tribal 

governments, other federal agencies and organizations, and individuals to 

identify the scope of issues to be addressed in the plan amendment and to assist 

in formulating reasonable alternatives.

The scoping process is an excellent method for opening dialogue between the 

BLM and the public about managing GRSG and their habitats on BLMadministered lands. The process also identifies the concerns of those who have 

an interest in this subject and in the GRSG habitats. As part of the scoping 

process, the BLM also requested that the public submit nominations for 

potential Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) for GRSG and their 

habitat.

Scoping included an open-house meeting in Bowman, North Dakota on January 

17, 2012. In addition, news releases notified the public of the scoping period and 

invited them to provide written comments. Public comments obtained during 
1. Introduction (Scoping and Identification of Issues)

1-8 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

the scoping period were used to define the relevant issues that would be 

addressed by a reasonable range of alternatives in the North Dakota Greater 

Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS. 

The National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy Scoping Summary Report (BLM 

2012b) is available at the project website for the national conservation effort: 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/sagegrouse.html. The discussion below 

provides an overview of the scoping results both range-wide and specific to 

North Dakota.

1.6.2 Scoping Comments

A total of 272 unique written submissions for the Rocky Mountain Region,

which includes North Dakota, and 585 unique written submissions for the 

Great Basin Region were received during the public scoping period. Submissions 

included a total of 7,472 unique comments. In addition to unique submissions, 

30,397 form letters were received.

In the Greater Sage-Grouse Scoping Summary Report, North Dakota and South 

Dakota are combined for the analysis. The majority of the 7,472 unique 

comments received (5,253) were applicable range-wide. In total, 1,196 unique 

comments were specific to the Rocky Mountain Region, and of these, 14 were 

specific to North Dakota and South Dakota.

Commenter Affiliation

Individual members of the public did not submit any comments specific to North 

Dakota and South Dakota during the scoping period; representatives from the 

commercial sector accounted for 25 percent of the commenters and nonprofit 

or citizen groups represented 63 percent. Federal and local government 

agencies submitted no comments, and state government agencies represented 

12 percent of commenters.

Number of Comments by Process Category

Of the 14 comments received specific to North Dakota and South Dakota, nine 

(64 percent) were related to a planning issue that is addressed in the North 

Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS. These issues are summarized in 

Section 1.6.3, Issues Identified, and are discussed in Chapter 3 of the Scoping 

Summary Report. It should be noted that some comments addressed multiple 

planning issues. In addition, five comments (36 percent) were related to issues 

that are addressed in the North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS but do 

not fall within a specific planning issue category. These comments included 

general comments on the BLM planning process, alternatives development, 

collaboration, and requirements of NEPA and other regulations.

1.6.3 Issues Identified

Issues to be addressed in the North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS

were identified by the public and the agencies during the scoping process for the 

range-wide planning effort. The issues identified in the Scoping Summary Report 
1. Introduction (Scoping and Identification of Issues)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 1-9

and other resource and use issues outlined in the BLM Land Use Planning 

Handbook and Manual (H-1610-1; BLM 2005) were considered in developing the 

alternatives brought forward for analysis. Range-wide issues identified in the

Scoping Summary Report that are applicable for North Dakota are included in 

Table 1-2, Range-Wide Planning Issues for the North Dakota Field Office.

Table 1-2

Range-Wide Planning Issues for the North Dakota Field Office

Issue Planning Issue 

Category Planning Issue

1. Greater Sage-Grouse

and habitat

How would the BLM use the best available science to delineate

PPH, PGH, and no-habitat categories and accurately monitor the 

impact of land uses on GRSG?

2. Energy and Mineral 

Development

How would energy and mineral development, including renewable 

energy, be managed within GRSG habitat, while recognizing valid 

existing rights?

3. Livestock Grazing What measures would the BLM put into place to protect and 

improve GRSG habitat, while maintaining permitted grazing use?

4. Vegetation Management How would the BLM conserve, enhance, or restore GRSG habitat,

such as sagebrush communities, and minimize or prevent the 

introduction or spread of noxious weeds and invasive species?

5. Lands and Realty What opportunities exist to adjust BLM-administered land

ownership that would increase management efficiency for GRSG

and habitat?

6. Social, Economic, and 

Environmental Justice

How could the BLM promote or maintain activities that provide 

social and economic benefit to local communities, while providing 

protection for GRSG habitat?

7. Recreation and Travel 

Management 

How would motorized, nonmotorized, and mechanized travel be 

managed to provide access to federal lands and a variety of 

recreation opportunities, while protecting GRSG habitat?

8. Fire Management What measure should be undertaken to manage fuels and wildland 

fires, while protecting GRSG habitat?

9. Special Management 

Areas

What special management areas would be designated by the BLM to 

benefit the conservation, enhancement, and restoration of GRSG

and habitat?

10. Drought/Climate 

Change

How would the BLM incorporate the impacts of a changing climate 

on GRSG habitat?

Issues Specific to North and South Dakota 

Issues discussed in the comments for North Dakota and South Dakota were 

GRSG habitat, energy and mineral development, livestock grazing, and water 

resources (as related to West Nile virus and GRSG). No additional unique 
1. Introduction (Scoping and Identification of Issues)

1-10 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

comment themes were identified outside of the issues identified in the rangewide analysis (Table 1-2).

1.6.4 Issues Considered but Not Further Analyzed

National Policy or Administrative Action 

Policy or administrative actions are those that the BLM implements because 

they are standard operating procedure, federal law requires them, or they are 

BLM policy. They are, therefore, issues that are eliminated from detailed analysis 

in this planning effort. Administrative actions do not require a planning decision 

to implement. 

The following issues were determined to be outside the scope of the rangewide planning effort, including the North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse 

RMPA/EIS:

• Hunting Greater Sage-Grouse—Many commenters questioned 

why GRSG hunting is allowed if the bird is in need of protection. 

Hunting is an allowed use on BLM-administered lands and is 

regulated by state wildlife agencies. Some states still allow limited 

GRSG hunting; however, the NDGFD has not had a hunting season 

for GRSG for the past five years (including 2012). Comments 

regarding hunting relate to state-regulated actions and are outside 

the scope of the plan amendment.

• Predator control—Many commenters stated that predator 

control was needed to protect GRSG from predation. The State of 

North Dakota possesses primary authority and responsibility for 

managing the wildlife within the state, while the BLM is responsible 

for managing habitat. Consistent with a memorandum of 

understanding (MOU) between the BLM and USDA, Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service-Wildlife Services, the BLM would 

continue to work with the NDGFD to meet state wildlife 

population objectives. Predator control is allowed on BLMadministered lands and is regulated by the NDGFD; these 

comments therefore relate to state-regulated actions and are 

outside the scope of the plan amendment. The BLM will continue to 

work with agencies, such as the NDGFD, to address current 

predation of GRSG. The BLM-administered lands in the planning 

area will remain open to predator control under state laws.

• Warranted but precluded decision—Commenters questioned 

population levels and the need to incorporate range-wide 

conservation measures. Others questioned the effectiveness of ESA

listing as a method of species conservation. These comments relate 

to decisions under the purview of the USFWS and are not 

addressed in this plan amendment.
1. Introduction (Scoping and Identification of Issues)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 1-11

• Elimination of livestock grazing—Commenters asked that 

grazing be limited or completely stopped on all National System of 

Public Lands managed by the BLM due to detrimental ecosystem 

effects. Others stated that national grazing policies should be 

reformed as the requirements are too limiting and impact ranchers’

livelihoods. In addition, some commenters state that grazing 

provides habitat enhancements for certain sensitive species.

Decisions about livestock grazing national policies are outside the 

scope of this amendment and are not made in this planning effort.

However, for the purposes of this document, the reduction of 

livestock (i.e., permitted grazing use) in GRSG habitat within the 

field office is considered in an alternative. This is consistent with 

Instruction Memorandum (IM) 2012-169, RMP Alternative 

Development for Livestock Grazing (BLM 2012c). Note that this 

document is specific to PPH and PGH, not an entire planning area.

Additionally, IM MT-2012-042, Guidance to Address Alternative 

Development in Livestock Grazing Permit Renewals, directs the BLM in 

North Dakota to analyze a no grazing alternative as part of the 

grazing permit renewal process (BLM 2012d).

• Renewable energy policies—Commenters stated concerns 

about renewable energy development, including economic instability 

due to government subsidies and risk of wildlife deaths, specifically 

bats and birds. General policy decisions about renewable energy 

management on BLM-administered lands will be determined by 

national policy and are not addressed in this plan amendment.

Range-Wide Issues Not Carried Forward

The following range-wide issues are not being carried forward in the North 

Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS:

• Fish and Wildlife—GRSG are addressed under the topic of 

special status species, along with other relevant special status 

species, but general fish and wildlife management is not an issue for 

this plan amendment.

• Water and Soil—Management of soil and water is not a main 

issue that would drive alternatives design for this amendment; 

however, management activities that impact these resources are 

addressed in this EIS (e.g., oil and gas, and grazing).

• Wild Horses and Burros—There are no wild horses and burros, 

or wild horse and burro management areas in the NDFO; 

therefore, this issue is not relevant to this plan amendment.

1.6.5 Issues Beyond the Scope of the Plan 

Issues beyond the scope of the RMP planning process are those not related to 

decisions that would occur in the planning process (i.e. issues relating to 
1. Introduction (Scoping and Identification of Issues)

1-12 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

addressing the threats to GRSG). They include decisions that are not under the 

BLM’s jurisdiction or that are beyond the capability of the BLM to resolve as 

part of the plan amendment. Issues identified in this category are the following:

• New wilderness or Wilderness Study Area proposals

• Eliminating grazing, mineral development, and off-highway vehicle

(OHV) use on all BLM-administered lands

• Activities and uses beyond the jurisdiction of the BLM

• Changing existing laws, policies, and regulations

• Availability of funding and personnel for managing programs and for 

NEPA procedures and costs

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

The purpose and need of the National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy is 

limited to making land use planning decisions specific to the conservation of 

GRSG habitats. No decisions related to the management of lands with

wilderness characteristics will be made as part of this planning effort; therefore, 

management of lands with wilderness characteristics is considered outside the 

scope of this RMPA process. As part of the original FLPMA Section 603-

mandated inventories, inventories were conducted for the NDFO beginning in 

1978. The initial phase of inventories resulted in all lands within North Dakota 

being dropped from further wilderness consideration (the only solid block of 

BLM-administered lands within the planning area acres is also a developed oil 

and gas field).

1.7 DEVELOPMENT OF PLANNING CRITERIA

Planning criteria are based on appropriate laws, regulations, BLM manual 

sections, and policy directives. Criteria are also based on public participation 

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

local governments, and Indian tribes. Planning criteria are the standards, rules, 

and factors used as the parameters 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 avoids unnecessary data collection and analysis. 

• The BLM will use the USFWS’s Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report (USFWS 2013), 

WAFWA’s Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-Grouse and 

Sagebrush Habitats (Connelly et al. 2004), US Geological Society’s 

(USGS) Summary of Science, Activities, Programs and Policies that 

Influence the Rangewide Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse

(Centrocercus urophasianus) (Manier et al. 2013), and any other 

appropriate resources to identify GRSG habitat requirements and 

BMPs.
1. Introduction (Development of Planning Criteria)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 1-13

• The approved RMP amendments will be consistent with the BLM’s 

National Sage-Grouse Conservation Strategy.

• The approved RMP amendments will comply with FLPMA, NEPA, 

and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at 40 CFR, 

Parts 1500-1508, and DOI regulations at 43 CFR, Part 46, and 43 

CFR, Part 1600; the BLM H-1601-1 Land Use Planning Handbook, 

“Appendix C: Program-Specific and Resource-Specific Decision 

Guidance Requirements” for affected resource programs; the 2008 

BLM NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1; BLM 2008a); and all other 

applicable BLM policies and guidance.

• The RMP amendments will be limited to making land use planning 

decisions specific to the conservation of GRSG habitat.

• The BLM will consider allocations and prescriptive standards to 

conserve GRSG habitat, as well as objectives and management 

actions to restore, enhance, and improve GRSG habitat.

• The RMP amendments will recognize valid existing rights.

• Lands addressed in the RMP amendments will be BLM-administered 

lands (including surface estate/split estate lands) managed by the 

BLM in GRSG habitats. Any decisions in the RMP 

amendments/revisions will apply only to BLM-administered lands.

• The BLM will use a collaborative and multijurisdictional 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 will strive to ensure that 

conservation measures are as consistent as possible with other 

planning jurisdictions within the planning area boundaries.

• The BLM will consider 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 will analyze socioeconomic impacts of the alternatives,

using an accepted input-output quantitative model, such as IMPLAN.

• The BLM will endeavor to use current scientific information, 

research, and technologies and the results of inventory, monitoring, 

and coordination to determine appropriate local and regional 

management strategies that will enhance or restore GRSG habitat.

• For BLM-administered lands, all activities and uses within GRSG

habitats will follow existing land health standards. Guidelines for 

livestock grazing and other programs that have developed guidelines

will be applicable to all alternatives for BLM-administered lands.
1. Introduction (Development of Planning Criteria)

1-14 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

• The BLM will consult with Native American tribes to identify sites, 

areas, and objects important to their cultural and religious heritage 

within GRSG habitats.

• The BLM will coordinate with state, local, and tribal governments to 

ensure that it considers provisions of pertinent plans, seeks to 

resolve inconsistencies between state, local, and tribal plans, and 

provides ample opportunities for state, local, and tribal governments 

to comment on the development of amendments or revisions.

• The RMP amendments will be based on the principles of adaptive 

management.

• Reasonable foreseeable development scenarios (RFDS) and planning 

for fluid minerals will follow BLM Handbook H-1624-1 (BLM 1990)

and current fluid minerals manual guidance for fluid mineral (oil and 

gas, coal-bed methane, oil shale) and geothermal resources.

• The RMP amendments will be developed using an interdisciplinary 

approach to prepare RFDSs, 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 will be 

supported by current metadata and will be used to ascertain GRSG

habitat extent and quality. Data will be consistent with the principles 

of the Information Quality Act of 2000.

• State game and fish agencies’ GRSG data and expertise will be used

to the fullest extent practicable in making management 

determinations on federal lands.

• Analysis of impacts in the plan amendments will address the 

resources and resource programs identified in the National 

Technical Team (NTT) report (A Report on National Greater SageGrouse Conservation Measures; NTT 2011) and alternatives that 

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 will be identified and discussed only 

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

the proposed management actions.

An additional criterion was received in public scoping comments during the 

scoping period (December 9, 2011 to March 23, 2012) and was added to the list 

of planning criteria. This comment was that state game and fish agencies have 

the responsibility and authority to manage wildlife.
1. Introduction (Relationship to Other Policies, Plans, and Programs)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 1-15

1.8 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER POLICIES, PLANS, AND PROGRAMS

Currently, lands within the NDFO are managed according to the North Dakota 

RMP/EIS and Record of Decision (ROD) (BLM 1988a). This RMPA is a necessary 

step in the overall process of managing BLM-administered lands, specifically to 

include new guidance concerning the conservation of GRSG habitat. As a result, 

this planning process must recognize the many ongoing programs, plans, and 

policies that are being implemented by the BLM or other land managers and 

government agencies. The BLM will be consistent with other management 

actions whenever possible. Plans that need to be considered during GRSG

planning are listed below.

1.8.1 National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy

On December 9, 2011, a Notice of Availability was published in the Federal 

Register to initiate the GRSG Planning Strategy across nine western states, 

including Northeast California, Oregon, Nevada, Idaho, Utah, and Southwest 

Montana in the Great Basin Region and Northwest Colorado, Wyoming, 

Montana, South Dakota, and North Dakota in the Rocky Mountain Region (see 

Diagram 1-1, BLM and Forest Service GRSG Planning Strategy Sub-region/EIS 

Boundaries). The BLM is the lead agency for this planning effort. On February 

10, 2012, the BLM published a Notice of Correction that changed the names of 

the regions that are coordinating the EISs, extended the scoping period, and 

added 11 Forest Service land management plans to this process. This North 

Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS is 1 of 15 separate EISs that are 

currently being conducted to analyze and incorporate specific conservation 

measures across the range of the GRSG, consistent with National BLM policy.

On December 27, 2011, the BLM Washington Office released IM No. 2012-044, 

which directed all of the planning efforts across the GRSG range to consider all 

applicable conservation measures when revising or amending its RMPs in GRSG 

habitat, including the measures developed by the NTT that were presented in 

their December 2011 document – A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Measures. The BLM’s IM-2012-044 directs all planning efforts 

associated with the national strategy to consider and analyze (as appropriate) 

the conservation measures presented in the NTT Report.

Along with the applicable measures that were outlined in the NTT Report, 

planning efforts associated with this National GRSG Planning Strategy will also 

analyze applicable conservation measures that were submitted to the BLM from 

various state governments and from citizens during the public scoping process. 

It is the goal of the BLM to make a final decision on these plans by the end of 

2014 so that adequate regulatory mechanisms are integrated into the land use 

plans before the USFWS makes a listing decision in 2015.
1. Introduction (Relationship to Other Policies, Plans, and Programs)

1-16 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Diagram 1-1

BLM and Forest Service GRSG Planning Strategy Sub-region/EIS Boundaries

1.8.2 Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-043, Greater Sage-Grouse Interim 

Management Policies and Procedures

This IM provides interim conservation policies and procedures to the BLM field 

officials to be applied to ongoing and proposed authorizations and activities that 

affect the GRSG and its habitat (BLM 2012e). This direction ensures that interim 

conservation policies and procedures are implemented when field offices 

authorize or carry out activities on public land while the BLM develops and 

decides how to best incorporate long-term conservation measures for GRSG

into applicable Land Use Plans. This direction promotes sustainable GRSG

populations and conservation of its habitat while not closing any future options 

in the NDFO before the North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS can be 

completed.

1.8.3 National Level Programmatic EISs and Agreements

• Final Environmental Impact Statement Vegetation Treatment on BLM 

Lands in Thirteen Western States (BLM 1991; common to the 

proposed plan and draft alternatives)
1. Introduction (Relationship to Other Policies, Plans, and Programs)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 1-17

• Final Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 

Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and 

Associated Record of Decision (BLM 2007)

• National-level MOUs

1.8.4 Relevant Plan Amendments 

• Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Northern Great Plains 

Management Plans Revision (Forest Service 2001)

• Fire/Fuels Management Plan Environmental Assessment/Plan Amendment 

for Montana and the Dakotas (BLM 2003a)

• 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 Record of Decision (BLM 

1997)

1.8.5 National Grasslands Leasing Decisions

In June 2003, the Dakota Prairie Grasslands/Montana State Office Oil and Gas 

Leasing ROD (BLM 2003b) was signed. This ROD documented the Forest 

Service’s decision concerning which specific lands (Forest Service surface/federal 

mineral) it authorized the BLM to offer for lease. The ROD incorporated the 

lease terms and stipulations determined necessary to mitigate effects on surface 

resources. This ROD covers the Little Missouri and Cedar River National 

Grasslands of the Dakota Prairie Grasslands. It also documented the BLM’s

decision to offer and issue leases on the lands that are included in the Forest 

Service’s decision, and on all nonfederal surface/federal minerals (split estate) 

lands within the administrative boundary of the oil and gas leasing project area.

Where the surface is administered by the Forest Service and the mineral estate 

is also federally owned, the Forest Service and the BLM share the responsibility 

for enforcing mineral leasing policies and regulations. Where the surface is not 

in federal ownership but the minerals are federally owned, the BLM manages the 

mineral estate. Each lease may contain special stipulations in accordance with 

federal regulations and as identified in the 2003 ROD.

For the nonfederal surface and federal minerals, the adoption by the BLM of the 

same lease stipulations and mitigation measures selected by the Forest Service

was to ensure consistency in managing lands and resources within the 

boundaries of the Dakota Prairie Grasslands. Simultaneously, it incorporates

nonfederal surface owner interests. This was an effort to collectively address 

impacts and apply lease stipulations consistently, based on resource 

considerations, within the grasslands boundary. 

North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS—The planning area for 

the North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS includes portions of the 

Dakota Prairie Grassland National Forest. However, the North Dakota Greater 
1. Introduction (Relationship to Other Policies, Plans, and Programs)

1-18 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS does not address a range of alternatives for Forest 

Service surface/federal minerals. The 2003 ROD will continue to define the 

current management for oil and gas leasing on Forest Service surface; the 

decisions that the BLM made in regard to the split estate lands (nonfederal 

surface/federal minerals) will vary among the alternatives (with the 2003 ROD 

decision being the No Action Alternative). This results in all action alternatives 

having management actions for split estate lands within the grasslands boundary 

that will be different than the current management on Forest Serviceadministered lands.

The NDFO and the Dakota Prairie Grasslands National Forest have been 

coordinating regarding GRSG management within the National Grasslands; 

however, the Forest Service will be initiating a separate analysis of GRSG. If it is 

determined that the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Dakota Prairie 

Grasslands needs to be amended, the appropriate level of NEPA will be

completed. This analysis will not be initiated in time to include in this planning 

process.

1.8.6 Greater Sage‐Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation 

Objectives Final Report

The USFWS created a Conservation Objectives Team (COT) of state and 

USFWS representatives to develop range-wide conservation objectives for the 

GRSG. These objectives define the degree to which threats need to be reduced 

or ameliorated to conserve GRSG so that it is no longer in danger of extinction 

or likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future. The 

Greater Sage‐Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final 

Report (released in March 2013) is the outcome of the COT’s efforts (USFWS 

2013).

This report delineates reasonable objectives, based upon the best scientific and 

commercial data available at the time of its release, for the conservation and 

survival of GRSG. The report was prepared to provide additional information 

for consideration pertinent to future decision making relative to GRSG. The 

report will also serve as guidance to federal land management agencies, state 

GRSG teams, and others in focusing efforts to achieve effective conservation for 

this species.

1.8.7 Summary of Science, Activities, Programs, and Policies that Influence 

the Range-Wide Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus)

To augment this planning document at a biologically meaningful scale for GRSG, 

a Baseline Environmental Report (BER) of GRSG was produced by the US 

Geological Society (USGS) for BLM (Manier et al. 2013). The BER is a science 

support document that provides information to put planning units and issues 

into the context of the larger WAFWA Sage-Grouse management zones. The 

BER examines each threat identified in the USFWS’s listing decision published 
1. Introduction (Relationship to Other Policies, Plans, and Programs)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 1-19

on March 15, 2010. For each threat, the BER summarizes the current, scientific 

understanding of various impacts to GRSG populations and habitats. When 

available, the BER also reports patterns, thresholds, indicators, metrics, and 

measured responses that quantify the impacts of each specific threat.

1.8.8 Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Greater SageGrouse in North Dakota

The purpose and need for the North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS is 

consistent with the goal of the Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for 

Greater Sage-Grouse in North Dakota, which is to provide for long-term 

conservation and enhancement of sagebrush steppe/mixed-grass prairie habitats 

in North Dakota in a manner that will support a self-sustaining GRSG

population, a diversity and abundance of other wildlife species, and human uses. 

This Draft RMPA/EIS also addresses many of the threats and conservation 

strategies identified in the NDGFD Management Plan, with the exception of 

items such as conversion of private lands to cropland, harvest management, and 

weather. The COT report also contains similar threats/conservation strategies 

as the NDGFD Management Plan.

1.8.9 Off-Highway Vehicle Record of Decision and Proposed Plan 

Amendment for Montana, North Dakota, and Portions of South 

Dakota

In the Montana-Dakotas region, the BLM has limited travel to existing roads and 

trails since the Off-Highway Vehicle ROD and Proposed Plan Amendment for 

Montana, North Dakota, and Portions of South Dakota was signed in 2003 

(BLM 2003a). Therefore, travel in the NDFO planning area is already “managed 

as limited” and this designation will remain the same among all alternatives in 

the North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS. The following provides an 

explanation of the BLM’s travel management process and the next steps for 

travel management once a ROD is signed:

1. Although travel has been limited (e.g., no cross-country travel 

allowed), additional detailed route inventory information still needs 

to be collected in order to complete site-specific travel planning 

once this ROD is signed. This data collection will provide the 

information needed to fully evaluate the impacts of these routes on 

other resource allocations, uses and to the public, in addition to the 

GRSG.

2. Once the inventories are underway and/or completed, the BLM will 

initiate travel and transportation implementation plans. The plans 

will undergo a NEPA analysis that includes further public 

involvement.

3. Through this subsequent NEPA and planning process, the BLM will 

consider road and trail permanent and seasonal closures, as well as 

area closures. The decision to close routes or areas (e.g., around 
1. Introduction (Relationship to Other Policies, Plans, and Programs)

1-20 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

leks) to OHV use in the travel and transportation plans would be 

based on the overall goal of protecting, preserving and enhancing 

GRSG and their habitats.

1.8.10 County Plans

The following county plans have been reviewed for consistency with this 

amendment:

• Bowman County Comprehensive Plan Update: 2012 (Bowman 

County 2012)

• Slope County Comprehensive Plan (Slope County 2010)

• Golden Valley County Comprehensive Plan Update: 2012 (Golden 

Valley County 2012)

The primary goals, objectives, and strategies common to these plans that would 

be relevant to the alternatives being analyzed in the North Dakota Greater 

Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS relate to maintaining the farming and ranching sectors, 

and also maintaining the environmental integrity while encouraging the wise and 

proper development of natural resources. The county plans recognize the 

importance of their natural areas and provide strategies or objectives that 

support the proper planning for resource development.
Chapter 2

Proposed Action and Alternatives

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-1

CHAPTER 2

PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter details Alternatives A through D for the North Dakota Greater 

Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS. It includes references to maps (Appendix A) 

identifying where actions would be applicable. The proposed alternatives were 

formulated in response to issues and concerns identified through public scoping. 

This is an effort to maintain or increase GRSG abundance and distribution by 

conserving, enhancing, or restoring the sagebrush ecosystem on which 

populations depend throughout WAFWA MZ 1 of the Rocky Mountain Region 

(Stiver et al. 2006). Decisions in this RMPA pertain to 33,030 acres of BLMadministered surface land and 396,053 acres of federal subsurface mineral estate 

in the planning area (shown in Figure 1-1, Appendix A).

The No Action Alternative (Alternative A) represents the continuation of 

current management direction and proposes no new plan or management 

actions. This alternative is required by CEQ regulations and provides a baseline 

for comparing the other alternatives (CEQ 1981). The BLM developed the 

action alternatives (B, C, and D) by considering issues and concerns raised 

during the public scoping period. The BLM also used planning criteria and 

guidance applicable to managing resources and resource uses relevant to GRSG

habitat. Alternatives B, C, and D describe proposed changes to current 

management, as well as any existing management that would be carried forward.

These alternatives provide a range of choices for resolving the planning issues

identified in Chapter 1.

The BLM recognizes that social, economic, and environmental issues cross land 

ownership lines, and that extensive cooperation is needed to address issues of 

mutual concern. To the extent possible, these alternatives were developed using

input from public scoping comments and cooperating agencies.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Introduction to Alternatives)

2-2 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

2.2 INTRODUCTION TO ALTERNATIVES

Decisions in this RMPA consist of allowable uses and management actions 

necessary for maintaining or increasing GRSG abundance and distribution on 

BLM-administered lands. These critical determinations guide future land 

management actions and subsequent site-specific implementation actions to 

conserve, enhance, or restore the sagebrush ecosystem in the planning area.

Components of Alternatives

Goals are broad statements of desired (RMP-wide and resource- or resourceuse-specific) outcomes and are not quantifiable or measurable. Objectives are 

specific, measurable desired conditions or outcomes intended to meet goals. 

While the goal of this RMPA is the same across all alternatives, objectives 

typically vary, resulting in different allowable uses and management actions for 

some resources and resource uses.

Allowable uses and management actions are designed to achieve objectives. 

Allowable uses delineate which uses are permitted, restricted, or prohibited and 

may include stipulations or restrictions. Allowable uses also identify lands where 

specific uses are excluded to protect resource values, or where certain lands 

are open or closed in response to legislative, regulatory, or policy requirements. 

Management actions are measures that guide day-to-day and future activities. 

Implementation decisions are site-specific on-the-ground actions and are not 

addressed in this RMPA.

Purpose of Alternatives Development

Alternatives development is the heart of the planning process. Land use planning 

and NEPA regulations require the BLM to formulate a reasonable range of 

alternatives. Alternatives development is guided by established planning criteria 

(as outlined in 43 CFR Part 1610).

The basic goal of alternatives development is to produce feasible, distinct,

potential management scenarios that:

• Address the identified major planning issues

• Explore opportunities to enhance management of resources and 

resource uses

• Resolve conflicts between resources and resource uses

• Meet the purpose of and need for the RMP or RMPA

Pursuit of this goal provides the BLM and the public with an appreciation for the 

diverse ways in which conflicts over resources and resource uses might be 

resolved. Also, it offers the BLM State Director a reasonable range of 

alternatives from which to make an informed decision. The components and 

broad aim of each alternative considered for the North Dakota Greater SageGrouse RMPA/EIS are discussed below.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Alternatives Development for the 

North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Plan Amendment)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-3

2.3 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT FOR THE NORTH DAKOTA GREATER SAGE-GROUSE 

PLAN AMENDMENT

The North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS planning team employed the 

BLM planning process (outlined in Chapter 1) to develop a reasonable range of 

alternatives for the RMPA. The BLM complied with NEPA and the CEQ

implementing regulations at 40 CFR, Part 1500, in developing the alternatives 

for this RMPA/EIS. This included seeking public input and analyzing reasonable 

alternatives. Where necessary, the alternatives include management options for 

the planning area that would modify or amend decisions made in the North 

Dakota RMP and ROD, as amended (BLM 1988a). This was done to meet the 

planning criteria, to address issues and comments from cooperating agencies 

and the public, or to provide a reasonable range of alternatives. Since this is a 

plan amendment specific to address GRSG conservation, many decisions from 

the North Dakota RMP and ROD are acceptable and reasonable; in these 

instances, there is no need to develop management prescriptions for 

alternatives.

The BLM considered public input received during the scoping process to ensure 

that all issues and concerns would be addressed, as appropriate, in developing 

the alternatives. The planning team developed planning issues to be addressed in 

the RMPA, based on broad concerns or controversies related to conditions, 

trends, needs, and existing and potential uses of planning area lands and 

resources.

2.3.1 Develop a Reasonable Range of Alternatives

Between May and September 2012, the planning team met to develop 

management goals and to identify objectives and actions to address the goals. 

The various groups, along with cooperating agencies, met numerous times 

throughout this period to refine their work. Through this process, the planning 

team developed one no action alternative (A) and three action alternatives (B, 

C, and D). The action alternatives were designed to:

• Address the 10 planning issues (refer to Section 1.6.3, Issues 

Identified)

• Fulfill the purpose and need for the RMPA (outlined in Section 1.2, 

Purpose and Need)

• Meet the multiple use mandates of the FLPMA (43 USC Part 1732).

2.4 RESULTING RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES

The three resulting action alternatives offer a range of possible management 

responses to planning issues and public concerns. Also the alternatives would

work toward maintaining or increasing GRSG abundance and distribution in the 

planning area. While the goal is the same across alternatives, each alternative 

contains a discrete set of objectives, allowable uses, and management actions 

constituting a separate RMPA. The goal is met in varying degrees, with the 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Resulting Range of Alternatives)

2-4 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

potential for different long-range outcomes and conditions. Conservation 

measures in the alternatives focus on PH and GH areas, depending on the 

alternative’s objective. The PH and GH have been delineated by the NDGFD in 

coordination with the BLM.

The relative emphasis given to particular resources and resource uses differs as 

well, for allowable uses, restoration measures, and specific direction pertaining 

to individual resource programs. When resources or resource uses are 

mandated by law or are not tied to planning issues, there are typically few or no 

distinctions between alternatives.

The alternatives are directed toward responding to USFWS-identified issues and 

threats to GRSG and their habitat. All of the action alternatives employ 

resource programs to address the USFWS-identified threats (USFWS 2013). 

Table 2-1, USFWS-Identified Threats to GRSG and Their Habitat and 

Applicable BLM RMP Resource Programs for Addressing Threats, identifies the 

threats and the applicable BLM resource programs in RMPs for addressing the 

threats.

Table 2-1

USFWS-Identified Threats to GRSG and Their Habitat and Applicable BLM RMP Resource 

Programs for Addressing Threats

USFWS-identified Threat to 

GRSG and Their Habitat

(threats not known to be present

are not listed)

Applicable BLM RMP Resource Program to Address the 

Threat

Oil and Gas Program: Fluid Minerals

Decisions: Identify open and closed (no lease areas to fluid 

mineral leasing; identify open areas with no surface occupancy

(NSO), controlled surface use (CSU), and timing limitation (TL)

stipulations.

Infrastructure Program: Lands and Realty – Rights-of-Way (ROWs)

Decisions: Issue ROW grants; identify ROW avoidance or 

exclusion areas; issue permits and leases to authorize use of the 

lands (for example, agricultural, occupancy, storage).

Program: Range Management 

Decisions: Management of range improvements.

Program: Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management – Roads

Decisions: Identify travel management areas; identify modes of 

access and travel; identify areas open, limited, or closed to 

OHVs.

Invasive Species Program: Vegetation

Decisions: Control, suppress, or eradicate weeds; restrict 

allowable uses; use active management or treatment.

Wildfire Program: Wildland Fire Management

Decisions: Make changes to fire management strategies; identify 

areas suitable and unsuitable for wildland fire use; identify 

priority areas for suppression.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Resulting Range of Alternatives)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-5

Table 2-1

USFWS-Identified Threats to GRSG and Their Habitat and Applicable BLM RMP Resource 

Programs for Addressing Threats

USFWS-identified Threat to 

GRSG and Their Habitat

(threats not known to be present

are not listed)

Applicable BLM RMP Resource Program to Address the 

Threat

Grazing Program: Range Management

Decisions: Identify acres open and closed to grazing; establish 

animal unit months (AUMs); manage grazing systems.

Program: Special Status Species

Decisions: Identify habitat management.

Agriculture Program: Lands and Realty

Decisions: Identify lands for acquisition, retention, and disposal.

Disease Program: All applicable programs

Decisions: Establish design features and BMPs.

Urbanization Program: Lands and Realty

Decisions: Identify retention and disposal areas.

Coal/Strip Mining Program: Coal

Decisions: Identify suitable and unsuitable areas for coal

development; identify areas withdrawn from leasable mineral

development.

Prescribed Fire Program: Wildland Fire Management

Decisions: Establish fire management strategies; identify areas 

suitable and unsuitable for prescribed fire use.

Program: Vegetation

Decisions: Conduct vegetation treatments through prescribed 

fire.

Human Program: Recreation

Decisions: Issue special recreation permits (SRP).

Program: Lands and Realty

Decision: Grant ROW; identify ROW avoidance or exclusion 

areas; identify lands for retention, and disposal; issue permits and 

leases to authorize use of the lands (for example, agricultural, 

occupancy, storage).

Program: Minerals

Decision: Identify areas as open or closed to leasable mining; 

identify open areas with NSO, CSU, and TL stipulations; petition 

to withdraw lands from locatable mineral development; establish 

terms, conditions, or special considerations; identify open and 

closed areas to mineral materials disposal.

Program: Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management – Roads

Decisions: Identify travel management areas; identify areas open, 

limited, or closed to OHVs.

Conifer Encroachment Program: Vegetation

Decisions: Conduct vegetation treatments.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Resulting Range of Alternatives)

2-6 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 2-1

USFWS-Identified Threats to GRSG and Their Habitat and Applicable BLM RMP Resource 

Programs for Addressing Threats

USFWS-identified Threat to 

GRSG and Their Habitat

(threats not known to be present

are not listed)

Applicable BLM RMP Resource Program to Address the 

Threat

Water Development Program: Range Management

Decisions: Identify number, location, and type of range water 

developments.

Hard Rock Mining Program: Locatable Minerals

Decisions: Petition to withdraw lands from locatable mineral

development; establish terms, conditions, or special 

considerations.

Source: USFWS 2010

Select differences among the four alternatives are described in Table 2-2, 

Comparative Summary of Alternatives. Table 2-3, Description of Alternatives

A, B, C, and D, provides a complete description of proposed decisions for each 

alternative, including the project goal and objectives, allowable uses, and 

management actions for individual resource programs. Figures in Appendix A

show the differences among alternatives. In some instances, varying levels of 

management overlap a single polygon due to management prescriptions from 

different resource programs.

2.4.1 Management Common to All Alternatives

The BLM carried forward to all of the proposed alternatives those allowable 

uses and management actions from the North Dakota RMP and ROD that 

remain valid and do not require revision. Other decisions are common only to 

the action alternatives (B, C, and D).

Although each alternative emphasizes a slightly different mix of management for 

resources and resource uses, all four alternatives contain the following 

elements:

• Comply with state and federal laws, regulations, policies, and 

standards, including FLPMA multiple-use mandates.

• Implement actions originating from laws, regulations, and policies 

and conform to day-to-day management, monitoring, and 

administrative functions not specifically addressed.

• Honor valid existing rights, which include any leases, claims, or 

other use authorizations established before a new or modified 

authorization, change in land designation, or new or modified 

regulation is approved. Existing fluid mineral leases are managed 

through conditions of approval (COAs).
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Resulting Range of Alternatives)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-7

• Collaborate with adjacent landowners, federal and state agencies, 

tribes, communities, other agencies, and other individuals and 

organizations, as needed, to monitor and implement decisions to 

achieve desired resource conditions.

• Provide for human safety and property protection from wildfire.

In addition to these shared elements, allowable uses and management actions 

common to all four alternatives (as indicated by a single cell across the table 

row) are listed in Table 2-3.

2.4.2 Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative A meets the CEQ requirement that a no action alternative be 

considered. This alternative continues current management direction and 

prevailing conditions derived from existing planning documents. Goals and 

objectives for resources and resource uses are based on the 1988 North 

Dakota RMP and ROD, along with associated amendments, activity and 

implementation level plans, and other management decision documents. Laws

and regulations that supersede RMP decisions would apply.

No PH or GH would be delineated under Alternative A. Goals and objectives 

for BLM-administered lands and mineral estate would not change. Appropriate 

and allowable uses and restrictions pertaining to such activities as mineral 

leasing and development, recreation, ROW development, and livestock grazing 

would also remain the same. The BLM would not modify existing or establish 

additional criteria to guide the identification of site-specific use levels for 

implementation activities.

2.4.3 Elements Common to Alternatives B, C, and D

Alternatives B, C, and D have two basic components: delineated PH and GH

and RDFs.

Delineate Lands as Priority and General Habitat

Under Alternatives B, C, and D, PPH and PGH data would be refined to (1) 

delineate PH and analyze actions within PH to conserve GRSG habitat 

functionality, or where possible, improve habitat functionality; and (2) delineate 

GH and analyze actions within GH that provide for major life history function 

(e.g., breeding, migration, or winter survival) to maintain genetic diversity 

needed for sustainable GRSG populations. The areas delineated as PH and GH 

would be the same under each alternative; however, the allowable uses and 

management actions within PH and GH may vary between alternatives to meet 

the goal of the RMPA and objectives of the alternative.

Required Design Features

RDFs are means, measures, or practices intended to reduce or avoid adverse 

environmental impacts. This RMPA/EIS proposes a suite of design features that 

would establish the minimum specifications for water developments, certain 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Resulting Range of Alternatives)

2-8 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

mineral development, and fire and fuels management and would mitigate adverse 

impacts. These design features would be required to provide a greater level of 

regulatory certainty than through implementing BMPs.

In general, the design features are accepted practices that are known to be 

effective when implemented properly at the project level. However, their 

applicability and overall effectiveness cannot be fully assessed except at the 

project-specific level when the project location and design are known. Because 

of site-specific circumstances, some features may not apply to some projects 

(e.g., when a resource is not present on a given site) or may require slight 

variations from what is described in the RMPA/EIS (e.g., a larger or smaller 

protective area). All variations in design features would require appropriate 

analysis and disclosure as part of future project authorizations. Additional 

mitigation measures may be identified and required during individual project 

development and environmental review. The proposed RDFs are presented in 

Appendix B, Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Required Design Features and Best 

Management Practices.

2.4.4 Alternative B

GRSG conservation measures in A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Measures (NTT 2011) were used to form BLM management 

direction under Alternative B. Management actions by the BLM, in concert with 

other state and federal agencies and private landowners, play a critical role in 

the future trends of GRSG populations. To ensure BLM management actions are 

effective and based on the best available science, the National Policy Team 

created a NTT in August 2011. The BLM’s objective was to provide a starting 

point to be used in BLM’s RMPs to conserve and restore the GRSG and its 

habitat long term and range‐wide on BLM-administered lands. Conservation 

measures under Alternative B are focused on PH (areas that have the highest 

conservation value for maintaining or increasing sage‐grouse populations).

Table 2-2 summarizes select proposed decisions and includes details of all 

proposed decisions. Appendix B provides RDFs and Appendix C, Oil and 

Gas Stipulations, describes stipulations for oil and gas leasing and surfacedisturbing activities. Key components of Alternative B are discussed below.

Travel and Transportation Management. Alternative B would limit 

motorized travel to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails at a minimum of 

approximately 33,030 acres until travel management planning is complete and 

routes are either designated or closed. Under Alternative B, route construction

in PH would be limited to realignments of existing designated routes, except to 

access valid existing rights; this would require additional mitigation for 

disturbances greater than three percent for that area. Alternative B would 

emphasize restoration of nondesignated roads, primitive roads, and trails in PH.

Lands and Realty. PH would be designated as ROW exclusion areas for new 

land use authorizations (approximately 32,900 acres) and GH would be 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Resulting Range of Alternatives)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-9

designated as ROW avoidance areas for new land use authorizations

(approximately 80 acres). Lands within PH would be recommended for mineral 

withdrawal, and other withdrawals in PH would need to be consistent with

GRSG conservation measures.

Range Management. Grazing would be allowed on all lands identified as 

suitable (approximately 32,945 acres). Alternative B would consider retiring 

permitted grazing use on allotments in PH when the current permittee is willing. 

Within PH, GRSG habitat objectives and management considerations would be 

incorporated into all BLM grazing allotments through Allotment Management 

Plans (AMPs) or permit renewals. The BLM would prioritize completion of land 

health assessments in PH and would implement actions to modify grazing 

management to meet GRSG habitat requirements. Within PH, Alternative B 

would only allow treatments that conserve, enhance, or restore GRSG habitat

for increasing forage for livestock. Structural range improvements and livestock 

management tools in PH would need to be designed to conserve, enhance, or 

restore GRSG habitat through and improved grazing management system 

relative to GRSG objectives.

Energy and Mineral Development. PH areas would be closed to fluid 

mineral leasing (approximately 61,197 acres), and existing parcels in PH would 

not be eligible for leasing nominations following expiration or termination.

However, exploration would be allowed in PH, with approved drilling methods.

Existing leases in PH would be subject to conservation measures through RMP 

implementation decisions and on completion of the environmental record of 

review. Surface coal mining would be considered unsuitable (approximately 

87,443 acres), and no subsurface coal mining disturbances or facilities would be 

allowed in PH. All PH (approximately 46,397 acres) would be closed to mineral 

materials and nonenergy leasable minerals, and would be recommended for 

withdrawal for locatable minerals.

Fire and Fuels Management. In PH, the BLM would design and implement 

fuels treatments and suppression, with an emphasis on protecting sagebrush 

ecosystems. Sagebrush canopy cover would not be reduced by less than 15 

percent, unless a fuels management objective were to require additional 

reduction in sagebrush cover to meet strategic protection of PH and to 

conserve habitat quality for the species.

Habitat Restoration/Vegetation Management. The BLM would prioritize 

implementation of restoration projects. Decisions would be based on 

environmental variables that improve chances for project success in areas most 

likely to benefit GRSG. The BLM would make meeting habitat restoration 

objectives within PH areas the highest restoration priority.

Special designations. GRSG habitat would not be designated as an ACEC.

GRSG PH and GH areas would be protected and managed consistent with the 

identified management actions and constraints in this alternative.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Resulting Range of Alternatives)

2-10 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

2.4.5 Alternative C

During scoping for the National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy, 

individuals and conservation groups submitted management direction 

recommendations for protecting and conserving GRSG and habitat at the rangewide level. These recommendations, in conjunction with resource allocation 

opportunities and internal subregional BLM input, were reviewed in order to 

develop BLM management direction for GRSG under Alternative C. 

Conservation measures under Alternative C are focused on both PH and GH

(seasonal or year-round habitat outside of PH) areas. 

Table 2-2 summarizes select proposed decisions and includes details of all 

proposed decisions. Appendix B provides RDFs and Appendix C describes 

stipulations for oil and gas leasing and surface-disturbing activities. Key 

components of Alternative C are discussed below.

Travel and Transportation Management. Similar to Alternative B, 

Alternative C would limit motorized travel to existing roads, primitive roads, 

and trails at a minimum of approximately 33,030 acres. Route construction in 

PH and GH would be limited to realignments of existing designated routes. 

Alternative C would have the most restrictive requirements for constructing 

routes to existing valid rights, requiring a four-mile buffer from leks (GRSG

display and breeding grounds). Like Alternative B, this alternative would also 

emphasize restoration of nondesignated roads, primitive roads, and trails in PH.

Alternative C would have the most restrictions on travel and transportation.

Lands and Realty. Under Alternative C, PH and GH would be designated as 

ROW exclusion areas of approximately 32,980 acres. Lands within PH and GH 

would be recommended for mineral withdrawal, and other withdrawals in PH 

and GH would need to be consistent with GRSG conservation measures.

Alternative C would have the most restrictions on ROW development and 

withdrawals.

Range Management. Alternative C would reduce livestock grazing, which

would be allowed on all lands identified as suitable (approximately 32,945 acres).

However, livestock grazing would be reduced on all grazing allotments within 

the Big Gumbo area (large block of BLM-administered land shown in Figure 2-

10, Grazing Allotments Alternative C, Appendix A) by 50 percent. Within PH, 

GRSG habitat objectives and management considerations would be 

incorporated into all BLM grazing allotments through AMPs or permit renewals.

The BLM would prioritize completion of land health assessments in PH.

Alternative C would provide the most restrictions on forage treatments and 

range improvements by allowing only treatments or improvements that

conserve, enhance, or restore GRSG habitat in both PH and GH.

Energy and Mineral Development. Under Alternative C, PH and GH areas 

would be closed to fluid mineral leasing (approximately 66,293 acres); existing 

parcels in PH would not be eligible for leasing nominations following expiration 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Resulting Range of Alternatives)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-11

or termination. Exploration would be allowed only in PH and GH. Existing 

leases in PH and GH would be subject to conservation measures as COAs, 

during the project and well permitting stages, and through RMP decisions on 

completion of the environmental record of review. Management of coal, mineral 

materials, nonenergy leasable minerals, and locatable minerals would be similar 

to that under Alternative B except applied to GH as well as PH. Surface and 

subsurface coal mining would be considered unsuitable (approximately 166,207 

acres). Alternative C would have the most restrictions on energy and mineral 

development.

Fire and Fuels Management. This is similar to management under 

Alternative B; however, all management would apply to both PH and GH.

Habitat Restoration/Vegetation Management. The BLM would prioritize 

implementation of restoration projects. This would be based on environmental 

variables that improve chances for project success in areas most likely to benefit

GRSG. The BLM would make meeting habitat restoration within PH and GH the 

highest priority. Alternative C would provide the most opportunities for 

restoration and vegetation management.

Special Designations. All PH would be designated as an ACEC to protect 

GRSG habitat (32,900 acres; see Appendix D, Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern Evaluation of Relevance and Importance Criteria). Management actions 

for the ACEC would be consistent with the management actions/constraints 

identified under this alternative to protect GRSG habitat.

2.4.6 Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

Alternative D, the agency-preferred alternative, seeks to allocate limited 

resources among competing human interests, land uses, and the conservation of 

natural resource values. At the same time, it would sustain and enhance

ecological integrity across the landscape, including plant, wildlife, and fish habitat. 

This alternative incorporates local adjustments to A Report on National Greater 

Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures (NTT 2011) to provide a balanced level of

protection, restoration, enhancement, and use of resources and services to 

meet ongoing programs and land uses. Conservation measures under

Alternative D are focused on both PH and GH. 

Table 2-2 summarizes select proposed decisions and includes details of all 

proposed decisions. Appendix B provides RDFs and Appendix C describes 

stipulations for oil and gas leasing and surface-disturbing activities. Key 

components of Alternative D are discussed below.

Travel and Transportation Management. Similar to Alternative B, 

Alternative D would limit motorized travel to existing roads, primitive roads, 

and trails at a minimum of approximately 33,030 acres. Similar to Alternative B, 

route construction in PH and GH would be limited to realignments of existing 

designated routes. However, construction of access to existing rights would be 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Resulting Range of Alternatives)

2-12 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

less restrictive. Alternative D would emphasize restoration of nondesignated

roads, primitive roads, and trails in both PH and GH.

Lands and Realty. Under Alternative D, PH would be designated as ROW

avoidance areas of approximately 32,900 acres; wind energy authorizations 

would be excluded from PH areas. GH would be open to ROW development

and would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. No lands would be 

recommended for mineral withdrawal.

Range Management. Grazing would be allowed on all lands identified as 

suitable (approximately 32,945 acres). Within PH, GRSG habitat objectives and 

management considerations developed with the NDGFD and USFWS would be 

incorporated into all BLM grazing allotments through AMPs or permit renewals.

Similar to Alternative B, the BLM would prioritize completion of land health 

assessments in PH, and Alternative D would allow forage treatments and range

improvements in PH that conserve, enhance, or restore GRSG habitat.

Energy and Mineral Development. PH and GH would be open to oil and 

gas leasing and development; however, surface occupancy and use would be 

prohibited within PH (NSO) and have specific constraints in GH (CSU). 

Geophysical exploration and development restrictions would be applied to 

protect leks. Existing leases in PH and GH would be subject to conservation 

measures through RMP implementation decisions and on completion of the 

environmental record of review. Operating constraints would also be applied to 

existing leases as COAs. Surface mining of coal in PH would be considered 

unsuitable (approximately 87,443 acres). Subsurface coal mining disturbances 

and facilities would be allowed in PH only if facilities could not be located 

outside these areas. Management of mineral materials, nonenergy leasable 

minerals, and locatable minerals would be similar to that under Alternative B.

Fire and Fuels Management. This would be similar to management under 

Alternative B; however, sagebrush canopy cover would not be reduced less than 

eight percent, unless a fuels management objective were to require additional 

reduction in sagebrush cover. This would be required to meet strategic 

protection of PH and to conserve habitat quality for the species.

Habitat Restoration/Vegetation Management. This would be similar to 

management under Alternative B; however, the BLM would prioritize 

implementation of restoration projects to include reducing conifer 

encroachment as well as benefiting other priority species. The BLM would make 

meeting habitat restoration objectives within PH areas the highest restoration 

priority, along with other priority species.

Special Designations. GRSG habitat would not be designated as an ACEC.

GRSG PH areas would be protected and managed consistent with the identified 

management actions and constraints.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Regional Mitigation Strategy)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-13

2.5 REGIONAL MITIGATION STRATEGY

Mitigation strategies, which take into account the mitigation hierarchy (avoid, 

minimize, restore, offset), are an important tool for ensuring the BLM meets 

their GRSG resource objectives while continuing to honor our multiple-use 

mission. The BLM priority is to mitigate impacts to an acceptable level onsite, to 

the extent practical, through avoidance (not taking a certain action or parts of 

an action), minimization (limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its 

implementation), rectification (repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected 

environment), or reduction of impacts over time (preservation and maintenance 

operations during the life of the action). While mitigating impacts for proposed 

projects to an acceptable level onsite is typically analyzed and determined 

through site-specific, implementation-level NEPA documents and their 

commensurate decision documents, the analysis and mitigation for project level 

activities would be tiered to the analysis and mitigation proposed throughout 

each of the action alternatives in this RMPA. Appendix E, Regional Mitigation 

Strategy, provides the approach to the regional mitigation strategy.

2.6 MONITORING FOR THE GREATER SAGE-GROUSE PLANNING STRATEGY

BLM’s planning regulations, specifically 43 CFR 1610.4-9 require that land use 

plans establish intervals and standards for monitoring, based on the sensitivity of 

the resource decisions. Land use plan monitoring is the process of tracking the 

implementation of land use plan decisions (implementation monitoring) and 

collecting data/information necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of land use 

plan decisions (effectiveness monitoring). For GRSG, these types of monitoring 

are also described in the criteria found in the Policy for Evaluation of 

Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (50 CFR Vol. 68, No. 60). 

One of the Policy criteria evaluates whether provisions for monitoring and 

reporting progress on implementation (based on compliance with the 

implementation schedule) and effectiveness (based on evaluation of quantifiable 

parameters) of the conservation effort are provided.

A guiding principle in the BLM National Sage-grouse Conservation Strategy 

(DOI 2004) is that, “the Bureau is committed to sage-grouse and sagebrush 

conservation and will continue to adjust and adapt our National Sage-grouse 

Strategy as new information, science and monitoring results evaluate 

effectiveness over time.” In keeping with the WAFWA Sage-grouse 

Comprehensive Conservation Strategy (Stiver et al. 2006) and the Greater Sagegrouse Conservation Objectives: Final Report (USFWS 2013), BLM would

monitor implementation and effectiveness of conservation measures in GRSG

habitats.

On March 5, 2010 the 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater SageGrouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered were posted 

as a Federal Register notice (75 FR 13910 14014). This notice stated:
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Monitoring for the Greater Sage-grouse Planning Strategy)

2-14 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

“...the information collected by BLM could not be used to make broad 

generalizations about the status of rangelands and management actions. 

There was a lack of consistency across the range in how questions were 

interpreted and answered for the data call, which limited our ability to 

use the results to understand habitat conditions for sage-grouse on BLM 

lands.”

Standardization of monitoring methods and implementation of a defensible 

monitoring approach (within and across jurisdictions) will resolve this situation. 

The BLM and other conservation partners use the resulting information to guide 

implementation of conservation activities.

Monitoring strategies for GRSG habitat and populations must be collaborative, 

as habitat occurs across jurisdictional boundaries (52 percent BLM, 31 percent 

private, 8 percent Forest Service, 5 percent state, 4 percent tribal and other 

Federal lands; 75 FR 13910), and because state fish and wildlife agencies have 

primary responsibility for population level management of wildlife, including 

population monitoring. Therefore, population efforts would continue to be 

conducted in partnership with state fish and wildlife agencies. The BLM is

currently in the process of finalizing a Monitoring Framework which will be 

included in the Proposed RMP Amendment/Final EIS. This framework will 

describe the process that the BLM will use to monitor implementation and 

effectiveness of RMP decisions. The Monitoring Framework will include: 

methods, data standards, and intervals of monitoring at broad and mid scales; 

consistent indicators to measure and metric descriptions for each of the scales 

(see Habitat Assessment Framework (HAF) and Assessment, Inventory and 

Monitoring (AIM) core indicators); analysis and reporting methods; and the 

incorporation of monitoring results into adaptive management. The need for 

fine and site-scale specific habitat monitoring may vary by area depending on 

existing conditions, habitat variability, threats, and land health. Indicators at the 

fine and site scales would be consistent with the HAF; however the values for 

the indicators could be adjusted for regional conditions. The major components 

of the Monitoring Framework can be found in Appendix F, Greater SageGrouse Monitoring Framework, of this Draft RMPA/EIS.

More specifically, the framework will discuss how the BLM would monitor and 

track implementation and effectiveness of planning decisions (e.g., tracking of 

waivers, modifications, site level actions). The BLM would monitor the 

effectiveness of RMP decisions in meeting management and conservation 

objectives. Effectiveness monitoring would include monitoring disturbance in 

habitats as well as landscape habitat attributes. To monitor habitats the BLM 

would measure and track attributes of occupied habitat, PH, and GH at the 

broad scale, and attributes of habitat availability, patch size, connectivity, linkage 

areas, edge effect, and anthropogenic disturbances at the mid-scale. Disturbance 

monitoring would measure and track changes in the amount of sagebrush in the 

landscape and changes in the anthropogenic footprint including the change in the 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Monitoring for the Greater Sage-grouse Planning Strategy)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-15

density of energy development. The framework will also include methodology 

for analysis and reporting for Field Offices/States/BLM Districts including 

geospatial and tabular data for disturbance mapping (e.g., geospatial footprint of 

new permitted disturbances) and effectiveness of management actions.

The monitoring data would provide the indicator estimates for adaptive 

management. The BLM would adjust management decisions through an adaptive 

management process.

2.7 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

Adaptive management is a decision process that promotes flexible resource 

management decision making that can be adjusted in the face of uncertainties as 

outcomes from management actions and other events become better 

understood. Careful monitoring of these outcomes both advances scientific 

understanding and helps with adjusting resource management directions as part 

of an iterative learning process. Adaptive management also recognizes the 

importance of natural variability in contributing to ecological resilience and 

productivity. It is not a ‘trial and error’ process, but rather emphasizes learning 

while doing. Adaptive management does not represent an end in itself, but 

rather a means to more effective decisions and enhanced benefits. On February 

1, 2008, the DOI published its Adaptive Management Implementation Policy 

(522 DM 1). The adaptive management strategy presented within this EIS 

complies with this policy.

In relation to the BLM’s National Greater Sage-grouse Planning Strategy, 

adaptive management would help identify if GRSG conservation measures 

presented in this EIS contain the needed level of certainty for effectiveness. If 

principles of adaptive management are incorporated into the conservation 

measure in the plan (to ameliorate threats to a species), then there is a greater 

likelihood that a conservation measure or plan would be effective in reducing 

threats to that species. The following provides the BLM adaptive management 

strategy for the North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS. 

2.7.1 Adaptive Management and Monitoring

This EIS contains a monitoring framework plan (Appendix F) which 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 range-wide 

conservation strategies (DOI 2004; Stiver et al. 2006; USFWS 2013). When 

available from WAFWA and/or state wildlife agencies, information about 

population trends would be considered with effectiveness monitoring data 

(taking into consideration the lag effect response of populations to habitat 

changes [Garton et al. 2011]). The information collected through the 

Monitoring Framework Plan outlined in Appendix F would be used by the BLM

to determine when adaptive management hard and soft triggers (discussed 

below) are met. 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Adaptive Management)

2-16 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

2.7.2 Adaptive Management Plan

The BLM would develop an adaptive management plan to provide certainty that 

unintended negative impacts to GRSG would be addressed before consequences 

become severe or irreversible and to provide regulatory certainty to the 

USFWS that appropriate action would be taken by the BLM. This adaptive 

management plan would:

• identify science based soft and hard adaptive management triggers 

applicable to each population or subpopulation within the planning 

area,

• address how the multiple scale data from the Monitoring 

Framework Plan (Appendix F) would be used to gauge when 

adaptive management triggers are met, and

• charter an adaptive management working group to assist with 

responding to soft adaptive management triggers.

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 would use a continuum of trigger points (soft 

and hard triggers), which would enhance BLM’s ability to effectively manage 

GRSG habitat. The soft and hard triggers that would be delineated in the 

adaptive management plan would (at a minimum):

• be based upon the best available science,

• be tied to the populations/demographics,

• take into account the importance of various seasonal habitat types, 

and

• not be limited to a single time “window”.

Soft triggers indicate when the BLM would consider adjustments to 

resource/resource use management. An adaptive management working group 

would help identify the causal factors as to what prompted the soft adaptive 

management trigger. The group would also provide recommendations to the 

appropriate BLM authorizing official (decision maker) regarding the applicable 

management response to address this trigger (e.g., effective mitigation, 

restoration, reclamation, and in some instances, a RMP amendment or revision). 

When organizing the adaptive management working group, the BLM would

invite participation from BLM, USFWS, local governments, and applicable state 

fish and game agencies.

Hard triggers indicate when the BLM would take immediate action to stop the 

continued deviation from conservation objectives. These actions could include 

one or more of the following (which may require subsequent NEPA:
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Adaptive Management)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-17

• Temporary closures (as directed under BLM IM No. 2013-035),

• Immediate implementation of interim management policies and 

procedures through the BLM directives system, and

• Initiation of a new RMP amendment to consider changes to the 

existing RMP decisions.

2.8 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS

The following alternatives were considered, but not carried forward for detailed 

analysis because (1) they would not fulfill requirements of FLPMA or other laws 

or regulations, (2) they did not meet the purpose and need, (3) they were 

already part of a plan, policy, or administrative function, or (4) they did not fall 

within the limits of the planning criteria. The FLPMA requires the BLM to 

manage BLM-administered lands and resources in accordance with the principles 

of multiple use and sustained yield. This includes recognizing the nation’s needs 

for domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber. Moreover, the BLM is 

required by law to recognize existing valid rights on BLM-administered lands and 

to manage BLM-administered lands in accordance with existing laws. These 

include the General Mining Law of 1872 and the Mining and Minerals Policy Act 

of 1970.

2.8.1 National Technical Team Conservation Measures Not Applicable to 

North Dakota

No management actions from A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Measures concerning wild horse and burros are carried forward 

because there are no wild horse or burro herds managed by the NDFO.

2.8.2 Eliminate Livestock Grazing from BLM-Administered Lands 

An alternative eliminating livestock grazing from all National System of Public 

Lands managed by the BLM in the planning area was not analyzed in detail. In 

accordance with IM 2012-169 and BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook, the BLM 

considered what range of alternatives was necessary to address unresolved 

conflicts among available resources. As a result of this process, an alternative 

reducing grazing use by 50 percent in the Big Gumbo area was developed in 

coordination with the USFWS and NDGFD. No issues or conflicts have been 

identified during this land use planning effort that require the complete 

elimination of livestock grazing within the planning area for their resolution. 

Where appropriate, removal of livestock and adjustments to livestock use, have 

been incorporated into this planning effort. Because the BLM has considerable 

discretion through its grazing regulations to determine and adjust stocking 

levels, seasons-of-use, and grazing management activities, and to allocate forage 

to uses of the BLM-administered lands in RMPs, the analysis of an alternative to 

entirely eliminate grazing is not needed.

The North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS planning area is located in 

the northwestern portion of the Great Plains Ecoregion (EPA 2011a) and the 

rangelands in the planning area are classified as mixed-grass prairie. The 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis)

2-18 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

rangelands of the Great Plains have a long evolutionary history of grazing and 

grazing is accepted by grassland ecologists as a keystone process of the 

grassland ecosystem (Fuhlendorf and Engle 2001; Milchunas et al. 1988; Knapp 

et al. 1999). There is also agreement among many scientists and natural 

resource managers that some level of grazing disturbance is necessary to assure 

the ecological integrity of the mixed-grass prairie ecosystem (Parks Canada 

2002).

In addition to the inherent role of large herbivore grazing in maintaining 

ecosystem health within the planning area, current resource conditions on BLMadministered land, including range vegetation, watershed, and wildlife and sage 

grouse habitat, as reflected in land health assessments, do not warrant 

prohibition of livestock grazing throughout the entire planning area. Following 

initial surveyed forage allocations, land health evaluations, inventories and 

monitoring data (vegetative and levels of use) have been the basis for increasing 

or decreasing permitted use. Through this process, the planning area has 

changed the grazing allocations on allotments to ensure the healthy ecological 

systems are provided for future generations.

In particular, of the 32,945 acres in the planning area that have been assessed, 

29,728 acres (90 percent) meet the Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Montana, North Dakota, and 

South Dakota (BLM 1997). For the 3,217 acres not meeting one or more 

standards, current livestock uses were determined to be a causal factor on 

1,309 acres. On these acres, corrective actions have been taken and progress is 

being made toward meeting standards. In the future, suitable measures, which 

could include reduction or elimination of livestock grazing, could become 

necessary in specific situations where livestock grazing causes or contributes to 

conflicts with the protection and/or management of other resource values or 

uses, including GRSG habitat needs. Such determinations would be made during 

site-specific activity planning or permit renewal and the associated 

environmental review. These determinations would be based on several factors, 

including monitoring studies, GRSG and other wildlife habitat conditions and 

needs, review of current range and wildlife management science, input from 

livestock operators and the interested public, and ability to meet the Standards 

for Rangeland Health.

With the exception of the Big Gumbo area, most of the BLM-administered land 

tracts in the planning area are small in size, isolated, and scattered. Eliminating 

livestock grazing on BLM-administered lands would require extensive fencing to 

segregate it from private lands to prevent unauthorized livestock grazing. In 

some cases, maintenance of fences along public property boundaries would be 

very difficult and impractical due to terrain features. Additionally, the extensive 

fencing would create many new barriers for wildlife and GRSG movements. 

Also, eliminating livestock grazing on BLM-administered lands may accelerate 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-19

agricultural conversion of native range and GRSG habitat on adjacent private 

lands as ranchers attempt to replace lost forage base.

2.9 CONSIDERATIONS FOR SELECTING A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The proposed alternatives offer a range of discrete strategies for resolving 

deficiencies in existing management, exploring opportunities for enhanced 

management, and addressing issues identified through internal assessment and 

public scoping related to maintain or increase GRSG abundance and distribution

on BLM-administered lands. Comments submitted by other government 

agencies, public organizations, state and tribal entities, and interested individuals 

were given careful consideration. Public scoping enabled the BLM to identify and 

shape important issues pertaining to GRSG habitat, energy development, 

livestock grazing, West Nile virus, potential ACECs, public land access, and 

other program areas. Cooperating agencies reviewed and provided comments 

at critical intervals during the alternatives development process.

NEPA regulations developed by the CEQ require the BLM to identify a 

preferred alternative in the RMPA/EIS. Formulated by the planning team, the 

preferred alternative represents those goals, objectives, and actions determined 

to be most effective at resolving planning issues and balancing resource use at 

this stage of the process. While collaboration is critical in developing and 

evaluating alternatives, the final designation of a preferred alternative remains 

the exclusive responsibility of the BLM.

The identification of a preferred alternative does not constitute a commitment 

or decision in principle, and there is no requirement to select the preferred 

alternative or any of the separate individual alternatives as they are presented in 

the Draft EIS within the ROD. The BLM has the discretion to select any of the 

alternatives as the agency’s preferred alternative and can modify the preferred 

alternative between the Draft EIS and the Final EIS, as long as the actions 

presented in the proposed alternative within the Proposed RMP Amendment/ 

Final EIS are analyzed somewhere in the previous Draft EIS.

2.9.1 Recommendations and Resulting Actions

The Alternative D (Agency-Preferred Alternative) indicates the agency's 

preliminary preference. The Preferred Alternative does not represent a final 

BLM decision and may change between publication of the Draft and Final 

RMPA/EIS based on comments received on the Draft RMPA/EIS, new 

information, or change in BLM policies or priorities. The BLM selected the 

Preferred Alternative based on the following criteria:

1. Satisfy statutory requirements

2. Reflect the best combination of decisions to achieve the BLM goals 

and policies

3. Represent the best solution to the purpose and need
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Considerations for Selecting a Preferred Alternative)

2-20 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

4. Provide the best approach to addressing key planning issues

5. Consider cooperating agencies and BLM specialists’' 

recommendations

2.10 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

This section summarizes and compares Alternatives A through D considered in 

the EIS. Combined with the appendices and maps, Table 2-2 provides the 

differences among the alternatives relative to what they establish and where 

they occur. The table compares the differences with the most potential to affect 

resources among the alternatives.

Decisions made under this RMPA/EIS are anticipated to be subsequently 

implemented. Restrictions on resource uses (e.g., closed to leasing) made 

through this RMPA apply for the life of the North Dakota RMP. Actions taken 

or authorized by the BLM during RMP implementation would comply with RDFs

and BMPs (Appendix B) and with stipulations for oil and gas leasing and 

surface-disturbing activities (Appendix C). The stipulations are considered part 

of all four alternatives, and the RDFs and BMPs are part of Alternatives B, C, 

and D.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-21

Table 2-2

Comparative Summary of Alternatives

Resources/Resource Uses Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C

Alternative D

(Agency 

Preferred)

Planning Area – BLM Surface (no PH/GH delineation) 

(acres) 33,030 50 50 50

PH – All ownerships (acres) 0 461,070 461,070 461,070

PH – BLM (acres) 0 32,900 32,900 32,900

GH – All ownerships (acres) 0 242,301 242,301 242,301

GH – BLM (acres) 0 80 80 80

Livestock Grazing (BLM surface)

AUMs 5,780 5,780 3,739 5,780

Acres open for all classes of livestock grazing (acres) 32,945 32,945 32,945 32,945

Acres not allocated to livestock grazing (acres) 85 85 85 85

Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management (BLM surface acres)

Limited to existing routes for motorized and mechanized 

travel 33,030 33,030 33,030 33,030

Lands and Realty (BLM surface acres acres)

ROW exclusion areas 0 32,900 32,980 0

ROW avoidance areas 0 80 0 32,900

Available for disposal 3,436 80 0 80

Coal (acres)

Unsuitable for surface mining and surface mining operations 0 87,443 166,207 87,443

Acceptable for coal leasing 242,743 155,300 76,536 155,300

Fluid Mineral Leasing (Federal minerals under BLM, State, Private surface acres)

Closed to fluid mineral leasing (no lease) 0 61,197 66,293 0

Open to fluid mineral leasing 73,435 12,238 7,142 73,435
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

2-22 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 2-2

Comparative Summary of Alternatives

Resources/Resource Uses Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C

Alternative D

(Agency 

Preferred)

Standard terms and conditions (i.e., not subject to NSO

or CSU stipulations) 25,130 12,238 7,142 7,142

NSO 9,780 0 0 61,197

CSU 21,235 0 0 5,096

TL 38,504 0 0 0

Locatable Minerals, Mineral Materials, and Non-Energy Solid Leasable Minerals (Federal minerals under BLM, State, Private 

surface acres)

Recommend for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry 0 46,397 49,970 0

Open to locatable mineral exploration or development 56,681 10,284 6,711 56,681

Closed to mineral materials disposal 0 46,397 49,970 46,397

Open for consideration for mineral materials disposal 56,681 10,284 6,711 10,284

Closed to non-energy solid leasable mineral exploration and 

development 0 46,397 49,970 0

Open for consideration of non-energy solid leasable mineral

exploration or development 56,681 10,284 6,711 56,681

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (acres)

Greater Sage-Grouse ACEC 0 0 32,900 0
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-23

2.10.1 How to Read Table 2-3

The following describes how Table 2-3, below, is written and formatted to 

show the land use plan decisions proposed for each alternative.

In accordance with Appendix C of the BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook (H1601-1), land use plan and plan amendment decisions are broad-scale decisions 

that guide future land management actions and subsequent site-specific 

implementation decisions (BLM 2005). Land use plan decisions fall into two 

categories, which establish the base structure for desired outcomes (goals and 

objectives), and allowable uses and actions to achieve outcomes.

• Goals are broad statements of desired outcomes that usually are 

not quantifiable.

• Objectives identify specific desired outcomes for resources. They 

may be quantifiable and measurable and may have established 

timeframes for achievement, as appropriate.

• Allowable uses identify uses, or allocations, that are allowable, 

restricted, or prohibited on BLM-administered lands and mineral 

estate.

• Actions identify measures or criteria to achieve desired objectives, 

including actions to maintain, restore, or improve land health. 

The alternatives direction/management actions in Table 2-3 are organized by 

resource programs identified in the NTT report (A Report on National Greater 

Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures; NTT 2011). In general, only those resources 

and resource uses that have been identified as planning issues have notable 

differences between the alternatives in Table 2-3.

Data from geographic information systems (GIS) have been used in developing 

acreage calculations and for generating many of the figures. Calculations in this 

EIS are rounded and are dependent upon the quality and availability of data. 

Data were collected from a variety of sources, including the BLM, collaborative 

partners, stakeholders, and cooperating agencies. Given the scale of the analysis, 

the compatibility constraints between datasets, and lack of data for some 

resources, all calculations are approximate and serve for comparison and 

analytic purposes only. Likewise, the figures are provided for illustrative 

purposes and subject to the limitations discussed above. The BLM may receive 

additional GIS data; therefore, the acreages may be recalculated and revised at a 

later date.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

2-24 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

This page intentionally left blank.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-25

Table 2-3

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alterative A (No Action)1 Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

RMPA Goal: 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.

Objectives: 

• Maintain or improve breeding habitat and/or nest 

sites for threatened and endangered (T&E) species 

and migratory birds of high federal interest. 

• Improve nesting and winter habitat for GRSG.

Objectives: 

• Protect PH from anthropogenic (human-caused) 

disturbances that would reduce distribution or 

abundance of GRSG.

o Manage or restore PH so that at least 

70% of the land cover provides adequate 

sagebrush habitat to meet GRSG needs.

o Manage PH so that discrete 

anthropogenic disturbances cover less 

than 3% of the total GRSG habitat.

Objective:

• Protect PH from anthropogenic disturbances that 

would reduce distribution or abundance of GRSG.

Objective: 

• Same as Alternative C.

Habitat Delineation: No similar delineation. Habitat Delineation: Delineate PH2 to encompass the 

100% Breeding Bird Density map: 32,900 BLM surface 

acres (7% of total PH acres3). Since mapping 75% of 

breeding bird density map misses the majority of GRSG

habitat in ND, 100% was used. See Figure 1-1

(Appendix A).

Habitat Delineation: Same as Alternative B. Habitat Delineation: Same as Alternative B.

Habitat Delineation: No similar delineation. Habitat Delineation: Delineate GH to encompass the 

remainder of the habitat: 80 BLM surface acres.

Habitat Delineation: Same as Alternative B. Habitat Delineation: Same as Alternative B. 

ALTERNATIVES DIRECTION/MANAGEMENT ACTIONS

Travel and Transportation Management

Action: BLM-administered lands are designated limited 

yearlong for motorized wheeled vehicles (motorized 

wheeled cross-country travel is restricted to existing 

roads and trails; BLM 2003a). See Figure 2-1, Travel and 

Transportation Management Alternatives A-D (Appendix 

A).

Action: In PH and GH, limit motorized travel to existing 

roads, primitive roads, and trails at a minimum, until such 

time as travel management planning is complete and 

routes are either designated or closed. See Figure 2-1

(Appendix A).

Action: Same as Alternative B. See Figure 2-1

(Appendix A).

Action: Same as Alternative B. See Figure 2-1

(Appendix A).

Action: Through site-specific planning, the BLM would 

designate roads and trails for motorized use. Roads and 

trails would be inventoried, mapped, and analyzed to the 

degree necessary to evaluate and designate the roads and 

trails as open, seasonally open, or closed (BLM 2003a).

Action: In PH, travel management would evaluate the 

need for permanent or seasonal road or area closures.

Action: Same as Alternative B except applies to both PH

and GH.

Action: In PH, travel management would evaluate the 

need for permanent or seasonal road or area closures 

where vehicle use is causing or would cause adverse 

effects upon habitat.

 1 Goals and objectives for resources and resource uses are based on the 1988 North Dakota RMP and ROD, along with associated amendments, activity and implementation level plans, and other management decision documents. Sources for management actions 

are provided where applicable.

2 For the alternatives, the terms PH and GH are being used; PPH and PGH habitats were mapped in each state for interim management, and are explained in Chapter 3, Affected Environment. However, for the alternatives, habitat would be delineated and therefore 

not “preliminary”.

3 See Chapter 1 for table of acres in planning area.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

2-26 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 2-3

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alterative A (No Action)1 Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

Action: Through site-specific planning, the BLM would 

designate roads and trails for motorized use. Roads and 

trails would be inventoried, mapped, and analyzed to the 

degree necessary to evaluate and designate the roads and 

trails as open, seasonally open, or closed (BLM 2003a).

Action: In PH, complete activity level travel plans within 

five years of the ROD. During activity level planning, 

where appropriate, designate routes in PH with current 

administrative/agency purpose or need to administrative 

access only.

Action: Same as Alternative B except applies to both PH

and GH.

Action: Same as Alternative C.

No similar action. Action: In PH, limit route construction to realignments of 

existing designated routes if that realignment has a 

minimal impact on sage‐grouse habitat, eliminates the 

need to construct a new road, or is necessary for 

motorist safety.

Action: In PH and GH, limit route construction to 

realignments of existing designated routes if that 

realignment has a minimal impact on sage‐grouse habitat, 

eliminates the need to construct a new road, or is 

necessary for motorist safety. Mitigate any impacts with 

methods that have been demonstrated to be effective to 

offset the loss of GRSG habitat.

Action: In PH, limit route construction to realignments of 

existing designated routes if that realignment has a 

minimal impact on sage‐grouse habitat, eliminates the 

need to construct a new road, or is necessary for 

motorist safety. Allow new routes/realignments in PH and 

GH during site-specific travel planning if it improves 

GRSG habitat and resource conditions.

No similar action. Action: In PH, use existing roads, or realignments as 

described above to access valid existing rights that are not 

yet developed. If valid existing rights cannot be accessed 

via existing roads, then build any new road constructed to 

the absolute minimum standard necessary, and add the 

surface disturbance to the total disturbance in the priority 

area. If that disturbance exceeds 3% for that area, then 

evaluate and implement additional, effective mitigation 

necessary to offset the resulting loss of sage‐grouse 

habitat (see Objectives).

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to PH and 

GH - using a 4-mile buffer from leks to determine road 

route.

Action: In PH, use existing roads, or realignments as 

described above to access valid existing rights that are not 

yet developed. If valid existing rights cannot be accessed 

via existing roads, then build any new road constructed to 

the absolute minimum standard necessary,

No similar action. Action: In PH, allow no upgrading of existing routes that 

would change route category (road, primitive road, or 

trail) or capacity unless the upgrading would have minimal 

impact on sage‐grouse habitat, is necessary for motorist 

safety, or eliminates the need to construct a new road.

Action: In PH and GH, allow no upgrading of existing 

routes that would change route category (road, primitive 

road, or trail) or capacity unless it is necessary for 

motorist safety, or eliminates the need to construct a new 

road. Any impacts shall be mitigated with methods that 

have been demonstrated to be effective to offset the loss 

of GRSG habitat

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to PH and 

GH.

No similar action. Action: In PH, conduct restoration of roads, primitive 

roads and trails not designated in travel management plans.

Action: Same as Alternative B except applies to both PH

and GH.

Action: Same as Alternative B, except applies to PH and 

GH – when travel plans are complete.

No similar action. When reseeding roads, primitive roads and trails in PH,

use appropriate seed mixes and consider the use of 

transplanted sagebrush.

When reseeding closed roads in PH and GH, primitive 

roads and trails, use appropriate native seed mixes and 

require the use of transplanted sagebrush.

Same as Alternative B, except applies to PH and GH.

Recreation

Action: Approve or deny use authorization as requested 

by the public for all competitive recreational and 

commercial uses, and as required for private and group 

uses; provide special designations as needed to preserve 

future options (BLM 1988a).

Action: Only allow SRPs that would have neutral or 

beneficial effects to PH.

Action: Same as Alternative B except applies to both PH

and GH.

Action: Same as Alternative B.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-27

Table 2-3

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alterative A (No Action)1 Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

Lands and Realty

Rights-of-Way

Action: 33,030 acres of BLM-administered land surface are 

open for consideration of ROWs (67,571 acres in the 

North Dakota RMP for the entire NDFO). ROWs on the 

following areas would be avoided unless there is no 

reasonable alternative: environmental sensitive areas such 

as crucial wildlife habitats, wetlands, slump areas, and 

extensive wooded areas (BLM 1988a). See Figure 2-2,

Rights-of-Way Alternative A (Appendix A).

Action: PH would be managed as exclusion area for new 

ROW authorizations. See Figure 2-3, Rights-of-Way 

Alternative B (Appendix A). Consider the following:

• Subject to valid existing rights: where new ROWs

associated with valid existing rights are required, 

co-locate new ROWs within existing ROWs or 

where it best minimizes GRSG impacts. Use 

existing roads, or realignments as described 

above, to access valid existing rights that are not 

yet developed. If valid existing rights cannot be 

accessed via existing roads, then build any new 

road constructed to the absolute minimum 

standard necessary, and add the surface 

disturbance to the total disturbance in the priority 

area. If that disturbance exceeds 3% for that area, 

then make additional effective mitigation 

necessary to offset the resulting loss of GRSG

habitat.

Action: PH and GH would be managed as exclusion areas 

for new ROW authorizations. See Figure 2-4, Rights-ofWay Alternative C (Appendix A). Consider the 

following:

• Subject to valid existing rights: where new ROWs

associated with valid existing rights are required, 

co‐locate new ROWs within existing ROWs or 

where it best minimizes GRSG impacts. Use 

existing roads, or realignments as described 

above, to access valid existing rights that are not 

yet developed. If valid existing rights cannot be 

accessed via existing roads, then build any new 

road constructed to the absolute minimum 

standard necessary, and add the surface 

disturbance to the total disturbance in the priority 

area. If that disturbance exceeds 3% for that area, 

then make additional mitigation that has been 

demonstrated to be effective to offset the 

resulting loss of sage‐grouse habitat.

Action: Do not site wind energy development in PH and 

GH.

Action: PH would be managed as ROW avoidance area.

See Figure 2-5, Rights-of-Way Alternative D (Appendix 

A).

• Where new ROWs are required, co-locate new 

ROWs within existing ROWs or where it best 

minimizes impacts to GRSG and GRSG habitat.

Action: Make PH exclusion area for new ROW wind 

energy authorizations.

No similar action. Action: In PH, evaluate and take advantage of 

opportunities to remove, bury, or modify existing power 

lines within priority sage‐grouse habitat areas. 

Action: Same as Alternative B except applies to both PH

and GH.

Action: When addressing ROW authorizations in PH

identify and evaluate opportunities to remove, bury or 

modify existing power lines within PH.

Action: Current FLMPA ROWs have a stipulation that 

when the use has been discontinued or abandoned, the 

site must be reclaimed and restored by the grant holder

(43 CFR 2807.19).

Action: In PH, where existing leases or ROWs have had 

some level of development (road, fence, well, etc.) and 

are no longer in use, reclaim the site by removing these 

features and restoring the habitat. 

Action: Same as Alternative B except applies to both PH

and GH.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

Action: 33,030 acres of BLM-administered land surface 

(67,571 in the North Dakota RMP for the entire NDFO) 

are open for consideration of ROWs. ROWs on the 

following areas would be avoided unless there is no 

reasonable alternative: environmental sensitive areas such 

as crucial wildlife habitats, wetlands, slump areas, and 

extensive wooded areas (BLM 1988a).

Action: Make GH avoidance areas for new ROWs. Action: See above (GH ROW exclusion areas). Action: ROWs would be allowed in GH with appropriate 

mitigation and conservation measures identified within the 

terms of the authorization to minimize surface disturbing 

and disruptive activities.

Action: GH would be managed as a Wind Energy ROW

avoidance area.

Action: ROWs would be placed within or adjacent to 

existing ROW whenever possible given engineering and 

environmental constraints (BLM 1988a).

Action: Where new ROWs are necessary in GH, co‐

locate new ROWs within existing ROWs where possible.

Action: No similar action. Action: Same as Alternative B.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

2-28 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 2-3

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alterative A (No Action)1 Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

Action: In the planning area, 33,030 acres of BLMadministered land surface (67,571 in the North Dakota

RMP for the entire NDFO) are open for consideration for 

authorized uses.

No similar action. No similar action. Action: PH would be avoidance areas for leases/land use 

authorizations - which could be for agricultural, 

occupancy, or filming. Leases/land use authorizations

would be allowed in GH with appropriate mitigation and 

conservation measures identified within the terms of the 

authorization to minimize surface disturbing and 

disruptive activities.

Land Tenure Adjustment

Action: Evaluate lands for possible disposal or exchange 

giving high relative weight for retention to lands that have 

T&E species or habitats, contain high-quality riparian

habitat, or contain plant and animal populations of 

exemplary natural communities of high interest to the 

state (BLM 1988a). See Figure 2-6, Retention/Disposal 

Alternative A (Appendix A).

Action: Public land in the Big Gumbo consolidation area is 

available for exchange only (BLM 1988a).

Action: 3,436 acres of BLM-administered land surface are 

available for disposal in the planning area (BLM 1988a).

Action: Retain public ownership of PH. See Figure 2-7, 

Retention/Disposal Alternative B and D (Appendix A).

Consider exceptions where:

• There is mixed ownership, and land exchanges 

would allow for additional or more contiguous 

federal ownership patterns within the priority

sage-grouse habitat area.

• Under priority sage-grouse habitat areas with 

minority federal ownership, include an additional, 

effective mitigation agreement for any disposal of 

federal land. As a final preservation measure 

consideration would be given to pursuing a 

permanent conservation easement.

Action: Same as Alternative B, without exceptions for 

disposal to consolidate ownership that would be beneficial 

to GRSG (and applies to PH and GH). See Figure 2-8, 

Retention/Disposal Alternative C (Appendix A).

Action: Same as Alternative B. See Figure 2-7

(Appendix A).

Action: Follow the State Director criteria for acquisition 

(Appendix G, Land Pattern Review and Land 

Adjustment); this includes criteria for Special Status 

Species.

Action: Where suitable conservation actions cannot be 

achieved in PH, seek to acquire state and private lands 

with intact subsurface mineral estate by donation, 

purchase or exchange in order to best conserve, enhance 

or restore sage‐grouse habitat.

Action: Strive to acquire important private lands in 

ACECs (PH). Acquisition would be prioritized over 

easements.

Action: PH would be a priority in consideration of land 

acquisitions. Consider GRSG for all land tenure actions.

Recommend Land Withdrawals

Action: No areas currently withdrawn from minerals on 

BLM surface.

Action: Recommend lands within PH areas for mineral 

withdrawal.

Action: Same as Alternative B except applies to both PH

and GH.

Action: Same as Alternative A.

Action: Review withdrawals to determine whether, and for 

how long, the withdrawal would be consistent with the 

objective of the programs for which the lands were 

withdrawn and for consistency with other relevant 

programs. Revoke those not needed (BLM 1988a).

Action: In PH, do not recommend withdrawal proposals 

not associated with mineral activity unless the land 

management is consistent with GRSG conservation 

measures. (For example, in a proposed withdrawal for a 

military training range buffer area, manage the buffer area 

with GRSG conservation measures.)

Action: In PH and GH, do not approve withdrawal

proposals not associated with mineral activity unless the 

land management is consistent with sage‐grouse 

conservation measures. (For example, in a proposed 

withdrawal for a military training range buffer area, 

manage the buffer area with sage‐grouse conservation 

measures that have been demonstrated to be effective.)

Action: Same as Alternative B.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-29

Table 2-3

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alterative A (No Action)1 Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

Range Management

Action: Grazing would be allowed on all lands identified as 

suitable (approximately 32,945 acres) (BLM 1988a). See 

Figure 2-9, Grazing Allotments Alternatives A, B and D 

(Appendix A).

Action: Allocate up to an estimated 5,780 AUMs to 

livestock in the long term (BLM 1988a). (Livestock use is 

set at 25% of average annual forage production.)

Action: Maintain retirement of permitted grazing use as an 

option in PH when the current permittee is willing to 

retire grazing on all or part of an allotment. Analyze the 

adverse impacts of no livestock use on wildfire and 

invasive species threats in evaluating retirement proposals. 

See Figure 2-9 (Appendix A).

Action: Allocate up to an estimated 5,780 AUMs to 

livestock in the long term.

Action: Maintain retirement of permitted grazing use as an 

option in PH and GH when the current permittee is 

willing to retire grazing on all or part of an allotment.

Action: Livestock grazing would be reduced on all grazing 

allotments within the Big Gumbo area by 50% (2,041 

AUMs). See Figure 2-10 Grazing Allotments Alternative 

C (Appendix A).

Action: Allocate up to an estimated 3,739 AUMs to 

livestock in the long term.

Action: Same as Alternative A. See Figure 2-9

(Appendix A).

Action: Montana/Dakotas Standards for Rangeland Health 

Standards #5: Habitats are maintained and/or restored, 

where appropriate, for healthy, productive and diverse 

populations of native plant and animal species (BLM 1997).

Action: Within PH, incorporate GRSG habitat objectives 

and management considerations into all BLM grazing 

allotments through AMPs or permit renewals.

Action: Same as Alternative B except applies to both PH

and GH.

Action: Same as Alternative B except develop standards 

with State of North Dakota and USFWS. Within PH,

incorporate State of North Dakota GRSG habitat 

objectives and management considerations into all BLM 

grazing allotments through AMPs or permit renewals.

No similar action. Action: In PH, work cooperatively on integrated ranch 

planning within GRSG habitat so operations with 

deeded/BLM allotments can be planned as single units.

Action: Same as Alternative B except applies to both PH

and GH.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

Action: Areas with Category I allotments are the highest 

priority for processing authorizations, actively managing 

uses, and monitoring achievement of land health standards

(BLM IM 2009-018, Process for Setting Priorities for 

Issuing Grazing Permits and Leases).

Action: Prioritize completion of land health assessments 

and processing grazing permits within PH. Focus this 

process on allotments that have the best opportunities 

for conserving, enhancing or restoring habitat for GRSG. 

Utilize Ecological Site Descriptions (ESDs) to conduct land 

health assessments to determine if standards of rangeland 

health are being met.

Action: Same as Alternative B except applies to both PH

and GH.

Action: Prioritize completion of land health assessments 

and processing grazing permits within PH, other priority 

species habitat areas, and important riparian habitat. 

Focus this process on allotments that have the best 

opportunities for conserving, enhancing or restoring 

habitat for GRSG or other priority species including T&E

species. Utilize ESDs and other tools (e.g., proper 

functioning condition (PFC) protocols, water quality

information, and vegetation, habitat, riparian, monitoring 

data, etc.) to conduct land health assessments to 

determine if standards of rangeland health are being met.

Action: No specific GRSG habitat objectives in North 

Dakota RMP. Montana/Dakotas Standards for Rangeland 

Health Standards #5: Habitats are maintained and/or 

restored, where appropriate, for healthy, productive and 

diverse populations of native plant and animal species

(BLM 1997). As indicated by:

• Plants and animals are diverse, vigorous and 

reproducing satisfactorily.

• Spatial distribution of species is suitable to ensure 

reproductive capability; these species may include 

special status species (threatened, endangered, 

Action: In PH, conduct land health assessments that 

include (at a minimum) indicators and measurements of 

structure/condition/composition of vegetation specific to 

achieving GRSG habitat objectives. If local/state seasonal 

habitat objectives are not available, use GRSG habitat 

recommendations from Connelly et al. 2000 and Hagen et 

al. 2007.

Action: Same as Alternative B except applies to both PH

and GH.

Action: In PH, conduct land health assessments that 

include (at a minimum) indicators and measurements of 

structure/condition/composition of vegetation specific to 

achieving GRSG habitat objectives. Local objectives would 

be developed at the field office level in partnership with 

NDGFD and USFWS, and incorporated into AMPs or 

livestock grazing permits as appropriate incorporating 

best available science.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

2-30 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 2-3

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alterative A (No Action)1 Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

candidate, species of special concern).

• Species diversity (plants, animals, insects, and 

microbes) is present.

• Connectivity of habitat or presence of corridors 

to prevent habitat fragmentation.

Implementation Management Action After Land Health Evaluations

No similar action. Action: Develop specific objectives to conserve, enhance 

or restore PH based on ESDs and assessments (including 

within wetlands and riparian areas). If an effective grazing 

system that meets GRSG habitat requirements is not 

already in place, analyze at least one alternative that 

conserves, restores or enhances GRSG habitat in the 

NEPA document prepared for the permit renewal.

No similar action. Action: Same as Alternative B.

No similar action. Action: In PH, manage for vegetation composition and 

structure consistent with ecological site potential and 

within the reference state to achieve GRSG seasonal 

habitat objectives.

Action: In PH and GH, manage for vegetation composition 

and structure consistent with ecological site potential and 

within the reference state to achieve GRSG habitat 

objectives.

Action: In PH, manage for vegetation composition and 

structure consistent with GRSG seasonal habitat objectives.

ESDs can help determine whether or not the GRSG

seasonal habitat objectives are consistent with the ecological 

site potential within the reference state. GRSG seasonal 

habitat objectives and ecological site potential within 

reference states are not always going to be the same.

Action: Implement grazing systems where necessary as 

determined from monitoring results (BLM 1988a).

Action: In PH, implement management actions (grazing 

decisions, AMP/Conservation Plan development, or other 

agreements) to modify grazing management to meet 

seasonal GRSG habitat requirements (Connelly et al. 

2011a). Consider singly, or in combination, changes in:

1. Season or timing of use;

2. Numbers of livestock (includes temporary nonuse or livestock removal);

3. Distribution of livestock use;

4. Intensity of use; and 

5. Type of livestock (e.g., cattle, sheep, horses, 

llamas, alpacas and goats).

Action: In PH and GH, Implement management actions 

(grazing decisions, AMP/Conservation Plan development, 

or other plans or agreements) to modify grazing 

management to meet seasonal sage‐grouse habitat 

requirements (Connelly et al. 2011a). Consider singly, or 

in combination, changes in:

1. Season, timing, and/or frequency of livestock use;

2. Numbers/AUMs of livestock (includes temporary 

non‐use or livestock removal);

3. Distribution of livestock use;

4. Intensity of livestock use; and

5. Type of livestock (e.g., cattle, sheep, horses, 

llamas, alpacas and goats).

Action: In PH, implement management actions (grazing 

decisions, AMP/Conservation Plan development, or other 

agreements) to modify grazing management to meet State 

of North Dakota seasonal GRSG habitat requirements, 

where allotment evaluations indicate land health 

assessments are not being met due to livestock. Consider 

singly, or in combination, changes in:

1. Season or timing of use;

2. Numbers of livestock (includes temporary nonuse or livestock removal);

3. Distribution of livestock use;

4. Intensity of use; and 

5. Type of livestock (e.g., cattle, sheep, horses, 

llamas, alpacas and goats).

Action: Efforts to manage public rangeland under drought 

conditions would be directed first to allotments with 

resource concerns such as “I” category allotments. Specific 

allotments in the “M” and “C” categories can also be 

considered high priority when resource values or conditions 

so require. Regardless of the category assigned to an 

Action: During drought periods, prioritize evaluating 

effects of the drought in PH relative to their needs for 

food and cover. Since there is a lag in vegetation recovery 

following drought, ensure that post-drought management 

allows for vegetation recovery that meets GRSG needs in 

PH areas.

Action: During drought periods, prioritize evaluating 

effects of the drought in PH and GH relative to their 

biological needs, as well as drought effects on un-grazed 

reference areas. Since there is a lag in vegetation recovery 

following drought, ensure that post‐drought management 

allows for vegetation recovery that meets sage‐grouse 

Action: During drought periods, prioritize evaluating 

effects of the drought in PH relative to their needs for 

food and cover. Management would continue to be in 

accordance with the Montana-Dakotas Drought Policy 

(Appendix H).
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-31

Table 2-3

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alterative A (No Action)1 Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

allotment, operators should be aware of the procedures 

and flexibilities available for dealing with drought conditions

(BLM 2004a; Appendix H, Drought Policy).

needs in sage‐grouse habitat areas based on GRSG habitat 

objectives.

Riparian Areas and Wet Meadows

Action: Improve functioning-at-risk and non-functioning 

riparian areas and wetlands towards PFC. Maintain PFC 

riparian and wetland areas.

Action: Manage riparian areas and wet meadows for PFC

within PH. 

• Within PH and GH, 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 to maintain or increase amount of 

edge and cover within that edge to minimize 

elevated mortality during the late brood rearing 

period.

Action: Manage riparian areas and wet meadows for PFC

within PH and GH.

• Within PH and GH, manage wet meadows to 

maintain a component of perennial forbs with 

diverse species richness and productivity relative 

to site potential (e.g., reference state) to facilitate 

brood rearing. At least 6 inches of stubble height 

must remain on all riparian/meadow area 

herbaceous species at all times. Also conserve or 

enhance these wet meadow complexes to 

maintain or increase the amount of edge and 

cover within that edge to minimize elevated 

mortality during the late brood-rearing period.

Action: Where riparian and wetland areas are already 

meeting standards they would be maintained in that 

condition or better. Where a site’s capability is less than 

PFC, BLM would manage to achieve or move towards 

capability.

• Within PH and GH, 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.

Action: Maintain PFC riparian and wetland areas. Action: In PH, where riparian areas and wet meadows 

meet PFC, strive to attain reference state vegetation 

relative to the ESD. 

• Example: Within PH, reduce hot season grazing 

on riparian and meadow complexes to promote 

recovery or maintenance of appropriate 

vegetation and water quality. Utilize 

fencing/herding techniques or seasonal use or 

livestock distribution changes to reduce pressure 

on riparian or wet meadow vegetation used by 

GRSG in the hot season (summer).

Action: Same as Alternative B except applies to both PH

and GH.

Action: In PH, where riparian areas and wet meadows 

meet PFC, strive to move towards GRSG habitat 

objectives within capabilities of the reference state 

vegetation relative to the ESD.

• Example: Within PH, reduce where necessary hot 

season grazing on riparian and meadow 

complexes to promote recovery or maintenance 

of appropriate vegetation and water quality.

Utilize fencing/herding techniques, seasonal use,

or livestock distribution changes where necessary 

to reduce pressure on riparian or wet meadow 

vegetation used by GRSG in the hot season 

(summer).

Action: Water sources would be developed where needed 

(as indicated by monitoring) to improve livestock 

distribution and wildlife habitat. Development of range 

improvements on erodible soils would be avoided during 

the period April through June (BLM 1988a).

Action: Authorize new water development for diversion 

from spring or seep source only when PH would benefit 

from the development. This includes developing new 

water sources for livestock as part of an 

AMP/conservation plan to improve GRSG habitat.

Action: Authorize no new water developments for 

diversion from spring or seep sources within PH and GH.

Action: Authorize new water development for diversion 

from spring or seep source only when PH would be 

maintained or benefit from the development. This includes 

developing new water sources for livestock as part of an 

AMP/conservation plan to improve GRSG habitat.

Action: Water sources would be developed where needed 

(as indicated by monitoring) to improve livestock 

distribution and wildlife habitat (BLM 1988a).

Action: Analyze springs, seeps and associated pipelines to 

determine if modifications are necessary to maintain the 

continuity of the predevelopment riparian area within PH.

Make modifications where necessary, considering impacts 

to other water uses when such considerations are neutral 

or beneficial to GRSG.

Action: Analyze springs, seeps and associated water 

developments to determine if modifications are necessary 

to maintain the continuity of the predevelopment riparian

area within PH and GH. Make modifications where

necessary, including dismantling water developments.

Action: Analyze springs, seeps and associated pipelines at 

time of grazing lease renewal to determine if 

modifications are necessary to maintain the continuity of 

the predevelopment riparian area within PH. Make 

modifications where necessary, considering impacts to 

other water uses when such considerations are neutral or 

beneficial to GRSG. 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

2-32 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 2-3

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alterative A (No Action)1 Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

Treatments to Increase Forage for Livestock/Wild Ungulates

Action: Conduct land treatments where outlined in activity 

plans as necessary for effective range management (600 

acres were tentatively identified for treatments in North 

Dakota Grazing EIS; BLM 1988a).

Action: Certain pesticides, biological and other control 

means are authorized on BLM-administered lands (BLM 

2007).

Action: In PH, only allow treatments that conserve, 

enhance or restore GRSG habitat (this includes 

treatments that benefit livestock as part of an 

AMP/Conservation Plan to improve GRSG habitat).

Action: In PH and GH, ensure that vegetation treatments 

create landscape patterns which most benefit sage‐grouse. 

Only allow treatments that are demonstrated to benefit 

GRSG and retain sagebrush height and cover consistent 

with GRSG habitat objectives (this includes treatments 

that benefit livestock as part of an AMP/Conservation Plan 

to improve sage‐grouse habitat).

Action: In PH, allow treatments that conserve, enhance or 

restore GRSG habitat as well as other priority species 

habitat (this includes treatments that benefit livestock as 

part of an AMP/Conservation Plan to improve GRSG

habitat).

No similar action. Action: Evaluate the role of existing seedings that are 

currently composed of primarily introduced perennial 

grasses in and adjacent to PH to determine if they should 

be restored to sagebrush or habitat of higher quality for 

GRSG. If these seedings are part of an AMP/ Conservation 

Plan or if they provide value in conserving or enhancing 

the rest of the PH, then no restoration would be 

necessary. Assess the compatibility of these seedings for 

GRSG habitat or as a component of a grazing system 

during the land health assessments.

Action: Evaluate the role of existing seedings that are 

currently composed of primarily introduced perennial 

grasses in and adjacent to PH and GH to determine if they 

should be restored to sagebrush or habitat of higher 

quality for sage‐grouse. If these seedings provide value in 

conserving or enhancing GRSG habitats, then no 

restoration would be necessary. Assess the compatibility 

of these seedings for sage‐grouse habitat during the land 

health assessments.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

Structural Range Improvement and Livestock Management Tools

Action: Management fences would be constructed where 

necessary to support grazing systems or treatments. All 

fences would be designed to protect and/or benefit 

wildlife. Development of range improvements on erodible 

soils would be avoided during the period April through 

June (BLM 1988a).

Action: Waters necessary for wildlife and adversely 

affected by uncontrolled livestock use would be fenced.

Gaps would be provided for livestock use. Development of 

range improvements on erodible soils would be avoided 

during the period April through June (BLM 1988a).

Action: In PH, design any new structural range 

improvements and location of supplements (salt or 

protein blocks) to conserve, enhance, or restore GRSG

habitat through an improved grazing management system 

relative to GRSG objectives. Structural range 

improvements, in this context, include but are not limited 

to: cattle guards, fences, exclosures, corrals or other 

livestock handling structures; pipelines, troughs, storage 

tanks (including moveable tanks used in livestock water 

hauling), windmills, ponds/reservoirs, solar panels and 

spring developments. Potential for invasive species 

establishment or increase following construction must be 

considered in the project planning process and monitored 

and treated post-construction.

Action: Avoid all new structural range developments and 

location of supplements (salt or protein blocks) in PH and 

GH unless independent peer-reviewed studies show that 

the range improvement structure or nutrient supplement 

placement benefits GRSG. Structural range developments, 

in this context, include but are not limited to cattle 

guards, fences, exclosures, corrals or other livestock 

handling structures; pipelines, troughs, storage tanks 

(including moveable tanks used in livestock water hauling), 

windmills, ponds/reservoirs, solar panels and spring 

developments. Potential for invasive species establishment 

or increase following construction must be considered in 

the project planning process and monitored and treated 

post‐construction. Consider the comparative cost of 

changing grazing management instead of constructing

additional range developments.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

Action: Water sources would be developed where needed 

(as indicated by monitoring) to improve livestock 

distribution and wildlife habitat (BLM 1988a).

Action: When developing or modifying water 

developments in PH, use applicable RDFs (Appendix B) 

to mitigate potential impacts from West Nile virus.

Action: Same as Alternative B except applies to both PH

and GH.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

Action: Management fences would be constructed where 

necessary to support grazing systems or treatments. All 

fences would be designed to protect and/or benefit 

Action: In PH, evaluate existing structural range 

improvements and location of supplements (salt or 

protein blocks) to make sure they conserve, enhance or 

Action: In PH and GH, evaluate existing structural range 

improvements and location of supplements (salt or 

protein blocks) to make sure they conserve, enhance or 

Action: In PH, evaluate existing structural range 

improvements and location of supplements (salt or 

protein blocks) during grazing lease renewal process to 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-33

Table 2-3

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alterative A (No Action)1 Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

wildlife. Development of range improvements on erodible 

soils would be avoided during the period April through 

June (BLM 1988a).

restore GRSG habitat. 

• To reduce outright GRSG strikes and mortality, 

remove, modify or mark fences in high risk areas 

within PH based on proximity to lek, lek size, and 

topography. 

• Monitor for, and treat invasive species associated 

with existing range improvements.

restore GRSG habitat. 

• Remove, modify or mark fences in high risk areas 

of moderate or high risk of GRSG strikes within 

PH based on proximity to lek, lek size, and 

topography

• Monitor for, and treat invasive species associated 

with existing range improvements.

make sure they conserve, enhance or restore GRSG

habitat. 

• To reduce outright GRSG strikes and mortality, 

remove, modify or mark fences in high risk areas 

within PH based on proximity to lek, lek size, and 

topography.

• Monitor for, and treat invasive species associated 

with existing range improvements.

FLUID MINERALS

Unleased Federal Fluid Mineral Estate

Action: Make available for leasing, under necessary special 

stipulations and Montana BLM Standard Stipulations, 

206,811 acres4 of Federal oil and gas (BLM 1988a). See 

Appendix C for stipulations. See Figure 2-11, Unleased 

Fluid Mineral Leasing Categories Alternative A (Appendix 

A).

Action: Close PH to fluid mineral leasing. Upon expiration 

or termination of existing leases, do not accept 

nominations/expressions of interest for parcels within 

priority areas. See Figure 2-12, Unleased Fluid Mineral 

Leasing Categories Alternative B (Appendix A).

Actions: Close PH and GH to fluid mineral leasing. Upon 

expiration or termination of existing leases, do not accept 

nominations/expressions of interest for parcels within PH 

or GH areas. See Figure 2-13, Unleased Fluid Mineral 

Leasing Categories Alternative C (Appendix A).

Action: Open to oil and gas leasing and development; 

however, surface occupancy and use would be prohibited 

within PH (NSO). Upon expiration or termination of 

existing leases, apply NSO. See Figure 2-14, Unleased 

Fluid Mineral Leasing Categories Alternative D

(Appendix A).

Action: In GH surface occupancy and use would be 

subject to special operating constraints (CSU) (Appendix 

C). 

No similar action. Action: Allow geophysical exploration within PH to obtain 

exploratory information for areas outside of and adjacent 

to priority sage-grouse habitat areas.

Action: Allow geophysical operations only by helicopterportable drilling methods and in accordance with seasonal 

timing restrictions and/or other restrictions that may 

apply.

Action: Allow geophysical exploration within PH and GH

to obtain exploratory information for areas outside of and 

adjacent to sage‐grouse habitat areas. 

Action: Only allow geophysical operations by helicopter‐

portable drilling methods and in accordance with seasonal 

timing restrictions and/or other restrictions that may 

apply. Geophysical exploration shall be subject to seasonal 

restrictions that preclude activities in breeding, nesting, 

brood rearing and winter habitats during their season of 

use by GRSG.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

Leased Federal Fluid Mineral Estate

Action: Review all lands (206,811 acres) that fall within 

identified resource concern areas (Map 4 of North Dakota

RMP) and attach necessary oil and gas stipulations (BLM 

1988a).

Action: No seismic exploration, construction, or other 

development allowed within 2 miles of strutting grounds 

between March 1 and June 15. NSO within 0.25 mile of 

Action: In PH, apply the following conservation measures 

through RMP implementation decisions (e.g., approval of

an APD, Sundry Notice, etc.) and upon completion of the 

environmental record of review (43 CFR 3162.5), 

including appropriate documentation of compliance with 

NEPA. In this process evaluate, among other things: (1) 

Whether the conservation measure is “reasonable” (43 

Action: In PH and GH, apply the following conservation 

measures as COA at the project and well permitting 

stages, and through RMP implementation decisions and 

upon completion of the environmental record of review 

(43 CFR 3162.5), including appropriate documentation of 

compliance with NEPA. In this process evaluate, among 

other things: (1) Whether the conservation measure is 

Action: During implementation level review and decisions, 

(e.g., approval of an APD, Sundry Notice, etc.) and upon 

completion of the environmental record of review (43 

CFR 3162.5), including appropriate documentation of 

compliance with NEPA. In this process evaluate, among 

other things: (1) Whether the conservation measure is 

“reasonable” (43 CFR 3101.1-2) with the valid existing 

 4 These acres are from the 1988 North Dakota ROD (BLM 1988a) and include all federal minerals. See Table 2-2 and Section 3.7, Fluid Minerals, in Chapter 3 for current acres and breakdown by surface ownership.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

2-34 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 2-3

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alterative A (No Action)1 Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

active GRSG strutting grounds (BLM 1988a).

Action: TL within 2 miles of GRSG display grounds (from

3/1-6/15). NSO within 0.25 mile of center of GRSG display 

grounds (BLM 2003b).

Action: Also follow standards and guidelines found in 

Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development. (DOI and USDA 2007).

Note: COA means a site-specific requirement included in an 

approved Application for Permit to Drill (APD) or Sundry Notice 

that may limit or amend the specific actions proposed by the 

operator. COAs minimize, mitigate, or prevent impacts to public 

lands or other resources. BMPs may be incorporated as a COA

(Source – Onshore Oil and Gas Order Number 1, II. 

Definitions).

CFR 3101.1-2) with the valid existing rights; and (2) 

Whether the action is in conformance with the approved 

RMP.

Conservation Measure #1: Do not allow new surface 

occupancy on federal leases within PH, this includes 

winter concentration areas during any time of the year. 

Consider an exception:

• If the lease is entirely within PH, apply a 4-mile 

NSO around the lek, and limit permitted 

disturbances to 1 per section with no more than 

3% surface disturbance in that section.

• If the entire lease is within the 4-mile lek

perimeter, limit permitted disturbances to 1 per 

section with no more than 3% surface disturbance 

in that section. Require any development to be 

placed at the most distal part of the lease from 

the lek, or, depending on topography and other 

habitat aspects, in an area that is less 

demonstrably harmful to GRSG. 

Conservation Measure #2: Apply a seasonal restriction on 

exploratory drilling that prohibits surface-disturbing 

activities during the nesting and early brood-rearing 

season in all PH during this period.

Conservation Measure #3: Closely examine the 

applicability of categorical exclusions in PH. If 

extraordinary circumstances review is applicable, BLM

would determine whether or not those circumstances 

exist.

Conservation Measure #4: Complete Master 

Development Plans in lieu of APD-by-APD processing for 

all but wildcat wells.

Conservation Measure #5: When permitting APDs on 

existing leases that are not yet developed, the proposed 

surface disturbance cannot exceed 3% for that area. 

Consider an exception if:

• Additional, effective mitigation is demonstrated to 

offset the resulting loss of GRSG (see Objectives).

o When necessary, conduct additional, 

effective mitigation in 1) PH or – less 

preferably – 2) GH (dependent upon the 

area-specific ability to increase GRSG

populations).

o Conduct additional, effective mitigation 

“reasonable” (43 CFR 3101.1‐2) with the valid existing 

rights; and (2) Whether the action is in conformance with 

the approved RMP.

Conservation Measure #1: Same as Alternative B except 

applies to both PH and GH.

Conservation Measure #2: Apply a seasonal restriction on 

exploratory drilling that prohibits surface‐disturbing 

activities during the nesting and brood‐rearing season in 

PH and GH during this period. This seasonal restriction 

shall also to apply to related activities that are disruptive 

to GRSG, including vehicle traffic and other human 

presence.

Conservation Measure #3: Same as Alternative B except 

applies to both PH and GH.

Conservation Measure #4: Same as Alternative B except 

applies to both PH and GH.

Conservation Measure #5: When permitting APDs on 

existing leases that are not yet developed, the proposed 

surface disturbance cannot exceed 3% per section for that 

area. Consider an exception if:

• Additional, effective mitigation is demonstrated to 

offset the resulting loss of GRSG (see Objectives).

o When necessary, conduct additional, 

effective mitigation in PH and GH

(dependent upon the area-specific ability 

to increase GRSG populations).

o Conduct additional, effective mitigation 

first within the same population area 

where the impact is realized, and if not 

possible then conduct mitigation within 

the same MZ as the impact, per 2006 

WAFWA Strategy – pg. 2-17.

Conservation Measure #6: Same as Alternative B except 

applies to both PH and GH.

Conservation Measure #7: Same as Alternative B except 

applies to both PH and GH.

Conservation Measure #8: Same as Alternative B except 

applies to both PH and GH.

Conservation Measure #9: Same as Alternative B except 

applies to both PH and GH.

rights; and (2) Whether the action is in conformance with 

the approved RMP.

Conservation Measure #1: The following operating 

constraints would be applied to existing leases as COA in 

PH and GH. Exceptions may be granted by the BLM 

Authorized Officer if an environmental review 

demonstrates that effects could be mitigated to an 

acceptable level, habitat for the species is not present in 

the area, or portions of the area can be occupied without 

affecting a particular species. Exceptions may also be 

granted where the short-term effects are mitigated by the 

long-term benefits. The BLM may add additional sitespecific restrictions as deemed necessary by further 

environmental analysis and as developed through 

coordination with other federal, state, and local 

regulatory and resource agencies.

a) Surface disturbing/disruptive activities would 

prevent or minimize disturbance to GRSG or 

their habitat. Except as identified above or during 

emergency situations, activities would not 

compromise the functionality of the habitat.

b) Continuous noise (related to long-term 

operations and/or activities) would be no greater 

than 49 decibels at 0.25 mile from the perimeter 

of the lek.

c) Temporary noise (related to installation, 

maintenance, one-time use, emergency 

operations, etc.) exceeding 49 decibels at 0.25

mile from the perimeter of a lek or surface 

disturbing/disruptive activities may be allowed, but 

only from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. between March 15 

and May 15. 

d) Manage water developments to reduce the spread 

of West Nile virus within GRSG habitat areas.

e) Site and/or minimize linear ROW to reduce 

disturbance to sagebrush habitats.

f) Maximize placement of new utility developments 

(power lines, pipelines, etc.) and transportation 

routes in existing ROWs.

g) Power lines would be buried, eliminated, designed 

or sited in a manner which does not impact

GRSG.

h) Placement of other high profile structures, 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-35

Table 2-3

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alterative A (No Action)1 Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

first within the same population area 

where the impact is realized, and if not 

possible then conduct mitigation within 

the same MZ as the impact, per 2006 

WAFWA Strategy – pg. 2-17.

Conservation Measure #6: Require unitization when 

deemed necessary for proper development and operation 

of an area (with strong oversight and monitoring) to 

minimize adverse impacts to GRSG according to the 

Federal Lease Form, 3100-11, Sections 4 and 6.

Conservation Measure #7: Identify areas where 

acquisitions (including subsurface mineral rights) or 

conservation easements, would benefit GRSG habitat.

Conservation Measure #8: For future actions, require a 

full reclamation bond specific to the site in accordance 

with 43 CFR 3104.2, 3104.3, and 3104.5. Ensure bonds 

are sufficient for costs relative to reclamation that would 

result in full restoration of the lands to the condition it 

was found prior to disturbance. Base the reclamation 

costs on the assumption that contractors for the BLM 

would perform the work. 

Conservation Measure #9: Make applicable RDFs

(Appendix B) mandatory as COA within PH.

exceeding 10 feet in height, would be eliminated, 

designed or sited in a manner which does not 

impact GRSG.

i) Remote monitoring of production facilities must 

be utilized and all permit applications must 

contain a plan to reduce the frequency of vehicle 

use.

j) Maximize the area of interim reclamation on longterm access roads and well pads including 

reshaping, top-soiling and re-vegetating cut and fill 

slopes. Utilize native grass species mix which 

includes sagebrush and forbs.

k) Restore disturbed areas at final reclamation to 

pre-disturbance conditions or desired plant 

community. Utilize native grass species mix which 

includes sagebrush and forbs.

l) Permanent (longer than 2 months) structures 

which create movement must be designed or 

sited to minimize impacts to GRSG.

m) Consider use of off-site mitigation within the 

same PH area (e.g., creation of sagebrush habitat, 

improving brood rearing habitat, or purchase 

conservation easements) with proponent dollars 

to offset habitat losses (Washington Office -IM 

2008-204).

n) Consider creation of a “Mitigation Trust 

Account” when impacts cannot be avoided, 

minimized, or effectively mitigated through other 

means. If approved by the BLM, the proponent 

may contribute funding to maintain habitat 

function based on the estimated cost of habitat 

treatments or other mitigation needed to

maintain the functions of impacted habitats. Offsite mitigation would only be considered when no 

feasible options are available to adequately 

mitigate within and immediately adjacent to the 

impacted site, or when the off-site location would 

provide more effective mitigation of the impact 

than can be achieved on-site.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

2-36 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 2-3

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alterative A (No Action)1 Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

Solid Minerals

Coal

No similar action. The North Dakota RMP examined 24 

Coal Screening Areas as having coal development potential 

(none of these 1,009,648 acres evaluated were within the 

planning area). Although the planning area was not 

identified as having coal development potential, it was also 

not identified as unsuitable; therefore, any applications for 

coal leasing would require additional site-specific NEPA to 

determine suitability. See Figure 2-15, Coal Resources 

Alternative A (Appendix A).

Action: Surface mines - In PH, find unsuitable all surface 

mining of coal under the criteria set forth in 43 CFR 

3461.5. See Figure 2-16, Coal Resources Alternative B 

(Appendix A).

Action: Same as Alternative B except applies to both PH

and GH. See Figure 2-17, Coal Resources Alternative C 

(Appendix A).

Action: In PH, apply the requirement of 43 CFR 3461 to 

determine unsuitability; then, if criteria set forth in 43 

CFR 3461.5 are met, find unsuitable all surface mining of 

coal. See Figure 2-18, Coal Resources Alternative D 

(Appendix A).

Action: Although the planning area was not identified as 

having coal development potential, it was also not 

identified as unsuitable; therefore, any applications for coal 

leasing would require additional site-specific NEPA.

Action: Sub-surface mines - Grant no new mining leases 

unless all surface disturbances (appurtenant facilities) are 

placed outside of PH.

Action: Same as Alternative B except applies to both PH

and GH.

Action: Place any new appurtenant facilities associated 

with Federal coal lease outside of PH. Where new 

appurtenant facilities cannot be located outside the PH, 

co-locate new facilities within existing disturbed areas. If 

this is not possible, then build any new appurtenant 

facilities to the absolute minimum standard necessary.

No existing coal leases. Action: For coal mining operations on existing leases:

• Sub-surface mining: In PH, place any new 

appurtenant facilities outside of priority areas.

Where new appurtenant facilities associated with 

the existing lease cannot be located outside the 

PH, co-locate new facilities within existing 

disturbed areas. If this is not possible, then build 

any new appurtenant facilities to the absolute 

minimum standard necessary.

Action: Same as Alternative B except applies to both PH

and GH.

No existing leases.

No existing coal leases. Action: In GH, apply minimization of surface-disturbing or 

disrupting activities (including operations and 

maintenance) where needed to reduce the impacts of 

human activities on important seasonal GRSG habitats.

Apply these measures during activity level planning.

• Use additional, effective mitigation to offset 

impacts as appropriate (determined by local 

options/needs).

No similar action. Action: Same as Alternative B.

Locatable Minerals

Action: All the federally-reserved locatable mineral

deposits, excluding acquired minerals and minerals that are 

withdrawn to protect resource values and uses, are open 

to mineral entry (BLM 1988a). See Figure 2-19, Locatable 

Minerals Alternatives A and D (Appendix A).

Action: In PH, propose withdrawal from mineral entry

based on risk to the GRSG and its habitat from conflicting 

locatable mineral potential and development. See Figure 

2-20, Locatable Minerals Alternative B (Appendix A).

• Make any existing claims within the withdrawal

Action: Same as Alternative B except applies to both PH

and GH. See Figure 2-21, Locatable Minerals Alternative 

C (Appendix A).

Action: In PH, proposed actions under Plans of 

Operations and Notices would be analyzed on a case-bycase basis in cooperation with the State of North Dakota, 

and BMPs (Appendix B) needed to prevent unnecessary 

or undue degradation would be applied. See Figure 2-19
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-37

Table 2-3

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alterative A (No Action)1 Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

Action: Manage the locatable, salable, and non-energy 

leasable minerals program to at least the minimum 

acceptable levels addressed in the maintenance and 

operations guidelines, as established for the Montana BLM 

organization (BLM 1988a).

area subject to validity exams or buy out. Include 

claims that have been subsequently determined to 

be null and void in the proposed withdrawal.

• In Plans of Operations required prior to any 

proposed surface disturbing activities, include the 

following:

o Additional, effective mitigation in 

perpetuity for conservation (In 

accordance with existing policy, 

Washington Office IM 2008-204).

Example: purchase private land and 

mineral rights or severed subsurface 

mineral rights within the priority area and 

deed to US Government).

o Consider seasonal restrictions if deemed 

effective.

Action: BMPs needed to prevent unnecessary or undue 

degradation would be applied (Appendix B).

(Appendix A).

Note: Locatable mineral exploration and 

development under the mining laws are not 

authorized under the discretion of the Field 

Manager, but Notices and Plans of Operation are 

reviewed to prevent unnecessary or undue 

degradation to resources.

Mineral Materials

Action: All the federally-reserved salable and non-energy 

leasable mineral deposits are available for application (BLM 

1988a). See Figure 2-22, Mineral Materials Alternative A 

(Appendix A).

Action: Close PH to mineral material sales. See Figure 2-

23, Mineral Materials Alternatives B and D (Appendix 

A).

Action: Same as Alternative B except applies to both PH

and GH. See Figure 2-24, Mineral Materials Alternative 

C (Appendix A).

Action: Same as Alternative B. See Figure 2-23

(Appendix A).

Action: No North Dakota RMP direction; however, under 

the provisions of US 43 CFR 3601.40-43, BLM may require 

submission of mining and reclamation plans before 

beginning any environmental review or issuing a mineral 

materials contract or permit.

Action: In PH, restore salable mineral pits no longer in 

use to meet GRSG habitat conservation objectives.

Action: Same as Alternative B except applies to both PH

and GH.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

Nonenergy Leasable Minerals

Action All the federally-reserved salable and non-energy 

leasable mineral deposits are available for application (BLM 

1988a).

Action: Close PH to non-energy leasable mineral leasing.

This includes not permitting any new leases to expand an 

existing mine.

Action: Same as Alternative B except applies to both PH

and GH.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

Action: Manage the locatable, salable, and non-energy 

leasable minerals program to at least the minimum 

acceptable levels addressed in the maintenance and 

operations guidelines, as established for the Montana BLM 

organization (BLM 1988a).

Action: For existing non-energy leasable mineral leases in 

PH, follow the same RDFs applied to Fluid Minerals

(Appendix B), when wells are used for solution mining.

Action: Same as Alternative B except applies to both PH

and GH.

Action: Same as Alternative B.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

2-38 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 2-3

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alterative A (No Action)1 Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

Mineral Split Estate

Action: The BLM manages 700 million acres of subsurface 

mineral estate nationwide, including approximately 58 

million acres where the surface is privately owned. In many 

cases, the surface rights and mineral rights were severed 

under the terms of the Nation’s homesteading laws. These 

and other Federal laws, regulations, and BLM policy 

directives, some noted below, give managers the authority 

and direction for administering the development of Federal 

oil and natural gas resources beneath privately owned 

surface.

Planning and Leasing

• Must involve the public when preparing land use 

plans and amendments.

• Must notify the public when oil and gas lease sales 

have been scheduled.

Permitting

• Encourages the lessee/operator to contact the 

surface owner as early as possible when 

operations are contemplated.

• Requires the lessee/operator to certify that a good 

faith effort has been made to negotiate a surface 

use agreement with the surface owner.

Drilling and Production

• Conducts compliance inspections, consults with 

surface owner as appropriate, and takes 

enforcement action when necessary to ensure 

permit compliance.

Surface Reclamation

• Must carefully consider the surface owner’s views 

on reclamation requirements and seek 

concurrence that final reclamation is satisfactory.

Action: Where the federal government owns the mineral 

estate in PH, and the surface is in non-federal ownership, 

apply the conservation measures applied on BLMadministered lands.

Action: Same as Alternative B except applies to both PH

and GH.

Action: Where the federal government owns the mineral 

estate in PH, and the surface is in non-federal ownership, 

apply the conservation measures applied on BLMadministered lands when the federal action (mineral 

development) occurs.

No similar action. Action: Where the federal government owns the surface, 

and the mineral estate is in non-federal ownership in PH,

apply appropriate Fluid Mineral RDFs (Appendix B) to 

surface development.

Action: Same as Alternative B except applies to both PH

and GH.

Action: Same as Alternative B.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-39

Table 2-3

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alterative A (No Action)1 Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

Fire and Fuels Management

Fuels Management

Action: Prepare prescribed fire plans for vegetative 

manipulation where appropriate (BLM 1988a).

Action: In PH, design and implement fuels treatments with 

an emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems.

• Do not reduce sagebrush canopy cover to less 

than 15% unless a fuels management objective 

requires additional reduction in sagebrush cover to 

meet strategic protection of PH and conserve 

habitat quality for the species. Closely evaluate the 

benefits of the fuel break against the additional loss 

of sagebrush cover in future NEPA documents.

• Apply appropriate seasonal restrictions for 

implementing fuels management treatments 

according to the type of seasonal habitats present 

in a priority area.

• Allow no treatments in known winter range 

unless the treatments are designed to strategically 

reduce wildfire risk around or in the winter range 

and would maintain winter range habitat quality. 

• Do not use fire to treat sagebrush in less than 12-

inch precipitation zones (e.g., Wyoming big 

sagebrush or other xeric sagebrush species).

However, if as a last resort and after all other 

treatment opportunities have been explored and 

site specific variables allow, the use of prescribed 

fire for fuel breaks that would disrupt the fuel 

continuity across the landscape could be 

considered, in stands where cheatgrass is a very 

minor component in the understory.

• Monitor and control invasive vegetation posttreatment.

• Rest treated areas from grazing for two full 

growing seasons unless vegetation recovery 

dictates otherwise.

• Require use of native seeds for fuels management 

treatment based on availability, adaptation (site 

potential), and probability of success. Where 

probability of success or native seed availability is 

low, non-native seeds may be used as long as they 

meet GRSG habitat objectives.

• Design post fuels management projects to ensure 

Action: In PH and GH, design and implement fuels 

treatments with an emphasis on protecting existing 

sagebrush ecosystems.

• Do not reduce sagebrush canopy cover to less 

than 15% (Connelly et al. 2000; Hagen et al. 2007)

unless a fuels management objective requires 

additional reduction in sagebrush cover to meet 

strategic protection of PH and GH and conserve 

habitat quality for the species.

• Closely evaluate the benefits of the fuel break 

against the additional loss of sagebrush cover in 

the environmental assessment process.

• Apply appropriate seasonal restrictions for 

implementing fuels management treatments 

according to the type of seasonal habitats present.

• Allow no fuels treatments in known winter range 

unless the treatments are designed to strategically 

reduce wildfire risk around or in the winter range 

and would maintain winter range habitat quality. 

• Do not use fire to treat sagebrush in less than 12-

inch precipitation zones (e.g., Wyoming big 

sagebrush and other xeric sagebrush species; 

Connelly et al. 2000; Hagen et al. 2007; Beck et al. 

2009). However, if as a last resort and after all 

other treatment opportunities have been 

explored and site specific variables allow, the use 

of prescribed fire for fuel breaks that would 

disrupt the fuel continuity across the landscape 

could be considered, in stands where cheatgrass is 

a very minor component in the understory 

(Brown 1982).

• Design post fuels management projects to ensure 

long term persistence of seeded or pre-treatment 

native plants, including sagebrush. This may 

require temporary or long-term changes in 

livestock grazing management, travel management,

or other activities to achieve and maintain the 

desired condition of the fuels management project 

(Eiswerth and Shonkwiler 2006).

Action: Same as Alternative B, except the percent canopy 

cover would be 8%. Across their range, female GRSG

usually select sagebrush patches for nests with shrub 

canopy cover of 15-25%, and avoid sparse or excessively 

dense patches (Connelly et.al. 2000). However, in 

southwestern North Dakota, hens may have to select 

different nest-site characteristics to maintain adequate 

canopy cover because of restricted patches of remaining 

sagebrush habitats, all of which are similar in habitat 

quality (Herman-Brunson 2007).
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

2-40 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 2-3

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alterative A (No Action)1 Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

long term persistence of seeded or pre-treatment 

native plants. This may require temporary or 

long-term changes in livestock grazing 

management, travel management, or other 

activities to achieve and maintain the desired 

condition of the fuels management project.

No similar action. Action: Design fuels management projects in PH to 

strategically and effectively reduce wildfire threats in the 

greatest area. This may require fuels treatments 

implemented in a more linear versus block design.

No similar action. Action: Design fuels management projects in PH to 

strategically and effectively reduce wildfire threats in the 

greatest area.

No similar action. Action: In PH, during fuels management project design, 

consider the utility of using livestock to strategically 

reduce fine fuels, and implement grazing management that 

would accomplish this objective. Consult with ecologists 

to minimize impacts to native perennial grasses.

No similar action. Action: Same as Alternative B.

Fire Operations

Action: Control wildfires on BLM-administered lands (BLM 

1988a).

Action: In PH, prioritize suppression, immediately after 

life and property, to conserve the habitat. See Appendix 

I, GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat 

Assessment, which would be completed to help further 

refine fire management actions once this plan is 

completed.

Action: Same as Alternative B except applies to both PH

and GH. See Appendix I, which would be completed to 

help further refine fire management actions once this plan 

is completed.

Action: Same as Alternative B. See Appendix I which 

would be completed to help further refine fire 

management actions once this plan is completed.

No similar action. Action: In GH, prioritize suppression where wildfires 

threaten PH.

No similar action. Action: Same as Alternative B.

No similar action. Action: Follow RDFs (Washington Office IM 2013-128)

(Appendix B).

Action: Same as Alternative B except applies to both PH

and GH. Follow RDFs in Appendix B.

Action: Follow the most current BMPs/RDFs for fire and 

fuels (Appendix B).

Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation

No similar action. Action: In PH, prioritize native seed allocation for use in 

GRSG habitat in years when preferred native seed is in 

short supply. This may require reallocation of native seed 

from emergency stabilization and rehabilitation (ES&R)

projects outside of PH 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, non-native seeds may be used as long as 

they meet GRSG habitat conservation objectives. Reestablishment of appropriate sagebrush species/subspecies 

and important understory plants, relative to site potential, 

shall be the highest priority for rehabilitation efforts.

Action: Same as Alternative B except applies to both PH

and GH.

Action: Same as Alternative B.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-41

Table 2-3

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alterative A (No Action)1 Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

No similar action. Action: In PH, design post ES&R management to ensure 

long term persistence of seeded or pre-burn native plants.

This may require temporary or long-term changes in 

livestock grazing, and travel management, etc., to achieve 

and maintain the desired condition of ES&R projects to 

benefit GRSG.

Action: Same as Alternative B except applies to both PH

and GH.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

No similar action. Action: In PH, consider potential changes in climate when 

proposing post-fire seedings using native plants. Consider 

seed collections from the warmer component within a 

species’ current range for selection of native seed. 

Action: Same as Alternative B except applies to both PH

and GH.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

Habitat Restoration/Vegetation Management

Action: Follow direction in Integrated Vegetation 

Management Handbook; no specific management action 

from North Dakota RMP.

Action: Prioritize implementation of restoration projects 

in PH based on environmental variables that improve 

chances for project success in areas most likely to benefit 

GRSG.

• Prioritize restoration in seasonal habitats that are 

thought to be limiting GRSG distribution and/or 

abundance.

Action: Prioritize implementation of restoration projects 

in PH and GH based on environmental variables that 

improve chances for project success in areas most likely 

to benefit GRSG (Meinke et al. 2009).

Action: Prioritize restoration in seasonal habitats that are 

thought to be limiting sage‐grouse distribution and/or 

abundance and where factors causing degradation have 

already been addressed (e.g., changes in livestock 

management). 

Action: Prioritize implementation of restoration projects 

in PH, including projects to reduce conifer encroachment, 

based on environmental variables that improve chances 

for project success in areas most likely to benefit GRSG

as well as other priority species.

• Prioritize restoration in seasonal habitats that are 

thought to be limiting GRSG distribution and/or 

abundance.

Action: Consideration for other threatened, endangered 

or sensitive species would be evaluated in addition to 

GRSG when prioritizing restoration projects.

No similar action. Action: Include GRSG habitat parameters as defined by 

Connelly et al. (2000), Hagen et al. (2007) or if available, 

state GRSG conservation plans and appropriate local 

information in habitat restoration objectives. Make 

meeting these objectives within PH the highest 

restoration priority.

Action: Include sage‐grouse habitat objectives in habitat 

restoration projects. Make meeting these objectives 

within PH and GH the highest restoration priority. 

Action: Include GRSG habitat parameters as defined by 

State of North Dakota Sage-Grouse Conservation plans 

and appropriate local information in habitat restoration 

objectives. Make meeting these objectives within PH the 

highest restoration priority, along with other priority 

species habitat.

No similar action. Action: In PH, require use of native seeds for restoration 

based on availability, adaptation (ecological site potential), 

and probability of success. Where probability of success 

or adapted seed availability is low, non-native seeds may 

be used as long as they support GRSG habitat objectives.

Action: Same as Alternative B except applies to both PH

and GH.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

No similar action. Action: Design post restoration management to ensure 

long term persistence in PH. This could include changes in 

livestock grazing management, travel management, etc., to 

achieve and maintain the desired condition of the 

restoration effort that benefits GRSG.

Action: Same as Alternative B except applies to both PH

and GH.

Action: Same as Alternative B.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Alternatives)

2-42 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 2-3

Description of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alterative A (No Action)1 Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (Agency Preferred)

No similar action. Action: In PH, consider potential changes in climate when 

proposing restoration seedings when using native plants.

Consider collection from the warmer component of the 

species current range when selecting native species.

Action: Same as Alternative B except applies to both PH

and GH.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

No similar action. Action: In PH, restore native (or desirable) plants and 

create landscape patterns which most benefit GRSG.

Action: In PH and GH, exotic seedings would be 

rehabbed, inter-seeded, restored to recover sagebrush in 

areas to expand occupied habitats.

Action: In PH, restore native (or desirable) plants and 

create landscape patterns which most benefit GRSG, as 

well as other priority species.

No similar action. Action: Make re-establishment of sagebrush cover and 

desirable understory plants (relative to ecological site 

potential) the highest priority for restoration efforts in 

PH.

Action: Same as Alternative B except applies to both PH

and GH.

Action: Make re-establishment of sagebrush cover and 

desirable understory plants (relative to ecological site 

potential) a high priority for restoration efforts in PH.

Prioritize areas for juniper removal to benefit GRSG

habitat.

No similar action. Action: In PH fire prone areas, where sagebrush seed is 

required for GRSG habitat restoration, consider 

establishing seed harvest areas that are managed for seed 

production and are a priority for protection from outside 

disturbances.

Action: Same as Alternative B except applies to both PH

and GH.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Action: Although there are no current ACECs, the 

direction the NDFO RMP is to make ACEC designations 

where critical resource values cannot be protected 

through other management actions (BLM 1988a).

Action: No ACECs would be designated in this 

alternative.

Action: PH would be designated as a GRSG ACEC to 

protect habitat (32,900 acres) (Appendix D).

Management actions for the GRSG ACEC would be the 

conservation actions/constraints identified in Alternative 

C above to protect GRSG habitat. See Figure 2-25, 

ACEC Alternative C (Appendix A).

Action: No ACECs would be designated in this 

alternative.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in North Dakota by Alternative)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-43

2.11 COMPARISON OF ALLEVIATED THREATS TO GRSG IN NORTH DAKOTA BY ALTERNATIVE

Table 2-4, Summary of Impacts to GRSG in North Dakota, presents a comparison summary of impacts to GRSG from management actions 

proposed for the four management alternatives. Section 4.2, Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse in Chapter 4 provides a more 

detailed impact analysis.

Table 2-4

Summary of Impacts to GRSG in North Dakota1

Resource/Resource Use Alternatives A - D

Summary of Impacts to 

GRSG from Isolated/Small 

populations

Alternative A does not delineate any PH or GH; however, all action alternatives delineate PH and GH. The 

action alternatives are in agreement with the following conservation measures identified in the COT report 

specific to Priority Areas for Conservation (PAC):

• Retain GRSG habitats within PACs.

• If PACs are lost to catastrophic events, implement appropriate restoration efforts. 

• Restore and rehabilitate degraded GRSG habitats in PACs.

Summary of Impacts to 

GRSG from 

Agriculture/Urbanization

Across all action alternatives, the BLM would take advantage of opportunities to consolidate GRSG habitat. 

Alternative A technically allows for disposal of lands; however, GRSG habitat would be considered in the 

analysis. Although agriculture and urbanization have been identified as threats in North Dakota, the BLM 

has limited management authority over those types of activities. Many of these COT objectives are outside 

the scope of this planning document; however, see Chapter 5 for Sage-grouse Initiative (SGI) projects that 

have been completed on private lands within the GSRG habitat.

The action alternatives are in agreement with the following conservation options identified in the COT 

report specific to ex-urban development:

• Acquire and manage GRSG habitat to maintain intact ecosystems.

• Do not relinquish BLM-administered lands for the purpose of urban development in GRSG habitat.

Summary of Impacts to 

GRSG from Oil and Gas 

Development

Alternative C closes PH and GH habitats to leasing and Alternatives B closes PH to leasing. Since most of 

the high development potential has already been leased, and due to the small amount of BLM minerals in 

the planning area, the surface disturbance and well densities do not change significantly among the 

alternatives (even between the alternatives that have no lease vs. the no-action).

 1 For a full discussion of impacts to GRSG, refer to Section 4.2 in Chapter 4.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in North Dakota by Alternative)

2-44 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 2-4

Summary of Impacts to GRSG in North Dakota1

Resource/Resource Use Alternatives A - D

The action alternatives are in agreement with the following conservation measures identified in the COT 

report specific to energy development:

• Avoid energy development in PACs (Doherty et al. 2010). Identify areas where leasing is not 

acceptable, or not acceptable without stipulations for surface occupancy that maintains GRSG 

habitats.

• If avoidance is not possible within PACs due to pre-existing valid rights, adjacent development or 

split estate issues, development should only occur in non-habitat areas, including all appurtenant 

structures, with an adequate buffer that is sufficient to preclude impacts to GRSG habitat from 

noise and other human activities.

By limiting disturbances within PH (Alternative B, C and D) and GH (Alternative C), the action alternatives 

would work towards the objective of reducing threats to intact shrubland. Alternative C would have more 

restrictions on fluid mineral development than Alternatives B and D, and Alternative A would have the 

fewest restrictions of all alternatives.

Summary of Impacts to 

GRSG from Mining

Alternatives B and C would be more protective to GRSG and GRSG habitat than Alternatives A and D 

(Alternative D is the same as B except locatable minerals are not withdrawn due to the very low potential). 

However, all the action alternatives are in agreement with the following COT conservation options:

• Avoid new mining activities and/or any associated facilities within occupied habitat, including 

seasonal habitats.

Summary of Impacts to 

GRSG from Infrastructure

Alternatives B, C and D restrict ROWs in PH, which responds to the need (identified in the COT report) 

to stop population decline and habitat loss by eliminating activities known to negatively impact GRSG and 

their habitats through reduction in the threat of habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation.

The action alternatives are in agreement with the following conservation objectives/options identified in the 

COT report specific to infrastructure:

• Avoid development of infrastructure within PACs (objective).

• Avoid construction of these features in GRSG habitat, both within and outside of PACs.

• Restrictions limiting use of roads should be enforced.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in North Dakota by Alternative)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-45

Table 2-4

Summary of Impacts to GRSG in North Dakota1

Resource/Resource Use Alternatives A - D

Alternative A, in general, has the least protections for GRSG and GRSG habitat from development of 

infrastructure. All alternatives limit OHV use to existing roads and trails, but Alternative C also contains a 

4-mile buffer from leks for route construction. All action alternatives have limitations on route construction 

and realignments to minimize impacts to GRSG.

Summary of Impacts to 

GRSG from Fire 

Management

The alternatives are in agreement with the following conservation options from the COT report:

• Renew and implement IM 2011-138 (Sage-grouse Conservation Related to Wildland Fire and Fuels 

Management; BLM 2011a) until a decision is made on whether or not to incorporate the measure 

identified in the IM into RMPs. The measures in this IM are listed in Appendix B of this document 

(B.2.4 Required Design Features for Fire and Fuels).

Summary of Impacts to 

GRSG from Grazing

GRSG habitat considerations within livestock grazing allotments would be similar across all action 

alternatives. Range improvements are more restricted under Alternative B than under Alternative A. Under 

all alternatives, grazing would be managed to achieve the standards of rangeland health. Under Alternative 

A, this includes a biodiversity standard; however, under the action alternatives, specific GRSG habitat 

objectives would be developed (in cooperation with NDGFD and USFWS). Under the action alternatives, 

new range improvements would be approved if they conserve, enhance, or restore GRSG habitat.

Summary of Impacts to 

GRSG from Vegetation 

Management

The action alternatives are in agreement with the following conservation objective/conservation measures 

from the COT report:

• Avoid sagebrush removal or manipulation in GRSG breeding or wintering habitats (objective).

• Retain all remaining large intact sagebrush patches, particularly at low elevations.

Summary of Impacts to 

GRSG from Recreation

There are no areas open to off-road travel within the planning area in any alternative. All alternatives are in 

agreement with the following conservation option from the COT report:

• Close important GRSG use areas to off-road vehicle use.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

2-46 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

2.12 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Table 2-5, Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences, presents a comparison summary of impacts from 

management actions proposed for the four management alternatives. Chapter 4 provides a more detailed impact 

analysis.

Table 2-5

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D(Agency Preferred)

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES – GREATER SAGE-GROUSE

See Table 2-4, for summary of impacts to GRSG.

LANDS AND REALTY

No impacts; decision area would 

remain open to ROWs.

32,900 acres managed as ROW

exclusion area and 80 acres 

managed as ROW avoidance area 

would prohibit or restrict new 

ROW authorizations. Could 

extend processing time for 

renewals of existing ROW 

authorizations and make siting of 

new linear or block ROWs more 

difficult.

ROW exclusion impacts same as 

Alternative B but include 80 

additional acres of exclusion

(32,980 total acres). In addition, 

prohibiting new road 

construction within 4 miles of 

active leks would limit such 

construction to 638 acres.

32,900 acres managed as ROW

avoidance area would result in 

increased application processing 

time and costs due to the 

potential need to relocate 

facilities or due to greater design, 

mitigation, and siting 

requirements to avoid BLMadministered lands.

VEGETATION (INCLUDING NOXIOUS WEEDS; RIPARIAN AND WETLANDS)

No ROW exclusion or avoidance 

areas and few measures to 

preclude new land use 

authorizations from degrading 

vegetative communities due to 

loss, alteration, and spread of 

ROW exclusion areas in PH 

(32,900 acres) would preclude 

loss or alteration of vegetation, 

and spread of invasive weeds in 

these areas from development. 

ROW avoidance areas in GH (80 

ROW exclusion areas in PH and 

GH (32,980 acres) would 

preclude loss or alteration of 

vegetation, and spread of invasive 

weeds from development in 

these areas.

ROW avoidance areas in PH and 

GH (32,980 acres) (except for 

managing wind energy as ROW 

exclusion in PH – 32,900 acres) 

would reduce, but not eliminate 

loss or alteration of vegetation, 

 1 For a full discussion of impacts for any of the resources, refer to the appropriate section in Chapter 4.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-47

Table 2-5

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D(Agency Preferred)

invasive weeds. acres) would likely reduce these 

types of disturbances to 

vegetation in these areas.

and spread of invasive weeds

from development in these areas.

Managing vegetation and 

sagebrush communities by 

Rangeland Health Standards, and 

managing riparian areas for PFC

would reduce impacts by 

livestock, such as trampling and 

overuse of riparian areas.

Incorporating GRSG habitat 

objectives and management 

considerations into livestock 

grazing management would 

reduce, but would not eliminate, 

impacts from grazing on 

vegetation communities. These 

efforts would also promote the 

health of GRSG habitats, 

including sagebrush steppe, 

riparian areas, and wet meadows.

Grazing AUMs would be reduced 

to increase herbaceous cover for 

GRSG benefit. Livestock use of 

riparian zones would be limited 

to maintain PFC and benefit 

wildlife habitat. The reduction in 

grazing AUMs could facilitate fuel 

buildup.

Impacts from grazing would be 

similar to Alternative B; however,

increased management flexibility 

under this alternative may 

improve vegetation conditions by 

targeting those areas that need 

most protection.

Restrictions on fluid mineral

leasing would protect vegetation 

from surface disturbance in the 

9,780 acres where NSO

stipulations would be applied and 

the 21,235 acres where CSU

stipulations would be applied.

Approximately 816 acres of 

short-term disturbance and 548 

acres of long-term disturbance 

on BLM-administered lands. 

However, limited reasonably 

foreseeable development of oil 

and gas would result in minimal 

impacts on vegetation.

PH would be closed to fluid 

mineral leasing, protecting 

vegetation in these areas from 

surface disturbance.

Approximately 624 acres of 

short-term disturbance and 476 

acres of long-term disturbance 

on BLM-administered lands. 

However, limited reasonably 

foreseeable development of oil 

and gas would result in minimal 

impacts on vegetation.

PH and GH would be closed to 

fluid mineral leasing, resulting in

impacts similar as under 

Alternative B.

Acres disturbed would be the 

same as Alternative B. However, 

limited reasonably foreseeable 

development of oil and gas would 

result in minimal impacts on 

vegetation.

Applying NSO stipulations to 

fluid mineral leasing on PH

(61,197 acres) would protect 

vegetation from surface 

disturbance.

Approximately 767 acres of 

short-term disturbance and 530 

acres of long-term disturbance 

on BLM-administered lands. 

However, limited reasonably 

foreseeable development of oil 

and gas would result in minimal 

impacts on vegetation.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

2-48 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 2-5

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D(Agency Preferred)

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT AND ECOLOGY

No ROW exclusion or avoidance 

areas and few measures to 

preclude new land use 

authorizations could increase fire 

risk as a result of development 

from ROW authorizations.

Some restrictions on fluid 

mineral surface occupancy, and 

seismic exploration, construction, 

and development near strutting 

grounds would decrease risk of 

fire due to less development, 

fewer vehicles, and less 

construction equipment, resulting 

in less of a chance of human 

ignition.

Management of PH (32,900 acres)

as an exclusion area for new 

ROW authorizations and 

limitations on fluid mineral

exploration and extraction in PH

(61,197 acres), would indirectly 

affect fire management through a 

greater decreased risk of fire due 

to less development, fewer 

vehicles, and less construction 

equipment, resulting in less of a 

chance of human ignition.

Impacts from ROWs and fluid 

minerals would be similar to 

Alternative B, but would apply to 

both PH and GH (32,980 acres

for ROW and 66,293 acres for 

fluid minerals).

ROW avoidance areas in PH and 

GH (32,980 acres) (except for 

managing wind energy as ROW 

exclusion in PH) and applying 

fluid minerals NSO stipulations 

on PH (61,197 acres) would 

indirectly affect fire management

through a greater decreased risk 

of fire due to less development, 

fewer vehicles, and less 

construction equipment, resulting 

in less of a chance of human 

ignition.

Minimal restrictions on fuels 

management and fire control 

methods; therefore, fewer 

impacts on fire management and

lower suppression costs.

Restrictions in PH (32,900 acres) 

such as seasonal closures, no 

treatments in known winter 

range, restrictions on the use of 

fire to treat sagebrush in low 

precipitation zones, could impact 

ability to efficiently manage fuels 

and could increase costs of 

vegetation management and fire 

suppression.

Impacts from seasonal closures 

and restrictions would be similar 

to Alternative B but would apply 

to both GH and PH (32,980 

acres).

Impacts from seasonal closures 

and restrictions would be similar 

to Alternative B; however, fuels 

management projects in PH

(32,900 acres) would be designed 

to incorporate greater flexibility 

to maximize the acreage 

protected.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-49

Table 2-5

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D(Agency Preferred)

FLUID MINERALS

There would continue to be 

73,435 acres (100%) of federal oil 

and gas mineral estate open to oil 

and gas leasing.

The 46,110 acres with high 

development potential for oil and 

gas would remain open to leasing, 

9,583 acres (21%) of which would 

remain subject to an NSO

stipulation, 17,427 acres (38%) of 

which would remain subject to a 

CSU stipulation, and 29,840 

(65%) of which would remain 

subject to a TL. This represents 

the fewest restrictions of any 

alternative.

Open 12,238 acres (17%) of 

federal oil and gas mineral estate 

to future oil and gas leasing, an 

83% decrease from Alternative A, 

and 61,197 acres (83%) of federal 

oil and gas mineral estate would 

be closed (compared with 0 acres 

under Alternative A). Of these 

closed acres, 7,056 (15%) have 

high potential and are unleased. 

These unleased high potential 

acres that would be closed 

represent approximately 100% of 

all unleased high potential acres 

in the decision area.

Existing leases in areas closed to 

leasing would last through their 

lease term but would not be 

renewed. As a result of these 

closures and lease expirations, it 

would be difficult to access areas 

of high potential within the 

decision area.

Open 7,194 unleased acres (28%

of unleased acres in the decision 

area) to fluid mineral leasing. This 

includes 25 unleased acres with 

high oil and gas development 

potential and 7,169 unleased 

Open 7,142 acres (10%) of 

federal oil and gas mineral estate 

to future oil and gas leasing, a 

90% decrease from Alternative A, 

and 66,293 acres (90%) of federal 

oil and gas mineral estate would 

be closed (compared with 0 acres 

under Alternative A). Of these 

closed acres, 7,072 (15%) have 

high potential and are unleased. 

These unleased high potential 

acres that would be closed 

represent approximately 100% of 

all unleased high potential acres 

in the decision area.

Existing leases in areas closed to 

leasing would last through their 

lease term but would not be 

renewed. As a result of these 

closures and lease expirations, it 

would be difficult to access areas 

of high potential within the 

decision area.

Open 3,523 unleased acres (14%

of unleased acres in the decision 

area) to fluid mineral leasing. All 

of these acres have low or no 

known oil and gas development 

potential. These unleased acres 

Open 73,435 acres (100%) of 

federal oil and gas mineral estate 

to oil and gas leasing.

NSO and CSU stipulations 

restrict future exploration by 

identifying where surfacedisturbing activities may not 

occur and the manner in which 

they may be implemented.

61,197 acres (83%) of federal oil 

and gas mineral estate subject to 

NSO stipulations. Of these acres, 

7,056 (15%) have high potential 

and are unleased. These unleased 

high potential acres that would 

be subject to NSO stipulations 

represent approximately 100% of 

all unleased high potential acres 

in the decision area. Existing 

leases in areas subject to NSO 

stipulations would be subject to 

these stipulations upon renewal. 

As a result of these stipulations, 

it would be difficult to access 

areas of high potential within the 

decision area.

3,671 unleased acres (14% of 

unleased acres in the decision 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

2-50 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 2-5

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D(Agency Preferred)

acres with low or no known oil 

and gas potential. These unleased 

acres would be open with 

standard stipulations. Because 

they have low or no known 

potential, allowing leasing on 

these acres would have a 

negligible impact on fluid mineral 

resources.

All existing leases on federal oil 

and gas estate in PH would be 

subject to RDFs applied as 

COAs. These COAs would place 

additional limits on siting, design, 

and operations of fluid mineral

development.

would be open with no 

stipulations. Because they have 

low or no known potential, 

allowing leasing on these acres 

would have a negligible impact on 

fluid mineral resources.

All existing leases on federal oil 

and gas estate in PH would be 

subject to RDFs applied as 

COAs. These COAs would place 

additional limits on siting, design, 

and operations of fluid mineral

development.

area) would be subject to CSU

stipulations. This includes 16 

unleased acres with high oil and 

gas development potential and 

3,655 unleased acres with low or 

no known oil and gas potential.

Open 3,523 unleased acres with 

standard stipulations. All of these 

acres have low or no known oil 

and gas development potential, 

meaning this action would have a 

negligible impact on fluid mineral

resources in the decision area.

COAL

No impacts; entire decision area 

open to coal.

There are no current coal mines, and no coal development is anticipated within GRSG habitat over the 

life of the North Dakota RMP. As a result, coal resources in the planning area are not expected to be 

impacted by management actions proposed in this RMPA. However, potential future development would 

be precluded in PH (87,443 acres) in Alternatives B and D, and in PH and GH (166,207 acres) in 

Alternative C.

LOCATABLE MINERALS 

No impacts; entire decision are 

open to locatable minerals.

No locatable mineral development is anticipated within GRSG habitat over the life of the North Dakota 

RMP. As a result, locatable minerals in the planning area are not expected to be impacted by management 

actions proposed in this RMPA. However, potential future development would be precluded in PH

(46,397 acres) in Alternative B, and PH and GH (49,970 acres) in Alternative C.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-51

Table 2-5

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D(Agency Preferred)

MINERAL MATERIALS

No closures in decision area (0 

acres closed to the disposition of 

salable minerals), resulting in the 

fewest restrictions on the 

disposition of mineral materials. 

The amount of land closed to the 

disposition of salable minerals

would increase to 46,397 acres, 

resulting in more restrictions on 

the disposition of mineral 

materials.

Impacts would be similar to 

Alternative B, except 49,970 

acres closed to the disposition of 

salable minerals.

Impacts would be the same as

Alternative B. 

COMPREHENSIVE TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT

Motorized wheeled travel would 

continue to be limited to existing 

routes, cross-country travel 

would continue to be prohibited, 

and there would be no acres 

where new route construction 

would be prohibited.

In PH (32,900 acres) new roads 

would only be allowed where 

access to valid existing rights is 

necessary and does not currently 

exist; therefore, restricting new 

roads and/or ROWs and access 

in these areas.

Impacts would be similar to 

Alternative B. Additionally, no 

new road construction would be 

allowed within 4 miles of active 

GRSG leks. The 4-mile lek buffers 

cover 32,342 acres (98% of the 

decision area); meaning new road 

construction would be limited to 

638 acres in the decision area. 

This would preclude the 

construction of new roads where 

they might otherwise be needed 

to improve access or the 

functionality of the route 

network.

Impacts would be similar to 

Alternative B.

RECREATION

BLM would continue to manage 

for dispersed recreation 

activities, particularly big game 

hunting.

Only allowing SRPs that have a 

neutral or beneficial effect on PH

could limit future opportunities 

for SRPs in PH (32,900 acres).

Impacts would be similar to 

Alternative B, but would apply to 

both PH and GH (32,980 acres).

Impacts would be similar to 

Alternative C.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

2-52 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 2-5

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D(Agency Preferred)

Motorized and non-motorized 

road and trail based recreation 

opportunities, and the overall 

recreation experience would be 

maintained into the foreseeable 

future.

Permanent or seasonal closure of 

travel routes, and limitations on 

new road development could 

impact recreation by limiting 

motorized travel on routes used 

for access to hunting, fishing, and 

other popular recreation 

activities.

Prohibition of new road 

construction would limit 

motorized recreational use to 

the existing network of roads and 

trails. There would be no 

opportunity to accommodate any 

increase in recreational use or 

mitigate user conflicts by adding 

additional routes.

Impacts would be similar to 

Alternative B.

Potential impacts on recreation 

during construction and 

operation of facilities in ROWs.

Impacts on recreation users from 

oil and gas development would 

include activities and disturbance 

related to exploration, 

development, and operations, but 

would likely decline as the trend 

for new developments continues 

to decline.

A long-term reduction in the 

amount of acres in PH (32,900 

acres) dedicated to ROWs

through exclusion areas and 

above-ground linear features, 

such as transmission lines and 

pipelines, would improve 

recreation opportunities.

Closure of PH (61,197 acres) to 

fluid mineral development would 

eliminate the potential for new 

oil and gas development 

conflicting with recreation users.

Impacts from ROW development 

would be similar to Alternative B, 

but would apply to both PH and 

GH (32,980 acres).

Impacts from fluid mineral 

development would be similar to 

Alternative B, but would apply to 

both PH and GH (66,293 acres).

ROW avoidance areas in PH and 

GH (32,980 acres) (except for 

managing wind energy as ROW 

exclusion in PH – 32,900 acres) 

would reduce, but not eliminate 

development conflicting with 

recreation users.

NSO and CSU stipulations on 

fluid mineral development may 

minimize potential impacts on 

recreation by reducing 

disturbance related to these 

activities.

RANGE MANAGEMENT

Disturbance to livestock including 

dust, displacement, and noxious 

weeds, could result from 

development of ROWs.

Management of PH as ROW

exclusion area (32,900 acres) 

could slightly reduce the potential 

for disturbance of livestock, 

which covers the majority of the 

allotments in the planning area 

Impacts from grazing would be 

similar to Alternative B but 

would be applied across PH and 

GH (32,980 acres). Due to 

restrictions on ROW

development and reduction of 

PH managed as a ROW

avoidance area (32,900 acres) and 

additionally, as an exclusion area

for new wind energy ROW 

authorizations would minimize 

surface disturbing and activities
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-53

Table 2-5

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D(Agency Preferred)

(and 26 out of 27 allotments in 

GRSG habitat).

grazing in PH, disruption of 

grazing from lands and realty 

actions would be limited.

disruptive to grazing.

Limited reasonably foreseeable 

development of oil and gas would 

result in minimal impacts on 

range management. 

0 acres open to grazing and 

closed to fluid mineral

development (BLM surface and 

federal minerals). Potential 

conflict could occur with fluid 

mineral development.

Limited reasonably foreseeable 

development of oil and gas would 

result in minimal impacts on 

range management.

30,370 acres open to grazing and 

closed to fluid mineral

development (BLM surface and 

federal minerals). Potential for 

disturbance or conflicts with 

livestock grazing from fluid 

mineral development reduced.

Limited reasonably foreseeable 

development of oil and gas would 

result in minimal impacts on 

range management.

30,450 acres open to grazing and 

closed to fluid mineral

development (BLM surface and 

federal minerals). Potential for 

disturbance or conflicts with 

livestock grazing from fluid 

mineral development reduced.

Limited reasonably foreseeable 

development of oil and gas would 

result in minimal impacts on 

range management.

30,370 acres open to grazing and 

NSO for fluid mineral

development (BLM surface and 

federal minerals). Potential for 

disturbance or conflicts with 

livestock grazing from fluid 

mineral development reduced.

Changes to grazing management

would occur for areas not 

meeting land health standards 

(approximately 1,309 acres as of 

last assessment).

Management actions to modify 

grazing management to meet 

seasonal GRSG habitat 

requirements could result in 

increased time and costs to be 

permitted or impact ability to 

fully utilize permitted AUMs. 

Structural range improvements in 

PH would be permitted, but 

costs and time to construct these 

structures may be increased due 

to requirements to make 

structures conserve or enhance 

GRSG habitat.

Permitted level of AUMs in PH

would be reduced by 50% in the 

Big Gumbo area resulting in a 

total of 3,739 permitted AUMS in 

the planning area.

The reduction of permitted 

grazing level has the potential to 

result in economic impacts on 

permittees. The reduction may 

also impact ability of permittees 

current seasonal rotations or 

other management strategies that 

utilize both public and private 

lands.

Impacts from grazing 

management would be similar to

Alternative B; however, GSRG 

habitat requirements developed 

for North Dakota would be 

implemented.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

2-54 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 2-5

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D(Agency Preferred)

Vegetation could be managed to 

improve forage and impacts on 

range management from 

vegetation management would be 

minimal.

Implementation of projects to 

remove non-native species and 

improve habitat in PH could 

improve livestock forage but may 

also result in the need to adjust 

grazing management with 

potential for increased costs or 

time for permittees.

Impacts from vegetation 

management would be similar to 

Alternative B, but would apply to 

PH and GH. However, overall 

impacts would be reduced due to 

the reduction in grazing.

Similar to Alternative B, changes 

to livestock grazing systems could 

be required for post restoration 

management with potential 

impacts on costs or time for 

management by permittees.

Projects to reduce conifer 

encroachment would also benefit 

range management by improving 

forage conditions in the long 

term.

AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

No impacts; no ACEC would be 

designated.

Same as Alternative A. The BLM would establish a 

32,900-acre ACEC to protect 

GRSG habitat. Management 

within the new ACEC would be 

equivalent to the management 

actions proposed under 

Alternative B, but with the 

reduction in grazing and road 

closures within 4 miles of a lek. 

Same as Alternative A.

AIR RESOURCES

No changes to criteria air 

pollutant or hazardous air 

pollutant emissions would occur.

57% decrease in projected new 

producing wells on federal oil and 

gas estate would have the 

potential to result in fewer 

impacts due to decreased 

emissions associated with 

exploration and development of 

fluid minerals.

Impacts would be similar as 

under Alternative B, with slightly 

fewer new wells projected.

14% decrease in projected new 

producing wells on federal oil and 

gas estate would have the 

potential to result in fewer 

impacts due to decreased 

emissions associated with 

exploration and development of 

fluid minerals.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-55

Table 2-5

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D(Agency Preferred)

CLIMATE

No changes to greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions would occur.

57% decrease in projected new 

producing wells on federal oil and 

gas estate would have the 

potential to result in fewer 

impacts due to decreased GHG 

emissions associated with 

exploration and development of 

fluid minerals.

Impacts would similar as under 

Alternative B, with slightly fewer 

new wells projected

14% decrease in projected new 

producing wells on federal oil and 

gas estate would have the 

potential to result in fewer 

impacts due to decreased GHG

emissions associated with 

exploration and development of 

fluid minerals.

SOIL RESOURCES

Motorized use of existing roads 

and trails would result in the 

potential for disturbance and 

compaction of soils.

Some reduction in routes and 

limitations on new routes as well 

as upgrades to existing routes 

could result in the potential for 

reduction of disturbance and 

compaction of soils in PH (32,900 

acres).

Impacts on soil resources would 

be similar to Alternative B, 

although impacts would be 

further reduced since protections 

would apply to both PH and GH

(32,980 acres), and the BLM 

would apply additional mitigation 

requirements.

Impacts would be similar to 

Alternative B, though increased 

management flexibility under this 

alternative may improve soil 

resources by targeting those 

areas that need most protection.

Soil conditions could continue to 

be degraded where land use 

authorizations were approved.

Managing 32,900 acres as ROW

exclusion and 80 acres as ROW 

avoidance areas would reduce 

impacts to soil resources from 

surface disturbing activities 

related to ROW development.

Managing 32,980 acres as ROW

exclusion and 0 acres as ROW 

avoidance areas would reduce 

impacts to soil resources from 

surface disturbing activities 

related to ROW development.

Managing 0 acres as ROW

exclusion (except wind energy 

exclusion areas in PH) and 32,980 

acres as ROW avoidance areas 

would reduce impacts to soil 

resources from surface disturbing 

activities related to ROW 

development.

Restrictions on fluid mineral

leasing would protect soil 

resources from surface 

PH (61,197acres) would be 

closed to fluid mineral leasing, 

protecting soil resources in these 

Impacts from closing fluid 

minerals would be similar to 

Alternative B, but would apply to 

Applying NSO stipulations on PH

(61,197 acres) would protect soil 

resources from surface 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

2-56 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 2-5

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D(Agency Preferred)

disturbance in the 9,780 acres 

where NSO stipulations would 

be applied and the 21,235 acres 

where CSU stipulations would be 

applied.

Approximately 816 acres of 

short-term disturbance and 548 

acres of long-term disturbance 

on BLM-administered lands. 

However, limited reasonably 

foreseeable development of oil 

and gas would result in minimal 

impacts on soils.

areas from surface disturbance 

and compaction.

Approximately 624 acres of 

short-term disturbance and 476 

acres of long-term disturbance 

on BLM-administered lands. 

However, limited reasonably 

foreseeable development of oil 

and gas would result in minimal 

impacts on soils.

both PH and GH (66,293 acres).

Approximately 621 acres of 

short-term disturbance and 475 

acres of long-term disturbance 

on BLM-administered lands. 

However, limited reasonably 

foreseeable development of oil 

and gas would result in minimal 

impacts on soils.

disturbance and compaction.

Approximately 767 acres of 

short-term disturbance and 530 

acres of long-term disturbance 

on BLM-administered lands. 

However, limited reasonably 

foreseeable development of oil 

and gas would result in minimal 

impacts on soils.

WATER RESOURCES

Erosion into waterways could 

occur as a result of grazing; 

however, implementing and 

meeting the Standards for 

Rangeland Health and Guidelines 

would minimize these impacts.

Incorporating GRSG habitat 

objectives and management 

considerations into livestock 

grazing management could 

reduce, but would not eliminate, 

impacts from grazing on water 

resources. Impacts would be 

similar to Alternative A.

Reduced grazing AUMs could 

increase the potential for cleaner 

surface flows into waterways and 

improve access to water sources.

Impacts would be similar to 

Alternative B.

Restrictions on fluid mineral

leasing would protect water 

resources from potential erosion 

and contamination in the 9,780 

acres where NSO stipulations 

would be applied and the 21,235 

acres where CSU stipulations 

PH (32,900 acres) would be 

closed to fluid mineral leasing, 

protecting water resources in 

these areas from potential 

erosion and contamination.

Approximately 624 acres of 

short-term disturbance and 476 

Impacts from closing fluid 

minerals would be similar to 

Alternative B, but would apply to 

both PH and GH (32,980 acres).

Approximately 621 acres of 

short-term disturbance and 475 

acres of long-term disturbance 

Applying NSO stipulations on PH

(61,197 acres) would protect 

water resources from potential 

erosion and contamination.

Approximately 767 acres of

short-term disturbance and 530 

acres of long-term disturbance 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-57

Table 2-5

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D(Agency Preferred)

would be applied.

Approximately 816 acres of 

short-term disturbance and 548 

acres of long-term disturbance 

on BLM-administered lands. 

However, limited reasonably 

foreseeable development of oil 

and gas would result in minimal 

impacts on water resources.

acres of long-term disturbance 

on BLM-administered lands. 

However, limited reasonably 

foreseeable development of oil 

and gas would result in minimal 

impacts on water resources.

on BLM-administered lands. 

However, limited reasonably 

foreseeable development of oil 

and gas would result in minimal 

impacts on water resources.

on BLM-administered lands. 

However, limited reasonably 

foreseeable development of oil 

and gas would result in minimal 

impacts on water resources.

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES – OTHER SPECIES OF ISSUE

No ROW exclusion or avoidance 

areas and few measures to 

preclude new land use 

authorizations from impacting 

species and habitat related to 

human disturbance and 

infrastructure.

ROW exclusion areas in PH

(32,900 acres) would preclude 

future impacts from human 

disturbance and infrastructure in 

these areas from development. 

ROW avoidance areas in GH (80 

acres) would likely reduce these 

types of impacts in these areas.

ROW exclusion areas in PH and 

GH (32,980 acres) would 

preclude future impacts from 

human disturbance and 

infrastructure in these areas.

ROW avoidance areas in PH and 

GH (32,980 acres) (except for 

managing wind energy as ROW 

exclusion in PH) would reduce 

future impacts from human 

disturbance and infrastructure 

from development in these areas.

Managing vegetation and 

sagebrush communities by 

Rangeland Health Standards, and 

managing riparian areas for PFC

would reduce special status 

species habitat alteration by 

livestock.

Incorporating GRSG habitat 

objectives and management 

considerations into livestock 

grazing management would 

reduce, but would not eliminate, 

impacts from grazing on 

vegetation communities. These 

efforts would also promote the 

health of potential habitats, 

including sagebrush steppe, 

riparian areas, and wet meadows.

Grazing AUMs would be reduced 

to increase herbaceous cover for 

GRSG benefit. Livestock use of 

riparian zones would be limited 

to maintain PFC and benefit 

special status species habitat. The 

reduction in grazing AUMs could 

reduce rangeland health by 

facilitating fuel buildup.

Impacts from grazing would be 

similar to Alternative B, though 

increased management flexibility 

under this alternative may 

improve habitat conditions by 

targeting those areas that need 

most protection.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

2-58 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 2-5

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D(Agency Preferred)

Impacts could continue to occur 

on 73,435 acres where BLMadministered surface lands and 

split -estate would be open to 

fluid mineral leasing. Of these, 

19,569 acres of Sprague’s pipit 

distribution would be open to 

fluid mineral leasing. Impacts 

would be reduced on BLMadministered and split estate

lands where NSO (9,780 acres), 

CSU (21,235 acres), or TL

(38,504 acres) constraints would 

be applied. NSO and/or CSU 

would be applied on 31,014 acres 

of Sprague’s pipit distribution.

61,197 acres of BLMadministered and split-estate 

lands would be closed to fluid 

mineral leasing and conservation 

measures would be applied on 

leased fluid mineral estate and 

split-estate lands. These actions 

would reduce the likelihood and 

extent of impacts on the 

distribution of Sprague’s pipit 

caused by fluid mineral 

development.

66,293 acres, all of which would 

be Sprague’s pipit distribution, 

would be closed to fluid mineral

leasing and conservation 

measures would be applied on 

leased fluid mineral estate and 

split estate lands. These actions 

would reduce the likelihood and 

extent of impacts caused by fluid 

mineral development.

No lands would be closed to fluid 

mineral leasing, but 61,197 acres, 

all of which is Sprague’s pipit 

distribution, would be open to 

leasing, subject to an NSO

stipulation. The BLM would apply 

CSU and TL stipulations on the 

same GH areas as Alternative A. 

In addition, a number of 

operational constraints would be 

applied to existing leases as 

COAs in PH, which would 

reduce impacts on other special 

status species in these areas.

Fire and fuels management would 

not specifically protect sagebrush 

vegetation, although prescribed 

burning may be used where 

appropriate in support of 

resource management objectives, 

including improving special status 

species habitat condition.

Proposed modifications to fire 

and fuel management in PH

(32,900 acres) would result in an 

increase in the protection of 

sagebrush vegetation and would 

thereby protect habitat for 

species that rely on this habitat.

Impacts from proposed 

modifications to fire and fuel 

management would be similar to 

Alternative B but would occur 

over a larger area, both PH and 

GH (32,980 acres).

Impacts from proposed 

modifications to fire and fuel 

management would be similar to 

Alternative B; however, fuels 

management projects in PH

would be designed to 

incorporate greater flexibility to 

maximize the acreage protected.

Application of Integrated 

Vegetation Management 

Handbook policies would 

improve vegetation management 

in sagebrush habitat, thereby 

likely improving habitat 

Requiring the use of native seeds, 

designing post-restoration 

management to ensure the longterm persistence of the 

restoration efforts, considering 

changes in climate, and 

Impacts from habitat restoration 

and vegetation management 

would be similar to Alternative B 

but would occur over a larger 

area, both PH and GH.

Impacts from habitat restoration 

and vegetation management 

would be similar to Alternative B; 

however, consideration of other 

threatened, endangered, or 

sensitive species may change the 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-59

Table 2-5

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D(Agency Preferred)

conditions in these areas. monitoring and controlling 

invasive species would habitat 

conditions in these areas.

proportions of vegetation 

communities and habitat that 

would be protected in certain 

instances.

RENEWABLE ENERGY

0 acres of lands with “Good” or 

better wind potential would be 

affected by ROW exclusion or 

avoidance areas. All lands with 

such potential would continue to 

be open for ROW applications 

on a case-by-case basis, and there 

would continue to be no 

restrictions from ROW 

allocations on wind energy 

development.

32,900 acres would be managed 

as ROW exclusion, and 80 acres 

would be managed as ROW 

avoidance, including 3,606 acres 

considered to have “Good” or 

better wind potential. As a result, 

97%of lands with “Good” or 

better wind potential that are 

open for ROW applications 

under Alternative A would 

become exclusion or avoidance 

areas under Alternative B, likely 

precluding wind energy 

development on BLMadministered lands.

32,980 acres would be managed 

as ROW exclusion areas and 

would not be open for ROW 

applications (no areas would be 

managed as ROW avoidance). 

Within this ROW exclusion area, 

3,686 of these acres are 

considered to have “Good” or 

better wind potential. As a result, 

99%of lands with “Good” or 

better wind potential that are 

open for ROW applications 

under Alternative A would 

become exclusion areas under 

Alternative C, likely precluding 

wind energy development on 

BLM-administered lands.

Impacts would be the same as 

Alternative B.

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

Existing contributions from oil 

and gas development on federal 

mineral estate in the decision 

area would continue. Effects from 

levels of production and 

anticipated levels of exploration 

and development would support 

Existing development would 

enable current contributions to 

continue from oil and gas 

development on federal mineral 

estate in the decision area. 

However, future development 

within PH found on unleased 

Existing development would

enable current contributions to 

continue from oil and gas 

development on federal mineral 

estate in the decision area. 

Future development of unleased 

federal mineral estate would be 

Existing development would 

enable current contributions to 

continue from oil and gas 

development on federal mineral 

estate in the decision area. 

However, NSO stipulations 

within PH would apply to future 
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

2-60 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 2-5

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D(Agency Preferred)

approximately 116 jobs and $4 

million in labor income.

Use of allocated forage on 

allotments in the planning area 

would continue to generate an 

estimated 10 jobs (direct, 

indirect, and induced) and 

$113,000 in labor income (direct, 

indirect, and induced) on an 

average annual basis within the 

three-county impact area 

economy (Bowman, Golden 

Valley, and Slope Counties). This 

figure includes direct 

contributions of seven jobs, 

which would comprise about 

5.6% of employment in this 

agricultural economic sector for 

the area.

federal mineral estate with high 

potential would not occur since 

all federal mineral estate within 

PH would be closed to fluid 

mineral leasing. Effects from 

levels of production and 

anticipated levels of exploration 

and development would support 

approximately 114 jobs and $4 

million in labor income.

Impacts from grazing would be 

the same as under Alternative A.

restricted on PH as described in 

Alterative B. Restrictions would 

also be applied to GH; therefore, 

limitations on future 

development would be similar to 

those described in Alternatives B, 

but increased in intensity. Effects 

from levels of production and 

anticipated levels of exploration 

and development would support 

approximately 114 jobs and $4 

million in labor income.

Reducing AUMs by 50% on all 

allotments within the Big Gumbo 

area would decrease employment 

from 10 to 6 total jobs (direct, 

indirect, and induced), and 

decrease labor income from 

$113,000 to $73,000 (direct, 

indirect, and induced) on an 

average annual basis within the 

impact area economy. This 

estimate includes a direct 

employment decrease from seven

jobs to four jobs, which would 

correspond to a decrease from 

5.6 to 3.4% of employment in this 

sector.

leases and would preclude 

economic benefits from future 

development. Effects from levels 

of production and anticipated 

levels of exploration and 

development would support 

approximately 115 jobs and $4 

million in labor income.

Impacts from grazing would be 

the same as under Alternative A.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 2-61

Table 2-5

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences1

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D(Agency Preferred)

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

While minority and low-income populations exist in the area, the alternatives are not expected to have a disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects on these communities. Impacts on local communities are expected to be negligible, and there is no 

reason to suspect that any impacts would disproportionately affect minority and low income populations.
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives (Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences)

2-62 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 3

Affected Environment

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-1

CHAPTER 3

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter succinctly documents the existing conditions and trends of 

resources in the planning area that may be affected by implementing any of the 

proposed alternatives described in Chapter 2, Proposed Action and 

Alternatives. The affected environment chapter provides the context for 

assessing potential impacts as described in Chapter 4, Environmental 

Consequences.

The planning area for the North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS is 

composed of BLM, Forest Service, State of North Dakota, USFWS, and private 

lands (refer to Table 1-1) in Bowmen, Slope, and Golden Valley Counties in 

southwestern North Dakota. A map of the planning area is provided as Figure 

1-1 in Appendix A.

Though the planning area includes private lands, decisions are only made for 

BLM federal surface and federal minerals in this amendment. Management 

direction and actions outlined in this EIS apply only to these BLM-administered 

lands in the planning area and to federal mineral estate under BLM jurisdiction 

that may lie beneath other surface ownership.

3.2 ORGANIZATION OF CHAPTER 3

This chapter contains sections describing the biological, physical, and human 

resources of the planning area affected by implementing the alternatives outlined 

in this EIS. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would result in 

general and unquantifiable indirect beneficial effects for the following resource 

programs in terms of greater protection through new restrictions on surface 

and resource use resulting in reduced opportunities for surface disturbance or 

habitat disruption where they exist:

• Fish and Wildlife (other than Special Status Species)
3. Affected Environment (Organization of Chapter 3)

3-2 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

• Visual Resources

• Cultural Resources

• Paleontological Resources

For further information on the affected environment of these resources and 

programs, please refer to the Affected Environment sections of the North 

Dakota RMP being amended by this North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse 

RMPA/EIS.

The following critical elements of the human environment and resources are 

specifically addressed in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 of the North Dakota 

Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS.

• Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse

• Lands and Realty

• Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands)

• Wildland Fire Management and Ecology

• Fluid Minerals

• Coal

• Locatable Minerals

• Mineral Materials

• Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management

• Recreation

• Range Management

• Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

• Air Resources

• Climate

• Soil Resources

• Water Resources

• Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue

• Renewable Energy

• Social and Economic Conditions

• Environmental Justice

Each of the above resource sections in this chapter contains a discussion 

existing conditions and trends:
3. Affected Environment (Organization of Chapter 3)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-3

• Existing conditions describe the location, extent, and current 

condition of the resource in the planning area in general and on 

BLM-administered lands. Conditions for a resource can vary, 

depending on the resource. For each resource, a general 

description of the existing conditions is provided for the planning 

area, regardless of land status. This is done to provide a regional 

context for the resource. Then, a more detailed description of the 

existing conditions is provided for the BLM-administered lands 

managed according to the North Dakota RMP. This is done to 

provide an area-specific description of the existing conditions for 

the resource. When possible, greater emphasis is placed on 

describing the existing conditions of the resource as it pertains to 

GRSG and their habitat.

• Trends identify the degree and direction of resource change 

between the present and some point in the past. If there is change, 

the degree and direction of resource change is characterized as 

moving toward or away from the current desired condition and the 

reasons for the change are identified. Trends can be described in 

quantitative or qualitative terms. Identifying the trends is done to 

provide an understanding of how BLM management influences the 

desired condition of the resource over time. It can be difficult to 

analyze trends for certain resources, because changes to the 

resource often occur due to factors beyond the control of the BLM.

The BLM reviewed the North Dakota RMP and other relevant information 

sources (such as maps and state GRSG conservation assessments) for existing 

conditions and trends for the resources listed above with respect to GRSG and 

their habitat. This affected environment information is summarized below and, 

where appropriate, noted when the information is incorporated by reference.

Data from GIS have been used in developing acreage calculations and for 

generating many of the figures. Calculations in this EIS are rounded and are 

dependent upon the quality and availability of data. Data were collected from a 

variety of sources, including the BLM, collaborative partners, stakeholders, and 

cooperating agencies. Given the scale of the analysis, the compatibility 

constraints between datasets, and lack of data for some resources, all 

calculations are approximate and serve for comparison and analytic purposes 

only. Likewise, the figures are provided for illustrative purposes and subject to 

the limitations discussed above. The BLM may receive additional GIS data; 

therefore, the acreages may be recalculated and revised at a later date.

3.2.1 WAFWA Management Zone Data

To augment this planning document at a biologically meaningful scale for GRSG, 

a Baseline Environmental Report of GRSG was produced by USGS for BLM

(Manier et al. 2013). The BER is a science support document that provides 

information to put planning units and issues into the context of the larger 
3. Affected Environment (Organization of Chapter 3)

3-4 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

WAFWA Sage-Grouse Management Zones. The BER examines each threat 

identified in the USFWS’s listing decision published on March 15, 2010. For each 

threat, the report summarizes the current, scientific understanding of various 

impacts to GRSG populations and habitats. When available, patterns, thresholds, 

indicators, metrics, and measured responses that quantify the impacts of each 

specific threat are reported.

As described in Chapter 1, the planning area for the North Dakota Greater 

Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS is located in WAFWA MZ I (Stiver et al. 2006). Data 

from the BER are presented throughout this chapter to illuminate the location 

(e.g., PPH and PGH), magnitude, and extent of the threats within WAFWA MZ I

that comprises the planning area. Because the BER focuses on threats to GRSG

at the WAFWA management zone scale, it provides biologically meaningful data 

for larger scale analyses. The BER data provided in Chapter 3 is considered in 

the WAFWA MZ 1 cumulative effects analysis for GRSG in Chapter 5.

The data and information included from the BER is the most accurate data

available from when the data was “frozen” in time for analysis purposes; 

however, these scenarios remain based in present knowledge. Spatial data 

informing the existing conditions were compiled to establish a consistent 

information basis across the entire region (GRSG Management Area), but in 

order to attain this consistently across state, ownership, and management 

boundaries some local data have been omitted; therefore, there may be 

inconsistencies between WAFWA-level and local planning-level data. As such, 

these data provide a regional baseline, suitable for guiding regional mid- to longterm analysis scenarios (Manier et al. 2013).

Chapter 3 also presents data that is available at a finer scale than used in the 

BER’s large-scale, WAFWA management zone focus. These fine-scale, local data 

are incorporated into the affected environment discussion to complement the 

BER’s data, characterize the relative contributions of threats in the planning area 

versus the WAFWA management zones, and to set the stage for the cumulative 

effects analysis for GRSG.

3.3 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES – GREATER SAGE-GROUSE

The BLM special status species are: (1) species listed or proposed for listing 

under the ESA, and (2) species requiring special management consideration to 

promote their conservation and reduce the likelihood and need for future listing 

under the ESA, which are designated as BLM sensitive by the state director(s). 

All federal candidate species, proposed species, and delisted species in the five

years following delisting will be managed as BLM sensitive species.

The BLM’s policy for special status species is to: 1) conserve and/or recover 

T&E species and the ecosystems on which they depend so that ESA protections 

are no longer needed, and 2), to initiate proactive conservation measures that 

reduce or eliminate threats to Bureau sensitive species to minimize the 

likelihood of and need for listing of these species under the ESA. The BLM 6840 
3. Affected Environment (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-5

Manual, Special Status Species Management (BLM 2008b), sets policy for the 

management of candidate species and their habitat. Candidate species are 

considered Bureau sensitive species. The 6840 manual directs BLM to undertake 

conservation actions for such species before listing is warranted and also to 

“work cooperatively with other agencies, organizations, governments, and 

interested parties for the conservation of sensitive species and their habitats to 

meet agreed on species and habitat management goals.” 

The BLM 6840 Policy requires that when the BLM engages in the planning 

process, land use plans, and implementation plans, that strategies, restrictions 

and management actions necessary to conserve and/or recover listed species, as 

well as provisions for the conservation of Bureau sensitive species are identified. 

The BLM 6840 policy also requires managers to determine to the extent 

practicable, the distribution, abundance, population condition, current threats, 

and habitat needs for sensitive species, and evaluate the significance of actions in 

conserving those species.

Historically, GRSG occurred in parts of 12 states within the western United 

States and three Canadian provinces; populations have declined throughout 

much of their former range and have been extirpated from fringe areas. Across 

their range, GRSG currently occupy 56 percent of their potential pre-settlement 

range, approximately 297 million acres (Schroeder et al. 2004). Current 

distributions of fringe populations, including North Dakota, are fragmented and 

increasingly disjunct from core regions of the distribution in the Great Basin and 

Colorado Plateau.

In response to petitions, USFWS first evaluated GRSG for listing in 2005 and 

determined listing was not warranted. In response to a 2007 court order, the 

agency again considered the GRSG and in 2010, USFWS concluded that that 

GRSG listing under the ESA was warranted range-wide but precluded by higher 

priority species (USFWS 2010).

In 2009, the BLM published management guidance for GRSG, Guidance for 

Greater Sage-Grouse Management and Conservation in Resource Management 

Plan Revisions in Management Zones 1 and 2 Within the Montana/Dakotas BLM

(IM MT-2010-017). This IM provided interim guidance for conserving GRSG on 

BLM-administered lands in these management zones during preparation of 

GRSG RMPAs.

The Conservation Objectives Team, a USFWS team of federal and state wildlife 

officials, was tasked with developing conservation objectives by defining the 

degree to which the threats need to be ameliorated to conserve the GRSG, so 

that it no longer is warranted for listing under the ESA. The COT report 

(USFWS 2013) was developed by this team. The report discusses GRSG

populations and sub-populations within each WAFWA management zone and 

describes the threats facing each population. This report was used to focus the 

analysis in Chapter 4 on the threats most likely to impact GRSG in North 
3. Affected Environment (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

3-6 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Dakota. According to the COT report, the known threats to GRSG in North 

Dakota that are present and widespread include isolation/small size, energy, and 

infrastructure (fire and mining are also listed as widespread; however, this is 

because the population also includes South Dakota where these threats are 

more likely to occur). Threats that are present but localized include elimination 

of sagebrush, agricultural conversion, weeds/annual grasses, and grazing (USFWS 

2013).

The BER was produced by the USGS in cooperation with BLM, to summarize 

the science, activities, programs and policies influencing conservation of GRSG

across their range (Manier et al. 2013). It summarizes the available primary 

literature on each of the threats and their impact on GRSG and provides tables 

of the overlap of threats, such as oil and gas leases with PPH and PGH. North 

Dakota is evaluated as part of WAFWA MZ I. This management zone consists 

of four GRSG populations as identified by Garton et al. (2011), including the 

Dakotas, Northern Montana, Powder River Basin, and Yellowstone Watershed

populations. PPH areas for North Dakota can be seen in Figure 3-1, North 

Dakota Preliminary Sage-Grouse Habitat, in Appendix A.

The NTT was established by BLM to coordinate effective management actions 

based on best available science for GRSG conservation and restoration. A Report 

on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures (NTT 2011) includes a 

discussion of threats and recommended BLM management actions for each.

3.3.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

GRSG numbers are small and the population is considered to be at high risk in 

North Dakota. The population is characterized by low recruitment during 

brood rearing, due to predation and disease (Kazcor 2008; Swanson 2009). 

Declines in the planning area are most likely due to cumulative effects of 

influences including, but not limited to, oil and gas development, conversion of 

native rangeland to cropland, and over-grazing in localized areas (USFWS 2013, 

pg. 63).

Privately-owned lands make up 66 percent of sagebrush, with BLM-administered 

land making up 17 percent (Knick 2011). Sagebrush cover is naturally limited in 

this region due to the preponderance of grassland ecosystems, and, with 

agricultural pressure and energy production, results in substantial habitat 

limitations for GRSG populations.

Availability of Sagebrush Habitat (Broad- and Mid-Scale Indicator)

The distribution of GRSG is closely aligned with the distribution of sagebrushdominated landscapes (Schroeder et al. 2004). GRSG require large, intact and 

connected expanses of sagebrush shrubland to exist (Aldridge et al. 2008; 

Wisdom et al. 2011).

IM No. 2012-044 (BLM 2011b) directs the BLM to collaborate with state wildlife 

agencies to identify and map two categories of GRSG habitat:
3. Affected Environment (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-7

• PPH: Areas that have been identified as having the highest 

conservation value to maintaining sustainable GRSG populations. 

These areas would include breeding, late brood-rearing, and winter 

concentration areas; and

• PGH: Areas of occupied seasonal or year-round habitat outside of 

priority habitat.

For North Dakota, the BLM and NDGFD worked together to map GRSG

habitat, completed in May 2012. PPH and PGH were delineated as follows:

Preliminary Priority Habitat

GRSG leks were buffered by 5.3 miles to map PPH. A 4-mile buffer would 

include approximately 80 percent of nesting GRSG hens; therefore, the 5.3 mile 

buffer captured 100 percent of the collared nesting hens, and consequently, 

almost all the habitat (a small amount of habitat was left on the southeast 

corner, but no leks nearby) (Herman-Brunson 2007). Buffering leks produced 

“bubbles” of PPH, and these boundaries were “softened” to form the northern 

and eastern edge of PPH. The western and southern boundaries are the states 

of Montana and South Dakota, respectively.

Preliminary General Habitat

The PGH for North Dakota is what remained for habitat on the eastern portion 

of the bird’s range; this is the historic range for GRSG. There are no GRSG leks

in the PGH area, but birds occasionally use it. There is very little BLM surface 

ownership in PGH (80 acres); however, there are federal subsurface minerals.

Acres of PPH and PGH within the planning area are presented in Table 3-1, 

Preliminary Priority Habitat and Preliminary General Habitat Occurring on BLMAdministered Lands and non-BLM Lands in the Planning Area. Specific 

information on roads, mineral leasing, and other infrastructure in GRSG habitat 

are included in the topic sections of Chapter 3.

Table 3-1

Preliminary Priority Habitat and Preliminary General Habitat Occurring 

on BLM-Administered Lands and non-BLM Lands in the Planning Area

Lands PPH

(acres)

PGH

(acres)

Outside GRSG

Habitat

(acres)

BLM-administered lands 32,900 80 50

Non-BLM-administered lands 428,170 242,221 259,596

Total Planning Area 461,070 242,301 259,646

Source: BLM 2012a
3. Affected Environment (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

3-8 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

GRSG occur primarily in the southwestern area of the planning region where 

shrubland, steppe, and savanna systems are present. This area has been 

designated as PPH because it has been identified as having the highest 

conservation value to maintaining sustainable GRSG populations in North 

Dakota. GRSG also occur in a halo around the PPH, in the regions that are 

characterized by grassland systems and human use, and designated as PGH. 

Within the planning area, there were 12 active leks in 2012 (NDGFD 2012a); 

leks are key spring activity areas for mating and nesting and are most often 

located in open areas surrounded by sagebrush cover.

The Dakotas’ population of GRSG occurs on the far eastern edge of the species’ 

range, consisting of approximately 800 square miles in North Dakota (HermanBrunson 2007). See Figure 3-2, Greater Sage-Grouse Distribution and 

Preliminary Priority Habitat, in Appendix A. Though contiguous with 

populations in Montana, this population is small and considered to be at high 

risk. The minimum male count for this population was reported at 587 and the 

study estimated a 66 percent chance that this population would dip below 200 

males in the next 100 years (Garton et al. 2011). Population counts in 2012 for 

North and South Dakota were approximately 300 males. The Dakotas’ territory 

is heavily influenced by oil and gas development and conversion of native 

rangeland to cropland. Over-grazing in localized areas has reduced herbaceous 

understory cover, which can reduce nesting success (USFWS 2013, pg. 46).

Connectivity of Habitat Patches (Mid-Scale Indicator)

While the amount of habitat available to GRSG is very important, habitat 

pattern is just as critical to long-term survival of the species. Fragmentation of 

habitat into smaller patches can result in extirpation of local GRSG populations 

when functional connectivity among patches is lost. Leks separated by distances 

greater than 11 miles could be isolated due to decreased probability of 

dispersals from neighboring leks. Isolation and reduced connectivity increases 

the probability of loss of genetic diversity and extirpation from random events 

(Knick and Hanser 2011).

There is little information available regarding minimum sagebrush patch sizes 

required to support populations of GRSG. This is due in part to the migratory 

nature of some but not all GRSG populations, the lack of juxtaposition of 

seasonal habitats, and differences in local, regional, and range-wide ecological 

conditions that influence the distribution of sagebrush and associated 

understories. Where home ranges have been reported, they are extremely 

variable (1.5 to 238 square miles) (Connelly et al. 2011a).

GRSG populations may be nonmigratory or migratory, moving between or 

among seasonal use areas (Connelly et al. 2011a). GRSG in North Dakota are 

generally nonmigratory, though current research has found some localized 

movements west into Montana (Swanson 2009). The Dakotas’ population 

occurs on the far eastern edge of GRSG range and is considered small and at 
3. Affected Environment (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-9

high risk (USFWS 2013, pg. 46). GRSG are thought to move east and west 

between the Dakotas and Montana, with Montana providing seasonal habitat for

birds from North Dakota, a likely conduit for genetic connectivity with the 

Montana and Dakotas populations (USFWS 2013, pg. 46).

Landscape Matrix and Edge Effect (Mid-Scale Indicator)

GRSG typically occupy sagebrush vegetation but may also use a variety of other 

habitats (e.g., riparian meadows, agricultural lands) intermixed in a sagebrushdominated landscape. Aldridge and Boyce (2007) found GRSG selected large 

expanses of sagebrush and avoided anthropogenic edges during the breeding 

season. Thus, the viability of fragmented habitat for GRSG is dependent upon 

the juxtaposition of these habitats in relation to sagebrush and the hazards to 

birds using these areas (Connelly et al. 2011b). Edge effects are significant 

elements of the threat posed by infrastructure and energy development to 

GRSG populations.

Anthropogenic Disturbances (Broad- and Mid-Scale Indicator)

Comparing environmental conditions and levels of human disturbance on areas 

of former range (extirpated range) with areas still occupied by GRSG (occupied 

range), Wisdom et al. (2011) identified five key factors most likely to lead to 

extirpation of local populations: sagebrush area, elevation, distance to 

transmission lines, distance to cellular towers, and land ownership. Land 

ownership was a surrogate for conversion of private lands to non-sagebrush 

land uses that have reduced habitat availability and fragmented remaining 

sagebrush habitat nearby. In North Dakota, conversion of sagebrush to 

croplands has been an important threat to GRSG populations (USFWS 2013, pg. 

63). Lek abandonment was most likely to occur in areas with over 25 percent 

cultivated cropland within 18 miles of the lek (Aldridge et al. 2008).

As discussed below in Section 3.4, Lands and Realty, approximately 500 miles 

of transmission lines are present in PPH on BLM-administered and National 

Forest System land in the planning area, and approximately 9,800 miles on 

private and state lands in the planning area. Transmission lines, in addition to 

reducing habitat suitability and increasing fragmentation (Ellis 1985), can cause 

GRSG mortality through bird collisions with lines (Beck et al. 2006) and facilitate 

raptor predation of GRSG. Transmission structures and communication towers 

may also provide nesting sites for corvids and raptors in habitats with low 

vegetation and relatively flat terrain (Ellis 1984; Steenhof et al. 1993; Johnson et 

al. 2011). Lek count trends tend to be lower on leks within three miles of 

interstate highways (trend lines are lower compared to trend lines for leks 

located greater than three miles) (Johnson et al. 2011) but no apparent 

relationship has been found between lek count trends and the presence of 

secondary roads (Aldridge et al. 2008). 

As discussed below in Section 3.7, Fluid Minerals, approximately 26,000 acres 

of oil and gas leases are present in PPH on BLM-administered land, and 
3. Affected Environment (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

3-10 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

approximately 16,500 acres on state or private land. Generally, oil and gas 

developments within two to four miles of leks and/or nesting areas had 

deleterious effect on populations, with the effect increasing with increasing well 

density (Lyon and Anderson 2003; Walker et al. 2007; Johnson et al. 2011).

Paved roads exist in most sagebrush regions in densities up to approximately

1.25 miles per 100 acres; less than five percent of the GRSG range is more than 

1.5 miles from a paved road. Indirectly, interstates and major highways 

potentially influence more than 95 percent of priority habitats throughout the 

range of the species. A large proportion of these roads exist as ROWs on public 

lands, including 55 percent of BLM-administered PPH (Manier et al. 2013, pg. 

31). In the planning area, as discussed below in Section 3.11, Comprehensive 

Travel and Transportation Management, approximately 180 miles of roads 

(paved or unimproved) are present in PPH on BLM-administered and National 

Forest System land, and approximately 760 miles are on private and state lands.

Population and Leks (Mid- and Fine-scale Indicator)

NDGFD monitors 52 lek sites in North Dakota annually (NDGFD 2012a). The

lek data for 2012 show that there were 12 active leks with 72 males present in 

the planning area. Eight of these leks showed a decline in number of males from 

the previous year, while four showed an increase or no change.

3.3.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

Acres of PPH and PGH on BLM-administered lands within the planning area are 

presented in Table 3-1, along with acres on non-BLM-administered lands. BLMadministered and private lands exist in close proximity and conditions on BLMadministered lands are similar to those on non-BLM-administered lands, as 

discussed in Section 3.3.1.

Population and Leks

NDGFD monitors five lek sites in North Dakota on BLM-administered land

(NDGFD 2012a). Lek data from 2012 shows that three of these leks were 

active, with a total of 35 males present. One of the five leks showed a decline 

from 2011, two showed no change, and two showed an increase in use.

3.3.3 Trends

GRSG habitat is potentially being impacted by loss of habitat due to increased 

drilling for oil and gas, and other mineral development in North Dakota, 

particularly western Bowman County. Annual rates of change show a long-term 

population decline in North Dakota, averaging 2.79 percent annually in the past 

several decades (Herman-Brunson 2007). Studies have shown nest survival rates 

of approximately 30 percent (Herman-Brunson 2007, Swanson 2009). Lek data 

collected by the NDGFD show overall declines in GRSG numbers from 299 in 

1982 to 72 in 2012, a decline of 76 percent; the number of males per lek (16.5 

in 1982, compared to six in 2012, a decline of 64 percent); and the number of 

active leks (23 to 12) in the planning area (NDGFD 2012a).
3. Affected Environment (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-11

As discussed above, GRSG in North Dakota are few in number and the 

population is considered to be at high risk (USFWS 2013). Small populations are 

at higher risk of decline from habitat loss and fragmentation, primarily due to 

conversion to agriculture. Small populations also are more vulnerable to 

isolation, predation and disease, primarily West Nile virus, and degradation of 

habitat from oil and gas development, over-grazing, and other factors. The 

GRSG population in North Dakota is characterized by low recruitment during 

brood rearing (30 to 40 percent chick survival) primarily from predation and 

West Nile virus (Kazcor 2008; Swanson 2009). Threats to GRSG are discussed 

in more detail in Chapter 4.

3.4 LANDS AND REALTY

Lands and realty actions can be divided between land use authorizations and 

land tenure adjustments. Land use authorizations consist of ROWs, utility 

corridors, communication sites, and other leases or permits, while land tenure 

adjustments focus primarily on land exchange, acquisition (including purchase 

and easement acquisition), and disposal. Management and adjustment of 

withdrawals focuses on the establishment, management, modification, and 

revocation of withdrawals.

Land Use Authorizations

The most common form of authorization to permit uses of BLM-administered 

lands by commercial, private, or governmental entities is the ROW. A ROW 

grant is an authorization to use a specific piece of public land for certain projects 

(such as roads, pipelines, transmission lines, and communication sites). The grant 

authorizes rights and privileges for a specific use of the land for a specific period 

of time.

It is the BLM's objective to grant ROWs to any qualified individual, business, or 

government entity, and to direct and control the use of ROWs on BLMadministered lands in a manner that: 

• protects the natural resources associated with BLM-administered

lands and adjacent lands, whether private or administered by a 

government entity

• prevents unnecessary or undue degradation to BLM-administered

lands

• promotes the use of ROWs in common, considering engineering 

and technological compatibility, national security, and area RMPs

• coordinates, to the fullest extent possible, all BLM actions with 

local, state, Native American tribal, and other federal agencies; 

interested individuals; and appropriate quasi-public entities (43 CFR 

2801.2). 
3. Affected Environment (Lands and Realty)

3-12 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Some uses of BLM-administered lands are authorized through land use longterm land uses, and permits are used to authorize short-term uses. Private 

individuals and groups, as well as various businesses and government entities can 

hold these authorizations.

To the extent possible, linear ROWs such as roads and pipelines are routed 

where impacts would be least disturbing to environmental resources, taking into 

account point of origin, point of destination, and purpose and need of the 

project. The ROWs are issued with surface reclamation stipulations and other 

mitigation measures. Restrictions and mitigation measures may be modified on a 

case-by-case basis, depending upon impacts on resources. In general, the 

placement of major linear facilities depends upon meeting the following location 

criteria:

• concentrate linear facilities within, or contiguous to, existing 

corridors, where possible

• avoid locations that would take intensively managed forest land out 

of production

• avoid locations that would harass livestock or wildlife

• avoid steep topography, poor soils, or other fragile areas (such as 

T&E habitats)

• avoid cultural sites that are listed on, or are eligible for listing on, 

the National Register of Historic Places

The BLM does not require a ROW authorization in circumstances where 

actions are tied to leases that are part of a unit. For example, a fluid mineral

leaseholder wanting to install a pipeline within a unitized area would be exempt 

from acquiring a ROW authorization as long as the pipeline is contained in the 

unit. There are 24,842 acres of unitized areas in the decision area. 

Land Tenure Adjustments

Land ownership (or land tenure) adjustment refers to those actions that result 

in the disposal of public land, or the acquisition by the BLM of nonfederal lands 

or interests in land. The FLPMA requires that public land be retained in public 

ownership unless, as a result of land use planning, disposal of certain parcels is 

warranted. Tracts of land that are designated in BLM land use plans as 

potentially available for disposal can be conveyed out of federal ownership 

through an exchange or a sale. Acquisition of and interests in lands are 

important components of the BLM’s land tenure adjustment strategy.

Withdrawals

Withdrawals are used to preserve sensitive environmental values, protect major 

federal investments in facilities, support national security, and provide for public 

health and safety. A withdrawal is a formal action that accomplishes one or 

more of the following actions:
3. Affected Environment (Lands and Realty)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-13

• Transfers total or partial jurisdiction of federal land between federal 

agencies

• Segregates (closes) federal public lands to appropriation under 

public land laws including mineral laws

• Dedicates public land for a specific public purpose

There are three major categories of formal withdrawals: (1) congressional 

withdrawals, (2) administrative withdrawals, and (3) Federal Power Act or 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission withdrawals. Withdrawal segregates a 

portion of public lands and suspends certain operations of the public land laws, 

such as mining claims. Certain stock driveways are also withdrawn. Federal 

policy now restricts all withdrawals to the minimum time and acreage required 

to serve the public interest, maximize the use of withdrawn lands consistent 

with their primary purpose, and eliminate all withdrawals that are no longer 

needed.

3.4.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

The planning area contains lands owned or administered by the BLM, other 

federal agencies (e.g., Forest Service and USFWS), various state agencies, and 

private land owners. Table 3-2, Surface Ownership within the Planning Area, 

shows the acreage and overall percent ownership for each land owner in the 

planning area. Also see Figure 3-3, Surface and Mineral Management Status, in 

Appendix A.

Table 3-2

Surface Ownership within the Planning Area

Surface Ownership Planning Area 

(acres)

PPH

(acres)

PGH

(acres)

BLM-administered lands 33,030 32,900 99.6% 80 >1%

Forest Service 140,432 66,549 47% 29,863 21%

USFWS 638 0 0% 0 0%

State Lands 40,894 21,550 53% 10,871 27%

Private 741,607 335,322 45% 201,016 27%

Water 6,416 4,749 74% 471 7%

Total Planning Area 963,017 461,070 48% 242,301 25%

Source: BLM 2012a

1 Planning area acres includes additional acres that are not PPH or PGH on BLM-administered lands.
3. Affected Environment (Lands and Realty)

3-14 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

WAFWA Management Zone 1

Table 3-3, GRSG Habitat within City Limits, through Table 3-7, Wind 

Turbines within GRSG Habitat, display data compiled in a BER produced by the 

USGS and BLM (Manier et al. 2013). In each table, data are presented by surface 

management agency and their occurrence within PGH and PPH in the planning 

area and in MZ I. The data and information included from the BER is the most 

accurate data available from when the data was “frozen” in time for analysis 

purposes; however, these scenarios remain based in present knowledge. Spatial 

data informing the existing conditions were compiled to establish a consistent 

information basis across the entire region (GRSG Management Area), but in 

order to attain this consistently across state, ownership, and management 

boundaries some local data have been omitted; therefore, there may be 

inconsistencies between WAFWA-level and local planning-level data. As such, 

these data provide a regional baseline, suitable for guiding regional mid- to longterm analysis scenarios (Manier et al. 2013).

There are no utility corridors within the planning area (Manier et al. 2013).

Table 3-3

GRSG Habitat within City Limits

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Total Acres Acres within PGH Acres within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 Planning Area MZ I Planning Area MZ I

BLM 0 9,353 0 9,300 0 53

Forest Service 60 68 0 8 60 60

Tribal and Other 

Federal 0 200 0 200 0 0

Private 2,500 117,300 1,000 113,200 1,500 4,100

State 0 8,100 0 7,300 0 800

Other 0 6 0 0 0 6

Source: BLM 2012a

Table 3-4

Transmission Lines within GRSG Habitat 

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Total Acres1 Acres within PGH Acres within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 Planning Area MZ I Planning Area MZ I

BLM 200 42,800 0 35,500 200 7,300

Forest Service 300 8,600 0 7,300 300 1,300

Tribal and Other 

Federal 0 57,000 0 56,300 0 700
3. Affected Environment (Lands and Realty)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-15

Table 3-4

Transmission Lines within GRSG Habitat 

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Total Acres1 Acres within PGH Acres within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 Planning Area MZ I Planning Area MZ I

Private 16,000 511,100 6,700 452,600 9,300 58,500

State 500 45,900 0 37,800 500 8,100

Other 0 620 0 600 0 20

Source: BLM 2012a

1

Includes transmission lines greater than 115 kilovolts (kV) and assumes a 656-foot-wide footprint

Table 3-5

Communication Towers within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Total Number1 Number within 

PGH

Number within 

PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 Planning Area MZ I Planning Area MZ I

BLM 0 128 0 108 0 20

Forest Service 1 37 0 36 1 1

Tribal and Other 

Federal 0 167 0 167 0 0

Private 31 2,310 14 2,161 17 149

State 0 122 0 108 0 14

Other 0 10 0 10 0 0

Source: BLM 2012a

1

Displays the number of Federal Communication Commission communication towers.

Table 3-6

Vertical Obstructions within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Total Acres1 Acres within PGH Acres within PPH

Planning

Area MZ 1 Planning Area MZ I Planning Area MZ I

BLM 0 0 0 0 0 0

Forest Service 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tribal and Other 

Federal 0 7 0 7 0 0

Private 0 230 0 230 0 0
3. Affected Environment (Lands and Realty)

3-16 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 3-6

Vertical Obstructions within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Total Acres1 Acres within PGH Acres within PPH

Planning

Area MZ 1 Planning Area MZ I Planning Area MZ I

State 0 17 0 17 0 0

Other 0 15 0 15 0 0

Source: BLM 2012a

1

Derived from dataset containing Federal Communication Commission communication towers and 

Federal Aviation Administration vertical obstructions. Excludes wind towers. Assumes a buffer of 2.47 

acres around each obstruction.

Table 3-7

Wind Turbines within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Total Number1 Number within 

PGH

Number within 

PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 Planning Area MZ I Planning Area MZ I

BLM 0 62 0 35 0 27

Forest Service 0 41 0 21 0 20

Tribal and Other 

Federal 0 32 0 21 0 11

Private 132 80 0 45 17 35

State 0 62 0 34 0 28

Other 0 42 0 28 0 14

Source: BLM 2012a

1

Derived from Federal Aviation Administration data on wind towers. 2

Non-BER data; derived from MDU 2013

3.4.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

Land Use Authorizations

Within GRSG habitat, there are 368 acres of ROW authorizations in PPH and 

three acres in PGH. Table 3-8, Active ROW Authorizations within the 

Planning Area, provides a breakdown of ROW types and acres in each habitat 

type.

ROW Avoidance and Exclusion Areas

ROWs are issued with surface reclamation stipulations and other mitigation 

measures. Areas closed to mineral leasing, having a NSO restriction, or 

otherwise identified as unsuitable for surface disturbance or occupancy are 
3. Affected Environment (Lands and Realty)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-17

Table 3-8

Active ROW Authorizations within the Planning Area

Type 

PPH PGH

Number of 

Authorizations Size (Acres) Number of Authorizations Size (Acres)

Road 21 136

Power 45 122 1 3

Telephone 11 22

Water facilities 1 2

Oil and gas 33 86

Total 111 368 1 3

Source: BLM 2012a

generally identified as avoidance or exclusion areas for ROWs. Restrictions and 

mitigation measures could be modified on a case-by-case basis for avoidance 

areas, depending on impacts on resources, while exclusion areas are strictly 

prohibited from ROW development.

There is no ROW avoidance or exclusion areas within the planning area.

ROW Corridors and Communication Sites

Utility corridors are developed to concentrate the effects of utility lines in 

manageable locations on BLM-administered lands. The corridors may contain 

power lines, transcontinental fiber optic communication cables, and trans-state 

gas pipelines. There are no ROW corridors in the planning area.

Communication sites contain equipment for various public and private tenants, 

including phone companies; local utilities; and local, state, and other federal 

agencies. Communication site applications are granted through a realty lease 

authorization rather than ROW. There are no communication sites on BLMadministered lands.

Renewable Energy

Wind and solar resource facilities are permitted with ROWs, through the Lands 

and Realty Program. Geothermal resources are considered fluid leasable 

minerals. As a result, management actions related to the Lands and Realty 

Program and leasable minerals could affect renewable energy resources. Special 

management designation areas, such as ACECs, could also affect the use of 

renewable energy resources by limiting the location of these facilities. There are 

no active renewable energy ROW authorizations within the planning area. 

Section 3.20 provides a description of renewable energy resources.
3. Affected Environment (Lands and Realty)

3-18 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Land Tenure Adjustments

Disposal

There are approximately 3,436 acres of BLM-administered land identified for 

disposal in the planning area, including 3,306 acres in PPH and 80 acres in PGH. 

There are no pending land exchanges or sales within the planning area.

Withdrawal

There are no withdrawals in the planning area.

Acquisitions

There are no proposed acquisitions in the planning area.

3.4.3 Trends

Land use authorizations (primarily ROWs) are currently very active in the 

NDFO, but substantially less so within the planning area. Major projects include 

three major crude oil pipelines. These pipelines involve two or more federal 

agencies and cross Lake Sakakawea, which is outside the planning area. The 

NDFO also has proposals for two major gathering systems; however, these are 

also located outside the planning area. Demand for land use authorizations in 

the planning area may increase due to increased oil and gas development in 

other parts of the field office and the need for increased pipelines to move 

product to rail/market. The NDFO has no new requests for communication 

sites.

The BLM will process land exchanges, acquisitions, easements, and potential 

sales within the planning area on a case-by-case basis as staff and priority 

workload allow. As opportunities present themselves, each proposal will be 

reviewed and given careful consideration to management goals and public 

benefit. Currently, the land tenure program within the NDFO receives very few 

land tenure adjustment requests per year; it is anticipated that this program will 

continue to experience low levels of activity.

3.5 VEGETATION (INCLUDING NOXIOUS WEEDS; RIPARIAN AND WETLANDS)

Vegetation serves multiple purposes on the landscape and provides many 

ecosystem services. Vegetation stabilizes soils, prevents erosion, uses carbon 

dioxide, releases oxygen, increases species diversity, and provides habitat and 

food for animals and products for human use. Many of the BLM’s land 

management policies are directed toward maintenance of healthy vegetation 

communities. Vegetation can be characterized generally by ecological provinces 

and more specifically by plant communities. The ecological provinces and plant 

communities discussed below are those that provide the most important land 

cover across the planning area.
3. Affected Environment (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-19

3.5.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

All Vegetation

The planning area occurs within two Level III Ecoregions: Northwestern Great

Plains and Middle Rockies (EPA 2011a). Most of the planning area occurs within 

the Northwestern Great Plains ecoregion, which is characterized by semiarid 

rolling plains of shale, siltstone, and sandstone punctuated by occasional buttes 

and badlands. Rangeland is common, but spring wheat and alfalfa farming also 

occur; native grasslands persist in areas of steep or broken topography. 

Agriculture is restricted by the erratic precipitation and limited opportunities 

for irrigation (EPA 2010a).

The majority of the BLM-administered land in the planning area contains gentle 

rolling plains. Other areas, such as those around the Missouri River, contain 

rugged, eroded river breaks. Badlands, buttes, alluvial fans, river terraces, stream 

bottoms, and flat-topped benches are also present.

Annual precipitation ranges from 12 to 23 inches on the prairie. About 70 

percent of the rainfall occurs as high-intensity, convective thunderstorms during 

the growing season. Winter precipitation in the planning area is typically snow.

Major vegetation types in this area are grasslands, sagebrush grasslands, and 

juniper woodlands. Grasses tend to be a mixture of cool and warm season 

grasses common in the Northern Great Plains. Bunch grasses grow in distinct 

clumps and include species such as needlegrasses, little bluestem (Schizachyrium 

scoparium), junegrass (Koeleria spp.), and Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda). 

Rhizomatous grasses produce shoots from lateral root systems and grow as a 

continuous carpet of vegetation. Common rhizomatous grasses include western 

wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), thickspike wheatgrass (Elymus lanceolatus ssp. 

lanceolatus), and blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis).

The planning area contains numerous forbs and several species of cacti. The 

most common forb families are asters, legumes, and mustards. Several species of 

prickly pear cacti (Opuntia spp.) and two species of pin cushion cacti are present. 

Yucca (Yucca spp.) is common on loamy to sandy soils, especially on ridges and 

river breaks.

Common upland shrubs include big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), silver 

sagebrush (A. cana), and skunkbush sumac (Rhus trilobata). Less common upland

shrubs include rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa) and sand sagebrush 

(Artemisia filifolia). Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum) occurs as 

woodlands in the river breaks and can also be found scattered across steep 

slopes and ridges with loamy soils. A small part of the area can support forest 

vegetation characterized by oak (Quercus spp.) and aspen (Populus spp.). The 

flora of southwestern North Dakota is unique because it contains the only 

extensive population of big sagebrush in the state.
3. Affected Environment (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

3-20 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Riparian and Wetland

The term “riparian” is used here to include both lotic and lentic systems.

Wetlands, both lotic and lentic systems, typically provide wildlife with green 

forage, insects, and drinking water. Green forage is especially important for 

many wildlife species during the summer and fall when upland vegetation has 

dried out. Although riparian zones account for a very small proportion of the 

total acreage of the planning area, the structure, food, and water provided by 

these communities make them the most diverse and productive wildlife habitat 

within the planning area.

Riparian communities occur along the major watercourses in the planning area 

and in association with isolated springs, seeps, and smaller streams. Along the 

major waterways of the Missouri, Yellowstone, and Little Missouri rivers, these 

communities are dominated by various mixtures of cottonwood (Populus spp.) 

and willow (Salix spp.) species. Other vegetation within riparian areas includes 

chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), buffaloberry 

(Shepherdia spp.), and sandbar willow (Salix interior).

Lentic systems include other permanently wet or seasonably wet areas such as 

lakes, reservoirs, meadows, springs, and seeps. These areas are commonly found 

independently of defined stream channels and can occur in diverse landscape 

settings. Lentic systems are typically small but are extremely important 

ecologically. Within the planning area in Bowman County, the majority of 

wetlands are manmade.

The functioning condition of riparian and wetland areas is a result of the 

interaction of geology, soil, water, and vegetation (BLM 1998). PFC can be 

defined separately for lotic and lentic waters, as follows:

Lotic Waters

Lotic water is running water systems, such as rivers, streams, and springs. 

Riparian/wetland areas are functioning properly when adequate vegetation, 

landform, or large woody debris is present to:

• Dissipate stream energy associated with high waterflows, thereby 

reducing erosion and improving water quality;

• Filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development;

• Improve floodwater retention and groundwater recharge; develop 

root masses that stabilize streambanks against cutting action;

• Develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide the 

habitat, water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for fish 

production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses; and

• Support greater biodiversity. 
3. Affected Environment (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-21

Lentic waters

Lentic waters are standing water systems, such as lakes, ponds, seeps, bogs, and 

meadows. Lentic riparian/wetland areas are functioning properly when adequate 

vegetation, landform, or debris is present to:

• Dissipate energies associated with wind action, wave action, and 

overland flow from adjacent sites, thereby reducing erosion and 

improving water quality;

• Filter sediment and aid floodplain development;

• Improve flood water retention and groundwater recharge;

• Develop root masses that stabilize islands and shoreline features 

against cutting action;

• Restrict water percolation;

• Develop diverse ponding characteristics to provide the habitat and 

water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for fish 

production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses; and

• Support greater biodiversity

Riparian/wetland areas are classified as functional-at-risk when they are in 

functional condition but an existing soil, water, or vegetation attribute makes 

them susceptible to degradation. These areas are further distinguished based on 

whether or not they demonstrate an upward, static, or downward trend.

Riparian/wetland areas are classified as nonfunctional when they clearly are not 

providing adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris to dissipate 

stream energy associated with high flows, and thus are not reducing erosion, 

improving water quality, or providing other functions, as listed above.

Riparian/wetland areas are classified as being in unknown condition when the 

BLM lacks sufficient information to make a determination. PFC assessments 

completed on BLM-administered lands are described in Section 3.5.2, 

Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands.

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species

Noxious and invasive weeds compete with native vegetation for water, space, 

and nutrients. The State of North Dakota’s noxious weed list includes twelve 

species of weeds that are designated noxious by state law:

• Absinth wormwood (Artemisia absinthium)

• Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense)

• Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria genistifolia ssp. dalmatica)

• Diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa)
3. Affected Environment (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

3-22 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

• Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis)

• Leafy purge (Euphorbia esula)

• Musk thistle (Carduus nutans)

• Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria, Lythrum virgatum, and all 

cultivars)

• Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens)

• Salt cedar (Tamarix ramosissima, T. chinensis, and T. parviflora)

• Spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa)

• Yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis)

Invasive plants also occur within the planning area. These include not only 

noxious weeds, but also other plants that are not native to the United States.

The BLM considers plants invasive if they have been introduced into an 

environment where they did not evolve. As a result, they usually have no natural 

enemies to limit their reproduction and spread (Westbrooks 1998). Some 

invasive plants can produce significant changes to vegetation, composition, 

structure, or ecosystem function (Cronk and Fuller 1995). Common invasive 

vegetation includes smooth brome, crested wheatgrass, Kentucky bluegrass, 

dandelion, salsify, Japanese and downy brome, and cheatgrass.

3.5.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

All Vegetation

Acres of vegetation types within GRSG habitat on BLM-administered lands 

within the planning area are presented in Table 3-9, Vegetation Communities 

within GRSG Habitat on BLM-Administered Lands.

Table 3-9

Vegetation Communities within GRSG Habitat on BLM-Administered Lands

Vegetation Community PPH (acres) PGH (acres) Outside of 

PPH/PGH (acres)

Aquatic 83 0 7

Forest and woodland 

systems

552 0 0

Grassland systems 17,557 79 16

Human land use 315 0 2

No data 51 0 0

Recently disturbed or 

modified 0 0 8

Riparian and wetland

systems 1,452 0 11
3. Affected Environment (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-23

Table 3-9

Vegetation Communities within GRSG Habitat on BLM-Administered Lands

Vegetation Community PPH (acres) PGH (acres) Outside of 

PPH/PGH (acres)

Shrubland, steppe, and 

savanna systems 9,738 1 4

Sparse and barren systems 3,153 0 1

Source: USGS 2010

Of the BLM-administered land that is assessed annually, 90 percent meets the 

BLM’s Standards for Rangeland Health (see Table 3-38, North Dakota Field 

Office Planning Area – Land Health Assessment). Those areas not meeting the 

standards have problems as a result of introduced species such as smooth 

brome (Bromus inermis), noxious weeds, or cheatgrass (B. tectorum). In some 

cases, areas have problems because of over-grazing by livestock.

Riparian and Wetland

A survey was completed in 2007 to determine riparian condition for most areas 

within the North Dakota RMP planning area. Approximately 25 miles of stream 

and 49 acres of wetlands were inventoried, representing the majority of riparian 

areas on BLM surface within the planning area. The survey provided baseline 

data of current riparian conditions (Table 3-10, PFC Assessment for Riparian

Habitat on BLM-Administered Lands, and Table 3-11, PFC Assessment for 

Wetland Habitat on BLM-Administered Lands).

Table 3-10

PFC Assessment for Riparian Habitat on BLM-Administered 

Lands

PFC Rating1 Miles

Proper functioning condition 11.71

Functional at risk with upward trend 8.96

Functional at risk with downward trend 0.23

Functional at risk with no trend 2.03

Non-functional 2.93

Source: BLM 2010a
3. Affected Environment (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

3-24 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 3-11

PFC Assessment for Wetland Habitat on BLM-Administered 

Lands

PFC Rating1 Acres

Proper functioning condition 5.33

Functional at risk with upward trend 11.44

Functional at risk with downward trend 21.44

Functional at risk with no trend 4.5

Non-functional 6.69

Source: BLM 2010a

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species

While noxious weed inventories have not consistently been completed for all 

BLM-administered lands in the planning area, some surveys have been 

conducted. Currently, the most widespread noxious weeds are leafy spurge and 

Canada thistle, with some amount of absinth wormwood. Some parcels within 

the area are almost monocultures because of the years of infestation before any 

treatment began. Noxious weeds have been found in a variety of locations and 

habitat types, with waterways and transportation systems being the major 

vectors of spread. Other dissemination vehicles include OHV use, wind, wildlife, 

livestock, and humans.

The majority of weeds on BLM-administered lands are found in Dunn County, 

located east of the planning area. About 120 acres here have been treated for 

five years with herbicide to control leafy spurge along the Little Missouri River, 

and 500 acres have been treated for about two years. Biological control has 

been tried in Dunn County to control leafy spurge, with no success.

3.5.3 Trends

All Vegetation

Between 2000 and 2008, the planning area experienced a drought. Although 

normal precipitation patterns resumed periodically following this period, a longterm drought pattern has emerged. The most noticeable changes are dry, open 

winters and hot, dry summers. Springtime moisture levels have varied, with 

some areas receiving above-average precipitation in some years, and other areas 

receiving so little moisture that a spring green-up is not apparent.

The drought reduced the production of perennial grasses. The resumption of 

normal spring and summer moisture has improved the vigor of grasses in some 

places, while leaving other areas well below normal.
3. Affected Environment (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-25

Riparian and Wetland

In the planning area, riparian vegetation was adversely affected by drought but 

appears to be recovering rapidly. During the drought, vegetation along the Little 

Missouri River was less robust with less streambank cover. Fortunately, most 

woody vegetation along riparian areas survived the drought. The occasional dieoff of sandbar willow was observed, but no massive mortality was observed on 

woody species.

The BLM will continue to inventory isolated parcels that will help understand 

the current conditions of wetlands and riparian areas. The overall trend 

observed in surveyed areas is upward for riparian areas and downward for 

wetland areas. Stockwater ponds were the primary wetland areas assessed. 

Continuing degradation is a concern due to invasive species, especially leafy 

spurge. Some areas are declining because of invasive species but other indicators 

are improving.

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species

Established weed populations in many areas continue to expand, and new weed 

species appear within the planning area. Leafy spurge and Canada thistle 

continue to colonize new areas and spread at a rapid rate. 

The BLM has documented a distinct increase in cheatgrass within the planning 

area in the latter portion of the drought (BLM 2010a). Affected by drought, fire, 

disturbance, and improper grazing practices, the abundance of cheatgrass has 

fluctuated significantly on BLM-administered lands in North Dakota. The most 

notable increases have occurred when a dry period is followed by a normal or 

wet spring/early summer. The normal weather patterns often change back to 

hot, dry summers and open winters. This pattern appears to favor cheatgrass, 

since more bare ground is present and the timing of moisture for germination is 

adequate.

Normally, cheatgrass abundance in the Northern Great Plains declines when 

normal precipitation patterns resume. The extent and severity of the drought 

had been exceptional to extreme in many parts of the planning area. The 

resumption of normal precipitation patterns has resulted in a significant decline 

in cheatgrass throughout the planning area (BLM 2010a).

3.6 WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT AND ECOLOGY

Wildland fire is a general term describing any non-structure fire that occurs in 

the vegetation and/or natural fuels. Wildland fires are categorized by two types; 

wildfires, which are unplanned ignitions or planned ignitions that have been 

declared wildfires, and prescribed fires, which are planned ignitions (Wildland 

Fire Leadership Council 2009, pg. 7). 

National BLM fire policy requires that current and desired resource conditions 

related to fire management be described in terms of fire regime condition class 

(FRCC). The current condition of a vegetative community is a function of the 
3. Affected Environment (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

3-26 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

degree of departure from historical fire regimes, resulting in alterations of key 

ecosystem components, such as species composition, structural stage, stand age, 

and canopy closure. This departure may have resulted from a number of factors, 

including fire exclusion or suppression, vegetation resources, grazing, 

introduction and establishment of exotic plant species, insects or disease 

(introduced or native), or other past management activities (Hann and Bunnell 

2001).

The Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy was developed by the secretaries of 

the departments of Interior and Agriculture in 1995 in response to dramatic 

increases in the frequency, size, and catastrophic nature of wildland fires in the 

US. The 2001 review and update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management 

Policy (DOI et al. 2001) consists of findings, guiding principles, policy statements, 

and implementation actions, and replaces the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire 

Management Policy as the primary interagency wildland fire policy document. 

This document directs federal agencies to achieve a balance between fire 

suppression to protect life, property, and resources, and fire use to regulate 

fuels and maintain healthy ecosystems. Multiple updates have been provided in 

memorandum and current implementation direction has been provided in the 

February 2009 Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire 

Management Policy (USDA and DOI 2009). The BLM’s policies follow this plan 

and implementation guidelines.

Wildfire has been identified as a primary factor associated with GRSG

population declines. It can result in the loss of habitat and loss of a food source. 

Direction for fire management in GRSG habitat is provided in BLM IM 2011-138, 

Sage-grouse Conservation Related to Wildland Fire and Fuels Management (BLM 

2011a).

Spread of invasive weed species is another related concern in fire management. 

The most significant, widespread and persistent threat is the invasion of 

cheatgrass into disturbed areas. Spread of invasive species can displace native 

species and decrease habitat quality for the GRSG (see Section 3.5, Vegetation 

(Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands), for further details).

3.6.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

There is the potential for wildfire to occur in the planning area, particularly 

during times of drought. No wildfire has been reported on BLM-administered

land in the planning area in the past 20 years. However, there have been 

wildfires on Forest Service, state, and private lands in the planning area between 

2003 and 2012 (Forest Service 2013a). The shrublands in the southwestern part 

of the planning region are identified as GRSG range, and as such, fire in these 

areas would be of particular concern (BLM 1987). Additionally, if a fire were to 

occur in PPH, in the southwestern corner of the planning region, GRSG

breeding, late brood-rearing, and wintering could be greatly impacted.
3. Affected Environment (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-27

WAFWA Management Zone 1

Table 3-12, Wildland Fire within GRSG Habitat, displays data compiled in a 

BER produced by the USGS and BLM (Manier et al. 2013), including the total 

acres of land burned in wildland fire in the planning area and MZ I over the past 

12 years. The data and information included from the BER is the most accurate

data available from when the data was “frozen” in time for analysis purposes; 

however, these scenarios remain based in present knowledge. Spatial data 

informing the existing conditions were compiled to establish a consistent 

information basis across the entire region (GRSG Management Area), but in 

order to attain this consistently across state, ownership and management 

boundaries some local data have been omitted; therefore, there may be 

inconsistencies between WAFWA-level and local planning-level data. As such, 

these data provide a regional baseline, suitable for guiding regional mid- to longterm analysis scenarios (Manier et al. 2013).

Subsequent to finalizing the data in Table 3-12, new data provided by the 

Forest Service indicates that there have been fires on National Forest System, 

state, and private lands between 2003 and 2012 (Forest Service 2013a). There 

are no acres of high probability for wildland fire within the planning area (Manier 

et al. 2013).

Table 3-12

Wildland Fire within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Total Acres1 Acres within PGH Acres within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 Planning Area MZ I Planning Area MZ I

BLM 0 96,300 0 74,300 0 22,000

Forest Service 0 8,200 0 6,400 0 1,800

Tribal and Other 

Federal 0 18,300 0 18,300 0 0

Private 300 527,600 0 446,600 300 81,000

State 0 46,200 0 35,600 0 10,600

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0

Source: BLM 2012a

1

Acres calculated from wildland fires occurring between 2000 and 2012.

3.6.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

In 2004, the BLM prepared North Dakota’s Fire Management Plan, which was 

developed as a result of the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and 

Program Review (1995, 2000), National Fire Plan (2000), and the Federal Fire 

Policy (2001) (BLM 2004b). The Fire Management Plan established one Fire 

Management Unit for all BLM-administered lands in the state of North Dakota 

(59,563 acres). As such, the Fire Management Unit encompasses a larger region 
3. Affected Environment (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

3-28 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

that that of the planning area BLM-administered lands 33,030 acres) which are 

concentrated in the area around PPH and PGH habitat in Bowman, Slope, and a 

portion of Golden Valley Counties (see Chapter 1). The number of acres, 

historic fire regime, and condition class for the Fire Management Unit is 

classified in terms of potential natural vegetation groups which describe the type 

of vegetation that will occupy a site without disturbance or climate change 

(USDA 2000). The planning areas lands are classified as Prairie Grasslands and 

the Juniper Steppe natural vegetation groups (BLM 2004b). Both of these 

vegetation areas are classified as FRCC II, which means the fire regimes have 

been moderately altered from their historical range by either increased or 

decreased frequency. A moderate risk of losing key ecosystem components is 

identified for lands in this class.

BLM-administered lands exist primarily in the southwestern region of the 

planning area. The majority of BLM-administered land is delineated as PPH. In 

this habitat, vegetation is primarily within FRCC II. Total acres of PPH and PGH

on BLM-administered lands are listed by FRCC in Table 3-13, Planning Area 

Fire Regime Condition Class, and Figure 3-4, Planning Area Fire Regime 

Condition Class, in Appendix A.

Table 3-13

Planning Area Fire Regime Condition Class

Fire 

Regime 

Group

Fire Frequency and Severity

Nonhabitat

(acres)

PPH

(acres)

PGH

(acres)

Total BLMadministered 

lands

I 0-35 years; low (surface fire most 

common) severity 0 1,300 5 1,300

II 0-35 years; high (stand 

replacement) severity 41 27,068 75 27,184

III 35-100+ years; mixed severity 0 197 0 197

IV 35-100+ years; high (stand 

replacement) severity 0 3,253 0 3,253

V > 200 years; high (stand 

replacement) severity 0 2 0 2

Source: Hann et al. 2008; BLM 2012a

Although the North Dakota RMP allows for the use of prescribed fires for 

vegetation manipulation as appropriate, none have been set in the past 20 years, 

and there are no immediate plans to implement prescribed fire on BLMadministered lands in the planning area. Due to the scattered land patterns,

developing and completing a prescribe fire project would involve coordination 

with different agencies, private landowners, local governments and permittees 

(BLM 2004b). In addition, the NDFO has been classified as Category B, or an 
3. Affected Environment (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-29

area where wildland fire may not be desired because of current conditions (BLM 

2004b).

Wildfire plays a major role in sustaining the healthy ecology of the prairie 

grasslands of North Dakota. However, wildland fires on BLM-administered lands 

in the planning area is very infrequent and, therefore, plays a very minor role in 

that overall ecology.

3.6.3 Trends

Wildland fire has historically occurred within the planning area, and tends to 

occur between late April and September, typically caused by lightning. It is likely 

that fires will increase in the future as climate change causes irregular weather 

patterns, increases the likelihood of storms, and contributes to droughts that 

can increase the frequency of natural, unplanned ignitions (National Conference 

of State Legislatures 2008). Over the past 20 years, no wildland fires have been 

reported on BLM-administered lands in the planning area (BLM 2004b). Between 

2000 and 2012, approximately 300 acres of wildland fire have occurred on 

private lands (BLM 2012a). Some small fires may have occurred unreported and 

been suppressed by local fire departments, permittees, contractors, and 

residents (BLM 2004b).

3.7 FLUID MINERALS

Fluid leasable minerals include oil, gas, and geothermal heat. In general, leasable 

minerals are governed by the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, which 

authorized specific minerals to be disposed of through a leasing system. 

Geothermal heat is also considered a leasable mineral and is governed by the 

Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. There are no geothermal resources within the 

planning area; therefore, geothermal resources will not be discussed in 

Chapter 3 or Chapter 4.

The BLM reserves the right to require additional mitigation measures, in the 

form of COAs, after a lease is issued if doing so is necessary to fulfill the BLM’s 

multiple-use mandate.

3.7.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

This discussion focuses on oil and gas because they are the only fluid minerals

that exist within the planning area.

Coalbed natural gas potential exists within lignite formations in the planning area 

in what is known as the Fort Union coal region. The Potential Gas Committee 

estimated that the Fort Union coal region has approximately 0.5 trillion cubic 

feet of potentially recoverable coalbed gas resources that may be found in the 

lignites in this region. Based on surface acreage calculations, nearly 57 percent of 

the gas in these strata may lie within North Dakota. Because most of the GRSG

habitat within the planning area is within the Fort Union coal region, it is 

reasonable to assume there is potential for recoverable coalbed gas resources in 
3. Affected Environment (Fluid Minerals)

3-30 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

GRSG habitat (BLM 2009a, pg. 67). However, this resource has not yet proven 

to be economically important in the range-wide planning area.

While coalbed natural gas activity is minimal in the planning area, a substantial 

amount of conventional oil and gas exploration and development is ongoing. 

Approximately 33 percent of Bowman County and four percent of Slope 

County is covered by oil and gas fields (BLM 2009a, pg. 10). There is no oil and 

gas activity in the portion of Golden Valley County within the planning area; 

therefore, the following discussion will include only Slope and Bowman 

Counties.

Most active oil and gas development within GRSG habitat is occurring in 

Bowman County in the vicinity of the Cedar Creek anticline. Oil production in 

Bowman County peaked in 2008 at over 1.5 million barrels (bbls) per month 

and has declined since then to a 2013 rate of approximately 730,000 barrels per 

month (North Dakota Industrial Commission 2013a, pg. 15–16). Gas production 

in Bowman County also peaked in 2008 at over two million MCF (thousand 

cubic feet) per month. It has since declined to a 2012 rate of approximately 900 

thousand to one million MCF per month (North Dakota Industrial Commission 

2013b, pg. 5–6). Bowman County currently has 577 wells capable of producing 

oil and gas (North Dakota Industrial Commission 2013c, pg. 2).

Within Bowman County, the shallow Pierre formation produces gas, and the 

deeper Red River and Red River B formations produce both oil and gas. At less 

than one percent, three percent, and two percent, respectively, of total gas 

produced in North Dakota in 2012, none of these formations plays a major role 

in North Dakota gas production (North Dakota Industrial Commission 2012a).

In 2007, the Red River formation produced 42 percent of the oil in North 

Dakota. This figure dropped to only one percent in 2012, due to both declining 

production from the formation (the natural depletion of the reservoir) and the 

large amount of oil now being produced by the Bakken formation, which does 

not reach Slope or Bowman County and does not have potential in the portion 

of Golden Valley County within the planning area (BLM 2009a, pg. 22; North 

Dakota Industrial Commission 2012b).

Slope County has some oil and gas activity as well. Oil production in Slope 

County remained relatively stable between 2007 and 2013 at between 30,000 

and 55,000 barrels per month (North Dakota Industrial Commission 2013a, pg. 

15–16). Gas production in the county peaked between 2008 and 2009 at over 

200 thousand MCF per month. It has since declined to a 2013 rate of 

approximately 13 to 19 thousand MCF per month (North Dakota Industrial 

Commission 2013b, pg. 5–6). Slope County currently has 19 wells capable of 

producing oil and gas (North Dakota Industrial Commission 2013c, pg. 2).
3. Affected Environment (Fluid Minerals)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-31

There are 11 oil and gas fields within GRSG habitat. Table 3-14, Oil and Gas 

Activity by Field in the Planning Area, shows the number of wells in each field 

and production (by barrels of oil and MCF of gas) by field in 2011.

Table 3-14

Oil and Gas Activity by Field in the Planning Area

Field Resource Producing 

Wells

Injection 

Wells

2011 

Production

Cedar Hills Oil 239 240 9,025,993 barrels

Cedar Creek Oil and Gas 41 Oil,

30 Gas 23 290,916 barrels;1,100,876 MCF

Little Missouri Oil and Gas 4 Oil,

30 Gas 1 12,746 barrels;1,100,872 MCF

Horse Creek Oil 13 2 78,388 barrels

South Horse Creek Oil 3 0 26,163 barrels

Medicine Pole Hills Oil 46 31 613,587 barrels

Amor Oil 8 2 130,251 barrels

State Line Oil 5 1 49,206 barrels

Coyote Creek Oil 4 0 15,290 barrels

Hart1 Oil 0 0 0

Rhame1 Oil 0 0 0

Source: BLM 2012a

1

Field is no longer producing and has no remaining active wells.

All of the fields shown in Table 3-14 are in Bowman County. A small portion 

of the Cedar Hills field reaches into the southern tip of Slope County. No other 

fields exist in the planning area. All of the oil fields lie within the Red River and 

Red River B formations, and the gas fields lie within the Pierre formation.

WAFWA Management Zone 1

Table 3-15, Open to Oil and Gas Leasing within GRSG Habitat Open to Oil 

and Gas Leasing within GRSG Habitat, through Table 3-19, Oil and Gas Wells 

within GRSG Habitat, display data compiled in a BER produced by the USGS and 

BLM (Manier et. al. 2013). In each table, data are presented by surface 

management agency and their occurrence within PGH and PPH in the planning 

area and MZ I. The data and information included from the BER is the most 

accurate data available from when the data was “frozen” in time for analysis 

purposes; however, these scenarios remain based in present knowledge. Spatial 

data informing the existing conditions were compiled to establish a consistent 

information basis across the entire region (GRSG Management Area), but in 

order to attain this consistently across state, ownership, and management
3. Affected Environment (Fluid Minerals)

3-32 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 3-15

Open to Oil and Gas Leasing within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Total Acres Acres within PGH Acres within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 Planning Area MZ I Planning Area MZ I

BLM 73,435 6,763,200 100 3,970,400 30,400 2,792,800

Forest Service 92,700 768,400 29,300 484,100 63,400 284,300

Tribal and Other 

Federal 0 413,800 0 329,800 0 84,000

Private 35,400 8,582,500 5,000 6,510,600 30,400 2,071,900

State 400 181,000 0 98,800 400 82,200

Other 0 900 0 900 0 0

Source: BLM 2012a

Table 3-16

Closed to Oil and Gas Leasing within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Total Acres Acres within PGH Acres within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 Planning Area MZ I Planning Area MZ I

BLM 0 520,200 0 370,100 0 150,100

Forest Service 0 16,600 0 16,600 0 0

Tribal and Other 

Federal 0 1,595,800 0 1,594,400 0 1,400

Private 0 2,353,600 0 1,848,000 0 505,600

State 0 379,100 0 315,400 0 63,700

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0

Source: BLM 2012a

Table 3-17

Oil and Gas Leases within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Total Acres Acres within PGH Acres within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 Planning Area MZ I Planning Area MZ I

BLM 26,000 951,800 0 624,200 26,000 327,600

Forest Service 25,200 54,600 12,200 29,700 13,000 24,900

Tribal and Other 

Federal 0 5,000 0 5,000 0 0
3. Affected Environment (Fluid Minerals)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-33

Table 3-17

Oil and Gas Leases within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Total Acres Acres within PGH Acres within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 Planning Area MZ I Planning Area MZ I

Private 5,200 2,268,100 1,200 1,721,900 4,000 546,200

State 200 45,300 200 27,900 0 17,400

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0

Source: BLM 2012a

Table 3-18

Oil and Gas Leases Held by Production within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Total Acres Acres within PGH Acres within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 Planning Area MZ I Planning Area MZ I

BLM 24,500 784,500 0 673,900 24,500 110,600

Forest Service 1,827 117,800 27 80,900 1,800 36,900

Tribal and Other 

Federal 0 19,500 0 19,500 0 0

Private 14,400 2,055,700 400 1,819,300 14,000 236,400

State 500 16,900 0 13,500 500 3,400

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0

Source: BLM 2012a

Table 3-19

Oil and Gas Wells within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Total Acres1 Acres within PGH Acres within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 Planning Area MZ I Planning Area MZ I

BLM 702 30,800 2 26,200 700 4,600

Forest Service 27 3,600 9 2,100 18 1,500

Tribal and Other 

Federal 0 3,406 0 3,400 0 6

Private 2,200 161,800 300 140,400 1,900 21,400

State 133 17,900 13 15,400 120 2,500

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0

Source: BLM 2012a

1

Assumes footprint of 62 square meters per well. Includes wells that are either not plugged and abandoned, 

or plugged and abandoned beginning October, 2001.
3. Affected Environment (Fluid Minerals)

3-34 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

boundaries some local data have been omitted; therefore, there may be 

inconsistencies between WAFWA-level and local planning-level data. As such, 

these data provide a regional baseline, suitable for guiding regional mid- to longterm analysis scenarios (Manier et al. 2013).

There are no acres of oil shale leases within the planning area (Manier et al. 

2013).

3.7.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

While the BLM manages 30,574 acres of surface over federal minerals within the 

planning area, the BLM also manages the subsurface minerals underlying 396,053 

acres (41 percent) of the planning area (including federal subsurface beneath 

BLM-administered lands). Lands on which the surface is owned or managed by 

an entity other than the BLM and the subsurface is managed by the BLM are 

called split-estate lands. Table 3-20, Federal Mineral Status in the North 

Dakota Planning Area, breaks down the surface ownership above federal 

minerals in the planning area.

Table 3-20

Federal Mineral Status in the North Dakota Planning Area

Land Status Acres

BLM Surface/Federal Minerals 30,574 

Private Surface/Federal Minerals 227,020 

State/Federal Minerals 1,842 

National Wildlife Refuge/Federal Minerals 318 

Forest Service/Federal Minerals 136,299 

Total 396,053 

Source: BLM 2012a

Because the BLM is not making decisions on federal minerals beneath surface 

managed by other federal agencies in this plan amendment, only federal minerals 

beneath BLM, private, and state surface are discussed in Chapter 3 and

Chapter 4 as being part of the decision area.

The federal government does not always own every type of mineral in a given 

acre of federal mineral estate. For example, in some areas, the federal 

government will only own the coal rights, while a private or state entity might 

own the oil and gas rights. For this reason, the federal mineral estate for any 

specific mineral type in the decision area is different than that for all other 

mineral types in the decision area. The federal mineral estate for oil and gas in 

the decision area is 73,441 acres, as shown in Table 3-21, Oil and Gas Federal 

Mineral Status in the North Dakota Decision Area. Oil and gas potential in the 

tri-county area is show in Figure 3-5, Oil and Gas Potential, in Appendix A.
3. Affected Environment (Fluid Minerals)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-35

Table 3-21

Oil and Gas Federal Mineral Status in the North Dakota Decision Area

Land Status Acres

BLM Surface/Federal Minerals 30,574 

Private Surface/Federal Minerals 42,452 

State/Federal Minerals 415 

Total 73,441 

Source: BLM 2012a

Table 3-22, Oil and Gas Potential in Relation to Greater GRSG PPH and PGH, 

shows the oil and gas potential within each type of habitat as well as throughout 

the planning area.

Table 3-22

Oil and Gas Potential in Relation to Greater GRSG PPH and PGH

Habitat Type

Development Potential

High

(acres)

Medium

(acres)

Low/No 

Known

(acres)

Total

(acres)

Total Decision Area 

(BLM surface/federal minerals) 26,731 2,002 1,841 30,574 

Total Decision Area 

(Private or state surface/federal minerals) 19,379 5,218 18,264 42,861 

PPH

(BLM surface/federal minerals) 26,731 2,002 1,721 30,454 

PPH

(Private or state surface/federal minerals) 18,930 4,731 7,082 30,743 

PGH

(BLM surface/federal minerals) 0 0 80 80

PGH

(Private or state surface/federal minerals) 442 327 4,247 5,016

Other Areas

(BLM surface/federal minerals) 0 0 40 40

Other Areas

(Private or state surface/federal minerals) 7 160 6,935 7,102

Source: BLM 2012a

A total of 46,110 acres (63 percent) of the federal mineral estate administered 

by the BLM in the planning area has high oil and gas potential. However, much 

of this federal mineral estate has already been leased. There are 170 existing 
3. Affected Environment (Fluid Minerals)

3-36 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

leases in the planning area: 130 in PPH, 16 in PGH, and five in both PPH and 

PGH. A total of 25,930 acres (85 percent) of federal oil and gas beneath BLMadministered surface in the planning area has been leased. Additionally, 21,487

acres (50 percent) of federal oil and gas estate beneath private or state-owned 

surface has been leased. Table 3-23, Existing Oil and Gas Leases on Federal 

Mineral Estate, breaks down existing leases within PPH and PGH. A total of 

42,367 acres (89 percent) of existing leases in the planning area are within PPH.

Table 3-23

Existing Oil and Gas Leases on Federal Mineral Estate

Habitat Type Acres Leased

Total Decision Area

(BLM surface/federal minerals) 25,930 

Total Decision Area

(Private or state surface/federal minerals) 21,487

Priority Habitat (PPH)

(BLM surface/federal minerals) 25,888

Priority Habitat (PPH)

(Private or state surface/federal minerals) 16,479

General Habitat (PGH)

(BLM surface/federal minerals) 42 

General Habitat (PGH)

(Private or state surface/federal minerals) 1,383

Other Areas 

(BLM surface/federal minerals) 0 

Other Areas 

(Private or state surface/federal minerals) 3,625

Source: BLM 2012a

Because much of the federal mineral estate in this area has been leased, drilling 

activity on federal mineral estate within GRSG habitat has been decreasing since 

2005 and has dropped off significantly since 2008 (Table 3-24, Drilling Activity 

within GRSG Habitat1). Well density in GRSG habitat ranges from 0 to 25 wells 

per section.

Bowman County is the only county with large blocks of BLM-administered 

surface. Although the BLM can limit oil and gas development on split-estate 

lands, the BLM has more discretion to restrict these activities where it manages 

the surface as well as the subsurface mineral estate. Production on federal 

mineral estate in Bowman County has been primarily in the Red River B 

formation, although there has also been significant activity in the Eagle formation 

(BLM 2010a, pg. 108). More information on these formations can be found 

above under Conditions of the Planning Area. 
3. Affected Environment (Fluid Minerals)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-37

Table 3-24

Drilling Activity within GRSG Habitat1

Year Wells Drilled

2005 88

2006 82

2007 38

2008 49

2009 7

2010 14

2011 2

2012 3

Source: BLM 2012a

1

All wells are either federal wells or private wells 

located on a federal unit (see discussion on 

unitization below).

Many of the oil and gas leases in Bowman County are unitized. Unitization 

provides for the exploration and development of an entire geologic structure or 

area by a single operator so that drilling and production may proceed in the 

most efficient and economic manner. The two most extensive units 

administered by the NDFO in the Red River B formation include approximately 

400 producing and service wells (e.g., water and air injection and water source 

wells). Roughly one-half of these wells are on BLM-administered surface lands. 

As of 2009, there were 101 producing or permitted gas wells in the Little 

Missouri Pierre Unit (within the Pierre formation). Roughly one-half of these 

were producing on BLM-administered surface lands. These units appear to be 

reaching full development, although activity is still present (BLM 2010a).

Oil and gas leases offered since March 2004 are subject to NSO and TL

stipulations to protect GRSG. The NSO stipulation prohibits surface occupancy 

within 0.25 mile of leks. Additionally, a TL prohibits seismic, construction, or 

other development from occurring within two miles of leks between March 1 

and June 15. Leases offered between 1987 and 2004 are subject to NSO 

stipulations within 500 feet of leks and a requirement to use special care to 

avoid nesting areas associated with leks from March 1 to June 30. Some leases 

within GRSG habitat date back before 1987 and may not be subject to any 

special stipulations to protect GRSG. Table 3-25, Oil and Gas Leasing 

Categories in PPH and PGH, breaks down the acres within BLM-administered 

lands by whether they are open or closed to leasing and what stipulations are 

applied. Because some acres may be subject to both TLs and CSU stipulations, 

the acres in this table will not add up to the total oil and gas federal mineral 

estate in the decision area.
3. Affected Environment (Fluid Minerals)

3-38 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 3-25

Oil and Gas Leasing Categories in PPH and PGH

Category Total Decision Area

(acres)

PPH

(acres)

PGH

(acres)

Open to Leasing 

(BLM surface/federal minerals) 30,574 30,494 80 

Open to Leasing 

(Private or state surface/federal minerals) 42,859 30,741 5,016 

Total Federal Oil and Gas Estate 

Open to Leasing 73,433 61,235 5,096

Closed to Leasing 

(BLM surface/federal minerals) 0 0 0 

Closed to Leasing 

(Private or state surface/federal minerals) 0 0 0 

Total Federal Oil and Gas Estate 

Closed to Leasing 0 0 0

Open to Leasing (subject to standard 

terms and conditions) 

(BLM surface/federal minerals) 

3,238 3,117 80

Open to Leasing (subject to standard 

terms and conditions) 

(Private or state surface/federal minerals)

21,892 9,782 5,011 

Total Federal Oil and Gas Estate 

subject to standard terms and 

conditions

25,130 12,899 5,091

NSO

(BLM surface/federal minerals) 6,444 6,443 2 

NSO

(Private or state surface/federal minerals) 3,336 3,335 2

Total Federal Oil and Gas Estate 

subject to NSO 9,780 9,778 4

CSU

(BLM surface/federal minerals) 11,742 11,742 5

CSU

(Private or state surface/federal minerals) 9,493 9,493 3 

Total Federal Oil and Gas Estate

subject to CSU 21,235 21,235 8

Seasonal TL

(BLM surface/federal minerals) 20,882 20,883 4 

Seasonal TL

(Private or state surface/federal minerals) 17,622 17,623 3 

Total Federal Oil and Gas Estate 

subject to Seasonal TL 38,504 38,506 7

Source: BLM 2012a
3. Affected Environment (Fluid Minerals)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-39

As Table 3-25 shows, all federal oil and gas estate within the decision area is 

open to oil and gas leasing. However, NSO stipulations apply on 9,780 acres 

(one percent) of the decision area, CSU stipulations apply on 21,235 acres (29 

percent), and TLs apply on 38,504 acres (52 percent). A total of 25,130 acres 

(34 percent) of the decision area are open to leasing subject to standard terms 

and conditions.

Fifteen parcels on 9,036 acres of federal oil and gas estate in the planning area 

have been nominated for leasing since July 2011; however, all nominated parcels 

since that time have been deferred until this plan amendment is completed.

3.7.3 Trends

The Energy Information Administration estimates that over the next two

decades both demand and prices for oil and gas will increase. These 

circumstances would likely result in continued industry emphasis on increasing 

oil supplies and searching for additional natural gas supplies in the planning area. 

Much of the oil and gas supply growth within the planning area is expected to 

come from production in existing reservoirs, with new reservoir discoveries 

potentially coming from the exploration of the Three Forks Formation (which is 

north of GRSG habitat, outside the planning area), shallow gas and biogenic gas 

reservoirs, and coalbed natural gas (BLM 2009a).

It is estimated that, in an unconstrained scenario, between 2010 and 2029 as 

many as 7,641 wells will be drilled in North Dakota (BLM 2009a, pg. 64). Up to 

150 (two percent) of those wells could be coalbed gas wells within the Fort 

Union coal region. The potential for future coalbed natural gas development is 

discussed further below. Of the other 7,491 wells (98 percent), the majority are 

projected to be drilled in and around existing fields in the deeper portion of the 

Williston basin (around the Bakken formation, which is outside the planning 

area) and along the Cedar Creek anticline in Bowman County (BLM 2009a, pg. 

64).

No coalbed gas exploration drilling plans or plans of development have been 

proposed by industry, and operators polled in 2009 did not submit projections 

of future activity or interest in future activity. Much of the potential coalbed gas 

drilling is likely to occur in one or two townships instead of being spread evenly 

over the area of potential (BLM 2009a, pg. 67–68).

3.8 COAL

The BLM manages coal through the solid leasable mineral program. Leasable 

minerals are governed by the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, which 

authorized specific minerals to be disposed of through a leasing system.

3.8.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

North Dakota coal is considered lignite since it generally is of lower rank and 

has low British Thermal Units, or heating value, per ton of coal. Lignite is 

developed through surface mining. Most mining and production of lignite in 
3. Affected Environment (Coal)

3-40 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

North Dakota has been mine-mouth production associated with coal-fired 

power plants (BLM 2010a, pg. 109).

Lignite mining is concentrated in the north-central portion of North Dakota and 

mainly occurs on privately owned mineral deposits. There is no activity within 

the planning area. While there is a large coal deposit within GRSG habitat in 

Bowman County, this deposit has not been mined and is not leased.

WAFWA Management Zone 1

Table 3-26, Coal Potential within GRSG Habitat and Table 3-27, Surface Coal

Leases within GRSG Habitat, display data compiled in a BER produced by the 

USGS and BLM (Manier et al. 2013). In each table, acres are presented by 

surface management agency and their occurrence within PGH and PPH in the 

planning area and MZ I. The data and information included from the BER is the 

most accurate data available from when the data was “frozen” in time for 

analysis purposes; however, these scenarios remain based in present knowledge. 

Spatial data informing the existing conditions were compiled to establish a 

consistent information basis across the entire region (GRSG Management Area), 

but in order to attain this consistently across state, ownership, and management 

boundaries some local data have been omitted; therefore, there may be 

inconsistencies between WAFWA-level and local planning-level data. As such, 

these data provide a regional baseline, suitable for guiding regional mid- to longterm analysis scenarios (Manier et al. 2013).

Table 3-26

Coal Potential within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Total Acres Acres within PGH Acres within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 Planning Area MZ I Planning Area MZ I

BLM 8,284 2,955,400 84 2,573,200 8,200 382,200

Forest Service 96,500 688,500 29,900 426,500 66,600 262,000

Tribal and Other 

Federal 0 1,499,600 0 1,378,800 0 120,800

Private 471,100 18,123,200 201,000 15,403,800 270,100 2,719,400

State 26,600 1,884,500 10,900 1,567,300 15,700 317,200

Other 0 9,400 0 9,400 0 0

Source: BLM 2012a
3. Affected Environment (Coal)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-41

Table 3-27

Surface Coal Leases within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Total Acres Acres within PGH Acres within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 Planning Area MZ I Planning Area MZ I

BLM 0 77,700 0 19,300 0 58,400

Forest Service 5,600 38,500 5,200 38,100 400 400

Tribal and Other 

Federal 0 0 0 0 0 0

Private 500 204,500 500 195,800 0 8,700

State 0 3,500 0 3,500 0 0

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0

Source: BLM 2012a

3.8.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

The BLM manages 396,053 acres of federal mineral estate (30,574 acres of BLMadministered land with federal minerals and 365,479 acres of non-BLM 

administered surface with federal minerals, known as “split-estate”) in the 

planning area. Within GRSG habitat, the BLM manages 32,980 acres (five 

percent) of the surface and 279,248 acres (40 percent) of the subsurface 

minerals.

While coal potential exists on federal mineral estate within the planning area, no 

development has occurred.

3.8.3 Trends

No coal development is anticipated within the planning area for the next 20 

years.

3.9 LOCATABLE MINERALS

Locatable minerals are minerals for which the right to explore or develop the 

mineral resource on federal land is established by the location (or staking) of 

lode or placer mining claims and is authorized under the General Mining Law of 

1872. Locatable minerals include metallic minerals (such as gold, silver, copper, 

lead, zinc, molybdenum, uranium) and non-metallic minerals (such as fluorspar, 

asbestos, talc, mica, and limestone).

3.9.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

There are no locatable mineral operations within planning area (BLM 2010a, pg. 

107). However, several uranium deposits exist within PGH in Bowman County. 

These deposits are primarily within lignites, sandstones, and carbonaceous 

mudstone. In the 1950s and 1960s, approximately 85,000 tons of low grade ore 

lignites were produced in North Dakota, resulting in 270 tons of “yellow cake” 
3. Affected Environment (Locatable Minerals)

3-42 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

(U308). Uranium mining in North Dakota halted in 1967. No uranium 

production has ever occurred within the planning area (North Dakota 

Geological Survey 2013).

3.9.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

The BLM manages 396,053 acres of federal mineral estate (30,574 acres of BLMadministered land with federal minerals and 365,479 acres of non-BLM 

administered surface with federal minerals, also known as “split-estate”) in the 

planning area. Within GRSG habitat, the BLM manages 32,980 acres (five 

percent) of the surface and 279,248 acres (40 percent) of the subsurface 

minerals.

There is no locatable mineral development on BLM-administered lands within 

the planning area. There is no known locatable mineral potential within GRSG

habitat.

3.9.3 Trends

The development potential of locatable minerals other than uranium within the 

planning area may be limited because the surficial geology is of a primarily 

sedimentary nature. This limits significant occurrences of mineralized zones 

(BLM 2010a, pg. 107).

Despite the increase in uranium prices after 2002, the low grade uranium 

deposits within the planning area are not expected to be developed during the 

next 20 years. 

3.10 MINERAL MATERIALS

Mineral materials include common varieties of construction materials and 

aggregates, such as, sand, gravel, cinders, roadbed, and ballast material. Mineral 

materials are sold or permitted under the Mineral Materials Sale Act of 1947.

Sand and gravel, as construction aggregate, is an extremely important resource. 

The extraction of the resource varies directly with the amount of development 

nearby – road building and maintenance, and urban development – as sand and 

gravel is necessary for that infrastructure development. Even more so than 

other resources, however, the proximity of both transportation and markets 

are key elements in the development of a deposit.

3.10.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

Sand and gravel, and scoria, or clinker, are of particular interest in North 

Dakota. Scoria is the result of the baking of overlying rock by burning coal beds 

and is associated with most lignite occurrences in the planning area (BLM 1986,

pg. 34). Most scoria potential within GRSG habitat is located along the Little 

Missouri River in Bowman and Slope Counties (BLM 2010a, pg. 6).
3. Affected Environment (Mineral Materials)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-43

In 2011, one mineral materials mining operation was active in the planning area. 

This seven-acre operation was a gravel mine in Bowman County (North Dakota 

State Soil Conservation Committee 2011, pg. 1).

3.10.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

The BLM manages 396,053 acres of federal mineral estate (30,574 acres of BLMadministered land with federal minerals and 365,479 acres of non-BLM 

administered surface with federal minerals, also known as “split-estate”) in the 

planning area. Within GRSG habitat, the BLM manages 32,945 acres (five 

percent) of the surface and 279,248 acres (40 percent) of the subsurface 

minerals.

While mineral materials potential exists within PPH, there is currently no 

development in this area. However, all of the federal mineral estate in the 

planning area is open to mineral materials disposal.

3.10.3 Trends

Future demand for mineral materials will vary depending upon market 

conditions, which differ according to economic conditions and construction 

activity. Construction projects within approximately 50 miles of mineral 

materials deposits may lead to development of these deposits. The primary 

driver of construction activity in the planning area is road construction for oil 

and gas exploration and development. As new oil and gas development in the 

planning area is occurring at a slow rate, it is expected that mineral materials 

activity will continue at roughly the same level for the next 20 years.

3.11 COMPREHENSIVE TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT

Travel and transportation management is interrelated with many resources and 

resource uses that occur on BLM-administered lands. The transportation system 

throughout the planning area consists of a state highway, numerous paved and 

unpaved local roads, as well as unpaved primitive OHV roads and trails. See 

Figure 3-6, Transportation Routes, in Appendix A. BLM expects to complete 

a comprehensive inventory of the existing BLM transportation network as part 

of the North Dakota RMP revision process.

3.11.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

State Highway 12, which runs through northern Bowman County, crosses PPH

and PGH. Numerous local roads and trails also traverse identified GRSG

habitat. There are 1,323 total miles of motorized and non-motorized routes in 

PPH and 748 total miles in PGH. Highway 12 is the only major roadway in the 

planning area. Camp Cook Road provides paved and unpaved local access from 

the town of Marmarth southward along the western portion of Bowman 

County, while Rhame Road supports local travel south of the town of Rhame in 

north central Bowman County. Smaller local paved and unpaved roads, primitive 

roads, and trails account for the remainder of the transportation network in the 

planning area.
3. Affected Environment (Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management)

3-44 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

WAFWA Management Zone 1

Table 3-28, Miles of Roads within GRSG Habitat, through Table 3-31, Acres 

of Railroads within GRSG Habitat, display data compiled in a BER produced by 

the USGS and BLM (Manier et al. 2013). In each table, acres and miles are 

presented by surface management agency and their occurrence within PGH and 

PPH in the planning area and MZ I. The data and information included from the 

BER is the most accurate data available from when the data was “frozen” in time 

for analysis purposes; however, these scenarios remain based in present 

knowledge. Spatial data informing the existing conditions were compiled to 

establish a consistent information basis across the entire region (GRSG 

Management Area), but in order to attain this consistently across state, 

ownership, and management boundaries some local data have been omitted; 

therefore, there may be inconsistencies between WAFWA-level and local 

planning-level data. As such, these data provide a regional baseline, suitable for 

guiding regional mid- to long-term analysis scenarios (Manier et al. 2013).

Table 3-28

Miles of Roads within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Total Miles Miles within PGH Miles within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 Planning Area MZ I Planning Area MZ I

BLM 46 12,100 0 7,400 46 4,700

Forest Service 197 1,900 62 1,200 135 700

Tribal and Other 

Federal 0 6,100 0 5,800 0 300

Private 1,235 76,300 508 59,700 727 16,600

State 64 7,100 27 5,200 37 1,900

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0

Source: BLM 2012a

Table 3-29

Acres of Roads within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Total Acres1 Acres within PGH Acres within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 Planning Area MZ I Planning Area MZ I

BLM 600 127,800 0 79,600 600 48,200

Forest Service 2,100 19,500 700 12,300 1,400 7,200

Tribal and Other 

Federal 0 64,800 0 61,500 0 3,300

Private 14,000 851,200 5,900 675,000 8,100 176,200

State 700 78,900 300 58,600 400 20,300
3. Affected Environment (Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-45

Table 3-29

Acres of Roads within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Total Acres1 Acres within PGH Acres within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 Planning Area MZ I Planning Area MZ I

Other 0 300 0 300 0 0

Source: BLM 2012a

1

Assumes footprint of 73.2 meters for interstate highways, 25.6 meters for primary and secondary highways, 

and 12.4 meters for other roads.

Table 3-30

Miles of Railroads within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Total Miles Miles within PGH Miles within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 Planning Area MZ I Planning Area MZ I

BLM 0 59 0 50 0 9

Forest Service 0 28 0 28 0 0

Tribal and Other 

Federal 0 83 0 83 0 0

Private 32 1,346 9 1,200 23 146

State 0 100 0 90 0 10

Other 0 1 0 1 0 0

Source: BLM 2012a

Table 3-31

Acres of Railroads within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Total Acres1 Acres within PGH Acres within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 Planning Area MZ I Planning Area MZ I

BLM 0 257 0 200 0 57

Forest Service 4 204 0 200 4 4

Tribal and Other 

Federal 0 600 0 600 0 0

Private 232 8,253 68 7,600 164 653

State 0 519 0 500 0 19

Other 0 1 0 1 0 0

Source: BLM 2012a

1

Assumes footprint of 9.4 meters.
3. Affected Environment (Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management)

3-46 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Off-Highway Vehicles

There are currently no locations in the planning area designated as open for 

cross-country OHV use. OHV use is limited to existing routes on 56,490 acres 

of BLM-administered land throughout the NDFO. BLM travel and transportation 

management does not currently designate existing routes as open or closed to 

motorized travel.

3.11.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

The noncontiguous nature of BLM-administered lands in the North Dakota 

planning area influences the type and use of existing transportation routes. West 

of Camp Cook Road, a network of privately maintained unpaved roads support 

oil and gas drilling operations in the 138,613-acre Big Gumbo Management Area, 

of which 22,164-acres are BLM-administered land. This area represents the 

largest contiguous acreage of BLM-administered land in the planning area as well 

as the densest network of travel routes on BLM-administered land. Within the 

Big Gumbo Management Area, there are 413 miles of motorized and nonmotorized travel routes, including 110 miles on BLM-administered land. Within 

the entire GRSG planning area there are 2,944 miles of transportation routes, 

including 114 miles on BLM-administered lands within PPH. The BLM does not 

perform regular maintenance on any routes within the planning area. 

Additionally, there are 108 miles (387 acres) of routes within four miles of an 

active lek. Studies (e.g., Holloran 2005) demonstrate that activity such as traffic 

on roadways negatively affects the number of male GRSG displaying at lek sites. 

3.11.3 Trends

Use of the existing transportation network in the planning area is expected to 

steadily increase over time. With the increased global demand for petroleumbased fuels, the creation of new roads in the planning area is expected in order 

to support expanded oil and gas exploration. Use of motorized vehicles on 

existing travel routes in the planning area is also expected to increase over time 

to support oil and gas exploration, provide access to prime hunting locations, 

and for access to private land.

3.12 RECREATION

Recreation opportunities in North Dakota are diverse. However, 

noncontiguous lands present management challenges. Most recreation users in 

the state participate in dispersed recreation activities, which include hunting, 

fishing, camping, biking, hiking, horseback riding, and wildlife viewing. Motorized 

recreational activities, such as OHV use generally takes place in conjunction 

with other activities. Users often participate in these activities individually or in 

small groups.

3.12.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

Low amounts of recreation occur in the planning area. Land in North Dakota is 

primarily held under private ownership. In the planning area, 741,607 acres (77 

percent) are privately held. Although North Dakota state law permits foot 
3. Affected Environment (Recreation)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-47

travel across private land in order to gain access to public lands, the scattered 

distribution of BLM-administered land limits the extent of public recreation 

opportunities throughout the planning area.

Big Game Hunting

Historically, the NDGFD issued hunting licenses for North Dakota white-tailed 

deer, mule deer, pronghorn antelope, moose, elk, and bighorn sheep. Due to 

low species populations in 2012, NDGFD suspended the hunting season for 

pronghorn. For other big game species, additional restrictions are placed on the 

time of year, location, method of take (gun, bow, muzzleloader), and daily bag 

and possession limits. Hunting antlerless mule deer in portions of the planning 

area is periodically prohibited depending on population numbers.

Through agreements between the NDGFD and private land owners, hunting is 

permitted on designated private parcels. Participants in the Private Land Open 

to Sportsmen program may enter select private parcels during the applicable 

hunting season and with the permitted hunting equipment. For hunters, this 

program can provide more contiguous lands for recreating. However, private 

lands in the program change frequently and comprise only a small portion of 

private land in the planning area.

NDGFD permits the hunting of a number of smaller upland game species, water 

fowl, and furbearers. However, the NDGFD has not allowed the hunting of 

GRSG since 2008 due to a declining species population (NDGFD 2012b).

3.12.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

Table 3-32, Recreation Activities and Participants, summarizes the distribution 

of recreation activities on all BLM-administered lands in the NDFO. The most 

popular recreation activity on BLM-administered lands in North Dakota is 

hunting, which accounts for 65 percent of all recreation activities.

Table 3-32

Recreation Activities and Participants1

Activity Participants Visitor Days

Camping 721 961

Picnicking 155 26

Big Game Hunting 12,986 6,287

Environmental Education 1,232 103

Wildlife Viewing 1,575 246

Hiking, Walking or Running 2,606 376

Horseback Riding 515 258

Total 19,790 8,257

Source: BLM 2010a 

1

For activities during fiscal year 2008 in the NDFO planning area. 
3. Affected Environment (Recreation)

3-48 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Low amounts of recreation occur on BLM-administered lands. The scattered 

distribution of BLM-administered land in the planning area limits dispersed 

recreation opportunities such as camping, hiking, and birding. There are no 

developed recreational facilities, Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMA), 

or Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA) on BLM-administered lands. 

Moreover, the BLM does not currently have any approved or pending SRPs in 

the decision area. 

Recreation uses on BLM-administered land where GRSG habitat exists primarily 

include the low-impact, dispersed activities summarized in Table 3-32.

3.12.3 Trends

Recreation use in the planning area, including BLM-administered lands is 

expected to increase over time. In particular, the NDFO anticipates more 

dispersed recreation activities because of the region’s rural landscape, increasing 

national population, and increasing numbers of local employment opportunities 

in the energy sector. Additional factors expected to affect demand for 

recreation in the planning area include:

• Continued popularity of outdoor recreation as a family-oriented 

activity

• Increasingly active retired population with more disposable time and 

income

• Continued importance of hunting and other outdoor recreation 

activities to the local economy

• Increasing importance of outdoor recreation as other areas of the 

country becomes more urbanized

3.13 RANGE MANAGEMENT

The primary laws that govern livestock grazing on BLM-administered lands are 

the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, FLPMA, and the Public Rangelands 

Improvement Act of 1978. In addition, the BLM manages grazing lands under 43 

CFR Part 4100 and applicable policy.

In accordance with 43 CFR 4180, the BLM is required to meet or make 

progress towards meeting standards defined in the North and South Dakota 

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

Management (BLM 1997). Standards are statements of physical and biological 

condition or degree of function required for healthy sustainable rangelands. 

Guidelines are preferred or advisable grazing management approaches to 

maintaining or ensuring progress towards achieving land health standards. As 

required by regulation, grazing management on allotments not meeting 

standards would be modified to make progress toward meeting standards if 

livestock are a significant causal factor. Rangeland conditions which do not meet 
3. Affected Environment (Range Management)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-49

standards could be improved with changes to allotment management, including, 

but not limited to:

• increasing length of rest periods between grazing periods;

• changing season of use;

• altering livestock turnout location;

• changing grazing intensity;

• changing grazing duration; and

• improving livestock distribution.

Improved livestock distribution could be achieved through construction of 

water developments and fences, selective salt and/or mineral placement, and 

changes to livestock turnout location and season of use. In some cases, fencing 

may be used to protect upland and/or riparian areas. 

A grazing permit is the document which authorizes livestock grazing use of 

BLM-administered lands within an established grazing district, whereas a grazing 

lease is the document which authorizes livestock grazing use of BLMadministered lands outside an established grazing district (43 CFR 4100.0-5). 

The kind and number of livestock, the period of use (seasonal), the allotment to 

be used, and the amount of use in AUMs and the percent BLM-administered 

lands utilized are mandatory terms and conditions of every grazing permit or 

lease (43 CFR 4130.3). An AUM is the amount of forage necessary for the 

sustenance of one cow (1,000 pounds with calf) or its equivalent for one month 

and an allotment is an area of land designated and managed for grazing of 

livestock (43 CFR 4100.0-5). Various animals can graze on public lands and have 

varying forage requirements, which can be displayed in AUM equivalents. The 

most common classes of livestock in the planning area are cattle, bison (one

AUM equivalent), and sheep (0.2 AUM equivalents). 

3.13.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

Grazing in the planning area is concentrated in the south-western portion of the 

state, in Bowman County. The majority of livestock grazing occurs on open, 

rolling plains or river breaks. Vegetation in the river breaks varies from open 

grassland to juniper woodlands. Grazing allotments cover a patchwork of land 

ownership including private lands, BLM-administered lands, Forest Serviceadministered grasslands, and state lands (see Figure 3-7, Planning Area Grazing 

Allotments, in Appendix A). The majority of grazing allotments in the planning 

area are within PPH.

Local landowners are working together with the National Resource 

Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Bowman-Slope Soil Conservation District and 

other partners on rangeland health. A working group called Grassing Ranchers 

About Sustainable Stewardship has been formed to help ranchers and other 
3. Affected Environment (Range Management)

3-50 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

landowners with GRSG habitat issues and facilitate agency work with 

landowners.

WAFWA Management Zone 1

Table 3-33, Grazing Allotments within GRSG Habitat, and Table 3-34, Fences 

within GRSG Habitat, display data compiled in a BER produced by the USGS and 

BLM (Manier et al. 2013). In each table, data are presented by surface 

management agency and their occurrence within PGH and PPH in the planning 

area and MZ I. The data and information included from the BER is the most 

accurate data available from when the data was “frozen” in time for analysis 

purposes; however, these scenarios remain based in present knowledge. Spatial 

data informing the existing conditions were compiled to establish a consistent 

information basis across the entire region (GRSG Management Area), but in 

order to attain this consistently across state, ownership, and management 

boundaries some local data have been omitted; therefore, there may be 

inconsistencies between WAFWA-level and local planning-level data. As such, 

these data provide a regional baseline, suitable for guiding regional mid- to longterm analysis scenarios (Manier et al. 2013).

On lands of all surface management, there is a total of 341,400 acres of grazing 

allotments, with 70,800 in PGH and 270,600 in PPH as displayed in Table 3-33.

Structural range improvements may present a risk to GRSG, particularly fences, 

which when not designed with special provisions for GRSG, can cause fence 

collisions or provide hunting raptors a place to perch. In the planning area, there 

are approximately 1,000 miles of fence, 700 in PGH, and 300 in PPH based on 

BER data.

Table 3-33

Grazing Allotments within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Total Acres1 Acres within PGH Acres within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 Planning Area MZ I Planning Area MZ I

BLM 32,900 100 4,443,000 32,800 2,982,200

Forest Service 95,500 29,400 510,300 66,100 291,000

Tribal and Other 

Federal 0 0 137,200 0 10,600

Private 201,700 39,800 11,338,100 161,900 4,619,800

State 11,300 1,500 1,194,300 9,800 681,000

Other 0 0 3,100 0 300

Source: BLM 2012a
3. Affected Environment (Range Management)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-51

Table 3-34

Fences within GRSG Habitat

Surface 

Management 

Agency

Total Miles1 Miles within PGH Miles within PPH

Planning 

Area MZ 1 Planning Area MZ I Planning Area MZ I

BLM 63 30,000 59 11,300 4 18,700

Forest Service 200 7,000 100 900 98 6,100

Tribal and Other 

Federal 0 1,000 0 500 0 500

Private 700 32,200 500 32,100 200 100

State 48 14,000 37 3,300 11 10,700

Other 0 1,400 0 0 0 1,400

Source: BLM 2012a

1

Derived from a dataset that identifies pasture and allotment borders on BLM and Forest Service land as 

potential fences.

3.13.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

Within the planning area the majority of BLM-administered land is open to 

grazing (32,820, over 99 percent) (see Table 3-35, North Dakota Field Office 

Planning Area – Grazing Allocation on BLM-Administered Lands). No portion of 

BLM-administered lands in the planning areas is closed to grazing, and 

approximately 85 acres (less than one percent) of the planning area are not 

allocated for grazing (i.e., not specified as open or closed to grazing in existing 

land use plans) (BLM 2012a). Currently, the BLM manages grazing on 28 grazing 

allotments in the planning area; 26 of these authorizations are for cattle, one is 

for bison, and one is for sheep. There are 5,780 authorized AUMS on these 

allotments. Table 3-36, North Dakota Field Office Planning Area – AUMs by 

Allotment, provides information for each allotment managed in the planning 

area.

Table 3-35

North Dakota Field Office Planning Area – Grazing Allocation

on BLM-Administered Lands

Non 

Habitat

PGH

Acres

PPH

Acres

Totals 

Acres

Open to grazing 45 80 32,820 32,945

Closed to grazing 0 0 0 0

Not allocated 5 0 80 85

Source: BLM 2012a
3. Affected Environment (Range Management)

3-52 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 3-36

North Dakota Field Office Planning Area – AUMs by Allotment*

Allotment 

No.

Allotment 

Name Public AUMs Management Category 

Type 

Livestock 

Habitat 

Type

07371 Bison Creek 13 C Cattle PPH

10590 Cedar Hills 1,629 M Cattle PPH

10595 Brushy Draw 53 C Cattle PPH

10597 Bog Creek 22 C Bison PPH

10627 Badger 34 C Cattle PPH

10631 Box Elder 318 C Cattle PPH

10641 Rattlesnake Butte 24 C Cattle PPH

10642 Long Grass 108 C Cattle PPH

10671 Twin Forty 12 C Cattle PPH

20603 Wildcat 13 C Sheep PPH

20608 Antler 20 C Cattle PPH

20610 Badlands 39 C Cattle PPH

20611 Spotted Mouse 11 C Cattle PPH

20614 Antelope Butte* 1,092 M Cattle PPH

20615 Little Mo 38 C Cattle PPH

20618 Grassy Knoll 30 C Cattle PPH

20633 Sevenmile 173 C Cattle PPH

20636 Austby 15 C Cattle PPH

20638 Mud Butte 100 C Cattle PPH

20649 Stove Top 10 C Cattle PPH

20650 Worser Creek 190 C Cattle PPH

20651 Big Gumbo 130 M Cattle PPH

20659 Tatanka 56 C Cattle PPH

20661 Latigo 100 C Cattle PPH

20663 Kid Creek 340 I Cattle PPH

20677 Cold Turkey 

Creek

20 C Cattle PGH

20678 Kalina 8 C Cattle PPH

20696 Border 4 C Cattle Non-habitat

Total 28 Allotments 5,780 NA NA NA

Source: BLM 2010a

*Note: Antelope Butte allotment AUMs displayed for the entire allotment, which includes a portion of the 

allotment in Montana, outside of the planning area.
3. Affected Environment (Range Management)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-53

Many allotments have range improvements such as fences, stock ponds, 

pipelines, springs, windmills, seedings, wells, and access roads for livestock 

management purposes.

Livestock grazing allotments are administered under three selective 

management categories designed to concentrate public funds and management 

efforts on allotments with the most significant resource conflicts and the 

greatest potential for improvement (BLM Manual Handbook 1740-1, BLM 

2008c).

The categories include:

• Improve (I) category allotments: are managed to resolve high level 

resource conflicts and concerns and receive highest priority for 

funding and management actions.

• Maintain (M) category allotments: are managed to maintain currently 

satisfactory resource conditions and will be actively managed to 

ensure that resource values do not decline.

• Custodial (C) category allotments: are managed custodial to protect 

resource conditions and values.

In addition to criteria identified in the handbook, recent guidance (Washington 

Office IM-2009-018, BLM 2008d) provides additional criteria to be used to 

designate allotments as Category I, M, or C. In the planning area, one allotment

is managed in the “I” category, three are in the “M” category, and the remaining

24 are in the “C” category (BLM 2010a).

On GRSG habitat (PPH and PGH), there are all or portions of 26 and one 

allotments respectively (Table 3-37, North Dakota Field Office Planning Area–

Allotments and AUMs by Habitat Category). These allotments cover 

approximately 32,800 acres in PPH and 80 acres in PGH.

Table 3-37

North Dakota Field Office Planning Area– Allotments and AUMs 

by Habitat Category

Non 

Habitat PGH PPH Totals 

Number of Active AUMS 8 20 5,752 5,780

Number of Allotments 1 1 26 28

Source: BLM 2012a
3. Affected Environment (Range Management)

3-54 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

An assessment of rangeland health standards and guidelines has been made on 

all 28 allotments in the planning area, comprising 32,945 acres (see Table 3-38, 

North Dakota Field Office Planning Area – Land Health Assessment). Based on 

the most recently completed land health assessment, 29,728 acres are meeting 

all applicable standards and guidelines and 3,217 acres are not meeting 

standards. Livestock grazing on a 1,309-acre allotment was a causal factor for 

failing to achieve applicable standards and guidelines. Management actions have 

now occurred to ensure that this allotment is making progress towards 

achieving rangeland health standards and guidelines. No standards and guidelines 

assessments have been made on the 85 acres of non-allocated land in within the 

NDFO.

Table 3-38

North Dakota Field Office Planning Area – Land Health Assessment

Non 

Habitat

PGH

acres

PPH acres

Totals 

acres

Total acres of allotments 

assessed for land health 

standards

40 80 32,820 32,945

Acres meeting land health 

standards 40 0 29,688 29,728

Acres not meeting land 

health standards 0 80 3,137 3,217

Acres not meeting land 

health standards due to 

livestock grazing

0 0 1,309 1,309

Acres of allotments not 

assessed 5 0 80 85

Source: BLM 2012a

3.13.3 Trends

The two primary factors driving trends for grazing resources in the planning 

area are the impacts of a long-term drought and increased recreational use and 

recreational value of rangelands.

Permitted use levels have remained static since the last RMP was written in 

1988. Current use of allotments has been down since 2000 as a result of 

drought (BLM 2010a). The primary factor causing lowered levels of livestock use 

has been inadequate reservoir water, and a secondary factor has been lowered 

forage production. Water development from drought cost-share and other 

programs has increased, resulting in additional wells and stock water pipelines 

on rangelands. Normally, the majority of these improvements are installed on 

private land but extend into BLM-administered land. Drought, fire, disturbance, 

and improper grazing practices can also affect the abundance of cheat grass 
3. Affected Environment (Range Management)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-55

(Bromus tectorum and Bromus japonicus). The NDFO documented a distinct 

increase in cheatgrass within the planning area during 2005 through 2008 (BLM 

2010a). Cheatgrass is unpalatable to livestock and wildlife except in its early 

growth phase. The end result is decreased productivity of overall forage levels. 

If drought conditions continue, alteration of grazing management practices may 

be required.

3.14 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

ACECs are defined in FLPMA and in 43 USC 1702(a) and 43 CFR 1601.0-5(a) as 

areas where special management attention is required to protect and prevent 

irreversible damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and 

wildlife resources, or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and 

safety from natural hazards. The intent of Congress in mandating the designation 

of ACECs was to give priority to the designation and protection of areas 

containing unique and significant resource values. ACECs are areas within BLMadministered lands where special management attention is required to protect 

or to prevent irreparable damage to relevant values. These values identified in 

the ACEC nomination process must meet a set of importance criteria (BLM 

1988b). The value, resource, process or natural system, or hazard present must 

have one of more of the following:

• More than locally significant qualities that give it special worth, 

consequence, meaning, distinctiveness, or cause for concern

• Qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, 

irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, endangered, threatened, or 

vulnerable to adverse change

• Recognition as warranting protection in order to satisfy national 

priority concerns or to carry out mandates of FLPMA

• Qualities that warrant highlighting in order to satisfy public or 

management concerns about safety and public welfare

• Qualities that pose a significant threat to human life and safety or to 

property

An ACEC must also require special management attention to protect the 

identified relevant and important values. Special management attention refers to 

management prescriptions that are developed during preparation of an RMP or 

RMPA expressly to protect relevant and important values of an area from the 

potential effects of actions permitted by the RMP. These are management 

measures that would not be necessary and prescribed if the critical and 

important features were not present (BLM 1988b). ACECs are areas where 

natural processes are allowed to predominate and that are preserved for the 

primary purposes of research and education.

3.14.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

There are no ACECs in the planning area. 
3. Affected Environment (Areas of Critical Environmental Concern)

3-56 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

3.14.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

There are no ACECs in the planning area. 

3.15 AIR RESOURCES

Air resources include air quality and air quality related values (AQRVs). The US 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the primary responsibility for 

regulating air quality, including criteria air pollutants subject to National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Pollutants regulated under NAAQS include 

carbon monoxide (CO), lead, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone, particulate matter

with a diameter less than or equal to 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter with 

a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns (PM2.5), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). 

Two additional pollutants, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic

compounds are regulated because they form ozone in the atmosphere.

In addition to EPA federal regulations, air quality is regulated by the North 

Dakota Department of Health (NDDoH), Division of Air Quality. This agency 

develops state-specific regulations and issues air quality permits to emission 

sources.

Ambient air quality is affected by the type and amount of air pollutants emitted 

into the atmosphere, the size and topography of the air basin, prevailing 

meteorological conditions, and the conversion of air pollutants and other 

species by a complex series of chemical and photochemical reactions in the 

atmosphere. The levels of air pollutants are generally expressed in terms of 

concentration, either in units of parts per million (ppm), parts per billion (ppb), 

or micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3).

AQRVs include effects on soil and water, such as sulfur and nitrogen deposition 

and lake acidification, and aesthetic effects, such as visibility.

3.15.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

North Dakota is in attainment for all NAAQS (EPA 2012a). The NDDoH, 

Division of Air Quality operates an ambient air quality monitoring network. This 

network monitors criteria air pollutant concentrations at six monitoring sites in 

western North Dakota and one site in eastern North Dakota (NDDoH 2012). 

The National Park Service operates an additional criteria pollutant monitoring 

site in the south unit of the Theodore Roosevelt National Park. In addition, 

NDDoH requires three major industrial sources to conduct SO2 monitoring at 

eight locations in the state (NDDoH 2012). There are no monitoring sites in the 

planning area; the nearest monitoring sites are the National Park Service site in 

Billings County and an NDDoH site in Dunn County. The National Park Service 

site monitors for ozone, PM2.5, and SO2, and the Dunn County site monitors for 

ozone, NO2, PM2.5 (as of 2011), PM10, and SO2. 
3. Affected Environment (Air Resources)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-57

Table 3-39, Air Quality Monitor Values in Billings and Dunn Counties (2009-

2011), shows the concentrations of monitored pollutants in the latest three 

years for which data has been finalized. All monitored criteria pollutant 

concentrations were below the NAAQS during this time period (EPA 2012b). 

Table 3-39

Air Quality Monitor Values in Billings and Dunn Counties (2009-2011)

Monitored 

Pollutant

Averaging 

Time 2009 2010 2011 3-year average NAAQs % of NAAQS

Billings County

Ozone 8 hours 0.056 0.061 0.057 0.058 0.075 ppm 77

SO2 1 hour 9 6 5 6.7 75 ppb 9

PM2.5 24 hours 10 12 10 10.7 35 μg/m3 30

PM2.51 Annual 4.1 4.7 4.1 4.3 12μg/m3 36

Dunn County

Ozone 8 hours 0.054 0.058 0.054 0.055 0.075 ppm 74

NO2 1 hour 11 13 8 10.7 100 ppb 11

SO2 1 hour 10 19 10 13 75 ppb 17

PM10 24 hours 52 32 74 52.7 150 μg/m3 35

Source: BLM 2012a; EPA 2012a; EPA 2012b

Air quality also may be assessed using the EPA’s air quality index (AQI). The 

AQI is an index used for reporting daily air quality to the public. The index tells 

how clean or polluted an area’s air is and whether associated health effects 

might be a concern. The EPA calculates the AQI for five criteria air pollutants 

regulated by the Clean Air Act: ground-level ozone, particulate matter, CO, 

SO2, and NO2. An AQI value of 100 generally corresponds to the primary 

NAAQS for the pollutant. The following terms help interpret the AQI 

information:

• Good – The AQI value is between 0 and 50. Air quality is 

considered satisfactory and air pollution poses little or no risk.

• Moderate – The AQI is between 51 and 100. Air quality is 

acceptable; however, for some pollutants there may be a moderate

health concern for a very small number of people. For example, 

people who are unusually sensitive to ozone may experience 

respiratory symptoms.

• Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups (USG) – When AQI values 

are between 101 and 150, members of “sensitive groups” may 

experience health effects. These groups are likely to be affected at 

lower levels than the general public. For example, people with lung 

disease are at greater risk from exposure to ozone, while people 

 1 PM2.5 standard was revised on March 18, 2013, and the percentage shown reflects the revised standard.
3. Affected Environment (Air Resources)

3-58 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

with either lung disease or heart disease are at greater risk from 

exposure to particle pollution. The general public is not likely to be 

affected when the AQI is in this range.

• Unhealthy – The AQI is between 151 and 200. Everyone may 

begin to experience some adverse health effects, and members of 

the sensitive groups may experience more serious effects.

• Very Unhealthy – The AQI is between 201 and 300. This index 

level would trigger a health alert signifying that everyone may 

experience more serious health effects.

Table 3-40, Air Quality Index Report (2009-2011), displays the number of days 

rated “Good” in the AQI, based on data collected from the Billings County 

monitor between 2009 and 2011. AQI data show there is little risk to the 

general public from air quality in the planning region. Air quality in the area has 

consistently been good for the past three years.

Table 3-40

Air Quality Index Report (2009-2011)

Year

Number of 

Days with 

AQI

Number of 

Days rated 

Good

Percent of 

Days Rated 

Good

Number of 

Moderate 

Days

Number of USG, 

Unhealthy, or Very 

Unhealthy Days

2011 365 365 100% - 0

2010 357 353 99% 4 0

2009 365 364 99% 1 0

Total 1,087 1,082 5 0

Average 100% 0%

Source: EPA 2012c

USG = unhealthy for sensitive groups

AQRVs include visibility, which can be degraded by regional haze due primarily 

to sulfur, nitrogen, and particulate emissions. Since 1980, the Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network has 

measured visibility in national parks and wilderness areas. Based on trends 

identified from 1998 through 2008, visibility had remained stable at the 

Lostwood Wilderness and Theodore Roosevelt National Park IMPROVE 

monitor stations on the haziest days (20 percent worst days). On the 20 

percent best (clearest) days, visibility at these monitors has been improving, 

with greater improvement at Theodore Roosevelt National Park (IMPROVE 

2011).

Atmospheric deposition refers to processes in which air pollutants are removed 

from the atmosphere and deposited into terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Air 

pollutants can be deposited by either wet precipitation (via rain or snow) or dry 
3. Affected Environment (Air Resources)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-59

(gravitational) settling of particles and adherence of gaseous pollutants to soil, 

water, and vegetation. Much of the concern about deposition surrounds the 

secondary formation of acids and other compounds that can contribute to 

acidification of lakes, streams, and soils and affect other ecosystem 

characteristics, including nutrient cycling and biological diversity. Deposition 

varies with precipitation and other meteorological variables such as 

temperature, humidity, winds, and atmospheric stability. 

The National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network is an 

interagency sponsored network of monitoring stations that measures wet 

atmospheric deposition. The Clean Air Status and Trends Network is an 

interagency network of monitoring stations managed by EPA that measures dry 

deposition. The closest sites to the planning area that are within these networks 

are in Theodore Roosevelt National Park; dry deposition rates have been 

measured since 1998, and wet deposition rates have been measured since 2001. 

The annual average precipitation pH between 2004 and 2011 ranged from 5.38 

to 5.81 during this time period, with an average of 5.65. Normal rain has a pH 

level of 5.6, while acid rain has a pH level around 4.3 (EPA 2012d).

Table 3-41, Annual Average Deposition (2004-2011), shows the wet 

deposition levels of sulfates, nitrates, and ammonium, as well as pH and 

precipitation, from 2004 to 2011 and the dry deposition levels of sulfur and 

nitrogen from 2004 to 2010.

Table 3-41

Annual Average Deposition (2004-2011)

Year pH Precipitation

(centimeters)

Annual Average Wet 

Deposition (kg/ha/yr)

Annual Average Dry 

Deposition (kg/ha/yr)

SO4 NO3 NH4

Sulfur

(SO2 + SO42-

)

Nitrogen 

(HNO3+NO3+

NH4)

2004 5.38 27.7 1.67 2.07 0.88 0.5 0.7

2005 5.58 48.2 3.34 4.14 1.82 0.5 0.6

2006 5.71 24.4 2.15 3.12 1.46 0.5 1.0

2007 5.81 35.7 2.53 3.41 2.02 NA NA

2008 5.63 26.9 1.98 2.64 1.29 0.3 0.7

2009 5.72 34.3 2.07 2.63 1.29 0.3 0.6

2010 5.64 58.1 2.61 3.96 2.11 0.3 0.6

2011 5.75 59.7 3.04 3.45 2.11 NA NA

Ave 5.65 39.38 2.42 3.18 1.62 0.4 0.7

Source: NADP/NTN 2012; EPA 2004-2010

SO4=sulfates; NO3=nitrates; NH4=Ammonium

kg/ha/yr = kilogram/hectare/year
3. Affected Environment (Air Resources)

3-60 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

There are no designated Class 1 areas within the planning area. The nearest 

Class 1 area is Theodore Roosevelt National Park, which is approximately 45 

miles northeast of the northern edge of the planning area. There are two 

USFWS National Wildlife Refuges within Slope County; these refuges are 

considered potentially sensitive Class II areas. The Stewart Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge is in the east-central portion of the planning area, while the 

White Lake National Wildlife Refuge lies approximately 10 miles east of the 

planning area.

3.15.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

The area managed by the NDFO is in compliance with all NAAQS (NDDoH 

2011, pg. 1-2). The Billings County monitoring location is the closest air quality

monitor to the BLM-administered lands. As such, this monitoring location has 

the best estimate to what kind of air quality is present in the planning region, 

and more specifically, on BLM-administered lands. The conditions on BLMadministered lands are similar to those discussed in Conditions of the Planning 

Area.

3.15.3 Trends

Quantitative data provided by the Billings and Dunn County monitors show air 

quality has been consistently good in the planning area (EPA 2012c). The good 

air quality is largely attributed to the rural nature of the planning region.

The National Park Service 2008 Annual Performance and Progress Report 

details air quality and AQRV trends in National Parks, including Theodore 

Roosevelt National Park (NPS 2009). This report shows that the haze index on 

haziest days and sulfate, nitrate, and ammonium concentrations in precipitation 

have remained stable in the 1998 to 2007 time period, while the haze index on 

the clearest days has improved (NPS 2009, pg. 33-39).

3.16 CLIMATE

Climate change is defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC) as “a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by 

using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its 

properties, and persist for an extended period, typically decades or longer. It 

refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or 

as a result of human activity” (IPCC 2007, pg. 667). Climate change and climate 

science are discussed in detail in the Climate Change Supplementary Information 

Report for Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota, Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM 2010b). This document is often referred to as the “Climate 

Change SIR” and is incorporated by reference into the North Dakota Greater 

Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS.

Earth has a natural greenhouse effect, wherein naturally occurring gases such as 

water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide absorb and retain 

heat. Without the natural greenhouse effect, the earth would be approximately 

60°F cooler (BLM 2010b, pg. 2-16). Climate change is caused in part by the 
3. Affected Environment (Climate)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-61

increase in GHGs in the atmosphere beyond naturally occurring levels1. Over 

time the amount of energy sent from the sun to the Earth’s surface should be 

approximately the same as the amount of energy radiated back into space, 

leaving the temperature of the Earth’s surface roughly constant. Increased levels 

of GHGs trap more heat in the atmosphere rather than allowing it to escape 

back into space.

Climate models predict that if GHGs continue to increase, the average 

temperature at the Earth’s surface could increase from 3.2 to 7.2oF (1.8 to 

4.0°C) above 1990 levels by the end of this century (EPA 2011b). An increase in 

the average temperature of the Earth may produce changes in sea levels, rainfall 

patterns, and intensity and frequency of extreme weather events. The IPCC, in 

its Fourth Assessment Report, stated that warming of the earth’s climate system 

is unequivocal and that warming is very likely due to anthropogenic (humancaused) GHG concentrations (IPCC 2007, pg. 5).

3.16.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

Climate

The climate in North Dakota is characterized by its unpredictability. The state 

experiences blizzards, floods, droughts, tornados, hail storms, thunderstorms, 

high winds, severe cold spells, and extreme heat (Center for Integrative 

Environmental Research 2008, pg. 5).

The annual average temperature ranges from about 37°F in northeastern North 

Dakota to 44°F along most of the southern border. Average January 

temperatures range from near 0°F in the northeast to 15°F in the southwest. 

Average July temperatures range from 65°F in the northeast to 72°F in the 

south. The average number of days per year with maximum temperatures of 

90°F or more range from 10 in the northeast to 24 in the west and south. 

Below 0°F temperatures average about 40 to 70 days each year across the state 

(Enz 2003).

Average annual precipitation ranges from about 14 to 22 inches from 

northwestern to southeastern North Dakota. Most precipitation falls as rain 

from April to September. The coldest months, November through February, 

average only about 0.50 inches per month, mostly as snow. Despite its northerly 

location, North Dakota’s annual snowfall of 25 to 45 inches is less than other 

 1 There are six GHGs tracked by the IPCC: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, 

perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride (State Department 2010). The latter three gases are known as high 

global warming potential gases due to their warming effectiveness (140 to 23,900 times greater than carbon 

dioxide) (State Department 2010, pg. 24). Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have both natural and 

human-generated sources, while high global warming potential gases are strictly human-generated from various 

industrial processes. GHG emissions are tracked as carbon dioxide equivalents, with one gram of carbon dioxide 

molecule counting as one and other GHG molecules counting as some multiple (EPA 2012d).
3. Affected Environment (Climate)

3-62 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

northern states. Winter snowpack averages nine to 15 inches from southwest 

to northeast (Enz 2003).

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

GHG emissions are generally reported at national and statewide levels. No 

comprehensive GHG emission inventory has been prepared for North Dakota. 

However, under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, facilities emitting more 

than 25,000 metric tons of GHGs annually are required to report their 

emissions. The EPA’s GHG Reporting Program shows that 40 emitters in North 

Dakota are required to report their emissions under the program; none of 

these emitters are located in the planning area counties. These 40 facilities 

emitted over 37.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents in 2010; 82 

percent of these emissions came from power plants (EPA 2010b). As reported 

by the North Dakota Division of Air Quality, carbon dioxide emissions from 

fossil fuel combustion totaled 48.98 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide in 

2007 (this estimate did not include emissions from other GHGs). 

Sources of GHG emissions include fossil fuel development, large wildfires, 

activities using combustion engines, and agriculture (fertilizer production and 

methane produced by livestock). No information on the specific GHG emission 

sources and their percentage contribution to overall levels is currently available 

for North Dakota.

3.16.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

Conditions on BLM-administered lands are similar to those described above for 

the planning area.

3.16.3 Trends

Climate changes over the past 100 years are well documented and climate 

change is expected to continue into the future. Fossil fuel combustion and 

other human-caused GHG-producing activities are ongoing, although public 

awareness and future regulations may reduce annual GHG emissions. Due to 

the long atmospheric lifetimes of most GHGs, climate change impacts will 

continue to increase for many years after GHG emissions decrease (EPA 

2012d).

Over the past 100 years, annual temperature and precipitation have increased, 

and climate models predict that they will continue to increase through the 21st 

century. In the Great Plains, the average annual temperature has increased by 

about two degrees Fahrenheit over the past 100 years (National Conference of 

State Legislatures 2008). Depending on the model, in North Dakota 

temperature increases between three and five degrees Fahrenheit by the mid21st century and between five and nine degrees Fahrenheit at the end of the 

century are predicted (US Global Change Research Program 2009, pg. 123). 

Precipitation is expected to increase during winter and spring, decrease slightly 

in the summer, and remain relatively unchanged in the fall (US Global Change 

Research Program 2009, pg. 125). Extreme weather events such as severe 
3. Affected Environment (Climate)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-63

drought and intense rainfall are expected to increase in frequency (National 

Conference of State Legislatures 2008). In the western portion of the state, 

annual median runoff is expected to decrease between two and five percent by 

the mid-21st century, while runoff in the northeastern part of the state is 

expected to increase by five to 10 percent (US Global Change Research 

Program 2009). Temperature increases may increase crop yields, which may 

encourage parts of the state not previously used for agriculture to be obtained 

for that purpose (National Research Council 2010).

Wildland fire risk is predicted to increase due to climate change effects on 

temperature, precipitation, and wind. One study predicted an increase in 

median annual area burned by wildland fires in the western portion of North 

Dakota, based on a 1.8°F (1°C) global average temperature increase, to be 393 

percent (National Research Council 2010). Changes in timing of precipitation 

and earlier runoff would increase fire risks.

Climate change has caused large-scale shifts in the ranges of species and the 

timing of the seasons and animal migrations within ecosystems of the US. 

Documented changes include the arrival of spring an average of 10 days to two 

weeks earlier through much of the US compared to 20 years ago, and multiple 

bird species now migrate north earlier in the year. These shifts are expected to 

continue and would likely impact the GRSG as climate change continues to 

affect their habitat (US Climate Change Science Program 2008).

3.17 SOIL RESOURCES

Soil processes determine, to a large extent, the structure and function of 

ecosystems. Soil health is integral to the BLM’s mandate to sustain the health, 

diversity, and productivity of BLM-administered lands.

The existing North Dakota RMP has the following objectives related to soils:

• Soils of the BLM-administered lands will be managed to maintain 

productivity and promote sustained yields while keeping erosion at 

minimal/acceptable levels and preventing physical or chemical 

degradation.

• Proposed surface-disturbing projects will be analyzed to determine 

suitability of soils to support or sustain such projects. They will be 

designed to minimize soil loss. Bureau management actions and 

objectives will be consistent with soil resource capabilities.

In combination with climate, soil type and quality are the primary determining 

factors that determine whether sagebrush can exist in a given location. Soil type 

and quality also determine which variety of sagebrush community is able to 

thrive. Since the presence of GRSG is dependent upon the presence of 

sagebrush, and sagebrush type and viability are dependent on soil type and 

quality, soils are an important element in GRSG habitat.
3. Affected Environment (Soil Resources)

3-64 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

3.17.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

Sagebrush occurs only within the southwest corner of North Dakota and is 

within the Silver Sagebrush Subdivision floristic province. Miller and Eddleman 

(2001) describe plains silver sagebrush (Artemisia cana var. cana) as a sagebrush 

community type that is widespread over the northern Great Plains at elevations 

of 1,200 to 2,100 meters that occupy well-drained alluvial flats, terraces valley 

bottoms, and drainage ways.

In the NDFO GRSG planning area overall, the soil resources condition is good, 

with some areas demonstrating diminished, unstable, or eroded soils due to 

grazing and other resource uses such as mineral development.

3.17.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

Table 3-42, Major Soil Orders on BLM-Administered Lands, provides acreage 

numbers for soils within the BLM-administered lands that occur within the 

planning area.

Table 3-42

Major Soil Orders on BLM-Administered Lands

Soil Type Total acres

(33,030 total)

PPH acres

(32,900 total)

PGH acres

(80 total)

Undetermined 4,382 4,338 36

Clayey 148 146 0

Clayey Terrace 44 44 0

Claypan 94 94 0

Closed Depression 2 2 0

Loamy 318 313 0

Loamy Overflow 159 159 0

Loamy Terrace 256 256 0

Saline Lowland 1,598 1,598 0

Sands 2 0 0

Sandy 600 600 0

Sandy Claypan 1,945 1,918 8

Sandy Terrace 300 296 0

Shallow Clayey 17,567 17,565 0

Shallow Loamy 939 939 0

Shallow Sandy 1,526 1,525 1

Thin Claypan 1,989 1,948 35

Thin Loamy 214 214 0
3. Affected Environment (Soil Resources)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-65

Table 3-42

Major Soil Orders on BLM-Administered Lands

Soil Type Total acres

(33,030 total)

PPH acres

(32,900 total)

PGH acres

(80 total)

Thin Sands 674 674 0

Very Shallow 95 95 0

Wet Meadow 176 176 0

Source: BLM 2012a

Farmlands of Statewide Importance occur on BLM-administered lands within the 

planning area, as shown in Table 3-43, Summary of NRCS Farmlands on BLMadministered Lands.

Table 3-43

Summary of NRCS Farmlands on BLM-administered Lands

Farmland 

Classification Total Acres PPH Acres PGH Acres

Prime 0 0 0

Unique 0 0 0

Statewide Importance 1,380 1,372 0

Source: BLM 2012a

3.17.3 Trends

Soil quality and quantity has degraded over time due to disturbance related to 

livestock grazing and mineral development. Compaction related to mineral 

development and in certain areas of livestock operations has also increased over 

time. Implementation of the BLM’s Standards for Rangeland Health Guidelines 

has reduced the potential for soil erosion in current grazing management areas 

and requirements for commercial operations to reclaim and restore damaged 

soils have slowed or reversed soil degradation. Invasive species potentially alter 

soil chemistry which influences plant community succession. Vegetative 

community changes affect soil stability and hydrologic function.

3.18 WATER RESOURCES

This section includes a description of indicators, existing conditions, and trends 

for water resources. Streams and water quality are the focus of this section. 

Wetlands (including riparian areas) are discussed in Section 3.1, Vegetation 

(Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands). Water on BLMadministered lands is regulated by the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water 

Act, Public Land Health Standards, and other laws, regulations, and policy 

guidance at the federal, state, and local levels.
3. Affected Environment (Water Resources)

3-66 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

3.18.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

The Missouri River and lakes Sakakawea and Oahe are the largest sources of 

surface water in North Dakota. Approximately 54,427 miles of rivers and 

streams exist in North Dakota. The major rivers and their tributaries include 

the Missouri, Yellowstone, Little Missouri, Knife, Heart, and Cannonball rivers 

(BLM 2010a). 

Water in the planning area is used for stock watering, irrigation, and potable 

water. The minerals industry also uses a significant amount of water, mostly for 

oil and gas hydro-fracturing and dust suppression. Recreation and fish and 

wildlife uses are also important, but they do not consume appreciable quantities 

of water and are generally incidental to other uses (BLM 2010a).

3.18.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

Surface Water

The main river that flows through BLM-administered lands is the Little Missouri 

River. The major constituents affecting the quality of water in the Missouri River 

mainstem (including lakes Sakakawea and Oahe) are sodium, magnesium, 

calcium, sulfate, and bicarbonate. Water from the Missouri River is suitable for 

public supply, domestic uses, and irrigation uses (BLM 2010a).

Tributaries of the Missouri River usually have peak flows in response to 

snowmelt runoff and summer storms. These waters are of poorer quality due to 

total dissolved solids. Water from the Missouri River tributaries is marginally 

suitable for public supply, domestic supply, and marginal to unsuitable for 

irrigation use (BLM 2010a).

The Big Gumbo area is within the unglaciated Northern Great Plains 

physiographic province of the Missouri River Plateau (the southwest portion of 

Bowman County, between the Little Missouri River and the Montana state line). 

Rain on ice or snowpack, rain on saturated soils, or intense summer 

thunderstorms are the precipitation events that will typically produce runoff. 

Surface drainage of the area is from west to east through ephemeral channels 

into the Little Missouri River. Surface water is available in small quantities. Small 

reservoirs of between five and 12 acre-feet in size provide water for livestock 

and wildlife uses. Water quality is the major limiting factor for water use 

because of the high dissolved solids in the reservoirs and streams. Due to the 

relatively high sediment loads, reservoirs can be expected to last ten or twenty 

years before they silt in (BLM 2010a).

Ephemeral streams do not flow during an average water year, but do flow in 

response to large precipitation events. Intermittent streams flow during spring 

runoff for an average water year, but generally dry up later in the summer. 

Perennial streams contain some water all year for an average water year. Most 

of the streams on BLM-administered land are intermittent and flow from March 

to July. However, streams can still contain water during other months due to 
3. Affected Environment (Water Resources)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-67

stored water being fed to the streams from shallow groundwater sources or

floodplains. Table 3-44, Streams on BLM-Administered Lands in the Planning 

Area, lists information for perennial and intermittent streams on BLMadministered lands in the planning area.

Table 3-44

Streams on BLM-Administered Lands in the Planning Area

Stream Name Total Miles

Miles on BLMAdministered 

Land

Miles on PPH

on BLMAdministered 

Land

Miles on PGH

on BLMAdministered 

Land

Unnamed 3,031.06 171.42 170.61 0.59

Alkali Creek 29.26

Bacon Creek 27.25

Big Gumbo Creek 11.89 10.69 10.69

Bog Creek 5.96 0.11 0.11

Boxelder Creek 8.16 0.83 0.83

Boyce Creek 19.74

Buffalo Creek 5.76

Bull Run Creek 27.55

Butte Creek 5.35

Cannonball Creek 20.85

Cash Creek 15.54

Cold Turkey Creek 20.196

Corral Creek 7.34

Cottonwood Creek 18.58

Coyote Creek 27.90

Deep Creek 47.27

Dugout Creek 4.67

East Fork Deep Creek 29.20

First Creek 15.98

Fivemile Creek 21.53 0.38 0.38

Hay Creek 12.91

Horse Creek 39.80

Indian Creek 16.63

Johny Creek 7.71

Kid Creek 9.84 1.71 1.71

Little Beaver Creek 23.91

Little Missouri River 145.78 0.98 0.98

Lone Tree Creek 21.92

Mud Creek 14.78

North Butte Creek 6.31

North Fork Grand River 23.11
3. Affected Environment (Water Resources)

3-68 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 3-44

Streams on BLM-Administered Lands in the Planning Area

Stream Name Total Miles

Miles on BLMAdministered 

Land

Miles on PPH

on BLMAdministered 

Land

Miles on PGH

on BLMAdministered 

Land

Sand Creek 32.31

Second Creek 8.16

Sevenmile Creek 22.94 2.48 2.48

Sheep Creek 3.17

Skull Creek 21.72 0.65 0.65

Soda Creek 8.92

South Butte Creek 11.48

South Mosquito Creek 7.73

Spring Coulee 76.40

Spring Creek 6.33

Third Creek 7.50

West Fork Deep Creek 27.53

Williams Creek 24.96

Worser Creek 6.17 0.18 0.18

Source: USGS 2012

Riparian areas are ecosystems that occur along rivers, streams, or waterbodies. 

These areas exhibit vegetation or physical characteristics reflective of 

permanent surface or subsurface water influence. Typical riparian areas are 

lands along, adjacent to, or contiguous with perennially and intermittently 

flowing rivers, streams, and shores of lakes and reservoirs with stable water 

levels. Excluded are such sites as ephemeral streams or washes that do not 

exhibit vegetation dependent on free water in the soil. Wetlands are areas that 

are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and 

duration sufficient to support and which, under normal circumstances, do 

support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil 

conditions. Wetlands include marshes, swamps, lakeshores, sloughs, bogs, wet 

meadows, estuaries, and riparian areas. Even though riparian and wetland areas

occupy only a small percentage of BLM-administered land in the planning area

these areas provide a wide range of functions critical to many different wildlife 

species, improve water quality, provide scenery, and provide recreational 

opportunities.

Healthy surface water sources (such as ponds, lakes, and wetlands) provide 

habitat for insects and animals that are predators of mosquitos. Areas that both 

have standing water and do not support predators of mosquitos can be areas 

where mosquito populations increase. The conditions of wetlands (including 
3. Affected Environment (Water Resources)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-69

riparian areas) are discussed in Section 3.5, Vegetation (Including Noxious 

Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands).

Water developments are also influential sources of water for wildlife. Water 

developments can function for multiple uses. They provide additional and 

alternative sources of water for wildlife and livestock, and can decrease use of 

riparian areas. Within the planning area there are water developments for use 

by recreation, livestock, or wildlife.

Water Quality 

Water quality, as defined by the Clean Water Act, includes all the physical, 

biological, and chemical characteristics which affect existing and designated 

beneficial uses. The State of North Dakota is required to identify which 

beneficial uses a water body currently supports or could support in the future. 

Water quality standards are established to protect the beneficial uses of the 

state’s waters. Beneficial uses are identified for specific waters. Designated 

beneficial uses for water bodies include municipal or domestic supply, aquatic 

life, propagation of wildlife, irrigation, livestock watering, recreation, and 

industrial supply (BLM 2010a). Water must meet federal and state standards to 

be used for the beneficial uses designated for the water, and water that does 

not meet these standards is considered to be impaired.

The State of North Dakota is required by Section 303(d) of the Clean Water 

Act to identify waters that are water quality impaired because of failing to meet 

their designated beneficial uses. Section 303(d) requires that each state develop 

a list of water bodies that fail to meet water quality standards and delineate 

stream segments and listing criteria for all streams. The 303(d) list of impaired 

waters is updated biannually, and the state is required to develop a total 

maximum daily load allocation for each pollutant of concern. There are no 

impaired streams on BLM-administered lands (BLM 2012a).

Upland and riparian land health conditions greatly influence water quality. 

Conditions that affect water quality can be summarized as the amount of nearstream vegetation, channel shape, and hydrology. Many of these conditions are 

interrelated and many vary considerably across the landscape. Management 

activities involving ROW disturbance, grazing, and fire in the planning area

create situations that alter these conditions, thereby altering water quality.

Groundwater

Groundwater is more evenly distributed throughout the state than surface 

water. Most wells finished in aquifers yield small quantities of water that 

generally are not large enough for commercial uses but are adequate for 

domestic and livestock uses. Most rural and municipal water users in North 

Dakota depend on ground water for their domestic water source (BLM 2010a).

The quality of the groundwater is a function of the chemical makeup of the 

underground formation containing the water. Springs and seeps occur in areas 
3. Affected Environment (Water Resources)

3-70 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

where water from aquifers reaches the surface. Many springs begin in stream 

channels; others flow into small ponds or marshy areas that drain into channels. 

Some springs and seep areas form their own channels that reach flowing 

streams, but other springs lose their surface expression and recharge alluvial fill 

material or permeable stratum.

Springs and seeps are important to aquatic habitats because of the perennial 

base flow they provide to a stream. The outflow from springs in summer usually 

helps to maintain lower water temperatures. In winter, especially in small 

streams, base flow helps to maintain an aquatic habitat in an otherwise frozen 

environment.

Springs have been disturbed either by management activities that have affected 

the volume of water available to the vegetation and soils where springs begin, or 

by activities that have affected the vegetation and soils directly. Activities, such 

as grazing, water developments, recreation use, road construction, and 

vegetation management, have affected spring systems in the past. Activities such 

as well drilling or blasting can affect springs by reducing the amount of water in 

their aquifers or by affecting subsurface flow patterns.

3.18.3 Trends

The BLM manages a small number of scattered, small tracts of lands. 

Percentage-wise, the BLM-administered lands are a small portion of the total 

lands across the planning area. Overall, the BLM-administered surface lands are 

not a major contributor to water quality.

3.19 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES – OTHER SPECIES OF ISSUE

Special status species are those species with populations that have declined to 

the point of substantial federal or state agency concern. These declines may 

result from habitat loss or modification or from changes in competition, 

predation, disease, or overharvest. Habitat loss and modification from human 

activities are the primary causes of declining populations, particularly of species 

that are highly adapted to specific ecological niches. Such species may or may 

not be legally protected by federal or state agencies. The BLM’s policy for 

special status species is to: 1) conserve and recover T&E species and the 

ecosystems on which they depend so that ESA protections are no longer 

needed, and 2) to initiate proactive conservation measures that reduce or 

eliminate threats to BLM sensitive species to minimize the likelihood of and 

need for listing of these species under the ESA. The BLM 6840 Manual, Special 

Status Species Management (BLM 2008b), sets policy for the management of

candidate species and their habitat. Candidate species are considered BLM 

sensitive species. The 6840 manual directs the BLM to conserve special status 

species and the ecosystems on which they depend to reduce the likelihood and 

need for future listing under the ESA. The 6840 manual also directs the BLM to 

undertake conservation actions for such species before listing is warranted and 

also to, “work cooperatively with other agencies, organizations, governments, 
3. Affected Environment (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-71

and interested parties for the conservation of sensitive species and their habitats 

to meet agreed on species and habitat management goals.”

The BLM 6840 Policy requires that when the BLM engages in the planning 

process, land use plans, and implementation plans, that strategies, restrictions 

and management actions necessary to conserve and/or recover listed species, as 

well as provisions for the conservation of Bureau sensitive species are identified. 

The BLM 6840 policy also requires managers to determine to the extent 

practicable, the distribution, abundance, population condition, current threats, 

and habitat needs for sensitive species, and evaluate the significance of actions in 

conserving those species.

3.19.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

The planning area occurs within the WAFWA MZ 1 of the Northwestern Great 

Plains Level III Ecoregion (Stiver et al. 2006, pg. 1-11; EPA 2011a). This 

ecoregion is characterized by semiarid rolling plains of shale, siltstone, and 

sandstone punctuated by occasional buttes and badlands. Rangeland is common, 

small grain farming, some row crops, and hayland also occur; native grasslands 

persist in areas of steep or broken topography. Agriculture is restricted by the 

erratic precipitation and limited opportunities for irrigation (EPA 2010a, pg. 7).

For more detailed information regarding the conditions of the planning area

refer to Section 3.5, Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and 

Wetlands). 

Potentially occurring special status species, including status, habitat, and 

likelihood of occurrence, are presented in Table 3-45, Federally Listed Species 

with the Potential to Inhabit the Planning Area and Table 3-46, North Dakota 

Field Office BLM Sensitive Species with the Potential to Inhabit the Planning 

Area.

3.19.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

GRSG habitat on BLM-administered lands includes 32,900 acres of PPH and 80

acres of PGH, and extends into three North Dakota counties (Bowman, Golden 

Valley, and Slope). GRSG habitat has the potential to provide habitat to a variety 

of special status species (Table 3-1). Potentially occurring BLM sensitive species

and likelihood of occurrence are presented in Table 3-46. No federally-listed 

or BLM sensitive plant species are known to inhabit the planning area, including 

BLM-administered lands.

3.19.3 Trends

Some of the special status species are in decline due to habitat fragmentation, 

spread of noxious weeds, lack of fire on the landscape or fire suppression, use 

conflicts (such as recreation, OHV use, energy development, and livestock 

grazing) and infrastructure development (BLM 2010a, pg. 227).
3. Affected Environment (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

3-72 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 3-45

Federally Listed Species with the Potential to Inhabit the Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name Status1 General Habitat Description

Likelihood of 

Occurrence on 

BLMadministered 

lands

Mammals

Black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes FE Black-footed ferret populations are intimately tied to and only 

found in association with prairie dogs. Limited to habitat used by 

black-tailed prairie dogs, black-footed ferret typically inhabits

grasslands, steppe, and shrub steppe, relying on abandoned 

prairie dog burrows for shelter. Only large complexes (several 

thousand acres of closely spaced colonies) can support and 

sustain a breeding population. Currently, no black-tailed prairie 

dog complexes fitting the acreage requirements for a viable blackfooted ferret population exist in North Dakota.

Unlikely to occur 

– not known to 

occupy BLM 

surface lands

Gray wolf Canis lupus FE Historically, the gray wolf occupied almost all habitats in North 

America, including the Great Plains. In modern times, the gray 

wolf has been restricted to habitats with low densities of roads 

and people. The forested areas in north central and northeast 

North Dakota are likely habitat for the gray wolf; however, they 

may appear anywhere.

Potential to 

occur (transient) 

– not known to 

occupy BLM 

surface lands. No 

known breeding 

populations 

within North 

Dakota

Birds

Interior least tern Sternula antillarum 

athalassos

FE From late April to August, terns use barren to sparsely vegetated

sandbars along rivers, sand and gravel pits, or lake and reservoir 

shorelines. Terns can be found near the Yellowstone and Missouri 

Rivers.

Unlikely to occur 

– not known to 

occupy BLM 

surface lands

Piping plover Charadrius melodus FE In the Great Plains, piping plovers inhabit barren sand and gravel 

shores of rivers and lakes. Plovers avoid dense vegetation. Nearly 

all natural lakes used by plovers in North Dakota are alkaline in 

nature and have salt-encrusted, white beaches. Such alkali lakes 

Unlikely to occur 

– not known to 

occupy BLM 

surface lands
3. Affected Environment (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-73

Table 3-45

Federally Listed Species with the Potential to Inhabit the Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name Status1 General Habitat Description

Likelihood of 

Occurrence on 

BLMadministered 

lands

are selected due to their sparse vegetation. Beaches used by 

piping plovers generally are 10 to 40 yards wide. Piping plovers 

also use barren river sandbars. In North Dakota, this habitat type 

is found on the Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers.

Whooping crane Grus americana FE Whooping cranes inhabit shallow wetlands characterized by 

cattails, bulrushes, and sedges. They can also be found in upland 

areas, especially during migration.

Potential to 

occur 

(migratory) – not 

known to occupy 

BLM surface 

lands

Fish

Pallid sturgeon Scaphirhynchus 

albus

FE Pallid sturgeon is found in large turbid rivers including the 

Missouri and Yellowstone rivers. They use all channel types, 

primarily straight reaches with islands. They primarily use areas 

with substrates containing sand (especially bottom sand dune 

formations) and fines (93% of observations).

Unlikely to occur 

– not known to 

occupy BLM 

waterways

Plants

Western prairiefringed orchidPlantanthera 

praeclara

FT Western prairie-fringed orchids are found in moist tallgrass 

prairies and sedge meadows. In North Dakota, is the orchids

commonly cohabit with sedges, reedgrass, and rushes or where 

those plants meet big bluestem, little bluestem, and switchgrass.

The western prairie-fringed orchid is well adapted to survive fires.

Unlikely to occur 

– not known to 

occupy BLM 

surface lands

Source: USFWS 2012, BLM 2010a

1

FE Federally listed as endangered

FT Federally listed as threatened
3. Affected Environment (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

3-74 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 3-46

North Dakota Field Office BLM Sensitive Species with the Potential to Inhabit the Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name Global Rank1/ 

State Rank

NDGFD

Rank2 General Habitat Description

Likelihood of 

Occurrence 

on BLMadministered 

lands

Mammals

Townsend’s big-eared

bat

Corynorhinus

townsendii

G4 SNR Not Ranked Townsend’s big-eared bats are 

commonly found in mesic habitats 

characterized by coniferous and 

deciduous forests.

Potential to 

occur

Long-legged myotis Myotis volans G5 SU Level 3 Normally found in rugged terrain, longlegged myotic roost alone or in small 

groups in rock crevices and under tree 

bark. This species has a strong 

association with coniferous trees.

Potential to 

occur

Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis G5 SU Level 3 Normally found in rugged terrain, longeared myotis roost alone or in small 

groups in rock crevices and under tree 

bark, typically in coniferous trees, and

hibernate in caves and abandoned 

mines.

Potential to 

occur

Black-tailed prairie dog Cynomys ludovicianus G3, G4 SU Level 1 Black-tailed prairie dog inhabit shortand mixed grasslands, usually well 

grazed lands. They are generally 

confined to prairie communities with 

relatively flat topography.

Known to 

occur 

Swift fox Vulpes velox G3 S1 Level 2 Swift fox inhabit large tracts of shortand mixed-grass prairie.Unlikely to 

occur

Birds

Baird’s sparrow Ammodramus bairdii G4 SU Level 1 Baird’s sparrows inhabit extensive 

tracts of native mixed-grass prairie or 

lightly grazed pastures.

Potential to 

occur

Black tern Chlidonias niger G4 SU Level 1 Black terns inhabit shallow wetlands

surrounded by grassland.

Unlikely to 

occur
3. Affected Environment (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-75

Table 3-46

North Dakota Field Office BLM Sensitive Species with the Potential to Inhabit the Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name Global Rank1/ 

State Rank

NDGFD

Rank2 General Habitat Description

Likelihood of 

Occurrence 

on BLMadministered 

lands

Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri G5 S3 Level 3 Brewer’s sparrows inhabit big 

sagebrush patches within short-grass 

prairie.

Potential to 

occur

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia G4 SU Level 2 Burrowing owls inhabit short-grass or 

grazed mixed-grass prairie with 

burrows dug by mammals present.

Potential to 

occur

Chestnut-collared 

longspur 

Calcarius ornatus G5 SU Level 1 Chestnut-collared longspur inhabit 

grazed or hayed mixed-grass prairie, 

short-grass prairie.

Known to 

occur

Common loon Gavia immer G5 S4 Not Ranked Common loons inhabit riparian areas 

and herbaceous wetlands surrounded 

by grasslands but are also found in clear 

lakes containing both shallow and deep 

water.

Unlikely to 

occur

Dickcissel Spiza americana G5 SU Level 2 Dickcissels inhabit alfalfa, sweet clover, 

and other brushy grasslands.

Potential to 

occur

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis G4 SU Level 1 Ferruginous hawks inhabit large tracts 

of native prairie.

Known to 

occur

Franklin’s gull Larus pipixcan G4, G5 SU Level 1 Franklin’s gulls inhabit large wetlands

with semi-open emergent cover, often 

feeds in cultivated agricultural fields.

Unlikely to 

occur

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos G5 S3 Level 2 Golden eagles inhabit rugged portions 

of the badlands, buttes over-looking 

native prairie, large trees, and are often 

found associated with prairie dog 

towns.

Potential to 

occur

Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus 

savannarum

G5 SNR Level 1 Grasshopper sparrows inhabit idle or 

lightly grazed tall or mixed-grass prairie, 

shrub prairie meadows, and hayfields.

Potential to 

occur
3. Affected Environment (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

3-76 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 3-46

North Dakota Field Office BLM Sensitive Species with the Potential to Inhabit the Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name Global Rank1/ 

State Rank

NDGFD

Rank2 General Habitat Description

Likelihood of 

Occurrence 

on BLMadministered 

lands

Greater Sage-Grouse Centrocercus 

urophasianus 

G4 SU Level 2 GRSG inhabit the big sagebrush 

ecosystem.

Known to 

occur

Lark bunting Calamospiza 

melancorys

G5 SNR Level 1 Lark buntings inhabit sagebrush 

communities or mixed-grass prairie 

interspersed with shrubs, roadsides, 

and retired cropland.

Potential to 

occur

Le Conte’s sparrow Ammodramus 

leconteii 

G4 SU Level 2 Le Conte’s sparrow inhabit fens, wet 

meadows, and marshes of sedge 

grasses.

Potential to 

occur

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus G4 SU Level 2 Loggerhead shrikes inhabit open 

country with thickets of small trees, 

shrubs, and shelterbelts.

Potential to 

occur

Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus G5 S2 Level 1 Long-billed curlew inhabit short-grass 

prairie or shrub steppe prairie on 

gently rolling terrain.

Potential to 

occur

Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa G5 SU Level 1 Marbled godwits forage in a variety of 

wetlands, nest commonly on grazed 

native prairie.

Potential to 

occur

McCown’s longspur Calcarius mccownii G4 S2 Level 3 McCown’s longspurs inhabit arid, shortgrass prairie or heavily grazed mixedgrass prairie.Potential to 

occur

Nelson’s sharp-tailed 

sparrow 

Ammodramus nelsonii G5 SU Level 1 Nelson’s sharp-tailed sparrows inhabit 

fens, shallow-marsh and wet meadow 

zones of wetlands.

Unlikely to 

occur

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis G5 SU Not Ranked Northern goshawks inhabit riparian

areas surrounded by mixed-grass 

prairie.

Unlikely to 

occur

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus G4, T4 S1 Level 3 Peregrine falcons inhabit expanses of 

native prairie, badland complexes, and 

open waterways.

Potential to 

occur
3. Affected Environment (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-77

Table 3-46

North Dakota Field Office BLM Sensitive Species with the Potential to Inhabit the Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name Global Rank1/ 

State Rank

NDGFD

Rank2 General Habitat Description

Likelihood of 

Occurrence 

on BLMadministered 

lands

Sedge wren Cistothorus platensis G5 SU Level 2 Sedge wrens inhabit wet meadows of 

tall grasses and sedges.

Unlikely to 

occur

Sprague’s pipit Anthus spragueii G4 S3 Level 1 Sprague’s pipits inhabit extensive tracts 

of native mixed-grass prairie, ungrazed 

or lightly grazed prairie.

Known to 

occur

Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni G5 SU Level 1 Swainson’s hawks inhabit native prairie 

and cropland with thickets of trees.

Potential to 

occur

Upland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda G5 SNR Level I Upland sandpipers inhabit dry, open 

mixed-grass prairie.

Potential to 

occur

White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi G5 SU Not Ranked White-faced ibis inhabit forested and 

herbaceous wetlands, riparian areas, 

marshes, swamps, ponds and rivers.

Unlikely to 

occur

Willet Catoptrophorus 

semipalmatus 

G5 SU Level 1 Willets inhabit a variety of wetlands

associated with upland native grassland.

Potential to 

occur

Wilson’s phalarope Phalaropus tricolor G5 SU Level 1 Wilson’s phalarope inhabit shallow 

wetlands and mudflats, nest in the 

margins of wetlands.

Potential to 

occur

Yellow rail Coturnicops 

noveboracensis 

G4 S2 Level 1 Yellow rail inhabit fens or wet 

meadows with emergent vegetation, 

shallow water, and moist soil.

Unlikely to 

occur

Fish

Blue sucker Cycleptus elongatus G3, G4 S3 Level 1 Blue suckers inhabit deep areas with 

swift current on medium to large turbid 

rivers where the bottom is normally 

sand or gravel. They use confluence 

areas of larger tributaries for spawning.

Potential to 

occur
3. Affected Environment (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

3-78 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 3-46

North Dakota Field Office BLM Sensitive Species with the Potential to Inhabit the Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name Global Rank1/ 

State Rank

NDGFD

Rank2 General Habitat Description

Likelihood of 

Occurrence 

on BLMadministered 

lands

Northern redbelly x 

Finescale dace 

Phoxinus eos x 

phoxinus neogaeus 

G5 S4 Level 2 Northern redbelly x Finescale dace are 

found in pools and slow moving water 

in small streams where the bottom 

substrate is normally silted, with 

vegetation.

Potential to 

occur

Paddlefish Polyodon spathula G4 SNR Level 2 Paddlefish are typically found in slowflowing portions of large rivers.Unlikely to 

occur

Pearl dace Semotilus/Margariscus 

margarita 

G5 S3 Level 1 Pearl dace are found in pools of 

streams and small rivers, usually with 

sand or gravel bottom. They may also 

be found in ponds and lakes.

Potential to 

occur

Sicklefin chub Macrhybopis meeki G3 S2 Level 1 Sicklefin chub inhabit large turbid rivers, 

usually with a sand or gravel bottom.

Potential to 

occur

Sturgeon chub Macrhybopis gelida G3 S2 Level 1 Sturgeon chub inhabit medium to large 

turbid rivers, usually with a sand or 

gravel bottom.

Potential to 

occur

Reptiles

Greater short-horned 

lizard

Phrynosoma 

hernandesi

G5 SNR Level II Greater short-horned lizards inhabit 

semi-arid, short-grass prairie in rough 

terrain.

Potential to 

occur

Snapping turtle Chelydra serpentine G5 SNR Level II Snapping turtles inhabit backwaters 

along medium to large rivers, smaller 

reservoirs, stock ponds, smaller 

streams with permanent flowing water, 

intermittent streams with perennial 

pools, and are often associated with 

sandy or muddy bottoms.

Known to 

occur
3. Affected Environment (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-79

Table 3-46

North Dakota Field Office BLM Sensitive Species with the Potential to Inhabit the Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name Global Rank1/ 

State Rank

NDGFD

Rank2 General Habitat Description

Likelihood of 

Occurrence 

on BLMadministered 

lands

Spiny softshell Apalone spinifers G5 SNR Not ranked Spiny softshell turtles primarily inhabit 

riverine habitat such as large rivers and 

river impoundments, but are also found 

in lakes, ponds along rivers, pools along 

intermittent streams, bayous, irrigation 

canals, and oxbows.

Potential to 

occur

Western hog-nosed 

snake

Heterodon nasicus G5 SNR Level I Western hog-nosed snakes inhabit 

areas with sandy or gravelly soils, 

including prairies, sandhills, wide valleys, 

river floodplains, open montane 

woodland, semi-agricultural areas (but 

not intensively cultivated land), and 

margins of irrigation ditches.

Potential to 

occur

Amphibians

Great Plains toad Bufo cognatus G5 SNR Not ranked Great Plains toads inhabit grasslands, 

semi-desert shrub-lands, open 

floodplains, and agricultural areas, 

typically in stream valleys.

Potential to 

occur

Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens G5 SNR Not ranked Northern leopard frogs inhabit mixedgrass prairies and associated wetlands.Potential to 

occur

Plains spadefoot Spea bombifrons G5 SNR Level I Plains spadefoot inhabit dry grasslands 

with sandy or loose soil near 

permanent or temporary bodies of 

water.

Known to 

occur

Western toad Bufo boreas G4 NS Not ranked Western toads inhabit upland habitats 

around ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and 

slow-moving rivers and streams.

Potential to 

occur
3. Affected Environment (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

3-80 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 3-46

North Dakota Field Office BLM Sensitive Species with the Potential to Inhabit the Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name Global Rank1/ 

State Rank

NDGFD

Rank2 General Habitat Description

Likelihood of 

Occurrence 

on BLMadministered 

lands

Invertebrates

Dakota skipper Hesperia dacotae G5 SNR Not ranked Dakota skippers inhabit high quality 

native prairie containing a high diversity 

of wildflowers and grasses. In the 

western part of North Dakota, the 

skipper can be found in ungrazed or 

lightly grazed native pastures with little

bluestem, needle-and-thread, and 

purple coneflower. Bluestem grass is a 

favorite food plant for the larval stage 

of the skipper.

Unlikely to 

occur 

Source: USFWS 2012, BLM 2010a

1

G Global ranking

S State ranking

T Subspecies or variety ranking

1 Critically imperiled

2 Imperiled

3 Vulnerable

4 Apparently secure

5 Secure 

NR Not ranked

U Unrankable 2 Level I - Species have high level of conservation priority

Level II - Species have moderate level of conservation priority

Level III - Species have moderate level of conservation priority but are believed to be peripheral or do not breed in North Dakota
3. Affected Environment (Renewable Energy)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-81

3.20 RENEWABLE ENERGY

Renewable energy projects on BLM-administered lands throughout the US

include wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass projects and the siting of 

transmission facilities needed to deliver this power to the consumer. 

Geothermal heat is also considered a leasable mineral and is governed by the 

Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. There are no geothermal resources within the 

planning area; therefore, geothermal resources will not be discussed in 

Chapter 3 or Chapter 4.

As of 2010, the BLM’s renewable energy policy is directed by the following 

regulations and executive orders:

• The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Title II, § 211), which requires the 

DOI to approve at least 10,000 megawatts of renewable energy on 

public lands by 2015;

• Executive Order 13212, Actions to Expedite Energy-Related 

Projects, which requires federal agencies to expedite review of 

energy project applications; and

• Secretarial Order 3285, which requires the DOI to identify and 

prioritize specific locations best suited for large-scale renewable 

energy production.

Additionally, the BLM has specific guidance for certain types of renewable 

energy. The main IM are summarized here:

• IM 2011-003, Solar Energy Development Policy (BLM 2011c), 

establishes policy for the processing of ROW applications for solar 

energy development projects on BLM-administered lands and 

evaluating the feasibility of installing solar energy systems on BLM 

administrative facilities and projects.

• IM 2009-043, Wind Energy Development Policy (BLM 2008e), 

provides updated guidance on processing ROW applications for 

wind energy projects on BLM-administered lands.

• IM 2011-061, Solar and Wind Energy Applications – Pre-Application 

and Screening (2011d), establishes screening criteria used by the 

BLM to assist in prioritizing the processing of and in determining 

what actions to take on new and existing solar and wind energy 

development ROW applications. The processing of applications with 

the least environmental resource conflicts should facilitate the 

development of environmentally responsible solar and wind energy 

projects on BLM-administered lands, consistent with the provisions 

of the Secretarial Order.

• IM 2004-227, Biomass Utilization Strategy (BLM 2004c), updated in 

July 2005, provides sets of goals to help focus and increase 
3. Affected Environment (Renewable Energy)

3-82 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

utilization of biomass from BLM-administered lands. In June 2005, 

the final rule in the Federal Register revised the authority of 48 CFR 

Part 1452 by adding 1452.237-71, which is a new contract clause for 

removal and utilization of woody biomass generated as a result of 

land management service contracts whenever ecologically and 

lawfully appropriate. The BLM issued IM 2009-120 in May 2009, 

which updated the contract clause for utilization for woody biomass 

(BLM 2009b).

Solar and wind projects are authorized via the ROW process. ROW 

applications for development on BLM-administered lands must be accompanied 

by a processing fee as set forth in 43 CFR 7 2804.14. ROW applications are 

generally accepted and processed on a first-come, first-served basis. The ROW 

regulations (43 CFR 2804.23[c]) provide authority for offering BLMadministered lands under competitive bidding procedures for ROW 

authorizations. The BLM may initiate a competitive process if a land use planning 

decision has specifically identified an area for competition or, when two or 

more applications are submitted for the same facility or system. The BLM may 

also consider other public interest and technical factors in determining whether 

to offer lands for competitive leasing. Competitive bidding follows procedures 

required by 43 CFR 2804.23(c).

3.20.1 Conditions of the Planning Area

WAFWA Management Zone 1

There are no acres of solar or wind energy ROWs in the planning area (Manier 

et al. 2013). The data and information included from the BER is the most 

accurate data available from when the data was “frozen” in time for analysis 

purposes; however, these scenarios remain based in present knowledge. Spatial 

data informing the existing conditions were compiled to establish a consistent 

information basis across the entire region (GRSG Management Area), but in 

order to attain this consistently across state, ownership, and management 

boundaries some local data have been omitted; therefore, there may be 

inconsistencies between WAFWA-level and local planning-level data. As such, 

these data provide a regional baseline, suitable for guiding regional mid- to longterm analysis scenarios (Manier et al. 2013).

Below is a summary of renewable energy interest in North Dakota.

Solar

No interest on a commercial scale in solar energy has occurred in Montana; 

fewer annual days of sunshine and the low angle of the sun during the winter 

contribute to low solar development in the state.

Wind Energy

Some commercial wind developments have been constructed in the eastern and 

central parts of the state of North Dakota and there has also been some 
3. Affected Environment (Renewable Energy)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-83

sporadic interest in wind farms in the western part of the state. A 19.5-

megawatt wind project with 13 turbines is in operation at Rhame, in 

southwestern Bowman County (MDU 2013). The project is not located on 

BLM-administered lands.

Biomass

North Dakota may have good prospects for biomass development using its 

agricultural resources and land base. The growth of this energy development 

will still be hampered in North Dakota by lack of easy access to large 

consumption markets.

3.20.2 Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory only considers solar resources to 

be viable when they occur at intensities of 6.0 kilowatt hours per square meter 

per day (kWh/m^2/day), and allocate designations of “Good,” “Excellent,” or 

“Premium.” Solar potential on BLM-administered land in the NDFO is below 6.0 

kWh/m^2/day. Therefore, no BLM-administered lands in the planning area are 

considered likely to be pursued by commercial energy developers for utility 

scale solar (that is, ≥20 MW [megawatts] electricity that will be delivered into 

the electricity transmission grid [Manier et al. 2013]).

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory places lands in categories of 

“Good”, “Excellent,” or “Outstanding” potential when wind resources occur at 

intensities of 400 watts per square meter or higher. On BLM-administered land 

in North Dakota there are 3,730 acres of Class 4, Good Wind Potential, 3,606 

acres of which is found in PPH and 85 acres of which is found in PGH. Table 3-

47, Wind Potential on Slopes <15% on BLM-administered Lands, shows the 

wind potential for all the BLM-administered Lands in NDFO.

Table 3-47

Wind Potential on Slopes <15% on BLM-administered Lands

Wind Potential (at 80

meters) Totals acres PPH acres PGH acres

Class 1, Poor (0-200) 0 0 0

Class 2, Marginal (200-300) 11,074 11,074 0

Class 3, Fair, (300-400) 16,198 16498 0

Class 4, Good (400-500) 3,730 3,606 85

Class 5, Excellent (500-600) 0 0 0

Class 6, Outstanding (600+) 0 0 0

Class 7, Superb (800-1,600) 0 0 0

Source: BLM 2012a
3. Affected Environment (Renewable Energy)

3-84 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

3.20.3 Trends

Within the planning area, greater pressure to develop renewable energy

resources on the BLM-administered lands will occur as a result of public energy 

policy coming from individual states or the federal government. The 

development of more energy-efficient technologies for wind, biomass, and solar 

power will continue to grow with increasing regulation and price of fossil fuels 

and the increasing demand for energy products. In North Dakota, the source of 

renewable energy will most likely be wind energy, as North Dakota is ranked as 

the sixth state in wind energy potential (National Renewable Energy Laboratory

2011).

3.21 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

This section discusses the social and economic conditions of the planning area. 

These conditions are discussed in greater detail in the North Dakota Field 

Office Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS Socioeconomic Baseline Assessment 

Report prepared in support of the planning effort (Forest Service 2013b).

Changes in BLM management of GRSG habitats are anticipated to have a 

considerable impact on existing GRSG populations and have the potential to 

affect local social and economic conditions. There are numerous characteristics 

that influence and shape the nature of local social and economic conditions such 

as the local population, the presence of or proximity to large cities or regional 

population centers, types of longstanding industries, predominant land and 

water features, and unique area amenities. The characteristics of North Dakota 

counties containing GRSG habitat influence the relationship between BLMadministered lands and local social and economic activity.

Changes in BLM management of BLM-administered lands can have social and 

economic effects that extend beyond the immediate boundaries of the lands 

they manage, affecting the social and economic conditions of neighboring 

counties and communities. Individual counties and communities may respond to 

change differently than the larger region; consequently a multidimensional 

approach is used to analyze the impacts of the proposed GRSG conservation 

measures. For this analysis, social and economic conditions, current conditions 

and trends are presented for a three-county region which includes Bowman, 

Golden Valley, and Slope counties, and for the individual counties within this

three-county area. Data is provided for the state as a whole as a reference 

region where appropriate.

3.2.1 Existing Conditions

Population Change

While total US population grew by 24 percent between 1970 and 2010, the 

three-county impact area experienced a 16 percent decline. Over the past four 

decades Golden Valley and Slope counties’ populations have fallen by 

20 percent, while Bowman was reported to have fallen by 12 percent 
3. Affected Environment (Social and Economic Conditions)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-85

(Diagram 3-1, Population Change for the Three-County Impact Area). 

Population declines within the three-county region have gradually tapered off 

over the last decade as the total population within the region decreased by 375 

people, or just over six percent.

Diagram 3-1

Population Change for the Three-County Impact Area 

Source: US Department of Commerce 2005, 2000, and 2010

Although annual average population loss in Bowman and Slope counties was 0.3 

and 0.5 percent respectively between 2000 and 2010, Golden Valley continued 

to experience a decline of 1.3 percent on an annual average basis.

Employment and Economic Specialization

Average annual unemployment in the three-county impact area has remained 

relatively constant over the last decade, with unemployment in each of the 

three counties remaining below state and national averages. While national 

unemployment in the United States rose from four percent in 2000 to 9.6 

percent in 2010, Bowman, Golden Valley, and Slope counties were reported to 

have had an average annual unemployment rate of 2.6 percent, 3.0 percent, and 

1.6 percent respectively in 2010, while unemployment was 3.8 percent in North 

Dakota and 9.6 percent for the United States (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2011).

Employment within the three-county impact area is distributed amongst 

economic sectors and displayed (Diagram 3-2, Employment Distribution in the 

Three-County Impact Area and North Dakota) relative to statewide 

employment in these sectors. Of particular interest are the Government 

Grazing, and Oil and Gas sectors which are directly related to BLM land 

management. The government sector includes all federal, state and local 

employment, the grazing sector includes both cattle and sheep ranching, and the 
3. Affected Environment (Social and Economic Conditions)

3-86 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Oil and Gas sector includes extraction, drilling, and support activities. It should 

be noted that the contributions from BLM represent only a portion of the 

industry employment displayed in these three sectors within Diagram 3-2. 

Further discussion of the contributions to these sectors from BLM management

is presented in the sections on grazing and oil and gas below.

Diagram 3-2

Employment Distribution in the Three-County Impact Area and North Dakota

Source: IMPLAN 2010
3. Affected Environment (Social and Economic Conditions)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-87

Using the ratio of the percent employment in each industry in the region of 

interest (three-county impact area) to the percent of employment in that 

industry for a larger reference region (the state of North Dakota) reveals 

whether labor specialization exists within the impact area. For a given industry, 

when the percent employment in the impact area is greater than in the 

reference region, local employment specialization exists in that industry (Forest 

Service 1998). Identification of employment specialization within the impact area 

provides a frame of reference the contributions of BLM-administered lands 

within the three-county impact area. Applying this criterion to 2010 data reveals 

that the project area can be characterized as most specialized in the agricultural 

sectors, which include those sectors related to livestock grazing. Since BLMadministered lands within the three-county area provide local livestock 

producers with forage to supplement other sources of feed, a portion of this 

specialization can be attributable to BLM management.

Community Well-Being

Community well-being relates to the economic, social, cultural, and political 

components of community life which allows residents to fulfill their basic needs, 

while creating an enjoyable place for citizens to live. While many factors 

contribute to quality of life in a region, unemployment, poverty and personal 

income are the most commonly used social indicators of well-being. As 

discussed above in the employment section, labor participation in Bowman, 

Golden Valley, and Slope counties is high, with average annual unemployment 

rates which have persistently been lower than state and national averages over 

the last decade.

Following the Office of Management and Budget's Directive 14, the US Census 

Bureau uses a set of predetermined income thresholds which vary by family size 

and composition to detect who is poor. If the total income for a family or an 

unrelated individual falls below the relevant threshold, then the family or 

unrelated individual is classified as being "below the poverty level." While 

poverty rates for individuals and families at the state (12.3 percent and 7.2 

percent) and national (13.8 percent and 10.1 percent) level remained high in 

2010, poverty in the three-county area was reported to be less prevalent with 

only nine percent of individuals and 5.7 percent of families living below the 

poverty level. Poverty at the county level varied across the three counties, with 

Bowman reporting the lowest rates and Golden Valley reporting the highest. In 

2010, 6.7 percent of individuals and 3.9 percent of families in Bowman County, 

10.5 percent of individuals and 8.9 percent of families in Slope County, and 13 

percent of individuals and 8.9 percent of families in Golden Valley County were 

estimated to be living in poverty (US Department of Commerce 2012a).

Components of Personal Income

Examining trends within personal income provides insight to the area economy 

and its connection to BLM-administered lands within the three-county impact 

area. There are three major sources of personal income: (1) labor earnings or 
3. Affected Environment (Social and Economic Conditions)

3-88 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

income from the workplace, (2) investment income, or income received by 

individuals in the form of rent, dividends, or interest earnings, and (3) transfer 

payment income or income received as Social Security, retirement and disability 

income or Medicare and Medicaid payments.

Total personal income (TPI) and per capita personal income (PCPI) are two 

widely used measures of economic well-being within communities. From 1970 

to 2010, annual TPI in the three-county impact area increased from $171 million 

to $268 million, and annual PCPI increased from $21,560 to $48,339 (all 

measures adjusted for inflation to 2011 dollars). This translates to a TPI increase 

of 56 percent and a PCPI increase of 124 percent over this time period (US 

Department of Commerce 2012a). While PCPI is a useful measure of economic 

well-being it should be examined alongside changes in real earnings per job. 

Since PCPI includes income from 401(k) plans as well as other non-labor income 

sources like transfer payments, dividends, and rent, it is possible for per capita 

income to rise, even if the average wage per job declines over time. While PCPI 

rose between 1970 and 2010 by 124 percent, average earnings per job rose by 

9.6 percent (from $37,552 to $41,155; values adjusted for inflation to 2011 

dollars) (US Department of Commerce 2012b). While moderate increases in 

PCPI can be attributable to increased labor earnings, increased non-labor 

income within the region also contributed to the large increase in PCPI.

Labor earnings were the largest source of TPI in the three-county area, 

accounting for 62.1 percent of all income in 2010. Labor earning’s share of TPI 

has decreased from 1970 to 2010 (from 75.2 to 62.1 percent) while the share of 

non-labor income has risen (from 24.8 to 37.9 percent). As a share of TPI, 

investment income and transfer payments rose from 15.9 to 22.8 and 8.8 to 

15.2 percent, respectively, over this forty-year time period. Although transfer 

payments’ share of TPI rose during this period, data indicated this increase was 

only slightly due to increases in income maintenance payments related to 

welfare or unemployment. The data shows the share of income maintenance 

increased from 0 to 2.1 percent while the share of age related transfer 

payments in the form of retirement, disability insurance, and Medicare 

decreased from 23.4 to 17.7 percent (US Department of Commerce 2012a).

Area Economic conditions related to Grazing

From 1970 to 2010, employment in the Farm sector (including livestock grazing) 

decreased by 36 percent (from 1,315 to 838 jobs), with nearly 84 percent of 

Farm employment in 2010 attributable to farm proprietors. Although 

employment has been declining, the farm sector continued to support 4,497 

jobs (or 18.6 percent of total employment) in the three-county area in 2010 (US 

Department of Commerce 2012a). In 2011, livestock production in North 

Dakota accounted for one-sixth of the state’s total cash receipts and was valued 

at more than a billion dollars (USDA 2012). According to agricultural statistics 

collected by the state, the three-county area was reported to have an inventory 
3. Affected Environment (Social and Economic Conditions)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-89

of 101,500 head of cattle and 7,600 head of sheep in 2011 (Table 3-48, Cattle 

and Sheep Inventory and Estimated Annual Forage Requirement in Impact Area 

Counties). 

Table 3-48

Cattle and Sheep Inventory and Estimated Annual 

Forage Requirement in Impact Area Counties

Region

All Cattle 

(number of 

animals)

Sheep

(number of 

animals)

Bowman County 49,500 3,700

Golden Valley County 22,500 2,700

Slope County 29,500 1,200

Three-County Total 101,500 7,600

North Dakota Total 1,690,000 73,000

Source: USDA 2012

The BLM estimates the grazing potential of each allotment permitted for grazing 

under ideal forage conditions, but determines the number of AUMs allocated 

each year based on range conditions. Currently, the BLM allocates 5,781 AUMs 

annually on allotments potentially affected by conservation measures under this 

RMPA. On an average annual basis almost all of the allocated use is actually used 

contributing about 10 jobs (direct, indirect and induced) and $113,000 in labor 

income to the impact area economy. Direct employment to the grazing sector 

amounts to approximately seven jobs, which account for 5.6 percent of 

employment in the grazing sector depicted in Diagram 3-2 (IMPLAN 2010).

Area Economic Conditions Related to Oil and Gas

Oil and gas development, which includes the extraction of oil and gas, drilling of 

wells, and support activities, has significantly increased in North Dakota over 

the last decade as exploration in the Northwestern Bakken formation has 

intensified (State of North Dakota 2013a). North Dakota is consistently ranked 

one of the US’s top oil and gas producing states; In 2011, North Dakota ranked 

fourth in the nation in crude oil production (seven percent of US total 

production) and 18th in natural gas production (0.4 percent of US total 

production) (US Energy Information Administration 2013a), producing more 

than 113 bbls of oil and MCF of natural gas in 2010. As of November, 2012 the 

State’s role as a crude oil producer within the nations has increased to the 

second largest producer behind Texas, producing 10 percent of the nation’s 

domestic supply. This increase in production is driven in most part by 

development in the Bakken formation which does not overlap with the project 

area. In 2011 North Dakota contained 0.9 percent of the nation’s crude oil 

producing wells (4,574) and less than 0.5 percent of the nation’s natural gas 
3. Affected Environment (Social and Economic Conditions)

3-90 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

producing wells (239) (US Energy Information Administration 2013b). The 

decision area contains 3.3 percent of these oil wells and 22.7 percent of these 

gas wells (DOI 2011).

Annual production can vary considerably within a region and across counties.

From 2002 to 2012 annual oil production increased by almost 700 percent 

across the state while increasing by 84 percent within the three counties 

containing GRSG habitat (Diagram 3-3, Oil Production in the Three-County

Impact Area and North Dakota). Although it alsomarks a decrease in oil 

production within Bowman County between 2005 and 2012 shown in Diagram 

3-3. In 2012 Bowman County produced nine million bbls of oil and 11.2 million 

MCF of natural gas, Golden Valley produced one million bbls of oil and 650

thousand MCF of natural gas, and Slope County produced 591 thousand bbls of 

oil and 321 thousand MCF of natural gas (State of North Dakota 2013b).

Diagram 3-3

Oil Production in the Three-County Impact Area and North Dakota

Source: State of North Dakota 2013b

The exploration, development, and production of oil and gas is important to the 

three-county analysis area’s economy, and has been directly attributed with 

supporting six percent of the planning area’s employment and 11 percent of its 

labor income (IMPLAN 2010). In 2010 IMPLAN reported that the economic 

activity associated with oil and gas drilling, extraction, and support activities in 

the three-county analysis area supported 261 jobs and more than $24 million in 

employee wages and proprietor’s income. Currently there are 231 wells on 

BLM-administered lands in the decision area that produce oil and gas.
3. Affected Environment (Social and Economic Conditions)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-91

Employment and income supported by production from these wells (about 

three bbls of oil and 525 MCF of gas) is estimated at 20 jobs and $728,000 in 

labor income (including direct, indirect and induced contributions across all 

sectors of the three county impact area economy). Contributions to 

employment in the Oil and Gas Sector are about 16 jobs (direct, indirect and 

induced) which constitutes six percent of employment in this sector.

Revenue Sharing and Distributions to Counties

The oil and gas industry in North Dakota also contributes to the state and its 

local economies through the taxes they pay to the federal and state 

governments. These governmental revenues include personal and corporate 

income taxes, sales and use taxes, severance and production taxes, as well as 

rents on leased land not held by production. In 2009, North Dakota’s oil and gas 

industry was directly attributed with generating $821.8 million in government 

revenue, with the majority of revenue earned from leasing public domain 

minerals. These funds are spent to fund schools and invest in public works 

projects such as road improvements, health care facilities and infrastructure 

needs. Overall, local governments across the state received an estimated $86.5 

million in property taxes, $8.4 million in federal mineral re-distributions, and 

$46 million in re-distributions from state severance taxes in 2009 (Bangsund and 

Leistritz 2010).

The re-distribution of a portion of these funds back to Bowman, Golden Valley, 

and Slope counties contributes to employment and income within the region as 

these funds are spent to fund schools and invest in public works projects.

Recent estimates of general government revenue in the three county area

indicate that approximately $19,600,000 was allocated in 2012 from taxes, 

intergovernmental revenue (grants, distributions from other governments, etc.) 

and charges for services (social services, library, clerks, etc.) (US Department of 

Commerce 2007). Estimates of current royalty distributions, as discussed in 

detail below, indicate that approximately 30 percent of this general revenue can 

be attributed to production on BLM-administered lands within the three county 

area.

Currently, a portion of federal royalties from production that occurs on public 

domain and acquired mineral estate (49 and 25 percent respectively) are 

allocated back to the state of North Dakota who then allocates 50 percent of 

those revenues back to counties where the oil and gas development occurred. 

Using estimates of current production for wells on BLM mineral estate, it is 

estimated that the three-county area received approximately $6.3 million in 

distributions. As a result of these payments, approximately 114 jobs and $3.9 

million in labor income (direct, indirect and induced) were generated in the 

impact area economy based on IMPLAN analysis.
3. Affected Environment (Social and Economic Conditions)

3-92 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Non Market Values

Generally, goods and services can be traded in markets where interactions 

between buyers and sellers dictate the price, or value, of a good through the 

unit prices and quantities sold. BLM-administered lands produce a wide range of 

environmental goods and services from which society benefits. Some goods, like 

forage for cattle, can easily be valued because livestock feed can be bought and 

sold in markets. Other resources provided by these lands, like recreational 

opportunities, ecological processes, and habitat for unique species cannot be 

bought and sold in traditional markets, which is why they are often 

characterized as non-market goods. Measuring the value of these non-market 

goods is important because these resources tend to be undervalued and 

estimates can enable management to make more informed decisions regarding 

their use to more accurately reflect their true value to society. 

Non-market values can be broken down into two categories, use and non-use 

values. The use-value of a non-market good is the value to society from the 

direct use of the asset; these values are derived from North Dakota BLMadministered lands through recreational activities such as hiking, bird watching

and OHV use. The use of non-market goods often requires consumption of 

associated market goods, such as lodging and gas. 

Non-use, or passive use, values of a non-market good reflect the value of an 

asset beyond its current use. These can be described as existence, option and 

bequest values. Existence values are the amount society is willing to pay to 

guarantee that an asset simply exists. An existence value for BLM-administered

lands might be the value of knowing that undisturbed GRSG habitat exists or the 

value associated with undeveloped scenic landscapes. In addition to implicit 

existence values, society's willingness to pay to preserve resources for future 

use attaches additional passive use values. The potential benefits people would 

receive from future use are referred to as option values when future use is 

expected to occur within the same generation and bequest values when 

preservation allows future generations to benefit from the resource use. Within 

the NDFO, bequest and option values might exist for numerous plant and 

animal species, landscapes, heritage sites, and recreational trails. While use and 

non-use values exist for these lands, the methodologies for measuring these 

values can be difficult to apply, making evaluation during the planning process 

not feasible. However, this does not preclude their consideration.

3.22 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Executive Order 12898 requires federal agencies to “identify and address the 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of 

its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 

populations.” According to the CEQ Environmental Justice Guidelines for NEPA

(1997), “minority populations should be identified where either: (a) the minority 

population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or (b) the minority 

population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the 
3. Affected Environment (Environmental Justice)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 3-93

minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate 

unit of geographic analysis... a minority population also exists if there is more 

than one minority group present and the minority percentage, as calculated by 

aggregating all minority persons, meets one of the above stated thresholds.”

The ethnic and racial composition of North Dakota, the three-county impact 

area, and individual counties in 2010 are displayed in Table 3-49, Population by 

Race and Ethnicity (2010), below. North Dakota’s 2010 population was 

reported to be significantly less diverse than the general US population (74 

percent white), with individuals identifying themselves as white accounting for 

89 percent of the state’s population. Shares of racial and ethnic minority groups 

at the state level, with the exception of American Indians, were less than their 

share of the overall US population. While North Dakota’s population has a 

larger share of individuals identifying themselves as American Indian alone, 

American Indians living within the three-county area represent 0.5 percent of 

the area’s total population (US Department of Commerce 2012a). While the 

data indicates that the area has small shares of minority racial and ethnic groups, 

these populations do meet the CEQ’s definition of minority populations.

Table 3-49

Population by Race and Ethnicity (2010)

White

Black or 

African 

American

American 

Indian & 

Alaska 

Native

Asian

Native 

Hawaiian 

& Other 

Pacific 

Islander

Some 

other 

race

Two or 

more 

race

Hispanic 

(of any 

race)

United States 74.0% 12.5% 0.8% 4.7% 0.2% 5.5% 2.4% 15.7%

Montana 89.4% 1.0% 5.2% 0.9% 0.1% 0.1% 1.4% 2.0%

Three County Area 98.5% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.7 1.9%

Bowman County 98.5% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.7% 2.5%

Golden Valley County 97.7% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 1.0%

Slope County 100% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.% 0.0% 1.2%

Source: US Department of Commerce 2012a

In addition to race, concentrations of people living under the poverty level are 

of interest when considering the environmental justice implications of the 

proposed action. CEQ guidance on identifying low-income populations states 

“agencies may consider as a community either a group of individuals living in 

geographic proximity to one another, or a set of individuals (such as migrant 

workers or Native Americans), where either type of group experiences 

common conditions of environmental exposure or effect.” As discussed above 

in Community Well-being in Section 3.21, the three counties included in this 

analysis had lower poverty rates for individuals and families than general poverty 

rates for the state and country. Thus, the census data indicates that low income 

populations, as defined by CEQ, do not exist within the planning area.
3. Affected Environment (Environmental Justice)

3-94 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-1

CHAPTER 4

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the likely direct and indirect impacts on the human and 

natural environment that could occur from implementing the alternatives 

presented in Chapter 2 (Proposed Action and Alternatives). Cumulative 

impacts from the proposed alternatives are presented Chapter 5 (Cumulative 

Effects). This chapter is organized by topic, similar to Chapter 3 (Affected 

Environment). Each topic area includes a method of analysis section that 

identifies indicators, methods, and assumptions; a discussion of the nature and 

type of effects; a summary of effects common to all alternatives; and an analysis 

of impacts for each of the four alternatives. A separate section describing 

irretrievable or irreversible commitment of resources is presented at the end of 

the chapter. Indicators are factors that describe resource condition and change 

and can help the BLM determine trends over time. The section on methods and 

assumptions describes methodologies and assumptions for assessing impacts 

specific to the resource or resource use. These are in addition to those general 

assumptions and methodologies listed in Sections 4.1.1, Analytical 

Assumptions, and 4.1.2, General Methodology for Analyzing Impacts. The 

nature and type of effects section describes in general terms impacts on 

resources or resource uses from allowable uses or restrictions on allowable 

uses. Impacts for each alternative describe how the indicators would change the 

magnitude of the nature and type of effect.

All management actions proposed in Chapter 2 are planning-level decisions 

and do not result in direct, on-the-ground actions. However, by planning for 

uses on BLM-administered surface estate and federal mineral estate during the 

planning horizon for the North Dakota RMP, this impact analysis focuses on 

impacts that could eventually result in on-the-ground changes. Impacts for some 

resources or resource uses, such as livestock grazing and OHV use, could be 

confined to the BLM-administered surface estate. Other impacts, such as energy 

and minerals development and requirements to protect GRSG from such 
4. Environmental Consequences (Introduction)

4-2 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

activity, could apply to all BLM-administered federal mineral estate (including 

split estate). Some BLM management actions may affect only certain resources 

under certain alternatives. This impact analysis identifies impacts that may 

enhance or improve a resource as a result of management actions, as well as 

those impacts that have the potential to impair a resource. If an activity or 

action is not addressed in a given section, no impacts are expected, or the 

impact is expected to be negligible based on professional judgment.

The BLM manages BLM-administered lands for multiple uses in accordance with 

the FLPMA. Land use decisions are made to protect the resources while 

allowing for different uses of those resources, such as energy and mineral 

development, OHV use, recreation, and livestock grazing. When there are 

conflicts among resource uses or when a land use activity could result in 

unacceptable or irreversible impacts on the environment, the BLM may restrict 

or prohibit some land uses in specific areas. To ensure that the BLM meets its 

mandate of multiple use in land management actions, the impacts of the 

alternatives on resource uses are identified and assessed as part of the planning 

process. The projected impacts on land use activities, and the environmental 

impacts of land uses, are characterized and evaluated for each of the 

alternatives.

Impact analysis is a cause-and-effect process. The detailed impact analyses and 

conclusions are based on the BLM planning team’s knowledge of resources and 

the project area; reviews of existing literature; and information provided by 

experts in the BLM, other agencies, and interest groups, as well as by concerned 

citizens. The baseline used for the impact analysis is the current condition or 

situation, as described in Chapter 3. Impacts on resources and resource uses 

are analyzed and discussed in detail commensurate with resources issues and 

concerns identified throughout the process. Occasionally, impacts are described 

using ranges of potential impacts or in qualitative terms.

4.1.1 Analytical Assumptions

Several assumptions were made to facilitate the analysis of the projected 

impacts. These assumptions set guidelines and provide reasonably foreseeable 

projected levels of development that would occur within the North Dakota 

Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS planning area during the planning period. These 

assumptions should not be interpreted as constraining or redefining the 

management objectives and actions proposed for each alternative, as described 

in Chapter 2. The following general assumptions apply to all resource 

categories. Any specific resource assumptions are provided in the Methods and 

Assumptions section for that resource.

• Each alternative in Chapter 2 constitutes a possible RMPA and 

could be implemented.
4. Environmental Consequences (Introduction)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-3

• Implementing actions from any of the RMPA alternatives would be 

in compliance with all valid existing rights, federal regulations, BLM 

policies, and other requirements.

• Implementation-level actions necessary to execute the land use 

plan-level decisions in this RMPA would be subject to further 

environmental review, including NEPA, as appropriate. 

• Direct and indirect impacts of implementing the RMPA may occur 

on all lands in the planning area; however, impacts would primarily 

occur on the decision area lands.

• The discussion of impacts is based on the best available data. 

Knowledge of the planning area and professional judgment, based on 

observation and analysis of conditions and responses in similar 

areas, are used to infer environmental impacts where data are 

limited.

• Stipulations for fluid mineral leasing (i.e., NSO, CSU, and TL) and 

activities associated with fluid mineral leasing (e.g., truck-mounted 

drilling, stationary drill rigs in unison, geophysical exploration 

equipment off designated routes, and construction of wells and 

pads) would be applied as specified to BLM-administered lands 

overlying the federal mineral estate. In addition, stipulations may be 

applied to private lands overlying federal mineral estate (known as 

split estate). Within the decision area, the BLM administers 30,574

of surface over federal mineral acres and 42,867 acres of federal 

fluid minerals underlying split estate, for a total of 73,441 acres of

federal fluid federal mineral estate.

• RDFs apply to certain activities (i.e., water developments, mineral 

development, and fire fuels management) conducted by the BLM.

RDFs would not apply to locatable minerals. BMPs would be applied

to locatable minerals as appropriate and to the extent allowable by 

law. Because the BLM does not have jurisdiction over split estate

lands for activities not related to fluid mineral leasing and 

development, RDFs apply only to the 33,030 acres of BLM surface in 

the decision area. RDFs do apply to fluid minerals on split estate 

lands.

• Restrictions on land use authorizations are identified as ROW

avoidance or ROW exclusion, although TL restrictions may also be 

applied and would restrict construction activities during the 

specified timeframes. Because the BLM does not have jurisdiction 

over split estate lands for land use authorizations, ROW avoidance 

and ROW exclusion restrictions apply only to the 33,030 acres of 

BLM surface in the decision area.

• Data from GIS have been used in developing acreage calculations 

and to generate the figures in Appendix A. Calculations depend on 
4. Environmental Consequences (Introduction)

4-4 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

the quality and availability of data. Most calculations in this RMPA

are rounded to the nearest 10 acres or 0.1-mile. Given the scale of 

the analysis, the compatibility constraints between datasets, and lack 

of data for some resources, all calculations are approximate and are 

for comparison and analytic purposes only. Readers should not infer 

that they reflect exact measurements or precise calculations.

Likewise, the figures in Appendix A are provided for illustrative 

purposes and are subject to the limitations discussed above. The 

BLM may receive additional GIS data; therefore, acreages may be 

recalculated and revised.

Oil & Gas Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario

The RFDS, presented below in Table 4-1, Estimated Number of Wells and 

Associated Disturbance, lists projected future oil and gas exploratory and 

development activity and associated disturbance through 2029 based on the 

management actions (constraints) for each of the alternatives in Table 2-3.

Factors used to project future activities include (but are not limited to) a review 

of published oil and gas resource information (including a number of on-line 

databases) for the area, a call for data from oil and gas operators, a review of 

petroleum technology research and development, geophysical activity, and 

limitations on access and infrastructure. It must be emphasized that the 

reasonable foreseeable development projections presented in Table 4-1 are 

possible and/or likely to happen and should not be considered to be worst-case 

scenarios, but reasonable and science-based projections of the anticipated oil 

and gas activity (BLM 2013). Additionally, the BLM-administered well pads and 

acres for short and long-term surface disturbance in Table 4-1 is primarily 

located in PH. On lands outside PH, there was less than one well projected; 

therefore, most of the development is associated with PH (this is where most of 

the high potential oil and gas is found and where most of the existing leases are 

located).

Table 4-1

Estimated Number of Wells and Associated Disturbance

Alternatives and Totals Total 

Pads

Total 

Wells

BLMAdministered

Pads

BLMAdministered

Wells

Total 

Acres

BLMAdministered

Acres

Disturbance Associated with Existing Wells Pads and Projected Active Well Pads 

(Short-Term Disturbance1)

Alternative A - new 

exploratory and 

development well pads/wells

384 384 60 60 2,071 337

Alternative A - existing and 

projected well pads/wells 894 894 231 231 2,455 479

Alternative A - Total Well 

Pads/Wells 1,278 1,278 291 291 4,526 816
4. Environmental Consequences (Introduction)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-5

Table 4-1

Estimated Number of Wells and Associated Disturbance

Alternatives and Totals Total 

Pads

Total 

Wells

BLMAdministered

Pads

BLMAdministered

Wells

Total 

Acres

BLMAdministered

Acres

Alternative B - new 

exploratory and 

development well pads/wells

352 352 26 26 1,899 145

Alternative B - existing and 

projected well pads/wells 894 894 231 231 2,455 479

Alternative B - Total Well 

Pads/Wells 1,246 1,246 257 257 4,354 624

Alternative C - new 

exploratory and 

development well pads/wells

352 352 25 25 1,899 142

Alternative C - existing and 

projected well pads/wells 894 894 231 231 2,455 479

Alternative C - Total Well 

Pads/Wells 1,246 1,246 256 256 4,354 621

Alternative D - new 

exploratory and 

development well pads/wells

376 376 51 51 2,028 288

Alternative D - existing and 

projected well pads/wells

894 894 231 231 2,455 479

Alternative D - Total Well 

Pads/Wells 1,270 1,270 282 282 4,483 767

Disturbance Associated with Existing Wells Pads and Projected Producing Well Pads 

(Long-Term Disturbance2)

Alternative A - new 

producing well pads/wells 314 314 49 49 772 125

Alternative A - existing and 

projected well pads/wells 793 793 211 211 2,144 422

Alternative A - Total Well 

Pads/Wells 1,107 1,107 259 259 2,915 548

Alternative B - new 

producing well pads/wells 289 289 21 21 708 54

Alternative B - existing and

projected well pads/wells 793 793 211 211 2,144 422

Alternative B - Total Well 

Pads/Wells 1,081 1,081 232 232 2,851 476

Alternative C - new 

producing well pads/wells 289 289 21 21 707 53

Alternative C - existing and 

projected well pads/wells 793 793 211 211 2,144 422

Alternative C - Total Well 

Pads/Wells 1,081 1,081 232 232 2,851 475
4. Environmental Consequences (Introduction)

4-6 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 4-1

Estimated Number of Wells and Associated Disturbance

Alternatives and Totals Total 

Pads

Total 

Wells

BLMAdministered

Pads

BLMAdministered

Wells

Total 

Acres

BLMAdministered

Acres

Alternative D - new 

producing well pads/wells 308 308 42 42 756 107

Alternative D - existing and 

projected well pads/wells 793 793 211 211 2,144 422

Alternative D - Total Well 

Pads/Wells 1,101 1,101 252 252 2,899 530

1 Short-term disturbance is a calculation of the cumulative disturbance that would occur to the end of the plan 

from the new wells projected in the North Dakota Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario for oil and gas,

plus those presently considered to be active (unplugged and unreclaimed). 2 Long-term disturbances is a calculation of unreclaimed disturbance that would be present at the end of 2029.

Source: BLM 2013

4.1.2 General Methodology for Analyzing Impacts

Potential impacts or effects are described in terms of type, context, duration, 

and intensity, which are generally defined as follows:

• Type of Impact – Because types of impacts can be interpreted

differently by different people, this chapter does not differentiate 

between beneficial and adverse impacts (except in cases where such 

characterization is required by law, regulation, or policy). The 

presentation of impacts for key planning issues is intended to 

provide the BLM decision maker and reader with an understanding 

of the multiple use tradeoffs associated with each alternative. The 

impact analysis presents the effects caused by the action and the 

reader is left to interpret if that is a beneficial or adverse impact. 

Different readers may interpret the effect as either adverse or 

beneficial.

• Context – Context describes the area or location (site specific, local, 

planning-area wide, or regional) in which the impact would occur. 

Site-specific impacts would occur at the location of the action, local 

impacts would occur within the general vicinity of the action area, 

planning area-wide impacts would affect a greater portion of the 

planning area, and regional impacts would extend beyond the 

planning area boundaries.

• Duration – Duration describes the length of time an effect would 

occur, either short term or long term. Duration is defined as 

follows, unless a specific duration is provided under a resource or 

resource use. Short term is defined as anticipated to begin and end 

within the first five years after the action is implemented. Long term 
4. Environmental Consequences (Introduction)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-7

is defined as lasting beyond five years to the end of or beyond the 

planning time frame of the North Dakota RMP.

• Intensity – Rather than categorize impacts by intensity (e.g., major, 

moderate, and minor), this analysis discusses impacts using 

quantitative data wherever possible (e.g., miles, acres, etc.). Where 

quantifiable data are unavailable, impacts are characterized 

qualitatively.

• Direct and Indirect Impacts – Direct impacts are caused by an action 

or implementation of an alternative and occur at the same time and 

place. Indirect impacts result from implementing an action or 

alternative but usually occur later in time or are removed in 

distance and are reasonably certain to occur.

Analysis shown under Alternative A may be referenced in the other alternatives 

with such statements as “impacts would be the same as, or similar to, 

Alternative A” or “impacts would be the same as Alternative A, except for...,” as 

applicable.

Irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources is discussed in Section 

4.23, Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources. Irreversible 

commitments of resources result from actions in which resources are 

considered permanently changed. Irretrievable commitments of resources result 

from actions in which resources are considered permanently lost.

4.1.3 Incomplete or Unavailable Information

The CEQ established implementing regulations for NEPA, requiring that a 

federal agency identify relevant information that may be incomplete or 

unavailable for an evaluation of reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effects 

in an EIS (40 CFR 1502.22). If the information is essential to a reasoned choice 

among alternatives, it must be included in an EIS unless the cost of obtaining the 

information is exorbitant. Knowledge and information is, and would always be, 

incomplete, particularly with infinitely complex ecosystems considered at 

various scales.

The best available information pertinent to the decisions to be made was used 

in developing the RMPA. Considerable effort has been taken to acquire and 

convert resource data from the BLM and outside sources into digital format for 

use in the RMPA. 

Certain information was unavailable for use in developing this RMPA because 

inventories have either not been conducted or are incomplete. Some of the 

major types of data that are incomplete or unavailable include:

• Field inventory of soils and water conditions

• Field inventory of vegetation composition
4. Environmental Consequences (Introduction)

4-8 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

• Field inventory of wildlife and special status species occurrence and 

condition

For these resources, estimates were made concerning the number, type, and 

significance of these resources based on previous surveys and existing 

knowledge. In addition, some impacts cannot be quantified given the proposed 

management actions. Where this gap occurs, impacts are projected in qualitative 

terms or, in some instances, are described as unknown. Subsequent projectlevel analysis would provide the opportunity to collect and examine site-specific 

inventory data required to determine appropriate application of RMP-level 

guidance. In addition, ongoing inventory efforts by the BLM and other agencies 

in the planning area continue to update and refine information used to 

implement this RMPA.

4.2 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES – GREATER SAGE-GROUSE

4.2.1 Methods and Assumptions

Indicators

Indicators of impacts on GRSG are as follows:

• Acres of sagebrush habitat

• Acres of short and long-term surface disturbance (oil and gas)

• Connectivity of habitat patches

• Direct disturbance to GRSG

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

• Three general categories of anthropogenic disturbance (to habitats) 

or disruption (to animals) would be the most influential on GRSG 

and their habitat: 1) disturbance/disruption from casual use; 2) 

disturbance/disruption from permitted activity; and 3) changes in 

habitat condition, such as from fire or weed invasion.

• BMPs, RDFs, COAs, and standard operating procedures are used 

for analysis and would be implemented to reduce impacts on GRSG. 

These are subject to modification based on subsequent guidance 

and new science.

• Short-term effects are defined as those that would occur over a 

timeframe of two years or less, and long-term effects would occur 

over longer than two years.

• Under Alternative A, land tenure adjustments would be subject to 

current disposal/exchange/acquisition criteria, which include 

retaining lands with threatened or endangered species, high quality 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-9

riparian habitat, or plant and animal populations or natural 

communities of high interest – this would include GRSG.

• Ground-disturbing activities could positively or negatively modify 

habitat, or cause loss or gain of individuals, depending on the 

amount of area disturbed, the nature of the disturbance, the species 

affected, and the location of the disturbance (e.g., juniper reduction 

treatments are ground-disturbing but could positively modify habitat 

in the long term).

• BLM-administered oil and gas well pads are primarily located in PH. 

On lands outside PH, there is less than one well projected (see 

Table 4-1); therefore, most of the development is associated with 

PH.

4.2.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Factors related to the decline in GRSG distribution and abundance include 

habitat loss and degradation, disease and predation, chemicals and changes in 

land use (USFWS 2010, pg. 14). Habitat loss and fragmentation reduces the land 

area available to support GRSG, and also increases opportunities for other 

types of disturbance, such as human traffic, wildfire, and spread of invasive plant

species. The GRSG impacts section is arranged to focus on the COT report 

threats identified for North Dakota.

COT Report Threats – Isolated/Small Populations, Agriculture, and ExUrban Development

Impacts from Land Tenure Decisions

GRSG in North Dakota are restricted to approximately 800 square miles in 

western Bowman County, western Slope County, and extreme southern 

Golden Valley County. GRSG in North Dakota are largely non-migratory, 

although there may be some short seasonal movements between summer and 

winter habitats, primarily between Montana and North Dakota (NDGFD 2005; 

Swanson 2009). As a small population with limited suitable habitat, North 

Dakota GRSG are especially vulnerable to the effects of isolation and habitat 

fragmentation.

Land tenure adjustments or withdrawals made in GRSG habitat could reduce 

the habitat available to sustain GRSG populations, unless provisions were made 

to ensure that GRSG conservation remained a priority under the new land 

management regime. Land exchanges designed to decrease fragmentation of 

GRSG habitat would help GRSG populations (NTT 2011, pg. 13-14).

COT Report Threat – Energy and Mining

Impact from Mineral Resources

Energy development requires construction of roads, well pads, wells and other 

infrastructure, with associated noise, traffic and lights, that disturb wildlife and 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-10 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

alter, degrade or displace native ecosystems. Wildlife is displaced by energy 

development infrastructure, with power lines and roads having the largest 

effects according to a meta-analysis of prairie grouse populations (Hagen 2010). 

GRSG population declines resulted from avoidance of infrastructure during one 

or more seasons, reduced productivity, and/or reduced survival (Naugle et al. 

2011).

Industrial activity associated with the development of surface mines and 

infrastructure (e.g., roads and power lines) could result in noise and human 

activity that disrupt the habitat and life-cycle of GRSG. The number of displaying 

GRSG on two leks within 1.25 miles of active mines in northern Colorado 

declined by approximately 94 percent over a five-year period following an 

increase in mining activity, though some recovery was subsequently observed 

(Remington and Braun 1991, cited in Manier et al. 2013 pg. 71; Braun 1998). All 

studies which assessed impacts of energy development on GRSG found negative

effects, whereas no studies reported a positive influence of development on 

populations or habitats (Naugle et al. 2011). Studies consistently reported that 

breeding populations of GRSG were negatively impacted at conventional well 

pad densities (defined in the study as four to eight pads per square mile), with 

declines in lek attendance by male GRSG ranging from 13 to 79 percent 

associated with these well densities. A recent summary of studies investigating 

GRSG response to natural gas development reported impacts on leks from 

energy development were most severe when infrastructure occurred near leks 

and that impacts remained discernible out to distances up to four miles (Manier 

et al. 2013, pg. 51).

An observed 21 percent decline in GRSG population between pre- and postmine development was primarily attributed to decreased nest success and adult 

female annual survival; the treatment effect was more noticeable closer to gas 

field infrastructure. Annual survival of individuals reared near gas field 

infrastructure (yearling females and males) was significantly lower than control 

individuals that were not reared near infrastructure (Holloran et al. 2010, cited 

in Manier et al. pg. 59).

Despite significant closures of BLM-administered lands to oil and gas leasing

within GRSG habitat (720,800 acres in PPH and 4,164,700 acres in PGH in MZ I, 

according to Manier et al. 2013, Table 12, pg. 55), current leases are substantial 

across GRSG ranges in BLM MZ I, which includes the planning area. Potential 

for development is based on locations of geologic fields for traditional oil and 

gas, distributed extensively across eastern portions of GRSG range (Manier et 

al. 2013, pg. 51). Mining of various federal mineral resources currently directly 

affects approximately 3.5 percent of potential GRSG habitat within MZ 1, with 

indirect effects potentially affecting larger portions in some areas. Restrictions 

on mineral leasing in GRSG habitat would reduce disturbance to the species by 

reducing these disturbances.
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-11

Potential restrictions on use of GRSG habitat could include NSO, CSU and TL

stipulations. NSO stipulations would prevent habitat loss, fragmentation and 

disturbance in GRSG habitat, while CSU would avoid breeding habitat and other 

sensitive areas, and TL would avoid nest disturbance by restricting use during 

certain times of year. However, if mineral resources can be recovered from 

drilling into the subsurface from an adjacent private landholding, habitat 

degradation, noise disturbance and other impacts from drilling will still occur in 

the planning area and the stipulations may be ineffective in protecting GRSG.

COT Report Threat – Infrastructure

Impact from Lands and Realty

Transmission lines and major power lines are widespread throughout the range 

of GRSG. GRSG generally respond negatively to increased human infrastructure 

in sagebrush habitats, including roads, power lines and communication towers 

(Knick and Connelly 2011; Johnson et al. 2011). Although transmission line and 

power line construction does not generally result in substantial direct habitat 

loss, it would temporarily disturb individual GRSG and habitat along the ROW. 

Following construction, GRSG avoidance of vertical structures, potentially due 

to raptors perching on the structures, may result in habitat exclusion via 

behavioral response. One study reported that the frequency of raptor/GRSG 

interactions during the breeding season increased 65 percent and golden eagle

interactions alone increased 47 percent in an area in pre- and post-transmission 

line comparisons (Ellis 1985). GRSG have been observed to avoid brood-rearing 

habitats within three miles of power lines (LeBeau 2012). Higher densities of 

power lines within four miles of a lek negatively influence lek attendance 

(Walker et al. 2007). Additionally, the tendency of GRSG to fly relatively low, 

and in low light or when harried, may put them at high risk of collision with 

power lines (Beck et al. 2006, cited in Manier et al. 2013, pg. 50).

ROW exclusion areas would prohibit all development of ROWs, while ROW 

avoidance areas would consider on a case-by-case basis whether an ROW 

should be allowed. This flexibility may be advantageous where federal and 

private land-ownership areas are mixed and exclusion areas may result in more 

widespread development on private lands.

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Ecological impacts of roads and motorized trails include mortality due to 

collisions, behavior modifications due to noise, activity and/or habitat loss, 

alteration of physical environment, leaching of nutrients, erosion, spread of 

invasive plants, and alteration by humans due to accessibility. GRSG avoid 

nesting and summering near major roads (for example, paved secondary 

highways), and traffic disturbances. Research suggests that roads within 4.7 miles

of leks negatively influence male lek attendance, with larger roads having greater 

effects (Connelly et al. 2004; Johnson et al. 2011). Increased length of road, 

increased traffic levels on roads, and traffic activity during the early morning on 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-12 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

roads within approximately two miles of leks all negatively influence male lek 

attendance (Holloran 2005; LeBeau 2012; Forman and Alexander 1998; Lyon 

and Anderson 2003, cited in Manier et al. 2013, pg. 44, 50).

Closing and reclaiming unused, minimally used and/or unnecessary (e.g., 

redundant) roads in and around GRSG habitat will reduce disturbance to GRSG

in those habitats as well as increase the amount of GRSG habitat when the 

roads are reclaimed (NTT 2011, pg. 11-12).

COT Report Threat – Fire

Impacts from Fire

Fire is particularly damaging to sagebrush ecosystems. Big sagebrush does not 

re-sprout after a fire, but is replenished by wind-dispersed seed from adjacent 

unburned stands or seeds in the soil. Depending on the species and the size of a 

burn, sagebrush can reestablish within five years of a burn, but a return to a full 

pre-burn community cover can take 13 to 100 years (Connelly et al. 2004). 

While wildfire likely played an important historical role in creating a mosaic of 

habitat for GRSG, current land-use patterns have restricted the system’s ability 

to support wildfire. Slow rates of re-growth and recovery of sagebrush after 

disturbance, coupled with high rates of disturbance and conversion to 

introduced plant cover are largely responsible for the accumulating displacement 

and degradation of the sagebrush ecosystem (Manier et al. 2013, pg. 4-6).

Fire suppression may be used to maintain habitat for GRSG (NTT 2011, pg. 25-

27). Fire suppression may preserve the condition of some vegetation 

communities, as well as habitat connectivity. This is particularly important in 

areas where fire frequency has increased as a result of weed invasion, or where 

landscapes are highly fragmented. Fire also increases opportunities for invasive 

species, such as cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), to expand (Balch et al. 2012), and 

fire suppression may limit this expansion.

Controlled burning may be prescribed to treat fuel buildup and can assist in the 

recovery of sagebrush habitat in some vegetation types. Re-seeding with native 

plants and long-term monitoring to ensure the production of GRSG cover and 

forage plants, would assist vegetation recovery (NTT 2011, pg. 26-27). Reevaluation of controlled burning, fuels management and fire suppression policies 

is intended to protect sagebrush ecosystem and the GRSG that depend on it.

COT Report Threat – Grazing and Range Management

Impacts from Range Management

Livestock grazing is the most widespread land use across the sagebrush biome 

(Connelly et al. 2004, pg. 7-29). Livestock grazing can affect soils, vegetation, 

water and nutrient availability by consuming or altering vegetation, redistributing 

nutrients and plant seeds, trampling soils and vegetation, and disrupting 

microbial composition (Connelly et al. 2004, pg. 7-29 – 7-32). Livestock may 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-13

also trample nests and disturb GRSG behavior (Beck and Mitchell 2000, Coates 

2007, pg. 28, 33).

At unsustainable levels of grazing, impacts can lead to loss of vegetative cover, 

reduced water infiltration rates, decreased plant litter, increased bare ground, 

reduced nutrient cycling, decreased water quality, increased soil erosion, and 

reduced overall habitat quality for wildlife, including GRSG (Knick et al. 2011). 

Properly managed grazing, however, may protect GRSG by reducing fuel load

(Connelly et al. 2004, pg. 7-30). 

Structural range improvements such as fences represent potential movement 

barriers (especially woven-wire fences), predator perches or travel corridors, 

and are a potential cause of direct mortality to GRSG (Braun 1998). Grazing 

restrictions that protect sagebrush ecosystem health would enhance habitat for 

GRSG populations.

COT Report Threat – Vegetation Management (Sagebrush Elimination, 

Conifer Invasion, Invasive Species)

Impacts from Vegetation Management and Habitat Restoration

Current treatments and active vegetation management typically focus on 

vegetation composition and structure for fuels management, habitat 

management and/or productivity manipulation for improving the habitat and 

forage conditions for ungulates and other grazers, using surface (soil) 

stabilization to manipulate vegetation composition or increase productivity, or 

to remove invasive plants (Knick et al. 2011). Distribution of these treatments 

can affect the distribution of GRSG and sagebrush habitats locally and across a 

region.

Invasive plants are thought to alter plant community structure and composition, 

productivity, nutrient cycling, and hydrology, and may competitively exclude 

native plant populations. In particular, invasive plants can reduce and eliminate 

vegetation that GRSG use for food and cover, resulting in habitat loss and 

fragmentation, and may also increase the risk of wildfire. An assortment of 

nonnative annuals and perennials and native conifers are currently invading 

sagebrush ecosystems. Expansion of conifer woodlands, especially juniper 

(Juniperus spp.), also threaten GRSG because they do not provide suitable 

habitat, and further, mature trees displace shrubs, grasses and forbs required for 

GRSG through competition for resources; juniper expansion is also associated 

with increased bare ground and potential for erosion, and offers additional 

perch sites for raptors; thus, woodland expansion may also represent expansion 

of raptor predation threat, similarly to perches on power lines and other 

structures (Connelly et al. 2004).

Landscapes with large, intact patches of sagebrush are preferred to avoid edge 

effects; in addition, GRSG require habitats including a diversity of herbaceous 

species and healthy native grasses, making management for high condition 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-14 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

important (Knick et al. 2011). Given the limited distribution of sagebrush and 

the cost of habitat restoration, management plans that protect intact sagebrush 

and restore impacted areas strategically to enhance existing habitats (i.e., 

increase connectivity of intact sagebrush) have the best chance of increasing high 

quality sagebrush cover (Connelly et al. 2004; Beck and Mitchell 2000, cited in 

Manier et al. 2013, pg. 108). Sagebrush-promoting vegetation treatments would 

increase the amount and quality of GRSG habitat.

COT Report Threat – Recreation

Impacts from Recreation

Recreational use of GRSG habitat may be benign in some situations, but may 

also result in human disturbance of birds or nesting sites, degradation of 

sagebrush habitat, or poaching (NTT 2011, p. 12). Activities such as camping, 

bicycling, off-road vehicle use and hunting utilizing the extensive network of 

BLM roads and trails impact sagebrush and GRSG by generating noise and dust, 

spreading invasive plants, and altering wildlife behavior (Knick et al. 2011). In 

addition, as discussed under travel and transportation above, road and trail use 

may directly cause GRSG mortality via collisions with vehicles. Closing or 

seasonally restricting roads used by recreationalists in and around seasonal 

GRSG habitats may reduce the impacts on wildlife. Restricting access to 

important habitat areas based on seasonal use and coincident with GRSG

activities would also protect GRSG (Knick et al. 2011; NTT 2011, pg. 11).

4.2.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts which are common to all alternatives.

4.2.4 Alternative A

COT Report Threat – Isolated/Small Populations, Agriculture, and ExUrban Development

Impacts from Land Tenure Decisions

Though 3,436 acres of BLM-administered land are available for disposal, land 

tenure adjustments would be subject to current disposal/exchange/acquisition 

criteria, which include retaining lands with threatened or endangered species, 

high quality riparian habitat, or plant and animal populations or natural 

communities of high interest; this would likely include retention of areas with 

GRSG, and would thus retain occupied habitats under BLM management. 

Retaining land under BLM jurisdiction would avoid the possibility of habitat 

conversion to agriculture, urbanization, or other uses that would remove 

sagebrush habitat, though conversions could still occur on adjacent private 

lands. 

Although this alternative would likely retain lands within planning area, it is not a 

requirement of the current North Dakota RMP (i.e., the lands are technically 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-15

available for disposal and if an isolated parcels contained no GRSG habitat it 

could be disposed of or exchanged); therefore, it would not meet COT Report 

Conservation Option 5 under Ex-Urban Development to “not relinquish public 

lands... in GRSG habitat”. Acquisitions of GRSG habitat would still be allowed, 

so COT Report Conservation Option 2 under Ex-Urban Development could be 

met but there is no emphasis on it.

Impacts from ACECs

No ACECs would be designated under Alternative A, and therefore no impacts 

on GRSG or their habitats from management for ACECs.

COT Report Threats – Energy and Mining

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative A, NSO stipulations would be applied within one-quartermile of active leks and no seismic exploration or other development would be 

allowed within two miles of leks between March 1 and June 15. Currently, no 

acres in the planning area are closed to fluid mineral leasing, while 73,435 BLMadministered acres are open to leasing. Of these, 25,130 acres are under 

standard terms and conditions, while 9,780 acres are NSO, 21,235 acres are 

CSU, and 38,504 acres are under timing limitations. As shown below in Table 

4-2, Disturbance Associated with Existing Wells Pads and Projected Active Well 

Pads under Alternative A, 291 current and projected pads under existing leases 

on BLM land are anticipated to disturb 816 acres in the short term, with 259 

pads anticipated to disturb 548 acres long-term. As discussed above under 

Nature and Type of Effects, mineral exploration and extraction directly disturb 

GRSG and their habitat, although leasing restrictions would reduce these 

impacts by disturbing/degrading fewer acres of sagebrush habitat, and reducing 

direct disturbance of birds on BLM-managed minerals. However, if the 

resources are drilled from adjacent private lands/minerals, disturbance could still 

occur and the stipulations would not be as effective in protecting GRSG.

The existing oil and gas stipulations (e.g., 1/4 mile NSO and timing limit) would 

not work towards meeting the COT Report Conservation Measures 1 and 2 

under Energy Development: avoid energy development in PACs (no PH or GH

in this alternative) or, if not possible to avoid, development should occur only 

on non-habitat areas. The current NSO, CSU, and TL restrictions in place for 

GRSG will help meet Conservation Measure 3 “...the development should 

occur in the least suitable habitat for GRSG...”.
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-16 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 4-2

Disturbance Associated with Existing Wells Pads and Projected Active Well Pads under 

Alternative A

Total 

Pads

Total 

Wells

BLMAdministered

Pads

BLMAdministered

Wells

Total 

Acres

BLMAdministered

Acres

Short-Term Disturbance1

New exploratory and 

development well 

pads/wells

384 384 60 60 2,071 337

Existing and projected 

well pads/wells 894 894 231 231 2,455 479

Total well pads/wells 1,278 1,278 291 291 4,526 816

Long-Term Disturbance2

New producing well 

pads/wells 314 314 49 49 772 125

Existing and projected 

well pads/wells 793 793 211 211 2,144 422

Total well pads/wells 1,107 1,107 259 259 2,915 548 1 Short-term disturbance is a calculation of the cumulative disturbance that would occur to the end of the plan 

from the new wells projected in the North Dakota Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario for oil and gas,

plus those presently considered to be active (unplugged and unreclaimed). 2 Long-term disturbances is a calculation of unreclaimed disturbance that would be present at the end of 2029.

Source: BLM 2013

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative A, 242,743 acres would be available for consideration for 

coal mining (of this, 30,408 acres are BLM surface), although there are no 

existing coal leases and no current interest in federal coal resources in GRSG

habitat. For locatable minerals, mineral materials, salable minerals and on-energy 

leasable minerals, a total of 56,681 BLM-administered acres would continue to 

be open to leasing and development, and impacts on GRSG and habitat

described under Nature and Type of Effects would continue. Although there are 

current no mines on BLM minerals, the planning area is open to mining, so 

therefore does not meet the COT Report Conservation Option 1 under Mining 

to “avoid new mining activities and/or any associated facilities within occupied 

habitat, including seasonal habitats”.

COT Report Threat – Infrastructure

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Alternative A includes no specific lands and realty management related to GRSG

or their habitat, although some measures to site ROWs in a way that minimizes 

surface disturbance and avoids environmentally sensitive areas would be applied. 

There are currently no ROW exclusion or avoidance areas within the planning 

area for GRSG. If no other lines are built within the decision area, impacts to 

GRSG may be relatively minor.
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-17

However, since the entire area is open to ROWs, there are no specific actions 

that would make progress toward meeting the COT Report Conservation 

Option 1 under Infrastructure to “avoid construction of these features in GRSG

habitat, both within and outside of PACs”. The current RMP direction to avoid 

environmentally sensitive areas would partially meet the COT Report 

Conservation Option 2 to either bury powerlines or consolidate new structure 

with existing features.

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

BLM-administered lands would continue to allow limited yearlong use for 

motorized wheeled vehicles, restricted to existing roads and trails on 33,030 

acres (see Chapter 1 for more detail on the OHV ROD). Through site-specific 

planning, BLM would inventory, map and designate roads and trails as open, 

seasonally open, or closed. Through this process, important wildlife habitat 

areas, including GRSG habitat, could be protected, though there is currently no 

direct protection for GRSG or GRSG habitat from travel and transportation 

management under Alternative A. Fragmentation and direct impacts described 

under Nature and Type of Effects would likely continue, though the extent of 

these impacts is not clear in the absence of projected road-building needs. Since 

this alternative carries forward the Limited designation (OHVs limited to 

existing road and trails) from the Montana-Dakotas OHV ROD, it would meet 

the COT Report Conservation Option 1 under Recreation to: “Close important 

GRSG use areas to off-road vehicle use.” Off-road vehicle use has not been

allowed in the planning area since 2003.

COT Report Threat – Fire

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Fire and fuels management under Alternative A would not specifically protect 

GRSG or their habitat, although prescribed burning may be used where 

appropriate in support of resource management objectives, including improving 

vegetation conditions in GRSG habitat. Though it would not be an RMP action 

under this alternative, BLM would still meet the COT Report Conservation 

Option 4 under Fire to: Renew and implement the BLM IM 2011-138 Sagegrouse Conservation Related to Wildlife Fire and Fuels Management...” The 

part it would not meet is incorporating this IM direction into an RMP-level 

action; BLM would still use the applicable practices from the IM.

COT Report Threats – Grazing and Range Management Structures

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative A, 32,945 acres in the planning area would continue to be 

open for livestock grazing, with 5,781 available AUMs, while 85 acres would 

remain unallocated for grazing. Livestock grazing would continue to be managed 

through existing grazing plans, with methods and guidelines from the existing 

RMP followed to maintain ecological conditions according to Standards for 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-18 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Rangeland Health, which include maintaining healthy, productive and diverse 

populations of native plants and animals. The Montana/Dakotas Drought Policy 

(Appendix H) would be followed to prevent impacts on rangelands under 

drought conditions. Continuation of these policies would not specifically protect 

GRSG habitat, though could provide indirect benefits through preservation of 

existing sagebrush habitat.

Riparian habitats would be managed to achieve PFC and livestock would be 

restricted from riparian areas. Together, these management actions would help 

to improve riparian vegetation health and reduce impacts caused by livestock, 

such as trampling and overuse of riparian areas. As a result, seasonal habitats for 

GRSG would be improved or preserved where they are applied.

Range improvements would be designed to meet both wildlife and range 

objectives, and would include building or modifying fences to permit passage of 

wildlife. One range improvement is currently planned, a 7-mile pipeline in the 

Antelope Butte Allotment. In addition, all interior non-wildlife friendly fences 

have been replaced within the Big Gumbo Allotment within the past five years. 

Development of range improvements on erodible soils would be avoided in 

springs. Although not directly created to protect GRSG, these approaches 

would protect GRSG habitat by reducing the likelihood of surface disturbance in 

sensitive areas.

With the current Biodiversity Standard in the Standards for Rangeland Health, 

this alternative would help meeting Conservation Option 1 under Grazing to 

“ensure that allotments meet ecological potential and wildlife habitat 

requirements...” However, this alternative would not fully meet Conservation 

Option 3 to “Incorporate sage-grouse habitat needs or habitat characteristics 

into relevant resource and allotment management plans...” since there are no 

GRSG specific standards developed.

COT Report Threats – Vegetation Management (Sagebrush Elimination, 

Conifer Invasion, Invasive Species)

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Under Alternative A, Integrated Vegetation Management Handbook policies 

would be followed and would provide providing guidance on which treatments 

and chemicals can be used. Application of these policies would improve 

vegetation management in sagebrush habitat thereby improving habitat 

conditions for GRSG. Although there is no specific RMP direction under 

Alternative A, current and planned vegetation management projects in the 

planning area do include conifer reduction in the southern portion of the area, 

without the use of prescribed fire. This project would improve habitat for 

GRSG.
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-19

This alternative would meet COT Report Conservation Objective under 

Pinyon-juniper Expansion to: “Remove pinyon-juniper from areas of sagebrush 

that are most likely to support sage-grouse (post-removal)...”

COT Report Threat – Recreation

Impacts from Recreation

Alternative A includes no specific recreation management related to GRSG or 

their habitat. Potential impacts on GRSG from recreational use would be as 

discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects. Although there are no 

developed recreation facilities in the planning area, this alternative would not 

meet the COT Report Conservation Option 2 under Recreation to “Avoid 

development of recreational facilities... in sage-grouse habitats” because future 

development would not be precluded.

4.2.5 Alternative B

COT Report Threat – Isolated/Small Populations, Agriculture, and ExUrban Development

Impacts from Land Tenure Decisions

No lands in PH would be available for disposal under Alternative B and if 

conservation actions cannot be achieved, the BLM would seek to acquire lands 

with intact subsurface mineral estate. Retaining land under BLM jurisdiction 

would avoid the possibility of habitat conversion to agriculture, urbanization, or 

other uses that would remove sagebrush habitat, though these conversions 

could still occur on adjacent private lands. Alternative B would meet the COT 

Report Conservation Option 5 under Ex-Urban Development to “...not 

relinquish public lands...”, and it would also meet Conservation Option 2 to: 

“Acquire and manage sage-grouse habitat to maintain intact ecosystems”.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as Alternative A.

COT Report Threats – Energy and Mining

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Restrictions on fluid mineral leasing and development proposed under 

Alternative B would result in beneficial impacts on GRSG compared to 

Alternative A. Under Alternative B, 61,197 acres in the planning area would be 

closed to fluid mineral leasing, while 12,238 acres of BLM-administered lands 

would remain open to leasing. PH would be closed to new fluid mineral leasing, 

existing leases would not be renewed, and conservation measures would be 

applied as conditions of permit approvals. These proposed policies would result 

in a decrease in the number of acres of GRSG habitat that would be impacted 

by fluid mineral leasing and development compared to Alternative A, and a 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-20 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

reduction in the likelihood of impacts from fluid mineral exploration and 

development described under Nature and Type of Effects.

As shown below in Table 4-3, Disturbance Associated with Existing Wells Pads 

and Projected Active Well Pads under Alternative B, 257 current and projected 

pads under existing leases on BLM-administered land are anticipated to disturb 

624 acres, a 12 percent drop from Alternative A that disturbs 192 fewer acres 

of habitat. In the long term, 72 fewer acres would be disturbed, and fewer 

habitats would be fragmented, compared to Alternative A. The difference in 

acreage from Alternative A is small because much of the mineral resource in 

NDFO is already under existing leases.

Table 4-3

Disturbance Associated with Existing Wells Pads and Projected Active Well Pads under 

Alternative B

Total 

Pads

Total 

Wells

BLMAdministered

Pads

BLMAdministered

Wells

Total 

Acres

BLMAdministered

Acres

Short-Term Disturbance1

New exploratory and development well 

pads/wells 352 352 26 26 1,899 145

Existing and projected well pads/wells 894 894 231 231 2,455 479

Total Well Pads/Wells 1,246 1,246 257 257 4,354 624

Long-Term Disturbance2

New producing well pads/wells 289 289 21 21 708 54

Existing and projected well pads/wells 793 793 211 211 2,144 422

Total Well Pads/Wells 1,081 1,081 232 232 2,851 476 1 Short-term disturbance is a calculation of the cumulative disturbance that would occur to the end of the plan 

from the new wells projected in the North Dakota RFD for oil and gas, plus those presently considered to be 

active (unplugged and unreclaimed). 2 Long-term disturbances is a calculation of unreclaimed disturbance that would be present at the end of 2029.

Source: BLM 2013

Alternative B meets COT Report Conservation Measures 1-3 to: avoid energy 

development in PACs (new leases), use adequate buffers for valid existing rights, 

and use reasonable alternative avoidance measures (see actions in Table 2-3

under Alternative B for Unleased and Leased Fluid Mineral in Chapter 2 for all 

conservation measures). As mentioned above, this would result in 12 percent 

reduction in disturbed acres from Alternative A.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

The limitations proposed under Alternative B would result in beneficial impacts, 

compared to Alternative A, on GRSG and their habitat associated with solid 

mineral exploration and extraction activities described under Nature and Type of 

Effects. All surface mining of coal would be found to be unsuitable in PH (87,443 

acres); subsurface mining could only be allowed if all surface disturbance and 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-21

facilities were place outside PH. PH would be recommended for withdrawal

from locatable mineral entry. For non-energy leasable minerals, PH would be 

closed to leasing and to mineral material sales. BMPs would be applied to 

existing leases and locatable mineral claims, and restoration would be required 

for existing salable mineral pits.

These policies would decrease the number of acres potentially impacted by solid 

mineral development compared to Alternative A, and a reduction in the 

likelihood of disturbance and fragmentation impacts from solid mineral 

exploration and extraction described under Nature and Type of Effects. Because 

mineral potential is low for coal and mineral materials, these restrictions may 

have little practical impact on GRSG or their habitat but it would preclude any 

potential future development.

This alternative would meet the COT Report Conservation Option 1 under 

Mining to: “Avoid new mining activities and/or associated facilities within 

occupied habitats, including seasonal habitats.”

COT Report Threat – Infrastructure

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Establishing ROW exclusion and avoidance areas would protect GRSG habitat in 

areas where they are applied as described above under Nature and Type of 

Effects. Under Alternative B, PH areas would be managed by the BLM as ROW

exclusion areas (32,900 acres). GH would be managed by the BLM as ROW 

avoidance areas (80 acres). Such management would increase the number of 

acres of GRSG habitat that would be protected by lands and realty management 

compared to Alternative A.

The net impact of the ROW exclusion area is less because a portion of the PH

is a unitized oil and gas field (this means facilities such as roads and pipelines 

needed for the development of the field are covered under a separate 

agreement between the operator and the BLM vs. the realty program). All other 

utilities would be subject to the ROW exclusion (PH) and avoidance (GH) 

areas.

By making PH a ROW exclusion area this alternative would partially meet the 

COT Report Conservation Option to: “Avoid construction of these features in 

sage-grouse habitat...” This partially meets because there would still be 

construction of some of these features for valid existing rights.

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Travel and transportation management under Alternative B would likely result 

in beneficial impacts on GRSG and their habitat, compared to Alternative A,

from roads and motorized vehicles by limiting traffic on existing roads in PH and 

GH, evaluating the need to permanently or seasonally close roads or areas to 

traffic in PH, and restoring roads not designated in travel management plans in 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-22 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

PH. Although the extent of permanent or seasonal road closures and the 

reclaiming of undesignated roads is unknown, these provisions make Alternative 

B more likely to result in beneficial impacts on GRSG as described under Nature 

and Type of Effects compared to Alternative A, though the extent of these 

impacts is not clear in the absence of projected road-building needs and/or 

closures.

Since this alternative carries forward the Limited designation (OHVs limited to 

existing road and trails) from the Montana-Dakotas OHV ROD, it would meet

the COT Report Conservation Option 1 under Recreation to: “Close important 

sage-grouse use areas to off-road vehicle use.” Off-road vehicle use has not 

been allowed in the planning area since 2003.

COT Report Threat – Fire

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Fire and fuel management policies proposed under Alternative B would be 

designed to protect sagebrush ecosystems by maintaining sagebrush cover, 

applying seasonal restrictions, protecting winter range, and requiring use of 

native seeds. Post-fuels treatments and ES&R management would be designed to 

ensure long-term persistence of seeded areas and native plants. BLM would 

prioritize suppression in PH, though it is unknown to what extent firebreaks or 

post-fire restoration will be employed in the planning area. Although fire is still a 

threat listed in the COT report, fires have only burned two percent of the 

entire planning area in the past 10 years (or about 21,000 acres). These 

proposed modifications to fire and fuel management would result in an increase 

in the protection of sagebrush ecosystems compared to Alternative A, and a 

reduction in the likelihood of adverse impacts from fire and fuels management 

described under Nature and Type of Effects.

BLM would meet the COT Report Conservation Option 4 under Fire to: 

“Renew and implement the BLM IM 2011-138 Sage-grouse Conservation 

Related to Wildlife Fire and Fuels Management...” Many of the other 

Conservation Options for Fire in the COT report are included as RDFs in 

Appendix B and are applicable to Alternatives B-D. Alternative B also meets 

the Conservation Measures 2 and 5 to: eliminate intentional fires in sagebrush 

habitats and immediately suppressing fire in all sagebrush habitat.

COT Report Threats – Grazing and Range Management Structures

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative B, BLM would implement a number of management actions in 

PH to incorporate GRSG habitat objectives livestock grazing management, 

though there would be no change to the acreage open for grazing or available 

AUMs. For example, at the implementation level, BLM may consider changes in 

grazing practices or systems to ensure allotments meet rangeland health
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-23

standards or can restrict new grazing infrastructure in GRSG habitat. These 

changes could reduce grazing intensity or change the season of use. In addition, 

changes in number of livestock or season of use within riparian and wet 

meadows can reduce impacts in these important seasonal habitats. Together, 

these efforts would result in beneficial impacts from grazing on GRSG and 

habitat described under Nature and Type of Effects compared to Alternative A.

With the current Biodiversity Standard in the Standards for Rangeland Health, 

this alternative would help meeting Conservation Option 1 under Grazing to 

“ensure that allotments meet ecological potential and wildlife habitat 

requirements...” This alternative states to incorporate GRSG habitat objectives 

and management considerations into all allotments through AMPs or permit 

renewals, and would thus work towards meeting Conservation Option 3 to 

“Incorporate sage-grouse habitat needs or habitat characteristics into relevant 

resource and allotment management plans...” Conservation Measures 2, 4, and 

5 also have similar management actions under this alternative (e.g., work 

cooperatively on integrated ranch planning, prioritize completion of Standards 

for Rangeland Health within PH, and manage for vegetation composition and 

structure consistent with ecological site potential).

COT Report Threats – Vegetation Management (Sagebrush Elimination, 

Conifer Invasion, Invasive Species)

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Habitat restoration and vegetation management actions under Alternative B 

would aim to improve GRSG habitat and prioritize restoration efforts to benefit 

GRSG habitats. As a result, the restoration and management of vegetation 

actions would enhance GRSG habitat relative to Alternative A by requiring the 

use of native seeds, designing post-restoration management to ensure the longterm persistence of the restoration efforts, considering changes in climate, and 

monitoring and controlling invasive species. It is unknown how many vegetation 

management projects would be undertaken in the decision area to prioritize 

restoration of GRSG habitat.

This alternative would meet COT Report Conservation Objective under 

Pinyon-juniper Expansion to: “Remove pinyon-juniper from areas of sagebrush 

that are most likely to support sage-grouse (post-removal)...” as well as 

Conservation Measure 1 under Invasive Plant Species to” “Retain all remaining 

large intact sagebrush patches...”

COT Report Threat – Recreation

Impacts from Recreation

Management proposed under Alternative B would result in beneficial impacts 

from organized recreation as described under Nature and Type of Effects on 

GRSG and their habitat, compared to Alternative A, by limiting issuance of SRPs 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-24 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

in PH. However, impacts from dispersed recreation, such as hiking, biking, or 

equestrian activities, would continue to disturb vegetation and GRSG in the 

areas where they occur.

Although there are no developed recreation facilities in the planning area, this 

alternative would not meet the COT Report Conservation Option 2 under 

Recreation to “Avoid development of recreational facilities... in sage-grouse 

habitats” because there is no specific action addressing future recreation 

development (not an issue in this part of the NDFO); however, SRPs would only 

be issued if they were neutral or beneficial to PH. See Impacts from Travel and 

Transportation Management sections for Conservation Option 1.

4.2.6 Alternative C

COT Report Threat – Isolated/Small Populations, Agriculture, and ExUrban Development

Impacts from Land Tenure Decisions

No lands in PH and GH would be available for disposal under Alternative C. 

Retaining land under BLM jurisdiction would avoid the possibility of habitat 

conversion to agriculture, urbanization, or other uses that would remove 

sagebrush habitat, though these conversions could still occur on adjacent private 

lands. Private land may be acquired in ACECs to enhance GRSG conservation 

value of existing lands. Although it is uncertain how much private land could be

acquired to enhance GRSG habitat under Alternative C, this policy has the 

potential to increase the acreage of enhanced sagebrush compared Alternative 

A, as no such measures have been provided under Alternative A. Alternative C

would meet the COT Report Conservation Option 5 under Ex-Urban 

Development to “...not relinquish public lands...”, and it would also meet 

Conservation Option 2 to: “Acquire and manage sage-grouse habitat to maintain 

intact ecosystems”.

Impacts from ACECs

An ACEC to protect GRSG would be designated as sagebrush reserves on PH, 

covering 32,900 acres. GRSG populations and habitat within areas designated as 

ACECs would be protected by increased management focus and restrictions on 

surface-disturbing activities in these areas.

COT Report Threats – Energy and Mining

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Fluid minerals management under Alternative C would be similar to that 

described for Alternative B, but would include several more restrictive 

conservation measures, thereby enhancing protection of GRSG habitat and 

populations compared to Alternative A. In addition, actions would be applied to 

both PH and GH, which would increase the area of GRSG habitat that would be 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-25

protected. For example, under Alternative C, 66,293 acres in the planning area 

would be closed to fluid mineral leasing, while 7,142 BLM-administered acres 

within PH would remain open to leasing. Of these, 7,142 acres would be under 

standard terms and conditions. As shown below in Table 4-4, Disturbance 

Associated with Existing Wells Pads and Projected Active Well Pads under 

Alternative C, 231 current and projected pads under existing leases on BLMadministered land are anticipated to disturb 621 acres short-term, 195 fewer 

than Alternative A. In the long term, 73 fewer acres would be disturbed 

compared to Alternative A. These are approximately the same reductions 

achieved under Alternative B. The change in acreage from Alternative A is small 

because much of the mineral resource in NDFO is already under existing leases.

Table 4-4

Disturbance Associated with Existing Wells Pads and Projected Active Well Pads under 

Alternative C

Total 

Pads

Total 

Wells

BLMAdministered

Pads

BLMAdministered

Wells

Total 

Acres

BLMAdministered

Acres

Short-Term Disturbance1

New exploratory and 

development well pads/wells 352 352 25 25 1,899 142

Existing and projected well 

pads/wells 894 894 231 231 2,455 479

Total Well Pads/Wells 1,246 1,246 256 256 4,354 621

Long-Term Disturbance2

New producing well 

pads/wells 289 289 21 21 707 53

Existing and projected well 

pads/wells 793 793 211 211 2,144 422

Total Well Pads/Wells 1,081 1,081 232 232 2,851 475 1 Short-term disturbance is a calculation of the cumulative disturbance that would occur to the end of the plan 

from the new wells projected in the North Dakota RFD for oil and gas, plus those presently considered to be 

active (unplugged and unreclaimed). 2 Long-term disturbances is a calculation of unreclaimed disturbance that would be present at the end of 2029.

Source: BLM 2013

Alternative C meets COT Report Conservation Measures 1-3 to: avoid energy 

development in PACs (new leases), use adequate buffers for valid existing rights, 

and use reasonable alternative avoidance measures (see actions in Table 2-3

under Alternative C for Unleased and Leased Fluid Mineral in Chapter 2 for all 

conservation measures). This alternative would result in approximately 12 

percent drop of disturbed acres from Alternative A; even though Alternative C 

makes PH and GH no-lease areas, the acreages and well numbers are not very

different from Alternative B (where PH is a no lease) because of the location of 

existing leases.
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-26 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Impacts from solid minerals management would be the same as Alternative B, 

but would be applied to a larger area (PH and GH). Because mineral potential is 

low for coal and mineral materials, these restrictions may have little practical 

impact on GRSG or their habitat but it would preclude any potential future 

development. This alternative would meet the COT Report Conservation 

Option 1 under Mining to: “Avoid new mining activities and/or associated 

facilities within occupied habitats, including seasonal habitats.”

COT Report Threat – Infrastructure

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Similar to Alternative B, the measures proposed under Alternative C would 

reduce the impacts of ROWs on GRSG habitat. PH and GH would be ROW 

exclusion areas (32,980 acres), including for wind energy. Other impacts would 

be the same as under Alternative B. Management of ROW exclusion areas 

would result in beneficial impacts (described under the Nature and Type of 

Effects) on sagebrush and vegetation which support GRSG and other wildlife, 

compared to Alternative A. As under Alternative B, public ownership would be 

maintained in PH, but without the exceptions provided under Alternative B. 

ROW exclusion areas could have the unintended side-effect of shifting ROW 

development onto adjacent private lands.

As with Alternative B, the net impact of the ROW exclusion area is less because 

a portion of the PH is a unitized oil and gas field (see Alternative B). By making 

PH and GH a ROW exclusion area this alternative would partially meet the 

COT Report Conservation Option to: “Avoid construction of these features in 

sage-grouse habitat...” This partially meets because there would still be 

construction of some of these features for valid existing rights.

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Impacts from travel and transportation management would be similar to 

Alternative B, although impacts to GRSG habitat (as described under the Nature 

and Type of Effects) would be greater by 80 additional acres since protections 

would apply to both PH and GH. Site-specific travel planning to be completed in 

the next five years would designate specific roads and trails to be open, closed, 

or seasonally closed in the planning area.

Since this alternative carries forward the Limited designation (OHVs limited to 

existing road and trails) from the Montana-Dakotas OHV ROD, it would meet 

the COT Report Conservation Option 1 under Recreation to: “Close important 

sage-grouse use areas to off-road vehicle use.” Off-road vehicle use has not 

been allowed in the planning area since 2003.
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-27

COT Report Threat – Fire

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Impacts from fire and fuels management would be largely similar to those 

described for Alternative B, but would be applied to a slightly larger area (PH

and GH), and would thus provide greater protection for GRSG and their habitat 

over the long term, though it is unknown to what extent firebreaks or post-fire 

restoration would be employed in the planning area. Although fire is still a 

threat listed in the COT report, fires have only burned two percent of the 

entire planning area in the past 10 years (or about 21,000 acres).

BLM would meet the COT Report Conservation Option 4 under Fire to: 

“Renew and implement the BLM IM 2011-138 Sage-grouse Conservation 

Related to Wildlife Fire and Fuels Management...” Many of the other 

Conservation Options for Fire in the COT report are included as RDFs in 

Appendix B and are applicable to Alternatives B-D. Alternative C also meets 

the Conservation Measures 2 and 5 to: eliminate intentional fires in sagebrush 

habitats and immediately suppressing fire in all sagebrush habitat.

COT Report Threats – Grazing and Range Management Structures

Impacts from Range Management

Impacts from range management would be similar to those described for 

Alternative B. In addition, grazing would be reduced by 50 percent on all 

allotments within the Big Gumbo area (2,041 AUMs) and 3,740 AUMs would be 

available in other areas. By reducing AUMs, Alternative C would reduce the risk 

of trampling and loss of herbaceous understory cover in GRSG nesting habitat, 

but could contribute to increased fuel loading and risk of wildfire in these areas. 

New water developments for diversion from seeps or springs would not be 

authorized, which would prevent impacts on riparian areas and seasonal GRSG 

habitat by avoiding livestock traffic and loss of water flow to these areas. Other 

impacts would be similar to those described for Alternative B.

With the current Biodiversity Standard in the Standards for Rangeland Health, 

this alternative would help meeting Conservation Option 1 under Grazing to 

“ensure that allotments meet ecological potential and wildlife habitat 

requirements...” This alternative states to incorporate GRSG habitat objectives 

and management considerations into all allotments through AMPs or permit 

renewals, and would thus work towards meeting Conservation Option 3 to 

“Incorporate sage-grouse habitat needs or habitat characteristics into relevant 

resource and allotment management plans...” Conservation Measures 2, 4, and 

5 also have similar management actions under this alternative (e.g., work 

cooperatively on integrated ranch planning, prioritize completion of Standards 

for Rangeland Health within PH, and manage for vegetation composition and 

structure consistent with ecological site potential).
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-28 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

COT Report Threats – Vegetation Management (Sagebrush Elimination, 

Conifer Invasion, Invasive Species)

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Impacts from habitat restoration and vegetation management would be largely 

similar to those described for Alternative B, but would be applied to a slightly 

larger area (80 additional acres of GH). It is unknown how many vegetation 

management projects would be undertaken in the decision area for 

conservation or restoration of GRSG habitat.

This alternative would meet COT Report Conservation Objective under 

Pinyon-juniper Expansion to: “Remove pinyon-juniper from areas of sagebrush 

that are most likely to support sage-grouse (post-removal)...” as well as 

Conservation Measure 1 under Invasive Plant Species to” “Retain all remaining 

large intact sagebrush patches...”

COT Report Threat – Recreation

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts from recreation management under Alternative C would be the same as 

under Alternative B.

Although there are no developed recreation facilities in the planning area, this 

alternative would not meet the COT Report Conservation Option 2 under 

Recreation to “Avoid development of recreational facilities... in sage-grouse 

habitats” because there is no specific action addressing future recreation 

development (not an issue in this part of the NDFO); however, SRPs would only 

be issued if they were neutral or beneficial to PH and GH. See Impacts from 

Travel and Transportation Management sections for Conservation Option 1.

4.2.7 Alternative D

COT Report Threat – Isolated/Small Populations, Agriculture, and ExUrban Development

Impacts from Land Tenure Decisions

No lands in PH would be available for disposal under Alternative D. Impacts 

from land tenure decisions would be the same as Alternative B. Alternative D 

would meet the COT Report Conservation Option 5 under Ex-Urban 

Development to “...not relinquish public lands...”, and it would also meet 

Conservation Option 2 to: “Acquire and manage GRSG habitat to maintain 

intact ecosystems”.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as Alternative A.
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-29

COT Report Threats – Energy and Mining

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative D, all PH would be open to leasing subject to an NSO

stipulation. These lands would cover 61,197 acres. BLM would apply restrictions 

on geophysical exploration and development to protect leks and nesting habitat. 

Conservation measures would be different from those described for Alternative 

B, and incorporate noise and surface disturbance reduction, West Nile virus

prevention, and guidance for mitigation. Such management would reduce 

disturbance to GRSG populations and habitats associated with fluid mineral

development relative to Alternative A. However, if the resources are drilled 

from adjacent private lands/minerals, disturbance could still occur and the 

stipulations would not be as effective in protecting GRSG.

As shown below in Table 4-5, Disturbance Associated with Existing Wells Pads 

and Projected Active Well Pads under Alternative D, 282 current and projected 

pads under existing leases on BLM-administered land are anticipated to disturb 

767 acres short term, 49 fewer than Alternative A. In the long term, 18 fewer 

acres would be disturbed and fragmented compared to Alternative A. These 

reductions would conserve more GRSG habitat than Alternative A, but 

substantially less than Alternatives B or C.

Table 4-5

Disturbance Associated with Existing Wells Pads and Projected Active Well Pads under 

Alternative D

Total 

Pads

Total 

Wells

BLMAdministered

Pads

BLMAdministered

Wells

Total 

Acres

BLMAdministered

Acres

Short-Term Disturbance1

New exploratory and 

development well pads/wells 376 376 51 51 2,028 288

Existing and projected well 

pads/wells

894 894 231 231 2,455 479

Total Well Pads/Wells 1,270 1,270 282 282 4,483 767

Long-Term Disturbance2

New producing well 

pads/wells 308 308 42 42 756 107

Existing and projected well 

pads/wells 793 793 211 211 2,144 422

Total Well Pads/Wells 1,101 1,101 252 252 2,899 530 1 Short-term disturbance is a calculation of the cumulative disturbance that would occur to the end of the plan 

from the new wells projected in the North Dakota RFD for oil and gas, plus those presently considered to be 

active (unplugged and unreclaimed). 2 Long-term disturbances is a calculation of unreclaimed disturbance that would be present at the end of 2029.

Source: BLM 2013
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-30 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Alternative B meets COT Report Conservation Measures 1-3 to: avoid energy 

development in PACs (new leases), use adequate buffers for valid existing rights, 

and use reasonable alternative avoidance measures (see actions in Table 2-3

under Alternative B for Unleased and Leased Fluid Mineral in Chapter 2 for all 

conservation measures).

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Impacts under Alternative D would be similar to those described for Alternative 

B. For locatable mineral development, proposed actions would be analyzed on a 

case-by-case basis in cooperation with the State of North Dakota and BMPs

applied to avoid unnecessary degradation of GRSG habitat. These actions would 

not eliminate impacts, but would result in beneficial impacts from locatable 

mineral development compared to Alternative A, including those described 

under Nature and Type of Effects. Because mineral potential is low for coal and 

mineral materials, these restrictions may have little practical impact on GRSG or 

their habitat but it would preclude any potential future development.

This alternative would meet the COT Report Conservation Option 1 under 

Mining to: “Avoid new mining activities and/or associated facilities within 

occupied habitats, including seasonal habitats.”

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Lands and realty management proposed under Alternative D would provide 

increased protection of GRSG and their habitat compared to Alternative A. PH

would be managed as ROW avoidance areas (32,900 acres), although PH would 

be a ROW exclusion area for wind energy permits. No ROW exclusion areas 

would be established, to allow for management flexibility and avoid displacing 

ROWs onto private land. These measures would improve management and 

would result in beneficial impacts from ROW development as described under 

Nature and Type of Effects, compared to Alternative A. ROWs would be allowed 

in GH (80 acres) with appropriate mitigation measures. Other measures and 

impacts would be as described under Alternative B.

The net impact of the ROW exclusion area is less because a portion of the PH

is a unitized oil and gas field (this means facilities such as roads and pipelines 

needed for the development of the field are covered under a separate 

agreement between the operator and the BLM vs. the realty program). All other 

utilities would be subject to the ROW avoidance area in PH.

By making PH a ROW avoidance area this alternative would partially meet the 

COT Report Conservation Option to: “Avoid construction of these features in 

sage-grouse habitat...” This partially meets because there would still be 

construction of some of these features for valid existing rights and it is not an 

exclusion area (except for wind energy).
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-31

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Measures proposed under Alternative D would result in beneficial impacts on 

GRSG habitat compared to Alternative A. Many management actions would be 

similar to Alternative B, with increased management flexibility incorporated to 

improve management and target those areas that need most protection. Other 

measures would be as described under Alternative B, but would apply to both 

PH and GH (80 additional acres). Overall, management under Alternative D 

would result in beneficial impacts on GRSG and their habitat from activities 

associated with travel and transportation in the planning area compared to 

Alternative A.

Since this alternative carries forward the Limited designation (OHVs limited to 

existing road and trails) from the Montana-Dakotas OHV ROD, it would meet 

the COT Report Conservation Option 1 under Recreation to: “Close important 

sage-grouse use areas to off-road vehicle use.” Off-road vehicle use has not 

been allowed in the planning area since 2003.

COT Report Threat – Fire

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Fuels treatment policies and restrictions would be designed and implemented as 

described in Alternative B, except sagebrush canopy cover would not be 

reduced to less than eight percent. In addition, fuels management projects in PH

would be designed to incorporate greater flexibility to maximize the acreage 

protected. These proposed modifications to fire and fuel management would 

result in an increase in the protection of sagebrush ecosystems compared to 

Alternative A, and a reduction in the likelihood of adverse impacts from fire and 

fuels management described under Nature and Type of Effects, though it is 

unknown to what extent firebreaks or post-fire restoration would be employed 

in the planning area. Although fire is still a threat listed in the COT report, fires 

have only burned two percent of the entire planning area in the past 10 years 

(or about 21,000 acres), and no fires were located on BLM-administered lands.

BLM would meet the COT Report Conservation Option 4 under Fire to: 

“Renew and implement the BLM IM 2011-138 Sage-grouse Conservation 

Related to Wildlife Fire and Fuels Management...” Many of the other 

Conservation Options for fire in the COT report are included as RDFs in 

Appendix B and are applicable to Alternatives B-D. Alternative D also meets 

the Conservation Measures 2 and 5 to: eliminate intentional fires in sagebrush 

habitats and immediately suppressing fire in all sagebrush habitat.
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-32 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

COT Report Threats – Grazing and Range Management Structures

Impacts from Range Management

Management under Alternative D would be similar to that described for 

Alternative B, with increased collaboration with stakeholders to improve 

rangeland health and increased tools available to improve flexibility in 

management. As such, impacts would likely be similar to Alternative B, though 

increased management flexibility may improve management by targeting those 

areas that need most protection.

With the current Biodiversity Standard in the Standards for Rangeland Health, 

this alternative would help meeting Conservation Option 1 under Grazing to 

“ensure that allotments meet ecological potential and wildlife habitat 

requirements...” This alternative states to incorporate GRSG habitat objectives 

and management considerations into all allotments through AMPs or permit 

renewals, and would thus work towards meeting Conservation Option 3 to 

“Incorporate sage-grouse habitat needs or habitat characteristics into relevant 

resource and allotment management plans...” Conservation Measures 2, 4, and 

5 also have similar management actions under this alternative (e.g., work 

cooperatively on integrated ranch planning, prioritize completion of Standards 

for Rangeland Health within PH, and manage for vegetation composition and 

structure consistent with ecological site potential).

COT Report Threats – Vegetation Management (Sagebrush Elimination, 

Conifer Invasion, Invasive Species)

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Impacts from habitat restoration and vegetation management under Alternative 

D would be similar to Alternative B. However, this alternative includes 

consideration of other threatened, endangered, or sensitive species in addition 

to GRSG, which may reduce protection for GRSG and their habitat in certain 

instances of competing priorities. In addition, conifer encroachment treatments 

would improve GRSG habitat.

This alternative would meet COT Report Conservation Objective under 

Pinyon-juniper Expansion to: “Remove pinyon-juniper from areas of sagebrush 

that are most likely to support sage-grouse (post-removal)...” as well as 

Conservation Measure 1 under Invasive Plant Species to” “Retain all remaining 

large intact sagebrush patches...”

COT Report Threat – Recreation

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts from recreation management under Alternative D would be the same 

as Alternative B.
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-33

Although there are no developed recreation facilities in the planning area, this 

alternative would not meet the COT Report Conservation Option 2 under 

Recreation to “Avoid development of recreational facilities... in sage-grouse 

habitats” because there is no specific action addressing future recreation 

development (not an issue in this part of the NDFO); however, SRPs would only 

be issued if they were neutral or beneficial to PH. See Impacts from Travel and 

Transportation Management sections for Conservation Option 1.

4.2.8 Impacts Summary

Table 4-6, Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in North Dakota by 

Alternative, provides a summary comparison how each alternative alleviates 

COT Report Threats to GRSG Listed as “Present and Widespread” and 

“Present but Localized” for North Dakota.
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-34 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 4-6

Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in North Dakota by Alternative

Resource/Resource Use Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

COT Report Threat – Isolated/Small Populations, Agriculture, and Ex-urban Development1

Acres delineated as PH 0 32,900 32,900 32,900

Acres delineated as GH 0 80 80 80 

Summary of Impacts to 

GRSG from Isolated/Small 

populations

Alternative A does not delineate any PH or GH. However, all action alternatives delineate PH and GH; 

constraints placed on other resources/uses are listed below and these vary by alternative. PH for North 

Dakota was mapped to include 100% breeding bird density because of this population is on the fringe of the 

habitat and is a very small population. The action alternatives are in agreement with the following 

conservation measures identified in the COT report specific to PACs:

• Retain GRSG habitats within PACs.

• If PACs are lost to catastrophic events, implement appropriate restoration efforts. 

• Restore and rehabilitate degraded GRSG habitats in PACs.

Areas identified for disposal

(acres) 3,436 80 0 80

Summary of Impacts to 

GRSG from Agriculture/

Urbanization

Across all action alternatives, the BLM would take advantage of opportunities to consolidate GRSG habitat. 

Alternative A technically allows for disposal of lands; however, GRSG habitat would be considered in the 

analysis. Although agriculture and urbanization have been identified as threats in North Dakota, the BLM has 

limited management authority over those types of activities. Many of these COT objectives are outside the 

scope of this planning document; however, see Chapter 5 for SGI projects that have been completed on 

private lands within the GSRG habitat.

The action alternatives are in agreement with the following conservation options identified in the COT 

report specific to ex-urban development:

• Acquire and manage GRSG habitat to maintain intact ecosystems.

• Do not relinquish public lands for the purpose of urban development in GRSG habitat.

 1 Urbanization is listed as Not Known to be Present in the COT Report threats list; however, the alternatives for NDFO contain actions under the realty 

program that would address this issue (e.g., no disposal of BLM-administered lands within PH).
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-35

Table 4-6

Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in North Dakota by Alternative

Resource/Resource Use Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

COT Report Threat – Energy and Mining

Unleased Fluid Minerals

Areas closed to fluid mineral

leasing (acres) 0 61,197 66,293 0

Areas open to mineral leasing with 

NSO stipulation (acres) 9,780 0 0 61,197 

Acres of long-term surface 

disturbance

2,915 total

(548 BLM minerals)

2,851 total

(476 BLM minerals)

2,851 total

(475 BLM minerals)

2,899 total

(530 BLM minerals)

Well density – short term 

(wells/square mile)

0.84 planning area

2.5 BLM minerals

0.83 planning area

2.2 BLM minerals

0.83 planning area

2.2 BLM minerals

0.84 planning area

2.5 BLM minerals

Well density – long term 

(wells/square mile)

0.74 planning area

2.3 BLM minerals

0.72 planning area

2.0 BLM minerals

0.71 planning area

2.0 BLM minerals

0.73 planning area

2.2 BLM minerals

Leased Fluid Minerals

Restrictions on surface 

disturbance for leased fluid 

minerals

Lowest level of protection 

for GRSG in GH and PH

High level of protection 

for GRSG in PH

Highest level of protection 

for GRSG in PH and GH

High level of protection 

for GRSG in PH

Summary of Impacts to 

GRSG from Oil and Gas 

Development

Alternative C closes PH and GH to leasing and Alternatives B closes PH to leasing. Since most of the high 

development potential has already been leased, and due to the small amount of BLM minerals in the planning 

area, the surface disturbance and well densities do not change significantly among the alternatives (even 

between the alternatives that have no lease vs. the no-action).

The action alternatives are in agreement with the following conservation measures identified in the COT

report specific to Energy Development:

• Avoid energy development in PACs (Doherty et al. 2010). Identify areas where leasing is not 

acceptable, or not acceptable without stipulations for surface occupancy that maintains GRSG 

habitats.

• If avoidance is not possible within PACs due to pre-existing valid rights, adjacent development or 

split estate issues, development should only occur in non-habitat areas, including all appurtenant 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-36 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 4-6

Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in North Dakota by Alternative

Resource/Resource Use Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

structures, with an adequate buffer that is sufficient to preclude impacts to GRSG habitat from noise 

and other human activities.

By limiting disturbances within PH (Alternative B, C and D) and GH (Alternative C), the action alternatives 

would work towards the objective of reducing threats to intact shrubland. Alternative C would have more 

restrictions on fluid mineral development than Alternatives B and D, and Alternative A would have the 

fewest restrictions of all alternatives.

Mining

Locatable minerals –

recommended for withdrawal

(acres)

0 46,397

Recommend a withdrawal

from locatable mineral

entry in PH

49,970

Recommend a withdrawal

from locatable mineral

entry in PH and GH

0

No new recommended

withdrawal from locatable 

mineral entry 

Salable minerals/mineral materials

(acres)

0 46,397

PH would be closed to 

mineral material sales

49,970

PH and GH would be 

closed to mineral material

sales

46,397

PH would be closed to 

mineral material sales

Coal mining - areas identified as 

unsuitable (acres)

0 87,443 166,207 87,443

Summary of Impacts to 

GRSG from Mining

Alternatives B and C would be more protective to GRSG and GRSG habitat than Alternatives A and D 

(Alternative D is the same as B except locatable minerals are not withdrawn due to the very low potential). 

However, all the action alternatives are in agreement with the following COT conservation options:

• Avoid new mining activities and/or any associated facilities within occupied habitat, including seasonal 

habitats.

COT Report Threat – Infrastructure

ROW avoidance areas (acres) 0

No ROW avoidance areas

80

GH would be an 

avoidance area

0

No new acres of avoidance 

since PH and GH would be 

an exclusion area

32,900

Specific criteria would 

have to be met in order to 

permit disturbances
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-37

Table 4-6

Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in North Dakota by Alternative

Resource/Resource Use Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

ROW exclusion areas (acres) 0

No ROW exclusion areas

32,900

PH would be a ROW

exclusion area

32,980

PH and GH would be a 

ROW exclusion area

0

No ROW exclusion areas

Travel management all limited 

areas (acres)

33,030 33,030 33,030 33,030

Summary of Impacts to 

GRSG from Infrastructure

Alternatives B, C and D restrict ROWs in PH, which responds to the need (identified in the COT report) to 

stop population decline and habitat loss by eliminating activities known to negatively impact GRSG and their 

habitats through reduction in the threat of habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation.

The action alternatives are in agreement with the following conservation objectives/options identified in the 

COT report specific to infrastructure:

• Avoid development of infrastructure within PACs (objective).

• Avoid construction of these features in GRSG habitat, both within and outside of PACs.

• Restrictions limiting use of roads should be enforced.

Alternative A, in general, has the least protections for GRSG and GRSG habitat from development of 

infrastructure. All alternatives limit OHV use to existing roads and trails, but Alternative C also contains a 4-

mile buffer from leks for route construction. All action alternatives have limitations on route construction 

and realignments to minimize impacts to GRSG.

COT Report Threat - Fire

Fire and Fuels

Fire and fuels management Treatments considered on 

a case-by-case basis, and 

not prioritized specific to 

GRSG habitat

No treatments would be 

allowed in known winter 

range in PH, unless 

treatment is designed to 

strategically reduce wildfire 

risk around or in winter 

range and would maintain 

winter habitat range quality

No treatments would be 

allowed in known winter 

range, unless treatment is 

designed to strategically 

reduce wildfire risk 

around or in winter range 

and would maintain winter 

habitat range quality

No treatments would be 

allowed in known winter 

range in PH, unless 

treatment is designed to 

strategically reduce wildfire 

risk around or in winter 

range and would maintain 

winter habitat range quality
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

4-38 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 4-6

Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in North Dakota by Alternative

Resource/Resource Use Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Wildfire

Fire operations Control wildfires on BLMadministered land – no 

specific RMP direction for 

GRSG

Prioritize suppression, immediately after life and property, to conserve the 

habitat (though Alternatives B and D apply this to PH, there are only 80 BLM 

surface acres in GH)

Summary of Impacts to 

GRSG from Fire Management

The alternatives are in agreement with the following conservation options from the COT report:

• Renew and implement the BLM IM 2011-138 (Sage-grouse Conservation Related to Wildland Fire 

and Fuels Management; BLM 2011b) until a decision is made on whether or not to incorporate the 

measure identified in the IM into RMPs. The measures in this IM are listed in Appendix B of this 

document (B.2.4 Required Design Features for Fire and Fuels).

COT Report Threats - Grazing and Range Management Structures

Areas available for livestock 

grazing (acres)

32,945

BLM-managed surface 

lands within the planning 

area would be available for 

livestock grazing

32,945

BLM-managed surface 

lands within the planning 

area would be available for 

livestock grazing

32,945

BLM-managed surface 

lands within the planning 

area would be available for 

livestock grazing; 

however, the largest four 

allotments in PH would 

have a 50% reduction in 

AUMs

32,945

BLM-managed surface 

lands within the planning 

area would be available for 

livestock grazing

Available AUMs 5,780 5,780 3,739 5,780

Summary of Impacts to 

GRSG from Grazing

GRSG habitat considerations within livestock grazing allotments would be similar across all action 

alternatives. Range improvements are more restricted under Alternative B than under Alternative A. Under 

all alternatives, grazing would be managed to achieve the standards of rangeland health. Under Alternative A, 

this includes a biodiversity standard; however, under the action alternatives, specific GRSG habitat objectives 

would be developed (in cooperation with NDGFD and USFWS). Under the action alternatives, new range 

improvements would be approved if they conserve, enhance, or restore GRSG habitat.
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-39

Table 4-6

Comparison of Alleviated Threats to GRSG in North Dakota by Alternative

Resource/Resource Use Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

COT Report Threats - Sagebrush Elimination, Conifer Invasion2, Invasive Species (Vegetation Management)

Areas prioritized for vegetation 

treatments

No specific habitat 

restoration or vegetation 

management actions in the 

North Dakota RMP for 

GRSG

Across all action alternatives, treatments would be prioritized to consider 

GRSG habitat requirements

Summary of Impacts to 

GRSG from Vegetation 

Management

The action alternatives are in agreement with the following conservation objective/conservation measures 

from the COT report:

• Avoid sagebrush removal or manipulation in GRSG breeding or wintering habitats (objective).

• Retain all remaining large intact sagebrush patches, particularly at low elevations.

COT Report Threat - Recreation3

Issuance of SRPs All alternatives limit vehicle use to existing roads and trails (33,030 acres of BLM surface)

Summary of Impacts to 

GRSG from Recreation

There are no areas open to off-road travel within the planning area in any alternative. All alternatives are in 

agreement with the following conservation option from the COT report:

• Close important GRSG use areas to off-road vehicle use.

 2 Conifers were listed as Unknown in the COT report threats list; however, the alternatives do contain an action to reduce juniper encroachment. 3 Recreation was listed as Not Known to be Present in the COT report; however, the alternatives for NDFO do contain an action for SRPs. Travel 

Management is listed under Infrastructure section above.
4. Environmental Consequences (Lands and Realty)

4-40 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

4.3 LANDS AND REALTY

4.3.1 Methods and Assumptions

Indicators

Table 4-7, Comparison of Lands and Realty Indicators by Alternative, provides 

a summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the effects on lands and 

realty under each alternative.

Table 4-7

Comparison of Lands and Realty Indicators by Alternative

Indicator

Alternative

A B C D

Acres of BLM surface 

ownership in the planning 

area

33,030 33,030 33,030 33,030

Number and type of land 

tenure adjustments (i.e., 

lands identified for 

disposal, withdrawal, or 

acquisition)

3,436 acres 

for disposal

80 acres available 

for disposal

0 acres available 

for disposal

80 acres available 

for disposal

Number, acres/miles, and 

types of surfacedisturbing ROWs and 

leases, including 

communication sites

371 acres

Decrease of 

existing surface 

disturbance if 

buried or 

removed; 

decrease of new

surface 

disturbance due to 

ROW avoidance 

and exclusions

Decrease of 

existing surface 

disturbance if 

buried or 

removed; 

decrease of new 

surface 

disturbance due 

to ROW

exclusions

Decrease of 

existing surface 

disturbance if 

buried or 

removed; 

decrease of new 

surface 

disturbance due 

to ROW

avoidance

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

• Existing ROWs would be managed to protect valid existing rights.

• On renewal, assignment, or amendment of existing ROWs, 

additional stipulations could be included in the land use 

authorization.

• ROW holders may continue their authorized use as long as they are 

in compliance with the terms and conditions of their grant.

• The BLM would continue to process land use authorizations and 

land tenure adjustments as workforce and workload allow.
4. Environmental Consequences (Lands and Realty)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-41

• The demand for all types of ROWs (including communication sites, 

utilities, and renewable energy projects) would steadily increase 

over the life of this RMPA.

• Maintaining and upgrading utilities, communication sites, and other 

ROWs is preferred before the construction of new facilities in the 

decision area, but only if the upgrading can be accommodated in the 

existing ROW. 

• Demand for small distribution facilities to extend and upgrade 

services, such as communication sites and utilities, would increase as 

rural development occurs on the dispersed private parcels within 

the planning area.

• Demand for both regional and interstate transmission lines would 

increase as population and urban areas grow.

• Demand for new ROWs is expected to increase as demand for new 

communication technology, such as fiber optic cable, grows.

• Retention areas include all decision-area lands (the BLMadministered lands within the planning area), with the exception of 

lands identified or under consideration for disposal. 

• In accordance with the Omnibus Act, the BLM would continue to 

manage all previously withdrawn BLM-administered lands as 

withdrawn from entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public 

land laws.

• Withdrawals would be reviewed, as needed, and recommended for 

extensions, modifications, revocations, or terminations. All existing 

withdrawals initiated by other agencies, such as the US Bureau of 

Reclamation or the Department of Energy, would be continued 

through the term provided by the Public Land Order or other 

official document unless the initiating agency or the BLM requests 

that the withdrawal be revoked.

4.3.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Resources and resource uses affect the lands and realty program by prescribing 

ROW exclusion and avoidance areas and stipulations in order to protect 

resources. A ROW exclusion area is one that is not available for new ROW 

location under any conditions. In a ROW avoidance area, new ROW 

development would ideally be avoided; however, the area may be available for 

ROW development subject to additional requirements, such as resource 

surveys and reports, construction and reclamation engineering, long-term 

monitoring, special design features, special siting requirements, TLs, and 

rerouting. Such requirements could restrict project location, they could delay 

availability of energy supply (by delaying or restricting pipelines, transmission 

lines, or renewable energy projects), or they could delay or restrict 

communications service availability. As a result of special surveys and reports, 
4. Environmental Consequences (Lands and Realty)

4-42 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

alternative routes may need to be identified and selected to protect sensitive 

resources, such as GRSG habitat. Designating ROW exclusion and avoidance 

areas and applying special stipulations would result in increased application 

processing time and costs due to the potential need to relocate facilities or due 

to greater design, mitigation, and siting requirements. 

Collocating transmission and mineral development infrastructure in existing 

ROWs and existing disturbed areas reduces land use conflicts and additional 

land disturbance. Colocation policies also clarify the preferred locations for 

utilities and simplify processing on BLM-administered lands. However, 

collocating can limit options for mineral development and selection of morepreferable locations for ROWs.

Travel management actions can involve closing areas or specific routes to 

motorized or mechanized travel, thereby creating areas that are impractical for 

some types of land uses, such as transmission lines or communication sites. 

Land tenure adjustments are intended to maintain or improve the efficiency of 

BLM management, including management of GRSG habitat. Land disposal can 

result in a more contiguous decision area, thus increasing efficient management 

of BLM-administered lands. However, while consolidation may be beneficial for 

certain resources and uses, it may not necessarily reduce effects on GRSG

habitat.

The BLM does not require a ROW authorization in circumstances where 

actions are tied to leases that are part of a unit. For example, a fluid mineral

leaseholder wanting to install a pipeline within a unitized area would be exempt 

from acquiring a ROW authorization as long as the pipeline is contained in the 

unit.

Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or 

no impact on lands and realty and are therefore not discussed in detail: 

recreation, range management, mineral development, fire and fuels management, 

and habitat restoration/vegetation management.

4.3.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under all alternatives, the BLM would complete a travel and transportation 

management plan, designating certain routes as open, closed, or limited to 

motorized travel. While the BLM would not close access to valid existing rights, 

travel management decisions that make access to existing or desirable future 

ROW locations more difficult would discourage co-location in existing ROWs 

and new ROW development.
4. Environmental Consequences (Lands and Realty)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-43

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under all alternatives, the BLM would continue to manage 33,030 acres of BLMadministered land in the planning area, including 32,900 acres in PH and 80 acres 

in GH. Alternatives B, C, and D include objectives to acquire lands in PH. 

However, none of the alternatives propose a specific change in the amount of 

land currently administered by the BLM in the planning area. Therefore, under 

all alternatives, the distribution of surface ownership in the planning area would 

remain unchanged.

Table 4-8, ROW Avoidance and Exclusion Areas by Alternative, provides 

ROW exclusion and avoidance areas by alternative. For oil and gas activities, net 

exclusion and avoidance areas are those areas not within the boundaries of a 

unitized area. 

Table 4-8

ROW Avoidance and Exclusion Areas by Alternative

Alternative A

(acres)

Alternative B

(acres)

Alternative C

(acres)

Alternative D

(acres)

ROW exclusion area 0 32,900 32,980 32,9001

ROW avoidance area 0 80 0 32,900

Unitized areas 24,842 24,842 24,842 24,842

Net exclusion area for oil and 

gas activities

0 8,058 8,138 0

Net avoidance area for oil and 

gas activities

0 80 0 32,900

1 PH would be exclusion areas for new ROW wind energy developments.

4.3.4 Alternative A

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative A, travel would continue to be allowed on all existing roads 

and trails until site-specific planning is completed. Existing transportation routes 

would continue to provide motorized access to ROW infrastructure and 

communication sites for construction and maintenance.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative A, approximately 368 acres of existing ROWs in the decision 

area would continue to provide opportunities for colocation of new 

infrastructure. The BLM would continue to allow ROW development on 33,090

acres in the decision area and no lands within the decision area would be 

specifically designated as ROW exclusion or avoidance. BLM-administered lands 

would continue to be available for multiple-use and single-use communication 

sites and road access ROW on a case-by-case basis pursuant to Title V of 
4. Environmental Consequences (Lands and Realty)

4-44 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

FLPMA, and 43 CFR 2800 regulations. All ROW applications would be reviewed 

using the criteria of following existing corridors wherever practical and avoiding 

the proliferation of separate ROWs.

Renewable energy projects such as wind and solar facilities would be permitted 

through the ROW authorization process. Refer to Section 4.19, Renewable 

Energy, for impact analysis regarding solar and wind energy development. 

Additionally, under Alternative A, 3,436 acres of BLM-administered land in PH

would be available for disposal. While land tenure adjustments, especially those 

that result in a more consolidated land ownership pattern, can improve BLM 

administration of public lands, a change in surface ownership from the BLM to 

another entity could impact GRSG habitat if the new ownership does not 

provide the same habitat protections as on BLM-administered land.

Impacts from ACECs

There are no designated ACECs in the planning area under Alternative A, and,

as a result, no impacts from ACEC management actions on lands and realty.

4.3.5 Alternative B

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

The BLM would evaluate the need for permanent or seasonal road closures 

under Alternative B. Should the BLM determine during a future site-specific 

evaluation that there is a need to close certain routes, those closures could 

affect the convenience of access for ROW holders to existing ROW 

infrastructure as described above in Nature and Type of Effects.

Under Alternative B, the BLM would only allow new roads where access to 

valid existing rights is necessary and does not currently exist which would limit 

new ROW authorizations and new road construction as compared to 

Alternative A. Access would be accommodated via the 112 miles of existing 

roadways crossing PH. Road surfaces account for approximately three percent 

(1,120 acres) of the decision area in PH. Limitations on new road construction 

could make certain areas in the remaining 97 percent of the decision area where 

a roadway is not present impractical for new ROW authorizations. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative B, PH (32,900 acres) would be ROW exclusion area and GH

(80 acres) would be a ROW avoidance area. The BLM would also take 

advantage of opportunities to remove, bury, or modify existing power lines 

within the 368 acres of existing ROWs in PH.

As noted above in Nature and Types of Effects, limitations on new ROWs and 

above-ground linear features, such as transmission lines and pipelines, could 

restrict the availability of energy or service availability and reliability for 

communication systems. ROW exclusion and avoidance designations could 

extend processing time for renewals of existing ROW authorizations, and make 
4. Environmental Consequences (Lands and Realty)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-45

siting of new linear or block ROWs more difficult than under Alternative A.

New development related to oil and gas activities would continue to be allowed 

within the 24,842 acres of unitized lease areas.

The BLM would retain administration of PH except where land exchanges 

would result in more contiguous federal ownership patterns or where disposal

accompanied by a habitat mitigation agreement or conservation easement would 

result in more effective management of GRSG habitat. In addition, the BLM 

would seek to acquire state and private lands to conserve, enhance, or restore 

GRSG habitat. If the BLM were to proceed with land tenure adjustments, those 

actions would enhance BLM management of GRSG habitat but could affect 

existing authorizations and leases as described in Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative A.

4.3.6 Alternative C

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Alternative C would prohibit new road construction within four miles of active 

leks. Because of the density of active lek sites, new road construction would be 

limited to 638 acres (two percent of the decision area), which is a reduction in 

areas available for new road construction and ROWs as compared to 

Alternative A. This reduction would increase those effects described in Nature 

and Type of Effects, including delays in application processing time and costs, 

increase siting limitations, and delay delivery of energy supplies as compared to 

Alternative A.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative C, PH and GH (32,980 acres) would be designated as 

exclusion area for new ROW authorizations Impacts on ROW authorizations 

from the exclusion designation would be similar Alternative B. Impacts to 

unitized areas from exclusions would be the same as Alternative B.

The BLM would retain public ownership in PH and GH with no exceptions and 

seek to acquire important private lands. The effects of land tenure adjustment

decisions would be similar to Alternative B, but would include an additional 80 

acres of GH retained.

Impacts from ACECs

Under Alternative C, the BLM would designate PH (32,900 acres) as a new 

ACEC with management tailored to protect the GRSG habitat. There would be 

no additional management actions related to the ACEC; therefore, the impacts 

on lands and realty would be the same as those described under sections above.
4. Environmental Consequences (Lands and Realty)

4-46 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

4.3.7 Alternative D

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Impacts from travel and transportation management under Alternative D would 

be similar as under Alternative B.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative D, PH (32,900 acres) would be managed as ROW avoidance 

for new ROW authorizations. PH would be designated as wind energy ROW 

exclusion, while GH would be designated as wind energy ROW avoidance. 

Impacts to unitized areas from exclusions would be the same as Alternative B.

The designation of PH as ROW exclusion and GH as avoidance would limit the 

placement of new above ground wind energy infrastructure, resulting in an 

increase of effects to the lands and realty actions as compared to Alternative A. 

The extent of the effects would be based on the location and type of any 

proposed new ROW as well as the wind energy resource available.

Impacts from land tenure adjustments would be the same as those described 

under Alternative B.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative A.

4.4 VEGETATION (INCLUDING NOXIOUS WEEDS; RIPARIAN AND WETLANDS)

4.4.1 Methods and Assumptions

Impacts were determined by assessing which actions, if any, would change the 

upland vegetation, riparian and wetland vegetation, and weed indicators 

described below. Some impacts are direct, while others are indirect and affect 

vegetation through a change in another resource. Direct impacts on vegetation 

include disrupting, damaging, or removing vegetation, thereby reducing area, 

amount, or condition of native vegetation. Included among these are actions 

that reduce total numbers of plant species and actions that reduce or cause the 

loss of diversity, vigor, or structure of vegetation, or that degrade its function as 

habitat for GRSG or other wildlife.

Indirect impacts are those that may occur later in time, such as decreased plant 

vigor or health from dust or reduced water quality. Other indirect impacts 

include loss of habitat suitable for vegetation colonization due to surface 

disturbance; introduction of weeds that compete with desirable, native 

vegetation; conditions that enhance the spread of weeds; and general loss of 

potential habitat due to surface occupancy or soil compaction.

Indicators

Table 4-9, Comparison of Vegetation Indicators by Alternative, provides a 

summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the effects on vegetation

under each alternative.
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-47

Table 4-9

Comparison of Vegetation Indicators by Alternative

Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Acres meeting 

Rangeland Health 

standards

Current level Stable Possible increase 

from grazing limit Stable

Acres of sagebrush

(PH/GH) 9,711 Possible increase Increase Possible increase

Extent of 

fragmentation Increasing Stable or decreasing Decreasing Stable or decreasing

Percentage of 

riparian areas in 

PFC

Current level Increase Increase Increase

Acres of 

riparian/wetland

vegetation

1,463 Stable or 

increasing

Stable or 

increasing

Stable or 

increasing

Change in spread 

of noxious weeds Stable Stable or decreasing

Stable or 

decreasing Stable

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

• All plant communities would be managed toward achieving a mix of 

species composition, cover, and age classes across the landscape, 

except in localized situations where plantings are used to defer 

livestock use on native pasture.

• The degree of impact attributed to any one disturbance or series of 

disturbances would be influenced by several factors, including 

location in the watershed; the type, time, and degree of disturbance; 

existing vegetation; precipitation; and mitigating actions applied to 

the disturbance.

• Noxious and invasive weeds would continue to be introduced and 

spread as a result of ongoing vehicle traffic in and out of the 

planning area, recreational activities, wildland fire, wildlife and 

livestock grazing and movements, and surface-disturbing activities.

• Activities that would disturb soils could cause erosion, loss of 

topsoil, and soil compaction, which could affect the ability of 

vegetation to regenerate. Further, surface-disturbing activities could 

increase dust, which could cover existing vegetation and impair 

plant photosynthesis and respiration. Resulting impacts could 

include lowered plant vigor and growth rate, altered or disrupted 

pollination, and increased susceptibility to disease.
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

4-48 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

• Ecological health and ecosystem functioning depend on a number of 

factors, including vegetative cover, species diversity, nutrient cycling 

and availability, water infiltration and availability, and percent cover 

of weeds.

• Climatic fluctuation would continue to influence the health and 

productivity of plant communities on an annual basis.

• Short-term effects would occur over a timeframe of two years or 

less and long-term effects would occur over longer than two years.

4.4.2 Nature and Type of Effects

GRSG rely on sagebrush ecosystems for all aspects of their life cycle. Typically, a 

range of sagebrush community composition within the landscape (including 

variations in sub-species composition, co-dominant vegetation, shrub cover, 

herbaceous cover, stand age) are needed to meet seasonal, and inter-seasonal, 

requirements for food, cover, nesting, and wintering habitats. The landscape 

required for GRSG may be up to 40 square miles. Thus, conserving and 

managing GRSG is as much about the ecology, management and conservation of 

large, intact sagebrush ecosystems as it is about the dynamics and behaviors of 

the populations themselves (Manier et al. 2013).

Historically, sagebrush-dominated vegetation was one of the most widespread 

habitats in the country, but its expanse has been fragmented, lost, or altered by 

invasive plants and anthropogenic disturbance (NTT 2011). Protection of GRSG

habitat would involve restrictions and limitations on activities that contribute to 

the spread of invasive species, fire, and other surface disturbance, and 

management of vegetation to promote healthy sagebrush and understory 

vegetation to support GRSG.

Vegetation Management and Habitat Protection 

In addition to landscapes with large, intact patches of sagebrush (i.e., limited 

habitat fragmentation), GRSG require high-quality habitat conditions including a 

diversity of herbaceous species, vegetative and reproductive health of native 

grasses, as well as an abundance of sagebrush, making management for high 

condition in seasonally important habitats important (Connelly et al. 2004). 

Given the limited acreage of suitable sagebrush habitats and the cost of habitat 

restoration, management plans that protect intact sagebrush and restore 

impacted areas strategically to enhance existing habitats (for example, 

connectivity of intact sagebrush) have the best chance of increasing the amount 

and quality sagebrush cover (Knick and Connelly 2011). Sagebrush-promoting 

vegetation treatments would enhance native vegetation and overall ecosystem 

productivity, while reducing the distribution of invasive species and some woody 

species. 

Invasive plants can alter plant community structure and composition, 

productivity, nutrient cycling, and hydrology, and may competitively exclude 

native plant populations. In particular, invasive plants can reduce and eliminate 
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-49

vegetation that GRSG use for food and cover, resulting in habitat loss and 

fragmentation, and may also increase the risk of wildfire. The spread of invasive 

plants such as cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) has increased the frequency and 

intensity of fires (Balch et al. 2012). An assortment of nonnative annuals and 

perennials and native conifers are currently invading sagebrush ecosystems.

Although not a substantial threat in North Dakota, expansion of conifer 

woodlands, especially juniper (Juniperus spp.) present a threat to GRSG in other 

parts of the range, because the mature trees do not provide suitable habitat, and 

displace shrubs, grasses and forbs through direct competition for resources. 

Mature trees may offer perch sites for raptors; thus, woodland expansion may 

also represent expansion of predation threat, similarly to perches on power 

lines and other structures (Holloran 2005; Aldridge and Boyce 2007). 

Current treatments and active vegetation management typically focus on 

vegetation composition and structure for fuels management, habitat 

management, and productivity manipulation for improving the habitat and forage 

conditions for ungulates and other grazers, using surface soil stabilization to 

manipulate vegetation composition or increase productivity, or by removing 

invasive plants. Locally and regionally, the distribution of these treatments can 

affect the distribution of GRSG and sagebrush habitats (Knick and Connelly

2011). Vegetation treatments would cause short-term disturbance to vegetation 

from vegetation removal, but would result in long-term improvements to 

habitat quality and rangeland health.

Management of vegetation resources to protect GRSG would alter vegetative 

communities by promoting increases in sagebrush height and herbaceous cover 

and vegetation productivity, in order to improve rangeland health and enhance 

sagebrush ecosystems. Treatments designed to prevent encroachment of 

shrubs, non-native species or woody vegetation would alter the condition of 

native vegetation communities by changing the density, composition, and 

frequency of species within plant communities (Connelly et al. 2004). 

Vegetation manipulations in the riparian zone, such as weed treatments, native 

plantings, and erosion control in the channel, would improve the acreage of 

riparian vegetation and the condition of the riparian vegetation species, and the 

hydrologic functionality to attain PFC. Habitat connectivity for GRSG could be 

increased through vegetation manipulation designed to restore vegetation, or 

transition of an area to better match the surrounding vegetation.

Direct protection of sagebrush acreage to support GRSG would limit or modify 

uses in this habitat type. Such use restrictions would reduce damage to native 

vegetation communities and individual native plant species in areas that are 

important for regional vegetation diversity and quality. Likewise, use restrictions 

would minimize fragmentation and loss of connectivity and would be more likely 

to retain existing age class distribution within these specific areas. Use 
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

4-50 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

restrictions could also minimize the spread of invasive species by limiting human 

activities that cause soil disturbance or seed introductions. 

Wildland Fire

While wildfires likely played an important role historically in creating a mosaic of 

herbaceous dominated areas (recently disturbed), and mature sagebrush (lessfrequently disturbed), current land-use patterns have restricted the system’s 

ability to support natural wildfire regimes. Slow rates of re-growth and recovery 

of vegetation after disturbances (driven by low water availability and other 

constraints) coupled with high rates of disturbance and conversion to 

introduced plant cover are partly responsible for the loss of sagebrush acreage 

and the fragmentation of GRSG habitat (Beck and Mitchell 2000). Thus, 

preservation of sagebrush ecosystems against wildfire and limiting use of 

prescribed burning is important to preserving GRSG habitat.

Big sagebrush does not re-sprout after a fire, but is replenished by winddispersed seed from adjacent unburned stands or seeds in the soil. Depending 

on the species and the size of a burn, sagebrush can reestablish within five years 

of a burn, but a return to a full pre-burn community cover can take 13 to 100 

years (Connelly et al. 2004). Fire suppression may be used to maintain habitat 

for GRSG (NTT 2011), but these policies alter the successional pattern of 

vegetation in the landscape. When management reduces wildland fire frequency 

by controlling natural ignitions, the indirect impact is that vegetation ages, and 

early successional vegetation communities are diminished. Fire suppression may 

preserve condition of some sagebrush communities, as well as habitat 

connectivity. This is particularly important in areas where fire frequency has 

increased as a result of weed invasion, or where landscapes are highly 

fragmented. Fire also increases opportunities for noxious weeds, such as 

cheatgrass, to expand (Balch et al. 2012), so fire suppression can indirectly limit 

this expansion. However, fire suppression can also lead to increased fuel loads, 

which can lead to more damaging or larger-scale fires in the long term. 

Controlled burning may be prescribed to treat fuel buildup and can assist in the 

recovery of sagebrush habitat in some vegetation types. Re-seeding with native 

plants and long-term monitoring to ensure the production of GRSG cover and 

forage plants would assist vegetation recovery (NTT 2011).

Lands and Realty

Construction of utility ROWs involves vegetation removal, which in the short 

term would disturb native vegetation communities, including sagebrush, and 

individual native plant species, and, in the long term, may alter age class 

distribution, reduce connectivity, and encourage the spread of invasive weeds. 

ROWs may extend for many miles or acres, fragmenting habitat and increasing 

the potential for weeds to be introduced or spread (NTT 2011). ROW 

corridors would be managed to concentrate placement of large linear facilities 
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-51

and other ROW development in less-sensitive areas and to minimize the loss of 

connectivity and total acreage of vegetation that would be disturbed.

ROW exclusion areas would prohibit all development of ROWs in PH, with the 

exceptions provided (including allowing ROW development within unitized 

areas), while ROW avoidance areas would consider on a case-by-case basis 

whether an ROW should be allowed. This flexibility may be advantageous 

where federal and private land-ownership areas are mixed and exclusion areas 

may result in more widespread development on private lands.

Land exchanges or acquisitions to reduce the fragmentation of GRSG habitat 

and could improve the BLM’s ability to implement management actions that 

would improve the condition of native vegetation communities. 

Mineral Resources

The basins where most sagebrush ecosystems reside are the also the center of 

major oil and gas reserves, which has created a long history of industrial use, 

particularly on eastern portions of the range, which include North Dakota. 

Energy development requires construction of roads, well pads, wells and other 

infrastructure, and associated noise, traffic and lights, that alter, degrade and/or 

entirely displace native ecosystems and disturb wildlife (Naugle et al. 2011). 

Surface disturbance associated with mineral development often removes 

vegetation, reduces the condition of native vegetation communities and the 

connectivity of habitat, and encourages the spread of invasive species (NTT 

2011).

Despite significant closures of BLM-administered lands to oil and gas leasing

within PH and GH, current leases are substantial across GRSG ranges (Connelly 

et al. 2004). If mineral development is shifted away from sagebrush habitat to 

other areas to protect GRSG, fragmentation and degradation of sagebrush 

habitat would be reduced for the areas protected, but impacts could still occur 

or increase in non-federal lands that remain open to mineral leasing and 

development.

Recreation

Recreation is not considered a substantial threat to GRSG in the planning area 

(USFWS 2013). Moderate recreational use of GRSG habitat is generally benign, 

but excessive recreational use may cause degradation of sagebrush vegetation 

from activities such as camping, bicycling, off-road vehicle use and hunting. 

Potential impacts from excessive recreational use include trampling of 

vegetation, soil compaction, erosion, spread of invasive plants, and generation of 

fugitive dust (NTT 2011). Recreational use can also increase the potential for 

wildfire caused by invasive plant spread or human error (Knick and Connelly

2011). Most impacts occur in easily accessible areas and in areas open to crosscountry travel, particularly motorized use. Restrictions on recreational use of 

GRSG habitat would limit damage to the vegetation communities that comprise 

this habitat, by directly reducing disturbance to vegetation from trampling, 
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

4-52 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

motorized vehicles, dust, and spread of invasive weeds. Such restrictions could 

involve seasonal area closures or other limitations, to be addressed in future 

site-specific travel planning.. 

Travel and Transportation

Road construction divides and fragments GRSG habitat, and causes erosion and 

nutrient leaching. The use of roads creates soil compaction, and allows the 

spread of human disturbance, including wildfire and invasive plant species 

(Connelly et al. 2004; Lyon and Anderson 2003). Invasive weeds can outcompete sagebrush and other vegetation essential for GRSG survival. Invasive

species also increase wildfire frequencies, further contributing to loss of habitat 

(Balch et al. 2012).

For protection of GRSG, some roads may be seasonally or permanently closed, 

traffic may be restricted to designated routes, and new route construction 

avoided in PH to the maximum extent possible (NTT 2011). The more areas 

that are closed to motorized vehicle use, the less impact on vegetation from 

surface disturbance, such as vehicle and human trampling of vegetation, soil 

compaction, and spread of dust and weeds, would be expected.

Livestock Grazing

Livestock grazing is the most widespread land use across the sagebrush biome 

(Connelly et al. 2004). Livestock grazing is a “diffuse” form of biotic disturbance 

that exerts repeated pressure over many years on a system; unlike pointsources of disturbance (e.g., fires), livestock grazing exerts repeated pressure 

across the landscape. Thus, effects of grazing are not likely to be detected as 

disruptions, but as differences in the processes and functioning of the sagebrush 

system. Livestock grazing can affect soils, vegetation health, species composition, 

water, and nutrient availability by consuming vegetation, redistributing nutrients 

and seeds, trampling soils and vegetation, and disrupting microbial systems 

(Connelly et al. 2004; NTT 2011). Grazing may reduce herbaceous understory 

cover for nesting GRSG, but also may enhance rangeland health by limiting the 

growth of introduced annual plants. Grazing effects are not distributed evenly 

because historic practices, management plans and agreements, and animal 

behavior all lead to differential use of the range (Knick and Connelly 2011). 

At unsustainable levels, grazing can lead to loss of vegetative cover, reduced 

water infiltration rates, reduced nutrient cycling, decreased water quality, 

increased soil erosion, and reduced habitat quality for wildlife, including GRSG

(Knick and Connelly 2011). Land health evaluations are used to assess rangeland 

condition; if rangelands are meeting land health standards, then it is assumed 

that current livestock grazing intensity and duration are not degrading the 

landscape and are compatible with providing wildlife habitat and maintaining 

rangeland health. Conversely, in areas where land health standards are not being 

met, these assessments help to identify areas where changes in grazing 

management would be beneficial.
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-53

Livestock often use riparian and wetland areas for water and shade; if in excess, 

livestock use may reduce riparian acreage meeting PFC, by disrupting vegetation 

condition and hydrologic functionality. Grazing could also reduce litter and fine 

fuel loading, which could reduce fire size and severity. Grazing systems that 

provide for closer management of allotments in GRSG habitat and aim to 

protect sagebrush and riparian ecosystems would enhance sagebrush and 

understory vegetation by allowing more plant growth, and reducing trampling 

and introduction of noxious weeds. 

Impacts from mineral split estate are covered under the discussions of impacts 

from fluid and solid minerals. As such, there will be no further discussion of 

mineral split estate in this section.

4.4.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, the same acreage of vegetation communities would be 

open to livestock grazing (Table 4-10, Acres Open to and Unallocated for 

Grazing under All Alternatives). As a result, the potential for impacts caused by 

livestock grazing would be greatest in prairie and sagebrush habitats, where the 

greatest acres would be open to grazing.

Table 4-10

Acres Open to and Unallocated for Grazing under All Alternatives

Resource Use Sagebrush Conifer 

Steppe Prairie Wetland/Riparian Other

Open to grazing 7,722 1,988 17,563 1,313 4,305

Unallocated for grazing 29 1 44 6 1

4.4.4 Alternative A

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative A, BLM-administered lands would continue to permit limited 

yearlong use for motorized wheeled vehicles, restricted to existing roads and 

trails. Continuation of this policy would allow the potential for introduction of 

invasive plants, potential for wildfire, compaction of soil, fragmentation, and 

other effects as discussed under Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from Recreation

Alternative A includes no specific recreation management related to GRSG or 

their habitat and thus current impacts from recreation on vegetation as 

described under Nature and Type of Effects would continue. Potential impacts 

include trampling of vegetation, soil compaction, erosion, spread of invasive 

plants, and generation of fugitive dust.
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

4-54 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Alternative A includes no specific lands and realty management related to GRSG

or their habitat, although some measures to site ROWs in a way that minimizes 

surface disturbance and avoids environmentally sensitive areas would be applied. 

Table 4-11, ROW Exclusion and Avoidance Areas in GRSG Habitat under each 

Alternative, below, shows the acres of ROW exclusion and avoidance areas in 

GRSG habitat under each alternative. There would be no exclusion or 

avoidance areas within the planning area. In addition, allowing ROW 

development within unitized areas (24,842 acres) would potentially result in loss 

or disturbance of vegetation from these activities.

Table 4-11

ROW Exclusion and Avoidance Areas in GRSG Habitat under each Alternative

Resource 

Use Acreage Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

ROW

avoidance

(acres)

Total 0 80 0 32,900

Sagebrush 0 3 0 7,748

ROW

exclusion

(acres)

Total 0 32,900 32,980 32,9001

Sagebrush 0 7,748 7,752 0

1 PH would be exclusion areas for new ROW wind energy developments.

Land tenure adjustments would be subject to current 

disposal/exchange/acquisition criteria, which include retaining lands with 

threatened or endangered species, high quality riparian habitat, or plant and 

animal populations or natural communities of high interest. Retention of these 

areas would reduce the likelihood of habitat conversion to agriculture, 

urbanization, or other uses that would remove vegetation.

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative A, 32,945 acres of GRSG habitat in the planning area would 

continue to be open for livestock grazing, with 5,781 available AUMs, while 80 

acres would be unallocated. Livestock grazing would continue to be managed 

through existing grazing plans, with methods and guidelines from the existing 

RMP followed to maintain ecological conditions according to Standards for 

Rangeland Health. The Montana/Dakotas Drought Policy (Appendix H) would 

be followed to prevent impacts on rangelands under drought conditions. 

Continuation of these policies could indirectly preserve existing sagebrush 

habitat.

Riparian habitats would be managed to achieve PFC, and livestock would be 

restricted from riparian areas. Together, these management actions would help 

to improve riparian vegetation health and reduce impacts caused by livestock, 

such as trampling and overuse of riparian areas.
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-55

Range improvements would be designed to meet both wildlife and range health 

objectives, and development of range improvements on erodible soils would be 

avoided in springs. These approaches would help protect sagebrush ecosystems 

by supporting rangeland health and reducing the likelihood of surface 

disturbance in sensitive areas.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative A, NSO stipulations would be applied within 0.25 mile of 

active leks and no seismic exploration or other development would be allowed 

within two miles of leks during the breeding season. Currently, no acres in the 

planning area are closed to fluid mineral leasing, while 73,435 BLM-administered

acres are open to leasing. Of these, 25,130 acres are under standard terms and 

conditions, while 9,780 acres are NSO, 21,235 acres are CSU, and 38,504 acres 

are under TL. As discussed above under Nature and Type of Effects, mineral 

exploration and extraction directly disturb vegetation. Therefore, restrictions 

on mineral leasing would protect vegetation in these areas. Table 4-12, Acres 

Leased for Minerals or Available for Leasing in Sagebrush Habitat under each 

Alternative, below, shows the acres of sagebrush habitat that would be open to 

leasing under each alternative.

As described in Table 4-1, there would be approximately 816 acres of shortterm disturbance and 548 acres of long-term disturbance on BLM-administered 

lands related to existing and potential development. However, oil and gas

development would have limited impacts on vegetation because, although there 

is high potential in GRSG habitat, most of the resources have already been 

developed; therefore, opening or closing areas to development would have 

minimal impacts on vegetation related to removal or degradation of vegetation, 

and potential spread of invasive species.

Table 4-12

Acres Leased for Minerals or Available for Leasing in Sagebrush Habitat under each 

Alternative

Resource Use

Alternative A

(surface/ 

subsurface)

Alternative B

(surface/ 

subsurface)

Alternative C

(surface/ 

subsurface)

Alternative D

(surface/ 

subsurface)

Closed to fluid mineral leasing 0/0 6,679/7,098 6,682/7,117 0/0

Open to fluid mineral leasing 790/7,117 3/20 0/0 790/7,117

NSO 1,158/1,073 0/0 0/0 6,680/7,098

CSU 2,238/2,338 0/0 0/0 0/0

Open to locatable mineral

exploration 6,640/3,008 3/18 0/0 6,640/3,008

Areas withdrawn or 

petitioned from locatable 

mineral entry

0/0 6,637/5,282 6,640/5,406 6,637/5,282
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

4-56 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative A, 242,743 acres would be available for consideration for 

coal mining, although there are no existing coal leases and development of 

federal coal resources within GRSG habitat is not anticipated during the life of 

this plan. Therefore, no impacts on vegetation are expected from coal.

For locatable minerals, mineral materials, and non-energy leasable minerals, a 

total of 56,681 BLM-administered acres would continue to be open to

exploration and development. Impacts on vegetation from surface disturbance, 

as described under Nature and Type of Effects, would continue.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Fire and fuels management under Alternative A would not specifically protect

sagebrush vegetation, although prescribed burning may be used where 

appropriate in support of resource management objectives, including improving 

vegetation condition.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Under Alternative A, Integrated Vegetation Management Handbook policies 

would be followed and would provide guidance on which treatments and 

chemicals can be used. Application of these policies would improve vegetation 

management in sagebrush habitat thereby likely improving vegetation conditions 

in these areas.

Impacts from ACECs

No ACECs would be designated under Alternative A; therefore, there would be 

no impacts on vegetation from management for ACECs.

4.4.5 Alternative B

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Travel and transportation management under Alternative B would likely reduce 

impacts on vegetation from roads and motorized vehicles by limiting motorized 

vehicles to existing roads and trails in PH and GH, evaluating the need to 

permanently or seasonally close roads or areas to traffic in PH, and restoring 

roads by re-seeding with appropriate seed mixes and considering the use of 

transplanted sagebrush. Restoration of sagebrush habitat and minimizing surface 

disturbances in sagebrush habitat would enhance vegetation and restore habitat 

to a greater extent than current policy under Alternative A.

Impacts from Recreation

Management proposed under Alternative B would reduce impacts on vegetation 

from recreation as described under Nature and Type of Effects by limiting 

issuance of SRPs in PH. Such management would restrict potentially damaging

recreational uses of these areas associated with SRPs, although impacts from 

dispersed recreation, such as hiking, biking, or equestrian activities, would 

continue to disturb vegetation in areas where they occur.
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-57

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Establishing ROW exclusion and avoidance areas would protect vegetation in 

areas where they are applied as described above under Nature and Type of 

Effects. Under Alternative B, BLM would manage PH as ROW exclusion areas 

(32,900 acres), with limited exceptions. Similar to Alternative A, allowing ROW 

development within unitized areas (24,842 acres) would potentially result in loss 

or disturbance of vegetation from these activities. GH would be ROW 

avoidance areas (80 acres). Out-of-use ROWs would be reclaimed, which would 

increase the extent and connectivity of vegetation communities. These measures 

would increase the acres of vegetation that would be protected by lands and 

realty management compared to Alternative A (see Table 4-11 above).

Retention of BLM-administered lands in PH with limited exceptions would 

reduce the likelihood of vegetation removal or fragmentation associated with 

agricultural or urban development that could occur on state or private lands.

Impacts from Range Management

There would be no change to the acreage open for grazing or available AUMs 

described under Alternative A. However, Alternative B includes a number of 

management actions in PH to incorporate GRSG habitat objectives and 

management considerations into livestock grazing management. Together, these 

efforts would reduce, but would not eliminate, impacts from grazing on 

vegetation communities described under Nature and Type of Effects, and would 

promote the health of GRSG habitats, including sagebrush steppe, riparian areas, 

and wet meadows.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Restrictions and RDFs on fluid mineral leasing and development proposed under 

Alternative B would reduce the impacts on vegetation compared to Alternative 

A. Under this alternative, 61,197 acres in the planning area would be closed to 

fluid mineral leasing, while 12,238 acres would remain open to leasing. All acres 

would be under standard terms and conditions. PH would be closed to fluid 

mineral leasing under Alternative B, and existing leases would not be renewed. 

Conservation measures would be applied as conditions of permit approvals.

These restrictions on fluid mineral leasing and development would protect more 

acres of vegetation from associated activities compared to Alternative A, and 

would reduce the likelihood of impacts from fluid mineral exploration and 

development described under Nature and Type of Effects.

As described in Table 4-1, there would be approximately 624 acres of shortterm disturbance and 476 acres of long-term disturbance on BLM-administered 

lands related to existing and potential development. Impacts to vegetation in 

these areas would be the same as Alternative A but would occur over a smaller 

area. Similar to Alternative A, oil and gas development would have limited 

impacts on vegetation because, although there is high potential in GRSG habitat, 

most of the resources have already been developed; therefore, opening or 
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

4-58 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

closing areas to development would have minimal impacts related to removal or 

degradation of vegetation, and potential spread of invasive species. Table 4-12

shows the acreage of sagebrush available for mineral leasing under each 

alternative. Within sagebrush vegetation, approximately 6,680 acres of surface 

and 7,100 acres of subsurface would be closed to fluid mineral leasing, 

compared to zero acres closed under Alternative A. 

Impacts from Solid Minerals

The management actions, RDFs, and BMPs proposed under Alternative B would 

reduce impacts on vegetation associated with solid mineral exploration and 

extraction activities compared with Alternative A (see Table 4-12).

Approximately three acres of surface and 18 acres of subsurface would be open 

to locatable mineral exploration in sagebrush habitat, compared to 6,640 acres 

of surface and 3,008 acres of subsurface under Alternative A. All mining of coal

would be found to be unsuitable in PH (87,443 acres) and PH would be 

recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry. For non-energy 

leasable minerals, PH would be closed to leasing and to mineral material sales. 

BMPs would be applied to existing leases and locatable mineral claims, and 

restoration would be required for existing salable mineral pits. These policies 

would decrease the number of acres of vegetation potentially impacted by solid 

mineral development compared to Alternative A, and a reduction in the 

likelihood of impacts on vegetation described under Nature and Type of Effects. 

Because mineral potential is low for coal and mineral materials, these 

restrictions may have little practical impact on vegetation but it would preclude 

any potential future development.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Fire and fuel management policies proposed under Alternative B would be 

designed to protect sagebrush ecosystems by maintaining sagebrush cover, 

applying seasonal restrictions, protecting winter range, and requiring use of 

native seeds. Post-fuels treatments and ES&R management would be designed to 

ensure long-term persistence of seeded areas and native plants. These proposed 

modifications to fire and fuel management would result in an increase in the 

protection of sagebrush vegetation compared to Alternative A, and a reduction 

in the likelihood of impacts from fire and fuels management described under 

Nature and Type of Effects.

Prioritizing fire suppression in PH and GH would protect vegetation from the 

destructive effects of wildfire, but could result in increased fuel load and spread 

of noxious weeds.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Habitat restoration and vegetation management actions under Alternative B 

would aim to improve vegetation conditions and prioritize restoration efforts to 

benefit sagebrush vegetation. As a result, the restoration and vegetation 

management actions would enhance vegetation extent and condition relative to 
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-59

Alternative A by requiring the use of native seeds, designing post-restoration 

management to ensure the long-term persistence of the restoration efforts, 

considering changes in climate, and monitoring and controlling invasive species.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as Alternative A.

4.4.6 Alternative C

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Impacts from travel and transportation management would be similar to 

Alternative B, although impacts on vegetation (as described under the Nature 

and Type of Effects) would be further reduced since protections would apply to 

both PH and GH, and the BLM would apply additional mitigation requirements.

Prohibiting road construction within four miles of a lek would leave only 

approximately 600 acres in PH for future road construction and would help 

prevent fragmentation of vegetative communities.

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts on vegetation from recreation management under Alternative C would 

be the same as under Alternative B.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Similar to Alternative B, the measures proposed under Alternative C would 

reduce the impacts of ROWs on vegetation. PH and GH would be ROW 

exclusion areas (32,980 acres), with limited exceptions (See Table 4-11 above). 

Wind energy projects would not be sited in PH and GH. Management of ROW 

exclusion zones would decrease impacts (described under the Nature and Type 

of Effects) on sagebrush and vegetation. However, ROW exclusion areas could 

result in displacing ROW development onto adjacent private lands thereby 

negating their beneficial effects. Similar to Alternative A, allowing ROW 

development within unitized areas (24,842 acres) would potentially result in loss 

or disturbance of vegetation from these activities.

As under Alternative B, public ownership would be maintained in PH, but 

without the exceptions provided under that alternative. Private lands could be 

acquired in ACECs to enhance the GRSG conservation value of existing lands.

Although it is uncertain how much private land would be acquired to enhance 

GRSG habitat under Alternative C, this policy would increase the acreage where 

vegetation condition would be improved compared Alternative A, as no such 

measures have been provided under Alternative A.

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative C, grazing would be reduced by 50 percent on all allotments 

within the Big Gumbo area. There would be 3,739 AUMs available in the long 

term, compared to 5,780 AUMS under Alternative A. By reducing AUMs, BLM 

would reduce trampling and removal of vegetation in these areas. New water 
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

4-60 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

developments for diversion from seeps or springs would not be authorized, 

which would prevent impacts on wet meadows by maintaining the existing 

vegetation in these areas. Other impacts would be similar to those described for 

Alternative B, but would provide slightly greater protection to vegetation since 

they would be applied to both PH and GH.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Fluid minerals management under Alternative C would be similar to that 

described for Alternative B, but would include several more restrictive 

conservation measures, thereby enhancing vegetation protection. In addition, 

actions would be applied to both PH and GH, which would increase the area of 

vegetation that would be protected. For example, under Alternative C, 66,293

acres in the planning area would be closed to fluid mineral leasing, while 7,142

acres remain open to leasing. All acres would be under standard terms and 

conditions.

As described in Table 4-1, there would be approximately 621 acres of shortterm disturbance and 475 acres of long-term disturbance on BLM-administered 

lands related to existing and potential development. Similar to Alternative A, oil 

and gas development would have limited impacts on vegetation because, 

although there is high potential in GRSG habitat, most of the resources have 

already been developed; therefore, opening or closing areas to development 

would have minimal impacts related to removal or degradation of vegetation, 

and potential spread of invasive species. Table 4-12 shows the acreage of 

sagebrush available for mineral leasing under each alternative. Within sagebrush 

vegetation, approximately 6,682 acres of surface and 7,117 acres of subsurface 

would be closed to fluid mineral leasing, compared to zero acres closed under 

Alternative A.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Impacts from solid minerals management would be similar as Alternative B, but 

would be applied to a larger area (PH and GH), and would thus provide greater 

protection for vegetation over the long term. Zero acres of surface and 

subsurface would be open to locatable mineral exploration in sagebrush habitat, 

compared to 6,640 acres of surface and 3,008 acres of subsurface under 

Alternative A. Because mineral potential is low for coal and mineral materials, 

these restrictions may have little practical impact on vegetation but it would 

preclude any potential future development.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Impacts from fire and fuels management would be largely similar to those 

described for Alternative B, but would be applied to a larger area (PH and GH), 

and would thus provide greater protection for vegetation over the long term.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Impacts from habitat restoration and vegetation management would be largely 

similar to those described for Alternative B, but would be applied to a slightly 
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-61

larger area (PH and GH), and would thus provide greater protection for 

vegetation over the long term.

Impacts from ACECs

An ACEC to protect GRSG would be designated as sagebrush reserves on PH, 

covering 32,900 acres under this alternative. Vegetation within the ACEC would 

be protected by increased management focus and restrictions on surfacedisturbing activities in these areas.

4.4.7 Alternative D

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Measures proposed under Alternative D would reduce impacts on GRSG

habitat compared to Alternative A. Many management actions would be similar 

to Alternative B, with increased management flexibility incorporated to improve 

management and target those areas that need most protection. Other measures 

would be as described under Alternative B, but would apply to both PH and 

GH. Overall, management under Alternative B would reduce impacts on 

vegetation from activities associated with travel and transportation in the 

planning area, including those described under Nature and Type of Effects, 

compared to Alternative A.

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts from recreation management under Alternative D would be the same 

as Alternative B.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Lands and realty management proposed under Alternative D would provide 

increased protection of vegetation compared to Alternative A. PH would be 

managed as ROW avoidance areas (32,980 acres), although PH would be an 

exclusion area for wind energy ROW authorizations (Table 4-11). ROW 

avoidance areas would allow for management flexibility to avoid displacing 

ROWs onto private land. These measures would improve management and 

would reduce impacts from ROW development as described under Nature and 

Type of Effects, compared to Alternative A. ROWs would be allowed in GH with 

appropriate mitigation measures. Other measures and impacts would be as 

described under Alternative B. 

Impacts from land tenure decisions would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts from Range Management

Management under Alternative D would be similar to that described for 

Alternative B, with increased collaboration with stakeholders and increased 

tools available to improve flexibility in management. As such, impacts would 

likely be similar to Alternative B, though increased management flexibility may 

improve management by targeting those areas that need most protection.
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

4-62 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative D, all PH would be open to leasing subject to an NSO

stipulation. Conservation measures would be different from those described for 

Alternative B, and would incorporate surface disturbance reduction and 

guidance for mitigation. Such management would reduce disturbance to 

vegetation associated with fluid mineral development relative to Alternative A.

As described in Table 4-1, there would be approximately 767 acres of shortterm disturbance and 530 acres of long-term disturbance on BLM-administered 

lands related to existing and potential development. Similar to Alternative A, oil

and gas development would have limited impacts on vegetation because, 

although there is high potential in GRSG habitat, most of the resources have 

already been developed; therefore, opening or closing areas to development 

would have minimal impacts related to removal or degradation of vegetation, 

and potential spread of invasive species. Like Alternative A, zero acres of 

sagebrush vegetation would be closed for mineral leasing (Table 4-12).

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Impacts under Alternative D would be similar to those described for Alternative 

B. Although 6,640 acres of surface and 3,008 acres of subsurface would be open 

to locatable mineral exploration in sagebrush habitat, proposed actions for 

locatable mineral development would be analyzed on a case-by-case basis in 

cooperation with the State of North Dakota and BMPs applied to avoid 

unnecessary degradation of GRSG habitat. These actions would reduce, but 

would not eliminate, impacts from locatable mineral development on vegetation 

compared to Alternative A, including those described under Nature and Type of 

Effects. Because mineral potential is low for coal and mineral materials, these 

restrictions may have little practical impact on vegetation but it would preclude 

any potential future development.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Fuels treatment policies and restrictions would be designed and implemented as 

described in Alternative B, except sagebrush canopy cover would not be 

reduced to less than eight percent. In addition, fuels management projects in PH

would be designed to incorporate greater flexibility to maximize the acreage 

protected. These proposed modifications to fire and fuel management would 

result in an increase in the protection of sagebrush vegetation compared to 

Alternative A, and a reduction in the likelihood of impacts from fire and fuels 

management described under Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Impacts from habitat restoration and vegetation management under Alternative 

D would be similar to those described for Alternative B. However, this 

alternative includes consideration of other threatened, endangered, or sensitive 

species, which may change the proportions of vegetation communities that 

would be protected in certain instances.
4. Environmental Consequences (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-63

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative A.

4.5 WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT AND ECOLOGY

4.5.1 Methods and Assumptions

Indicators

Table 4-13, Comparison of Wildland Fire Management and Ecology Indicators 

by Alternative, provides a summary of the indicators that were used to analyze 

the effects on wildland fire management and ecology under each alternative.

Table 4-13

Comparison of Wildland Fire Management and Ecology Indicators by Alternative

Indicator Alternative

A B C D

Alteration of vegetative cover that is 

likely to result in a substantial shift in 

FRCC across the planning area

No change

Potential 

minor 

increase

Potential 

minor 

increase

Potential 

minor 

increase

A substantial change in the likelihood 

or severity of wildland fire (based on 

level of restrictions on uses that may 

introduce sources of ignition)

Fires more 

likely to 

occur, due to 

few 

restrictions 

Fires less 

likely to 

occur, due to 

more 

restrictions

Fires less 

likely to 

occur, due to

more

restrictions

Fires less 

likely to 

occur, due 

to more 

restrictions

Management actions that substantially 

inhibit a response to wildland fire or 

appropriate treatments to prevent 

wildland fire 

No change No change Increase No change

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

• Fire is an important functional, natural disturbance in many of the 

ecological systems found in the planning area.

• A direct relationship exists between fuel loading and potential fire 

intensity and severity.

• Demand for fuels treatments would likely increase over the life of 

this plan.

4.5.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Impacts on wildland fire management result from changes in fire frequency and 

intensity, and the ability to employ fire-suppression methods, all of which would 

affect management of fire and related costs within the planning area. Actions 

which change FRCC from highly altered ecosystems could reduce the risk of 
4. Environmental Consequences (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

4-64 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

losing key ecosystems as well as decrease fire risk and management costs in the 

long term.

Many different resource uses may introduce additional ignition sources into the 

planning area, which increase the probability of wildfire occurrence and the 

need for fire-suppression activities. Fire intensity can be affected by activities 

that decrease fuel loading, such as vegetation treatments and harvesting of 

timber products, and activities that alter the composition and structure of 

vegetation communities. High-intensity fires generally result in a greater loss of 

vegetation cover, changes to soil chemistry, damage to root structures, and a 

greater ability for non-native species to become established (Verma and 

Jayakumar 2012).

Transportation and travel management can impact fire frequency by changing 

the level of risk of human caused ignitions. The risk of ignition is increased 

where travel is less restrictive, particularly where motorized vehicles travel 

cross-country. All forms of travel encourage the spread of invasive weeds (CEC 

2012), particularly cheatgrass, which can shift fire regimes and increase fire 

behavior potential. Conversely, if management restricts access, wildfire risk may 

be decreased. In addition, transportation management may impact fire 

suppression efforts; when routes are closed and rehabilitated, they become 

unavailable for response to wildfires, limiting access opportunities.

Similarly, the level and type of recreation permitted can impact fire risk. 

Increased recreational use may increase the probability of unintentional fire 

starts from human-caused ignitions and the need for fire suppression. 

Surface disturbance caused by development would generally contribute to the 

modification of the composition and structure of vegetation communities 

(including increases in noxious weed proliferation) in the vicinity of developed 

areas, which could then be more likely to fuel high-intensity fires. This could 

cause an increase in program costs because of the increased potential for fire. 

Lands and realty actions may indirectly result in development and associate fire 

risk. For example, ROW authorizations can result in indirect impacts by 

increasing the risk of human-caused ignition should construction of transmission 

lines, renewable energy projects, or other development occur. 

Likewise, the development of energy and minerals resources increases the risk 

of wildfires by introducing new ignition sources (Shlisky et al. 2007). Associated 

facilities, infrastructure and transmission lines can increase fire and fuels 

program costs while decreasing fire management flexibility with regards to 

suppression options. Energy development also poses hazards to firefighters, 

including unknown toxins, facility protection, evacuation of industry personnel, 

and dangerous overhead power lines. Fire programs could incur additional costs 

to train firefighting personnel for emergency situations associated with energy 

development. Additional limitations on mineral development would have an 
4. Environmental Consequences (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-65

indirect effect of decreased fire. This would be due to less development, fewer 

vehicles, and less construction equipment, all of which would serve to decrease 

the chance of human ignition. Development of federal minerals underlying nonfederal surface ownership may impact fire management on BLM-administered 

lands, particularly when ownership is in a checkerboard pattern, as fires ignited 

on non-federal lands may quickly spread onto and impact BLM-administered 

lands.

The potential for invasive species establishment or increase may follow 

construction and could impact fire management actions through increased risk 

of fire and need for fire management.

Range grazing management can impact the ability to manage fire as a natural 

process through changes in fine fuels availability (e.g., grasses). Livestock grazing 

reduces fuel loads, so a reduction in grazing intensity or change in grazing 

location may lead to changes in fuel levels at site specific locations.

Vegetation and weed treatments that decrease standing vegetation could 

decrease the intensity of wildland fires and allow fires to be more easily 

controlled. For example, efforts to reduce incursion of nonnative annual grasses 

(primarily cheatgrass) and proliferation of other noxious and invasive weeds

would promote healthy plant communities and lower risk of high-intensity 

wildfire (USGS 2006). Used appropriately, prescribed fire would be compatible 

with noxious weed control; however, the presence of noxious weeds and the 

potential of weeds to spread after a prescribed fire would need to be 

monitored on a site-specific basis. Conversely, management actions that retain 

shrub and cover may result in increased fuel loading and increase the likelihood 

and intensity of wildland fire. 

Management actions that are intended to improve, create, or re-establish 

healthy ecological conditions in various vegetation types benefit the fire and 

fuels program in the long term by promoting the most efficient use of fire and 

fuels fire management program resources. In addition, allowing a range of fuel 

treatment options and providing the possibility to use unplanned wildfire for 

resource benefit where appropriate provides needed management flexibility to 

reduce large fire costs and achieve fire and fuels goals and objectives. 

Conversely, prioritizing fire suppression can limit management options and 

increase costs for fire management programs.

Special designations such as ACECs and the management of sensitive resources 

can restrict fuels treatments on a site-specific basis. For example, in areas where 

preservation of particular species or habitats is emphasized, management 

options and fuels treatments may be limited.

Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or 

no impact on wildland fire management and ecology and are therefore not 

discussed in detail: mineral split estate.
4. Environmental Consequences (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

4-66 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

4.5.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Given the lack of wildfire in the planning area over the past two decades, the 

risk of wildfire is likely to remain relatively low under all alternatives. Changes in 

management actions for other resources and resource uses may however, 

impact the chance of ignition and intensity of fire should it occur. Similarly, the 

use of prescribed fire is likely to continue to have only a minor role in 

vegetation management in the planning area across all alternatives.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Coal management is not expected to impact fire management because there is 

no coal activity in the planning area, nor is there expected to be any activity in 

the foreseeable future. In addition, there is no locatable mineral potential, nor 

any interest in developing locatable minerals within GRSG habitat. As a result, 

withdrawing an area or leaving an area open to locatable minerals is not 

expected to impact fire risk or fire management activities.

4.5.4 Alternative A

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Management under Alternative A would limit motorized and mechanized travel

to existing routes on 33,030 acres, and fire risk from human-caused ignitions 

would be minimized due to lack of off-road motorized travel. In addition, sitespecific travel management would be implemented with designation of roads as 

well as seasonal and permanent closures, where appropriate. When plans are 

complete the likelihood of human caused ignition may decrease slightly due to 

site-specific restriction on access.

Administrative access would be maintained for fire suppression and fire 

management activity, except in the case of road closure and rehabilitation, 

therefore the impacts on access would be minimal.

Impacts from Recreation

Under Alternative A, management actions for recreation would be relatively 

flexible, which increases the risk of fire through increased exposure to sources 

of human-caused ignitions. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative A, no ROW exclusion or avoidance areas would be present 

in the decision area. In addition, oil and gas development on existing leases

within unitized areas (24,842 acres) would be allowed. As discussed under

Nature and Type of Effects, fire risk could be increased as a result of development 

from ROW authorizations; therefore, this alternative would have the highest 

potential for impacts from lands and realty on fire management. ROW 

authorizations are compared across alternatives in Table 4-14, Comparison of 

Lands and Realty Actions Across Alternatives.
4. Environmental Consequences (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-67

Table 4-14

Comparison of Lands and Realty Actions Across Alternatives 

Alternative A B C D

ROW exclusion areas (acres) 0 32,900 32,980 32,9001

ROW avoidance areas (acres) 0 80 0 32,980

Unitized areas (acres) 24,842 24,842 24,842 24,842

1 PH would be exclusion areas for new ROW wind energy developments.

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative A, grazing would be allowed on all lands identified as suitable 

(approximately 32,9450 acres). Additionally, under Alternative A the BLM would 

allocate up to about 5,780 AUMs for livestock in the long term. Use of livestock 

grazing can result in site-specific reduction in fuels and the associated risk of 

wildland fire as described under Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Alternative A places some restrictions on surface occupancy and seismic 

exploration, construction, and development near strutting grounds. However, 

Alternative A would include the fewest restrictions on fluid minerals out of all 

the alternatives. Due to this, the chance of human ignition under this alternative 

would be greater than other the under alternatives and could indirectly effect 

fire management through increased fire risk. Under Alternative A, there are no 

areas closed to fluid mineral leasing, while 73,435 acres of BLM, private, and 

state lands are open to fluid mineral leasing.

Overall, oil and gas development would have limited impacts on fire 

management because, although there is high potential in GRSG habitat, most of 

the resources have already been developed; therefore, opening or closing areas 

to development would have minimal impacts on fire risk or related fire 

management activity.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative A, no portions of the decision area would be withdrawn from 

salable-non energy mineral application or closed to mineral material

development. As a result, there is potential for human ignition and increased fire 

risk from these types of solid mineral development.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Management actions under Alternative A would place minimal restrictions on 

fuels management and fire control methods, and therefore would have few 

impacts on fire management. Under Alternative A, the BLM would allow for the 

preparation of prescribed burn plans for vegetative manipulations where needed 

and would control wildfire on BLM-administered land, but otherwise does not 

specify management actions. Due to the flexibility in management of prescribed 
4. Environmental Consequences (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

4-68 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

and wildland fires, fire suppression costs are likely to be the lower in Alternative 

A as compared to all action alternatives. Potential fuels treatment and 

suppression costs are compared by alternative in Table 4-15, Relative 

Comparison of Fuels Treatment and Fire Suppression Costs Across 

Alternatives.

Table 4-15

Relative Comparison of Fuels Treatment and Fire Suppression Costs Across Alternatives

Alternative A B C D

Relative fuels treatment 

costs

$$

Variable costs 

based on other 

resource needs

$$

Restrictions on 

fuels treatments 

in PH

$

Restrictions on 

fuels treatments in 

PH and GH

$$

Restrictions on 

fuels treatments in 

PH

Relative suppression

costs

$

No specific 

suppression

measures for 

GRSG habitat

$$$

Suppression of 

fire emphasized 

in PH

$$$$

Suppression of fire 

emphasized in PH

and GH

$$$

Suppression of fire 

emphasized in PH

with local 

modification

Note: The $ symbol represents the relative costs of fuels treatment and suppression across alternatives with $ 

representing the lowest cost and $$$$ the highest cost, this information is for comparative purposes only and no 

specific dollar amount is forecasted here.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Under Alternative A, no specific direction is provided in the RMP for 

restoration and management. Vegetation could be managed to alter fuel loads 

and management activities could be conducted as appropriate. This could impact 

fire management options and costs.

Impacts from ACECs

Under Alternative A, no ACECs would be established. This enables fire and 

fuels treatments to continue to function with more flexibility because of the lack 

of restrictions placed on ACECs.

4.5.5 Alternative B

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative B, as in all alternatives, travel would be limited to existing 

routes. In PH, activity level travel plans would be completed within five years of 

the ROD. Additional restrictions would be in place on upgrades, route 

construction and realignment. This would further limit the risk of human-caused 

ignition in PH by reducing exposure to machinery, vehicles, and personnel that 

could cause ignitions. Road closure could, however, result in some impacts on

ability to respond to fire due to reduced access.
4. Environmental Consequences (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-69

Impacts from Recreation

Under Alternative B, SRPs would only be allowed in PH when the PH would 

benefit or experience no effects of the permits. Because issuance of permits may 

increase exposure of the area to human activity and, consequently, the 

likelihood of human-caused ignitions, wildfire risk from recreation activities may 

be decreased under this alternative as compared to Alternative A.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative B, management of PH as an exclusion area for new ROW

authorizations would reduce the potential for development and the associated 

fire risk and suppression costs; therefore, impacts would be reduced as 

compared to Alternative A (see Table 4-14).

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative B, the BLM would have the same amount of acres open for 

grazing and would allot the same number of AUMs as Alternative A; however, 

other management actions may impact fire management. For example, 

retirement of permitted grazing use if approved by permittee, may lead to 

increased fuels in those site-specific locations and result in a slightly higher risk 

of fire as compared to Alternative A. However, Alternative B also has 

management focused on achieving ecological site potential, which would likely 

aim to reduce invasive species and increase habitat health and could decrease 

the risk of fire.

Assessment of land health and changes to grazing systems to achieve objectives 

would be prioritized in PH; therefore, any changes to fuels would be focused on 

these areas.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative B, the BLM would place some limitations on fluid mineral

exploration and extraction, which would indirectly effect fire management

through a decreased risk of fire due to less development, fewer vehicles, and 

less construction equipment, resulting in less of a chance of human ignition. The 

BLM would also place greater restrictions on fluid mineral leasing in PH as 

compared with Alternative A, including some seasonal restrictions. In addition, 

this alternative prohibits new surface occupancy on federal leases within PH 

(with some exceptions allowed).

Under Alternative B, 61,197 acres would be closed to fluid mineral leasing 

(61,197 more acres than Alternative A), while 12,238 acres of BLM, private and 

state lands would be open to fluid mineral leasing (61,197 less than Alternative 

A), resulting in fewer impacts on fire management. Similar to Alternative A, 

overall oil and gas development would have limited impacts on fire management 

because, although there is high potential in GRSG habitat, most of the resources 

have already been developed; therefore, opening or closing areas to 

development would have minimal impacts on fire risk or related fire 

management activity.
4. Environmental Consequences (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

4-70 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative B, additional restriction would be put in place on mineral 

development as compared to Alternative A. PH would be closed to mineral 

material development and non-energy leasable mineral leasing. As a result, fire 

risks would decrease from these types of mineral developments. Because 

mineral potential is low for coal and mineral materials, these restrictions may 

have little practical impact on fire risk but it would preclude any potential future 

development.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Under Alternative B, the BLM would place restrictions on fire and fuels 

management when it would be beneficial to PH. In PH, the BLM would design 

and implement fuels treatments and suppression with an emphasis on protecting 

sagebrush ecosystems. Sagebrush canopy cover would not be reduced less than 

15 percent unless a fuels management objective requires additional reduction in 

sagebrush cover. Restrictions placed on fire and fuels management under this 

alternative such as seasonal closures, no treatments in known winter range, 

restrictions on the use of fire to treat sagebrush in low precipitation zones, 

could impact the ability to efficiently manage fuels and could increase costs of 

vegetation management and fire suppression.

Under Alternative B, the BLM would prioritize the suppression of fire in order 

to conserve both GH and PH. This could result in an increased need for fire 

management and additional costs for the fire management program.

Impacts of activities would vary based on the FRCC of the area impacted, as 

described in Nature and Type of Impacts. The majority of the lands for both PH

and GH are in FRCC II, which means the fire regimes have been moderately 

altered from their historical range by either increased or decreased frequency. 

A moderate risk of losing key ecosystem components is identified for lands in 

this class; therefore, management actions restoring habitat to a more natural 

vegetation structure would improve fire regime under this and all action 

alternatives.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Under Alternative B, many of the management actions focus on the use of 

native plants in order to create landscapes that most benefit the GRSG. The

emphasis of native plants under this alternative could contribute to healthy plant 

communities and an associated lower risk of high-intensity wildfire. However, 

habitat parameters could also limit the options for fuels treatment activities and 

could therefore increase costs of treatment compared to Alternative A.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative A.
4. Environmental Consequences (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-71

4.5.6 Alternative C

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Travel management actions would be similar to those described in Alternative B 

but restrictions would also be applied to GH. Risk of human caused ignition 

would slightly decrease for both PH and GH as compared to Alternative A. Due 

to limitations on new roads in most PH, access for fire management may be 

reduced, resulting in increased time or cost for suppression compared with 

Alternative A.

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts under Alternative C are the same as those under Alternative B, but 

would apply to both GH and PH; therefore, the likelihood of human-caused 

ignition would be further reduced as compared to Alternative A.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative C, impacts would be similar as described for Alternative B 

but would be applied across PH and GH (see Table 4-14). Due to the 

restrictions on ROW development in PH and GH under this alternative, fire 

risks from lands and realty actions would be the least of any alternative.

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative C, there would continue to be 32,945 acres open to grazing; 

however, permitted AUMs in the planning area would be reduced to 3,739 due 

to the approximately 50 percent reduction of AUMs in the Big Gumbo area. 

This could result in a larger need for fire management actions than under 

Alternative A, particularly in the Big Gumbo region because the fuel load

reduction would not be as great. However, as stated in Nature and Type of 

Effects, it is difficult to predict the impacts of grazing on wildfire and so the 

analysis of the impact of more AUMs on fire management is inconclusive.

Other impacts under Alternative C would be similar to those discussed under 

Alternative B, Impacts from Range Management. However, Alternative C 

management actions would apply to both PH and GH and impacts could be 

slightly intensified.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Impacts under Alternative C would be similar to those under Alternative B, but 

would apply to both PH and GH. Under Alternative C, 66,293 acres would be 

closed to fluid mineral leasing (compared to zero acres closed under Alternative 

A), while 7,142 acres of BLM, private and state lands would be open to fluid 

mineral leasing (66,293 less than Alternative A), resulting in fewer impacts on 

fire management. Overall, restrictions to fluid mineral development under 

Alternative C would be greater than under the other alternatives. This would 

have the potential to indirectly effect fire management through a decreased risk 

of fire due to less development, fewer vehicles, and less construction 

equipment, resulting in less chance of human ignition.
4. Environmental Consequences (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

4-72 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Similar to Alternative A, overall oil and gas development would have limited 

impacts on fire management because, although there is high potential in GRSG 

habitat, most of the resources have already been developed; therefore, opening 

or closing areas to development would have minimal impacts on fire risk or 

related fire management activity.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative C, restriction on mineral development would be the 

broadest of all alternatives, with limitations on leasing and development as 

described in Alternative B, but expanded to GH as well as PH. Fire risks related 

to nonenergy leasables and mineral materials development would be minimal 

under this alternative due to the limitations placed on these types of minerals.

Because mineral potential is low for coal and mineral materials, these 

restrictions may have little practical impact on fire risk but it would preclude 

any potential future development.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Management actions under Alternative C would also place more restrictions on 

fire and fuels management than Alternative A. Management and impacts under 

Alternative C would be similar to management under Alternative B, but would 

apply to both GH and PH, therefore suppression costs may be slightly increased.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Impacts under Alternative C would be similar to those under Alternative B 

except that management actions under Alternative C would apply to both GH

and PH; therefore, the potential for long-term benefits to ecosystem health 

could be slightly increased but the costs for treatments also increased.

Impacts from ACECs

Under Alternative C, PH would be designated as an ACEC. The ACEC would 

cover 32,900 acres. There could be reduced flexibility for hazardous fuels 

treatments on the 32,900 acres managed as an ACEC, which could reduce the 

efficiency with which fires are suppressed and increase fire management costs. 

4.5.7 Alternative D

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Impacts would be similar to that described in Alternatives B and C.

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts under Alternative D are the same as those under Alternative B.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative D, PH would be managed as a ROW avoidance area and 

additionally, as an exclusion area for new wind energy ROW authorizations.

ROWs would be allowed in GH with measures to minimize surface disturbing 
4. Environmental Consequences (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-73

and disruptive activities. Impacts on fire management from ROW development 

would therefore be decreased as compared to Alternative A (see Table 4-14).

Impacts from Range Management

Total acres available for grazing and permitted AUMs would be the same as 

described for Alternatives A and B. Other management actions would be the 

similar to Alternative B but would emphasize working with state and local 

agencies to develop standards. As a result, impacts on fire management would 

be similar to those described in Alternative B but may be more suited to sitespecific conditions, including the habitat needs of other high priority species, 

resulting in improved ecological conditions and decreased fire risk.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Similar to Alternative A, Alternative D does not close any acres to fluid mineral

leasing and has 73,435 acres open to fluid mineral leasing. Under Alternative D, 

however, NSO restrictions would apply in PH and there would be a minor 

decrease in forecasted wells, therefore development and related impacts on fire 

management would be reduced as compared to Alternative A. The chance of 

ignition from fluid mineral development would still be present.

Similar to Alternative A, overall oil and gas development would have limited 

impacts on fire management because, although there is high potential in GRSG 

habitat, most of the resources have already been developed; therefore, opening 

or closing areas to development would have minimal impacts on fire risk or 

related fire management activity.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative D, impacts from solid mineral development would be similar 

to those described under Alternative A; however, PH would be closed to 

mineral material development, with reduction in surface disturbance and road 

use and related impacts on fire risk as compared with Alternative A. Because 

mineral potential is low for coal and mineral materials, these restrictions may 

have little practical impact on fire risk but it would preclude any potential future 

development.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Impacts from Alternative D would be similar to those under Alternative B 

except the minimum percent canopy cover permitted would be eight percent 

instead of 15 percent. This change is primarily based on regional habitat 

conditions and the likelihood that the NDFO could not meet the canopy cover 

requirements set for the NTT report. While the change may make achieving 

habitat objectives more likely, direct impacts of this change on fire management

would be minimal, and impacts would be similar to described in Alternative B. 
4. Environmental Consequences (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

4-74 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Impacts under Alternative D would be similar to those under Alternative B, as 

Alternative D also focuses on restoring native plant communities based on local 

site conditions and information, which could further reduce the risk of fires.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as Alternative A.

4.6 FLUID MINERALS

4.6.1 Methods and Assumptions

Analysis of impacts on fluid minerals from this RMPA focuses on the impacts of 

conservation measures to protect GRSG. These impacts may be direct or 

indirect. For example, a direct impact on fluid minerals would result from 

closure of an area to fluid mineral leasing. An indirect impact would result from 

removal of a road, which would change the economic feasibility of developing a 

site. Additional actions or conditions that might cause direct or indirect impacts 

on fluid minerals are described under Indicators, below.

Indicators

Indicators were developed and used to analyze impacts of the management 

actions under each alternative on fluid minerals. Table 4-16, Comparison of 

Fluid Minerals Indicators by Alternative, illustrates how the indicators vary 

under each alternative.

Where information is available, consideration is given to the potential for fluid 

mineral resources on lands closed to leasing. For example, an indicator of an 

impact on fluid minerals is if there were substantial reductions in federal leasing 

and development of fluid mineral resources in high potential areas.

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

• Existing fluid mineral leases would not be affected by the closures 

proposed under this RMPA.

• Oil and gas operations on existing federal leases, regardless of 

surface ownership, would be subject to COAs by the BLM 

Authorized Officer. The BLM can deny surface occupancy on 

portions of leases with COAs to avoid or minimize resource 

conflicts if this action does not eliminate reasonable opportunities 

to develop the lease.

• Valid existing leases would be managed under the stipulations in 

effect when the leases were issued. New stipulations proposed 

under this RMPA would apply only on new leases.
4. Environmental Consequences (Fluid Minerals)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-75

Table 4-16

Comparison of Fluid Minerals Indicators by Alternative

Indicator Alternative

A B C D

The amount of unleased 

land identified as closed 

to mineral exploration 

and development (acres)

0 18,817 22,491 0

The amount of land 

subject to NSO

stipulations (acres)

9,780 0 0 61,197

The amount of land 

subject to CSU

stipulations (acres)

21,235 0 0 5,090

The amount of land 

subject to TLs (acres) 38,504 0 0 0

Application of COAs on 

fluid mineral

development activities 

on leased parcels for the 

protection of GRSG

(acres)

No change Increase Increase Increase

Restrictions on 

geophysical exploration 

in GRSG habitat No change Increase Increase Increase

The amount of land 

managed as ROW

avoidance areas (acres)

0 80 0 32,900

The amount of land 

managed as ROW

exclusion areas (acres)

0 32,900 32,980 32,9001

1 PH would be exclusion areas for new ROW wind energy developments.

Source: BLM 2012a

• New information may lead to changes in delineated GRSG habitat. 

New habitat areas, or areas that are no longer habitat, may be 

identified. This adjustment would typically result in small changes to 

areas requiring the stipulations or management actions stated in this 

plan. Modifications to GRSG habitat would be updated in the 

existing data inventory through plan maintenance.

• If an area is leased, it could be developed; however, not all leases 

would be developed within the life of this RMPA.
4. Environmental Consequences (Fluid Minerals)

4-76 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

• As the demand for energy increases, so will the demand for 

extracting energy resources.

• Stipulations also apply to fluid mineral leasing on lands overlying 

federal mineral estate, which includes federal mineral estate 

underlying BLM-administered lands and non-BLM-administered 

lands. There are 396,053 acres of federal mineral estate within the 

planning area (30,574 acres of BLM-administered surface with 

federal minerals and 365,479 acres of split estate). The decisions in 

this plan amendment will not affect federal minerals underlying 

Forest Service or other federal agency-administered surface.

• As discussed in Section 3.7, Fluid Minerals, market circumstances 

will likely result in continued industry emphasis on increasing oil 

supplies and searching for additional natural gas supplies in the 

planning area. Much of the oil and gas supply growth within the 

planning area is expected to come from production in existing 

reservoirs, with new reservoir discoveries most likely to come from 

areas outside the planning area (BLM 2009a).

4.6.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Closing areas within GRSG habitat to fluid mineral leasing would directly impact 

the fluid minerals program by prohibiting the development of those resources 

on federal mineral estate. Fluid mineral operations would be limited in their 

choice of project locations and may be forced to develop in areas that are 

challenging to access or have less economic resources because more ideal areas 

could be closed to leasing.

Management actions that prohibit or restrict surface occupancy or disturbance 

(such as TLs, NSO, CSU, and limitations on the total amount of surface 

disturbance in areas) overlying federal fluid mineral resources would also 

directly impact the development of those resources by limiting the siting, design, 

and operations of fluid mineral development projects. This, in turn, could force 

operators to use more costly development methods than they otherwise might 

have used. Equipment shortages could result from application of TLs because a 

bottleneck may be created during the limited time period in which activity 

would be allowed.

In areas where NSO stipulations are applied, federal fluid minerals could be 

leased, but the leaseholder/operator would have to use offsite methods such as 

directional drilling to access the mineral resource. The area where directional 

drilling can be effectively used is limited, meaning some minerals may be 

inaccessible in areas where an NSO stipulation covers a large area or where no 

leasing is allowed on surrounding lands. 

Application of CSU stipulations allows some use and occupancy of the surface. 

While less restrictive than an NSO, a CSU stipulation allows the BLM to require 

special operational constraints, to shift the surface-disturbing activity associated 
4. Environmental Consequences (Fluid Minerals)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-77

with fluid mineral leasing more than the standard 200 meters (656 feet), or to 

require additional protective measures (e.g., restrictions on noise levels) to 

protect GRSG. While not prohibiting surface-disturbing activities, a CSU 

stipulation does influence the location and level of operations within the subject 

area.

TL stipulations may be necessary to protect GRSG from impacts of 

development. These stipulations are necessary if impacts cannot be mitigated 

within the standard 60-day suspension of operation period afforded by 

regulation. Areas where TL stipulations are applied would be temporarily closed 

to fluid mineral exploration and development, surface-disturbing activities, and 

intensive human activity during identified time frames based on seasons or 

GRSG breeding times. While some operational activities would be allowed at all 

times (e.g., vehicle travel and maintenance), construction, drilling, completions, 

and other operations considered to be intensive in nature would not be allowed 

during the restricted time frame. Most activities, however, can be initiated and 

completed outside of the restricted dates specified in the TL stipulation. 

Applying COAs, which include RDFs (per Appendix B) and conservation 

measures outlined in Chapter 2 (Table 2-3), to existing leases would directly 

impact fluid mineral operations. These RDFs and conservation measures would 

include standards such as noise restrictions, height limitations on structures, 

design requirements, water development standards, remote monitoring 

requirements, and reclamation standards. Application of these requirements 

through COAs would impact fluid mineral operations by increasing costs if it 

resulted in the application of additional requirements or use of more expensive 

technology (such as remote monitoring systems) than would otherwise have 

been used by operators. Impacts of these COAs would be mitigated where 

exceptions limit their application. This would occur where a COA was not 

applicable (e.g., a resource is not present on a given site) or where site-specific 

consideration merited slight variation. See Section 2.4.3, Elements Common 

to Alternatives B, C, and D, for more information on when these exceptions to 

RDFs would apply.

Placing limits on geophysical exploration could reduce the availability of data on 

fluid mineral resources and could increase costs of fluid mineral development if 

the limits required use of more expensive technology. TLs on geophysical 

exploration would delay development activities and could cause equipment 

shortages because all exploration would be occurring during the same time 

period.

Requiring master development plans and unitization could cause direct impacts 

on fluid minerals through increased costs of fluid mineral extraction by delaying 

the permit approval process until such additional site-specific planning efforts 

are completed. However, unitization typically has been initiated at the 

operator’s discretion.
4. Environmental Consequences (Fluid Minerals)

4-78 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Requiring reclamation bonds in the amount necessary to cover full reclamation 

upon completion of the project could deter fluid mineral exploration and 

development by increasing up-front costs when these costs could have 

previously occurred after economic resources had already been recovered. This 

would be a direct impact on fluid minerals.

Identification of areas in which to acquire additional surface or mineral estate 

containing GRSG habitat would have no impacts on fluid minerals because it 

would not result in application of management actions to additional acres of 

surface or fluid mineral estate. If areas for acquisition were identified, acquisition 

would occur only in areas containing existing federal mineral leases, which are 

already subject to BLM management actions applicable to both the surface and 

the mineral estate through the fluid minerals program.

Management actions creating ROW exclusion or avoidance areas could 

indirectly increase the cost of fluid mineral extraction by limiting the available 

means for transporting fluid minerals to processing facilities and markets. For 

example, new natural gas pipelines could not be built in an ROW exclusion area. 

Impacts would be mitigated where exceptions were allowed for co-location of 

new ROWs within existing ROWs to satisfy valid existing rights.

Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or 

no impact on fluid minerals and are therefore not discussed in detail: travel and 

transportation management, recreation, range management, solid minerals, fire 

and fuels management, habitat restoration/vegetation management, and ACECs.

4.6.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under all alternatives, the BLM would continue to require a bond in accordance 

with 43 CFR 3104. The amount of the bond would have to be at least the 

minimum amount described in the regulations to “ensure...reclamation of the 

lease area(s) and the restoration of any lands or surface waters adversely 

affected by lease operations after the abandonment or cessation of oil and gas 

operations on the lease(s).”

4.6.4 Alternative A

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative A, the entire planning area would continue to be open to 

ROW location. No areas would be managed as exclusion or avoidance; 

therefore, there would be no impacts from lands and realty on fluid minerals

under this alternative.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative A, new oil and gas leases would continue to be subject to an 

NSO stipulation within 0.25 mile of active leks and to a TL stipulation within 
4. Environmental Consequences (Fluid Minerals)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-79

two miles of leks. The overall breakdown of acreages of oil and gas potential in 

various leasing categories in the decision area is included in Table 4-17, Oil and 

Gas Leasing Categories, Alternative A1.

As discussed in Section 3.7, approximately 26,024 acres (35 percent) of oil and 

gas federal mineral estate in the decision area is unleased. Of these unleased 

acres, 7,081 (27 percent) have high potential. All unleased acreage in the 

decision area is open to fluid mineral leasing; however, 1,373 unleased acres 

(five percent of unleased oil and gas federal mineral estate) are subject to NSO

stipulations. In addition, 5,799 unleased acres (23 percent of unleased oil and gas 

federal mineral estate) are subject to CSU stipulations. The most widely applied 

stipulations are TLs, covering 10,898 unleased acres (15 percent of unleased oil 

and gas federal mineral estate) in the decision area. Under Alternative A, it is 

projected that 60 new exploratory and development wells would be drilled on 

federal oil and gas estate during the life of the current RMP (see Table 4-1). Of 

these new wells, 49 are expected to be producing oil and gas wells through 

2029 (BLM 2013).

Under Alternative A, existing oil and gas leases would continue to be developed 

according to their lease terms, including a TL prohibiting exploration and 

development within two miles of leks between March 1 and June 15. COAs 

could be applied to mitigate or prevent impacts on BLM-administered lands or 

other resources. BMPs could be incorporated as a COA. If COAs were applied, 

impacts would be the same type as those described under Nature and Type of 

Effects.

Geophysical exploration would continue to be allowed within the decision area.

4.6.5 Alternative B

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative B, all BLM-administered surface lands in PH (32,900 acres, or 

approximately 100 percent of BLM-administered surface in the decision area) 

would be managed as ROW exclusion areas. However, because all PH would be 

closed to fluid mineral leasing under Alternative B, managing areas as ROW 

exclusion in PH would have no impact on fluid minerals.

All BLM-administered surface lands in GH (totaling 80 acres, or less than one 

percent of BLM-administered surface in the decision area) would be managed as 

ROW avoidance under Alternative B. Fluid minerals beneath those 80 acres 

would be impacted by the ROW avoidance area as described under Nature and 

Type of Effects. Impacts would increase in comparison with Alternative A.
4. Environmental Consequences (Fluid Minerals)

4-80 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 4-17

Oil and Gas Leasing Categories, Alternative A1

Oil and Gas Potential

Closed to 

Leasing 

(acres)

Open Subject to 

NSO Stipulations 

(acres)

Open Subject 

to CSU

Stipulations 

(acres)

Open Subject to 

TL stipulations 

(acres)

Open Subject to 

Standard Terms 

and Conditions 

(acres)

High Potential 0 9,583 17,427 29,840 6,676

Total unleased 0 1,176 2,787 4,764 1,140

Total leased 0 8,407 14,640 25,076 5,536

BLM surface/ federal 

minerals 0 6,444 10,781 18,085 2,194

Unleased 0 296 794 1,523 489

Leased 0 6,148 9,987 16,562 1,705

Private or state 

surface/federal minerals) 0 3,139 6,646 11,755 4,482

Unleased 0 880 1,993 3,241 651

Leased 0 2,259 4,653 8,514 3,831

Moderate Potential 0 31 1,418 3,131 4,050

Total unleased 0 31 728 1,495 2,689

Total leased 0 0 690 1,636 1,361

BLM surface/federal 

minerals 0 0 442 1,165 836

Unleased 0 0 107 484 519

Leased 0 0 335 681 317

Private or state surface/

federal minerals 0 31 976 1,966 3,214

Unleased 0 31 621 1,011 2,170

Leased 0 0 355 955 1,044

Low/No Known Potential 0 166 2,390 5,533 14,404

Total unleased 0 166 2,284 4,639 9,905

Total leased 0 0 106 894 4,499
4. Environmental Consequences (Fluid Minerals)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-81

Table 4-17

Oil and Gas Leasing Categories, Alternative A1

Oil and Gas Potential

Closed to 

Leasing 

(acres)

Open Subject to 

NSO Stipulations 

(acres)

Open Subject 

to CSU

Stipulations 

(acres)

Open Subject to 

TL stipulations 

(acres)

Open Subject to 

Standard Terms 

and Conditions 

(acres)

BLM surface/federal 

minerals 0 0 519 1,632 208

Unleased 0 0 413 1,158 169

Leased 0 0 106 474 39

Private or state

surface/federal minerals 0 166 1,871 3,901 14,196

Unleased 0 166 1,871 3,481 9,736

Leased 0 0 0 420 4,460

Total (All Potentials) 0 9,780 21,235 38,504 25,130

Total unleased 0 1,373 5,799 10,898 13,734

Total leased 0 8,407 15,436 27,606 11,396

BLM surface/federal 

minerals 0 6,444 11,742 20,882 3,238

Unleased 0 296 1,314 3,165 1,177

Leased 0 6,148 10,428 17,717 2,061

Private or state 

surface/federal 

minerals

0 3,336 9,493 17,622 21,892

Unleased 0 1,077 4,485 7,733 12,557

Leased 0 2,259 5,008 9,889 9,335 1

Total acreage for stipulations is greater than the total acreage within the decision area because stipulations could overlap. Acreages do not include 118,858

acres of federal mineral estate within the decision area that do not contain GRSG habitat.

Source: BLM 2012a
4. Environmental Consequences (Fluid Minerals)

4-82 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Impacts from Fluid Minerals (Including Mineral Split Estate)

Under Alternative B, all federal oil and gas estate within PH (61,197 acres or 83 

percent of the decision area) would be closed to fluid mineral leasing, which 

would increase impacts on fluid minerals in comparison with Alternative A. 

These closures would include 18,830 acres of unleased federal oil and gas estate, 

of which 7,056 acres (37 percent) have high potential. Impacts of these closures 

would be the same type as those described under Nature and Type of Effects. 

Existing leases would remain valid through their term but could not be renewed.

The 5,096 acres of federal oil and gas within GH (seven percent of the decision 

area) would be subject to the same stipulations as those under Alternative A 

(detailed in Table 4-18, Oil and Gas Leasing Categories in General Habitat, 

Alternative B, below); however, new leases in GH would be subject to RDFs, 

which would increase impacts on fluid minerals in comparison with Alternative 

A. The RDFs would require operators to limit their surface disturbance and 

noise levels, discourage raptor perching, reclaim disturbed areas to set 

standards, and take other measures to protect GRSG. Impacts of requiring 

these RDFs would be the same type as described under Nature and Type of 

Effects.

Under Alternative B, it is projected that 26 new exploratory and development 

wells would be drilled on federal oil and gas estate over 20 years. Of these new 

wells, 21 are expected to be producing oil and gas wells through 2029 (see 

Table 4-1). This represents a 57 percent decrease in projected producing wells 

on federal oil and gas estate compared with Alternative A (BLM 2013).

Conservation measures in addition to RDFs would be applied as COAs to 135 

existing leases on 42,367 acres (70 percent) of PH overlying federal oil and gas 

estate. These actions would increase impacts on fluid minerals in comparison 

with Alternative A. In addition to limitations on surface disturbance and timing 

of exploratory drilling, the COAs would require unitization when necessary to 

minimize harm to GRSG and would call for completion of Master Development 

plans instead of processing individual APDs. Cost impacts of these required 

actions would be the same type as those described under Nature and Type of 

Effects. The BLM would not apply COAs that would eliminate reasonable 

opportunities to develop the lease.

Geophysical exploration would be allowed on the 61,197 acres of federal oil and 

gas estate within PH but would be subject to TLs and other restrictions. Impacts 

of these restrictions on geophysical exploration would be the same type as 

those described under Nature and Type of Effects.

Overall, as a result of increased restrictions and limitations as compared to 

Alternative A, Alternative B would result in an increase in the magnitude and 

duration of effects on fluid minerals development over time.
4. Environmental Consequences (Fluid Minerals)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-83

Table 4-18

Oil and Gas Leasing Categories in General Habitat, Alternative B

Oil and Gas Potential Closed to 

Leasing

Open Subject to 

NSO

Stipulations

Open Subject to 

CSU Stipulations

Open Subject to 

TL Stipulations

Open Subject to 

Standard Terms 

and Conditions

High Potential 0 0 0 0 441

Total unleased 0 0 0 0 16

Total leased 0 0 0 0 425

BLM surface/federal minerals 0 0 0 0 0

Unleased 0 0 0 0 0

Leased 0 0 0 0 0

Private or state surface/federal 

minerals 0 0 0 0 441

Unleased 0 0 0 0 16

Leased 0 0 0 0 425

Moderate Potential 0 2 3 3 322

Total unleased 0 2 3 3 4

Total leased 0 0 0 0 318

BLM surface/federal minerals 0 0 0 0 0

Unleased 0 0 0 0 0

Leased 0 0 0 0 0

Private or state surface/federal 

minerals 0 2 3 3 322

Unleased 0 2 3 3 4

Leased 0 0 0 0 318

Low/No Known Potential 0 0 0 0 4,324

Total unleased 0 0 0 0 3,648

Total leased 0 0 0 0 676

BLM surface/federal minerals 0 0 0 0 78

Unleased 0 0 0 0 40

Leased 0 0 0 0 38
4. Environmental Consequences (Fluid Minerals)

4-84 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 4-18

Oil and Gas Leasing Categories in General Habitat, Alternative B

Oil and Gas Potential Closed to 

Leasing

Open Subject to 

NSO

Stipulations

Open Subject to 

CSU Stipulations

Open Subject to 

TL Stipulations

Open Subject to 

Standard Terms 

and Conditions

Private or state surface/federal 

minerals 0 0 0 0 4,246

Unleased 0 0 0 0 3,608

Leased 0 0 0 0 638

Total (All Potentials) 0 2 3 3 5,087

Total unleased 0 2 3 3 3,668

Total leased 0 0 0 0 1,419

BLM surface/federal 

minerals 0 0 0 0 78

Unleased 0 0 0 0 40

Leased 0 0 0 0 38

Private or state

surface/federal minerals 0 2 3 3 5,009

Unleased 0 2 3 3 3,628

Leased 0 0 0 0 1,381

Source: BLM 2012a
4. Environmental Consequences (Fluid Minerals)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-85

4.6.6 Alternative C

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative C, all PH and GH (32,980 acres, or approximately 100 

percent of BLM-administered surface in the decision area) would be managed as 

ROW exclusion areas. However, because all PH and GH would be closed to 

fluid mineral leasing under Alternative C, managing areas as ROW exclusion in 

PH and GH would have no impact on fluid minerals.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals (Including Mineral Split Estate)

Under Alternative C, all federal oil and gas estate in PH and GH (66,293 acres, 

or 90 percent of the decision area) would be closed to fluid mineral leasing, 

which would increase impacts on fluid minerals in comparison with Alternative 

A. Approximately 22,501 acres (86 percent) of unleased federal oil and gas 

estate in the decision area would be closed, of which 7,056 acres (PH) and 16 

acres (GH) have high potential. Closure of these 7,072 high potential acres 

would close approximately 100 percent of the unleased acres with high oil and 

gas potential in the decision area. Impacts would be the same type as those 

described under Nature and Type of Effects. 

Under Alternative C, it is projected that 25 new exploratory and development 

wells would be drilled on federal oil and gas estate over 20 years. Of these new 

wells, 21 are expected to be producing oil and gas wells through 2029 (see 

Table 4-1). This represents a 57 percent decrease in projected producing wells 

on federal oil and gas estate compared with Alternative A (BLM 2013).

Management actions applicable to existing leases under Alternative C would be 

similar to those under Alternative B, but they would apply to 16 existing leases 

on 1,425 acres of federal oil and gas estate within GH in addition to 135 leases 

on 42,367 acres of federal oil and gas estate within PH. In addition to applying 

the restrictive management under Alternative B to more acres, Alternative C 

would call for COAs implementing seasonal restrictions on vehicle traffic and 

human presence associated with exploratory drilling. This alternative also would 

limit new surface disturbance on existing leases to three percent per section, 

with some exceptions. Impacts of these operating and siting restrictions would 

be the same type as those described under Nature and Type of Effects.

Overall, as a result of increased restrictions and limitations as compared to 

Alternative A, Alternative C would result in an increase in the magnitude and 

duration of effects on fluid minerals development over time.

4.6.7 Alternative D

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative D, all BLM-administered surface in PH (32,900 acres, or 

approximately 100 percent of BLM-administered surface in the decision area) 

would be managed as ROW avoidance areas. However, because all fluid mineral
4. Environmental Consequences (Fluid Minerals)

4-86 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

development in PH would be subject to NSO stipulations under Alternative D, 

managing ROW avoidance areas in PH would have no impact on fluid minerals. 

All GH would be open to ROW location under Alternative D (except wind 

energy). However, identification of conservation measures to minimize surface 

disturbance and disrupting activities could increase the expense of developing 

facilities for oil and gas operations by limiting routing options and requiring the 

use of more expensive technology. 

Impacts from Fluid Minerals (Including Mineral Split Estate)

Under Alternative D, all federal oil and gas estate in PH (61,197 acres or 83 

percent of the decision area) would be open to fluid mineral leasing subject to 

NSO stipulations. The 18,830 acres of unleased federal oil and gas estate in PH 

(72 percent of unleased acres in the decision area) would be subject to these 

stipulations. Of these unleased acres that would be subject to NSO stipulations, 

7,056 acres have high potential. These acres make up approximately 100 

percent of all the unleased high potential federal oil and gas estate in the 

decision area.

All GH (5,096 acres of federal oil and gas estate, or seven percent of the 

decision area) would be subject to CSU stipulations under Alternative D. 

Impacts of these stipulations would be the same type as those described under 

Nature and Type of Effects.

Under Alternative D, it is projected that 51 new exploratory and development 

wells would be drilled on federal oil and gas estate in the short term. Of these 

new wells, 42 are expected to be producing oil and gas wells in the long term

(see Table 4-1). This represents a 14 percent decrease in projected producing 

wells on federal oil and gas estate compared with Alternative A (BLM 2013).

For existing leases, the BLM would apply the same RDFs to the same acreage as 

under Alternative B. However, the conservation measures applied would differ. 

No quantitative percentage limit, surface occupancy buffers, or TL would apply 

to surface disturbance; rather, surface disturbance would prevent or minimize 

disturbance to GRSG and their habitat. Unitization would occur on a case-bycase basis.

In addition to RDFs and limitations on disturbance, noise limitations and 

structure height restrictions would apply under Alternative D. Cost impacts of 

these operating and siting constraints would be the same type as those 

described under Nature and Type of Effects.

Management of geophysical exploration under Alternative D would be the same 

as that under Alternative B.
4. Environmental Consequences (Fluid Minerals)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-87

Overall, as a result of increased restrictions and limitations as compared to 

Alternative A, Alternative D would result in an increase in the magnitude and 

duration of effects on fluid minerals development over time.

4.7 COAL

As discussed in Section 3.8, Coal, there has been no coal development within 

the planning area. While the Bowman-Gascoyne Known Recoverable Coal 

Resource Area intersects PH and GH, no development of this field is anticipated 

within the life of the North Dakota RMP. The Known Recoverable Coal 

Resource Area has low development potential, and no interest has been 

expressed in developing the area. Lignite mining is occurring in other parts of 

North Dakota, so demand is being satisfied from mining in these other areas. In 

addition, the 2010 Analysis of the Management Situation for North Dakota 

analyzed coal development potential in the state when designating new Coal 

Study Areas. Only areas with sufficient economic coal resources to make them 

likely to be developed within the next 15 to 20 years were designated as Coal 

Study Areas. The Known Recoverable Coal Resource Area within the planning 

area was not designated as a Coal Study Area because it was determined not to 

have sufficient economic coal resources (BLM 2010a). Because no coal 

development is foreseeable in the planning area, coal resources in the planning 

area are not expected to be impacted by management actions proposed in this 

RMPA. However, potential future development would be precluded in PH 

(87,443 acres) in Alternatives B and D, and in PH and GH (166,207 acres) in 

Alternative C.

4.8 LOCATABLE MINERALS

As discussed in Section 3.9, Locatable Minerals, no locatable mineral 

development is anticipated within GRSG habitat over the next 20 years. 

Although uranium deposits exist within GH in Bowman County, these deposits 

have low development potential and are not expected to be developed during 

the next 20 years. As a result, locatable minerals in the planning area are not 

expected to be impacted by management actions proposed in this RMPA.

However, potential future development would be precluded in PH (46,397 

acres) in Alternative B, and PH and GH (49,970 acres) in Alternative C.

4.9 MINERAL MATERIALS

4.9.1 Methods and Assumptions

Analysis of impacts on mineral materials from this RMPA focuses on the impacts 

of conservation measures to protect GRSG. These impacts may be direct or 

indirect. For example, a direct impact on mineral materials would result from 

closure of an area to mineral material sales disposal. An indirect impact would 

result from removal of a road, which would change the economic feasibility of 

developing a site. Additional actions or conditions that might cause direct or 

indirect impacts on mineral materials are described under Indicators, below.
4. Environmental Consequences (Mineral Materials)

4-88 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Indicators

Table 4-19, Comparison of Mineral Materials Indicators by Alternative, 

provides a summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the effects on 

mineral materials under each alternative.

Table 4-19

Comparison of Mineral Materials Indicators by Alternative

Indicator Alternative

A B C D

The amount of land closed to 

mineral material disposal (acres) 0 46,397 49,970 46,397

The amount of land managed as 

ROW avoidance areas (acres) 0 80 0 32,900

The amount of land managed as 

ROW exclusion areas (acres) 0 32,900 32,980 32,9001

Restrictions on mineral material

pits no longer in use No change Increase Increase Increase

1 PH would be exclusion areas for new ROW wind energy developments.

Where information is available, consideration is given to the potential for 

mineral materials on lands closed to mineral material disposal. For example, an 

indicator of an impact on mineral materials is if there were substantial closures 

to mineral material disposal in high potential areas.

In areas that are open to mineral material disposal, factors that affect mineral 

material development include permitting, regulatory policy, public perception 

and concerns, travel management, transportation, proximity to sensitive areas, 

low commodity prices, taxes, and housing and other necessities for workers.

The amount of area that would fall under restrictions outlined in Chapter 2, 

and the impact of those restrictions on mineral material development, are 

considered below in the analysis of each alternative.

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

• While mineral material potential exists within PH, there is no 

development on federal mineral material estate in this area.

• Management actions also apply to mineral material development on 

lands overlying federal mineral estate, which includes federal mineral 

estate underlying BLM-administered lands and non-BLM 

administered lands. There are 56,681 acres of federal mineral 

material estate within the planning area (30,408 acres of BLM-
4. Environmental Consequences (Mineral Materials)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-89

administered surface with federal minerals and 26,273 acres of split

estate).

4.9.2 Nature and Type of Effects

The predominant mining method for mineral materials is surface mining; 

therefore, any restrictions on surface-disturbing activities effectively close the 

subject areas to mineral material mining. Demand for mineral materials is 

generated primarily from road maintenance needs. Closure of areas to mineral 

material sales would result in pits relocating nearby.

Requiring reclamation of mineral material pits no longer in use could increase 

costs on developers if the BLM requires them to pay for the reclamation.

Managing areas as ROW avoidance or exclusion could result in impacts on 

mineral materials because construction of new roads in these areas would likely 

decrease. As a result, demand for mineral materials needed for construction and 

maintenance would also decrease.

Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or 

no impact on mineral materials and are therefore not discussed in detail: travel 

and transportation management, recreation, range management, fluid minerals, 

fire and fuels management, habitat restoration/vegetation management, and 

ACECs.

4.9.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts which are common to all alternatives.

4.9.4 Alternative A

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative A, all BLM-administered surface within the decision area 

would continue to be open to ROW authorization, allowing the most flexibility 

for development. The effects would be the same as described above in Nature 

and Type of Effects.

Impacts from Mineral Materials

All federal mineral estate in the decision area would remain open to mineral 

material disposal under Alternative A, allowing the greatest development 

potential. Effects would be similar to those described in the Nature and Type of 

Effects above.

4.9.5 Alternative B

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Approximately 32,900 acres in PH (100 percent of BLM-administered surface in 

the decision area) would be managed as an ROW exclusion area under 

Alternative B. However, because all PH would also be closed to mineral 
4. Environmental Consequences (Mineral Materials)

4-90 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

material disposal under this alternative, the ROW exclusion area would not 

impact the mineral materials program.

Under Alternative B, approximately 80 acres in GH (less than one percent of 

the decision area) would be managed as an ROW avoidance area. Impacts of 

this management would be the same type as those described under Nature and 

Type of Effects, but with a slight increase in areas affected over Alternative A.

Impacts from Mineral Materials

Under Alternative B, all of the federal mineral material estate in PH (totaling 

46,397 acres, or 82 percent of the locatable federal mineral estate in the 

decision area) would be closed to mineral material disposal. The types of 

impacts from these closures would be the same as those discussed under Nature 

and Type of Effects, and represents an increase in the area affected as compared 

to Alternative A. 

In PH, mineral material pits no longer in use would be restored to meet GRSG

habitat conservation objectives. The types of impacts from restoring pits no 

longer in use would be the same as those described under Nature and Type of 

Effects. 

Overall, as a result of increased restrictions as compared to Alternative A, 

Alternative B would result in an increase in the area of effects on mineral

materials development over time.

4.9.6 Alternative C

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Approximately 32,980 acres in PH and GH (100 percent of BLM-administered 

surface in the decision area) would be managed as ROW exclusion areas under 

Alternative C. However, because all PH and GH would be closed to mineral 

materials disposal under this alternative, the ROW exclusion areas would not 

impact the mineral materials program.

Impacts from Mineral Materials

Under Alternative C, approximately 49,970 acres of federal mineral material

estate in PH and GH (88 percent of federal mineral estate in the decision area) 

would be closed to mineral materials disposal. This would include (46,397 acres 

of PH and 3,573 acres of GH), the most acres of any alternative. The types of 

impacts from these closures would be the same as those discussed under Nature 

and Type of Effects, and occur over a large area.

Similar to Alternative B, mineral material pits no longer in use would be 

restored to meet GRSG habitat conservation objectives; however under this 

alternative, this measure would apply to both PH and GH, thereby increasing 

the area of impact. The types of impacts from restoring pits no longer in use are 
4. Environmental Consequences (Mineral Materials)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-91

the same as those described under Nature and Type of Effects, but occur over a 

much larger area than under Alternative A.

Overall, as a result of increased restrictions as compared to Alternative A, 

Alternative C would result in an increase in the area of effects on mineral

materials development over time.

4.9.7 Alternative D

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative D, 32,900 acres in PH (100 percent of BLM-administered 

surface in the decision area) would be managed as an ROW avoidance area. 

However, because all PH would be closed to mineral materials disposal, the 

ROW avoidance area would have no impact on the mineral materials program.

Impacts from Mineral Materials

Management and impacts under Alternative D would be the same as those 

under Alternative B.

Overall, as a result of increased restrictions as compared to Alternative A, 

Alternative D would result in an increase in the area of effects on mineral

materials development over time.

4.10 COMPREHENSIVE TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT

Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management typically supports and 

creates impacts on other resources and uses. Impacts on travel and 

transportation from other resource areas include management prescriptions 

that alter the existing transportation system, for instance, through the physical 

removal of routes (i.e. reclaiming and revegetating the ROW) or by way of 

limiting or closing routes to certain modes of travel (such as designating routes 

as closed to motorized travel).

In the RMPA/EIS planning area, motorized travel, including OHV travel, is limited 

to existing routes. Since motorized travel can impact GRSG populations and 

habitat, management prescriptions associated with the proposed action 

alternatives (Alternatives B, C, and D) would result in the closure of routes to 

motorized travel and in some cases reclaiming of road surfaces.

4.10.1 Methods and Assumptions

Indicators

Table 4-20, Comparison of Comprehensive Travel and Transportation 

Management Indicators by Alternative, provides a summary of the indicators 

that were used to analyze the effects on Comprehensive Travel and 

Transportation Management under each alternative.
4. Environmental Consequences (Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management)

4-92 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 4-20

Comparison of Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management

Indicators by Alternative

Indicator Alternative

A B C D

Acres where new road 

development would not be 

allowed

0 0, with 

mitigation 32,342 0, with mitigation

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

• The demand to increase and maintain travel routes on BLMadministered lands would continue to increase over 20 years, 

especially near communities and in areas of high-density oil and gas 

development.

• The BLM is not responsible for the maintenance of federal, state, or 

county roads on BLM-administered lands.

• The travel designations would not affect ROW holders, permitted 

uses, county or state roads, or other valid existing rights. Travel 

closures/limitations apply primarily to public access.

• The incidence of resource damage would increase with the 

increasing use of BLM-administered lands.

• Administrative use authorizations are granted on a case-by-case 

basis with approval from the BLM.

• Implementation of a travel management plan during a future sitespecific travel planning process would include increased public 

education, signing, enforcement, and resource monitoring in regard 

to travel management.

4.10.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Impacts on Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management are those 

that restrict travel (e.g., managing areas as closed or limited to motorized travel

and seasonal travel limitations). Current BLM management limits motorized 

travel to existing roads and trails. New travel and transportation management 

actions in response to GRSG habitat protection strategies could impact the

number of acres where motorized travel is allowed on existing roads and trails.

Seasonal travel restrictions to prevent disruption of GRSG breeding and brood 

rearing activities would allow motorized and mechanized travel in defined areas 

only at specific times of the year. Full closure of certain areas would direct 

travelers elsewhere in the transportation network, potentially resulting in 

impacts on those areas from the added activity. Additionally, management 

actions that restrict future route construction would limit the ability of the 
4. Environmental Consequences (Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-93

travel network to accommodate increased travel demands over time. Conflicts 

among route users could increase if the existing network becomes congested.

Management for all other resources and uses would have negligible or no impact 

on Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management and are therefore 

not discussed in detail.

4.10.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, travel would be limited to existing roads and trails with 

no areas designated as entirely open to motorized cross-country travel, and no 

routes or areas specifically closed to motorized or mechanized travel. Under 

Alternatives B, C, and D, the BLM would complete activity-level travel 

management plans within five years, while Alternative A, does not contain a 

specified timeframe.

Table 4-21, Areas Open/Closed to New Road Construction by Alternative, 

provides a comparison of areas open and closed to new road construction by 

alternative. Closed areas are based on the total area covered by 4-mile buffers 

placed around active lek sites. 

Table 4-21

Areas Open/Closed to New Road Construction by Alternative

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Area open to new 

construction (acres) 32,980 32,980 638 32,980

Area closed to new 

construction (acres) 0 0 32,342 0

4.10.4 Alternative A

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative A, existing travel opportunities would be maintained. The 

BLM would continue to manage for a total of 114 miles of roads and trails 

throughout the decision area. Motorized wheeled travel would continue to be 

limited yearlong to existing roads and trails and no areas would be entirely open 

to cross-country motorized wheeled travel or entirely closed. While the BLM 

would develop a transportation management plan, it would not be required to 

do so within a specified timeframe, continuing existing impacts, as described 

above in the Nature and Types of Effects, into the foreseeable future.

4.10.5 Alternative B

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

BLM management prescriptions under Alternative B to protect GRSG habitat 

would result in the potential for more access limitations when compared to 
4. Environmental Consequences (Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management)

4-94 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Alternative A. The BLM would develop a travel and transportation management 

plan within five years of the RMP ROD. Also under Alternative B, the BLM 

would only allow new roads where access to valid existing rights is necessary 

and does not currently exist, therefore restricting new roads and/or ROWs and 

access through PH. This would extend effects as described above in Nature and 

Type of Effects across more of the decision area than under Alternative A.

During travel and transportation management planning, should the BLM 

determine there is a need to close certain routes, those closures would impact 

the existing travel and transportation network, including the types of travel 

allowed on routes, as described above in Nature and Type of Effects. 

4.10.6 Alternative C

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

BLM management prescriptions under Alternative C to protect GRSG habitat 

would result in the potential for more impacts on travel and transportation 

management when compared to Alternative A.

BLM management actions under Alternative C for GRSG habitat protection and 

subsequent impacts on travel and transportation management would be the 

same as those described under Alternative B, with the exception that no new 

road construction would be allowed within four miles of active GRSG leks. The 

4-mile lek buffers cover 32,342 acres (98 percent of the decision area). As a 

result, new road construction would be limited to 638 acres in the decision 

area. This prohibition on new road construction would preclude the 

construction of new roads where they might otherwise be needed to improve 

access or the functionality of the network. 

4.10.7 Alternative D

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

BLM management prescriptions under Alternative D to protect GRSG habitat 

would result in the potential for more impacts on travel and transportation 

management when compared to Alternative A and would be similar to those 

described under Alternative B.

4.11 RECREATION

4.11.1 Methods and Assumptions

Impacts on recreation can be direct or indirect. Management actions that alter 

or prohibit users’ opportunities to access recreation areas or participate in 

recreation activities would result in a direct impact. Indirect impacts are those 

that change the physical, social, or administrative setting within which recreation 

activities take place.
4. Environmental Consequences (Recreation)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-95

Indicators

Table 4-22, Comparison of Recreation Indicators by Alternative, provides a 

summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the effects on recreation 

under each alternative.

Table 4-22

Comparison of Recreation Indicators by Alternative

Indicator Alternative

A B C D

Change in recreation 

activities and participation 

rates in the planning and PH

areas

No change

Opportunity for 

increase due to 

restrictions on 

surface 

disturbance

Greatest 

opportunity for 

increase due to 

restrictions on 

surface 

disturbance

Opportunity for 

increase due to 

restrictions on 

surface 

disturbance

Change in the number and 

type of SRPs issued on an 

annual basis within the 

planning area and PH

No change

Potential limit 

on the number 

and type of new 

SRPs in PH

Potential limit on 

the number and 

type of new SRPs 

in PH

Potential limit on 

the number and 

type of new SRPs

in PH

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

• Traditional recreational uses in the planning area, such as hunting 

and fishing, would continue as people seek outdoor family-oriented 

activities; an active retired population spends its disposable time and 

income on recreation; and as other areas of the country become 

more urbanized.

• Recreation would continue to be an important component of the 

local economy.

• Substantial increases in recreation could negatively impact GRSG

habitat.

• The potential for resource impacts and conflicts between all types 

of users would increase with increasing use.

• There would continue to be no or little demand for SRPs.

• The BLM would issue SRPs on a discretionary basis.

4.11.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Impacts on recreation are frequently the result of management actions related 

to other resources and resource uses (for example, special status species 

habitat protection) and stipulations placed on resource uses. New management 

actions to preserve GRSG habitat would affect a variety of resources and uses, 

which would in turn affect recreation. 
4. Environmental Consequences (Recreation)

4-96 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

BLM management of areas as unsuitable for public utilities (i.e., ROW exclusion 

areas) protects recreation opportunities. Depending on the location, 

development in utility corridors impacts recreation opportunities during 

construction and operation. Managing areas as ROW avoidance can limit 

development that would be incompatible with recreation in these areas. 

On lands open to fluid mineral leasing, oil and gas facilities, equipment, noise, 

dust, vehicles, night lighting, pipelines, and human activity affect the recreation 

setting during construction and operation. Fluid mineral development that 

requires surface occupancy generally impacts recreation management objectives, 

opportunities, and activities. Even with CSU stipulations, oil and gas 

development can impact recreation opportunities if the development conflicts 

with existing recreation activities. However, applying NSO stipulations 

preserves the natural character of landscapes and protects GRSG habitat. 

Stipulations maintain current recreation settings and preserve recreation 

opportunities in those areas in the long term. 

Minerals development and disposal result in short- and long-term impacts during 

construction and operations by displacing recreation opportunities. Closure of 

certain areas to mineral development decreases the likelihood for conflict with 

recreation users and maintains desired recreation settings.

Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management affects recreation 

opportunities and the overall recreation experience by managing for access to 

areas where recreation activities take place. Closure of routes to motorized 

travel can decrease access to recreation uses, while at the same time reducing 

conflicts between motorized and non-motorized recreation activities. Travel 

and transportation management policies that close routes to OHV use directly 

affect recreation opportunities in the closed area and can increase OHV impacts 

outside the closure boundary. Additionally, management actions that restrict 

future route construction limit the ability of the travel network to 

accommodate increased travel demands, such as increased OHV use, over time. 

Conflicts among route users could increase if the existing network becomes 

congested; however, limitations on new road construction and route upgrading 

would maintain dispersed recreational experiences associated with activities 

such as hunting, especially in areas where few to no routes exist. 

Where lands are open to livestock grazing, impacts on recreation can result. 

The intensity of the impact varies based on recreation activity and visitor 

expectation. Range improvements help to reduce conflicts by keeping grazing 

animals away from recreation areas. Structural range improvements may also 

hinder cross-country movement by hunters, bird watchers, hikers, and other 

recreationalists.

Development of renewable energy projects, such as wind farms and associated 

transmission infrastructure, could result in the loss of recreation opportunities. 
4. Environmental Consequences (Recreation)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-97

Management of certain areas as ROW avoidance areas would minimize impacts 

from renewable energy projects. 

Impacts on recreation from ACECs would vary depending on the relevant and 

important values for which the ACEC was established to protect. Often times, 

BLM management for ACECs include restrictions on surface-disturbing activities 

within the ACEC boundary, which could directly or indirectly affect recreation 

opportunities within an ACEC. At the same time, management prescriptions for 

ACECs can help maintain the existing physical setting by preserving natural 

landscapes.

Implementing management for certain resources would have negligible or no 

impact on recreation and will therefore not be discussed in detail. Resources 

not likely to have an effect on recreation include: fire and fuels management and 

habitat restoration/vegetation management. In addition, although there is one 

existing gravel mine in Bowman County, no mineral materials mining operations

currently exist on BLM-administered land in the planning area. Nor is there any

foreseeable coal or locatable mineral potential in the decision area. Therefore 

management decisions for these resources would not affect recreation 

opportunities in the planning area and are not included in the following analysis.

4.11.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under all alternatives, impacts on recreation opportunities from existing ROWs

would continue. The restoration of discontinued or abandoned ROWs pursuant 

to FLPMA guidelines would reduce the potential for long-term impacts. 

Particularly in situations where the ROW includes a linear obstruction such as a 

wall or fence, removal of the feature could improve recreation user 

experiences. Removal of roads, however, could negatively impact recreation 

opportunities if the routes are used for recreational activities, such as OHV use 

or for access to hunting areas.

4.11.4 Alternative A

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative A, existing travel opportunities would be maintained. The 

BLM would continue to manage for a total of 114 miles of roads and trails 

throughout the decision area. Motorized and non-motorized road and trail 

based recreation opportunities, and the overall recreation experience would be 

maintained into the foreseeable future.

Impacts from Recreation

Under Alternative A, the BLM would continue to manage for dispersed 

recreation activities, particularly big game hunting. Existing impacts on 

recreation from other resources and uses would be as described above in 
4. Environmental Consequences (Recreation)

4-98 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Nature and Type of Effects, and continue with little or no change over existing 

conditions.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative A, 371 total acres of existing ROW authorizations would 

continue to impact recreation opportunities. No lands within the planning area 

would be designated as ROW avoidance or exclusion areas; therefore, there 

would be potential impacts on recreation during construction and operation of 

facilities throughout the planning area as described in Nature and Type of Effects. 

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative A, 32,945 acres of suitable grazing lands would continue to 

be open with a long-term allocation of 5,781 AUMs. Impacts on recreation users 

from conflicts with grazing animals and infrastructure would be consistent with 

the Nature and Types of Effects described above, especially where cattle grazing 

areas overlap prime big-game hunting areas. Impacts of grazing to new SRPs

would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis through the SRP issuance process.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Conventional oil and gas development under Alternative A would continue at 

high production rates, particularly in Bowman County where there are 577 

production wells. However, oil and gas development peaked in 2008 and is 

consistently declining (North Dakota Industrial Commission 2012a), therefore 

limiting the expected amount of new oil and gas development. Under 

Alternative A, oil and gas production would continue to impact recreational 

opportunities throughout the planning area as described in Nature and Types of 

Effects above, but would likely decline as the trend for new oil and gas 

developments continues to decline. Impacts on recreation users would include 

activities and disturbance related to exploration, development, and operations.

Impacts from ACECs

There would be no designated ACECs in the planning area under Alternative A; 

therefore, there would be no impacts from ACEC management actions on 

recreation activities.

4.11.5 Alternative B

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative B, the BLM would allow motorized travel on existing roads 

and trails while at the same time evaluate the need for permanent or seasonal 

road closures. Should the BLM determine there is a need to close certain routes 

those closures could impact recreation opportunities. Areas where routes 

would be closed could include areas where recreation activities take place. 

Additional impacts would be consistent with the Nature and Types of Effects.

Dispersed recreation activities, which primarily include big game hunting, would 

be less susceptible to impacts from route designations. However, permanent or 
4. Environmental Consequences (Recreation)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-99

seasonal closure of travel routes and limitations on new road development 

could impact recreation by limiting motorized travel on routes used for access 

to hunting, fishing, and other popular recreation activities.

Under Alternative B, the BLM would only allow new roads where access to 

valid existing rights is necessary and does not currently exist. While new roads 

could improve certain recreation experiences such as OHV operation, actions 

proposed under Alternative B would reduce the potential for new conflicts 

between motorized travel and existing recreation uses that do not require 

motorized vehicle operation as compared to Alternative A.

Impacts from Recreation

Under Alternative B, the BLM would only issue SRPs that have a neutral or 

beneficial effect on PH, which could limit future opportunities for SRPs in PH as 

compared to Alternative A. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative B, PH would be designated as exclusion areas for new ROW

authorizations and GH would be designated ROW avoidance areas. 

Additionally, under Alternative B, the BLM would take advantage of 

opportunities to remove, bury, or modify existing power lines within PH. A 

long-term reduction in the amount of acres dedicated to ROWs and aboveground linear features, such as transmission lines and pipelines, would improve 

recreation opportunities. Dispersed recreation activities, which primarily include 

big game hunting, would be less susceptible to impacts from ROW

development. However, permanent or seasonal closure of travel routes and 

limitations on new ROW development could impact recreation by limiting 

motorized travel on routes used for hunting, fishing, and other popular 

recreation activities.

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative B, the BLM would conduct land health assessments in PH to 

assess whether GRSG habitat objectives are being met. Based on these 

assessments, in cases where GRSG objectives are not being met, the BLM would 

evaluate and implement grazing decisions, conservation plans, or other 

agreements to meet those objectives. Management actions related to grazing 

systems could reduce the timing, distribution, type, intensity, and/or number of 

livestock allowed in PH. A reduction in total livestock number or seasonal 

grazing restrictions would reduce range management conflicts with recreation 

users, particularly big game hunters. Impacts on recreation users would be 

consistent with the Nature and Types of Effects, especially where cattle grazing 

areas overlap prime big-game hunting areas. Dispersed recreation activities, 

which primarily include big game hunting, would be less susceptible to impacts

from grazing actions.
4. Environmental Consequences (Recreation)

4-100 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

The closure of PH to fluid mineral development under Alternative B would 

eliminate the potential for new oil and gas development conflicting with 

recreation users. The benefits of reduced surface disturbance and no new 

construction activity associated with oil and gas development would be 

consistent with the Nature and Types of Effects. Restriction of geophysical 

exploration to helicopter-portable drilling methods could impact certain 

recreation activities, such as hunting, if helicopter operations are in proximity to 

key big game or bird hunting areas. Dispersed recreation activities, which 

primarily include big game hunting, would be less susceptible to impacts from 

mineral development.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as Alternative A.

4.11.6 Alternative C

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

The types of impacts on recreation under Alternative C would the same as 

those described above under Alternative B, with the exception that the BLM 

would use a 4-mile buffer around leks to determine where limitations on new 

road construction would be necessary to minimize disturbance to GRSG

habitat. In total, the 4-mile buffers account for 98 percent (32,342 acres) of the 

decision area in PH, including all BLM-administered land in the Big Gumbo 

Management Area. Prohibition of new road construction would limit motorized 

recreational use to the existing network of roads and trails. There would be no 

opportunity to accommodate any increase in recreational use or mitigate user 

conflicts by adding additional routes.

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts from recreation would be similar as Alternative B. Management actions 

would apply to both PH and GH, impacting a larger area resulting in a wider

area where certain type of SRPs and the recreational opportunities they afford 

would be limited.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative C, PH and GH areas would be designated as ROW exclusion 

areas for new ROW authorizations. Any new development would be allowed 

only if it could be contained within an existing ROW. The type of impacts on 

recreation opportunities would be similar as under Alternative B; however, the

impacts would be experienced over a larger area.

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative C, BLM range management would reduce the number of 

grazing allotments in the Big Gumbo Management Area by 50 percent to 2,041 

AUMs. In the long-term, the BLM would allocate up to 3,739 AUMs. A 
4. Environmental Consequences (Recreation)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-101

reduction in the allotted number of livestock would reduce the potential for 

livestock conflicts with big-game hunters and other recreation users.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Impacts under Alternative C from fluid minerals would be similar as Alternative 

B, with exception that GH would also be closed to fluid mineral leasing, 

resulting in improved opportunities for quiet and dispersed recreation over a 

greater area.

Impacts from ACECs

Under Alternative C, the BLM would designate PH (32,900 acres) of GRSG

habitat as a new ACEC. Management for the ACEC would be tailored to 

protect the relevant and important values (i.e. GRSG habitat) for which the 

ACEC would be designated. Designation of the ACEC could affect recreation 

opportunities by limiting new surface disturbing activities within the ACEC 

boundaries. Motorized access for hunting and other recreation activities could 

be impacted by the designation. The ACEC designation could limit the issuance 

of new SRPs if the requested activity is proposed within the ACEC boundary.

4.11.7 Alternative D

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Impacts on recreation under Alternative D would be similar as those described 

above under Alternative B.

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts from recreation management would be similar as Alternative B.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative D, PH would be managed as ROW avoidance areas for new 

ROW authorizations and exclusion areas for new wind energy projects. ROWs 

would continue to be allowed in GH areas with the exception of wind energy 

ROWs. GH would be designated as wind energy ROW avoidance areas. Any 

new development would be allowed only if it could be contained within an 

existing ROW. Consistent with the Nature and Types of Effects, managing areas 

as ROW avoidance could limit development that would be incompatible with 

recreation in these areas.

Impacts from Range Management

Impacts on recreation from BLM range management actions proposed under 

Alternative D would be the same as those described above under Alternative B.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative D, PH areas would be open to oil and gas development; 

however, surface occupancy would be prohibited. Within three miles of active 

leks, BLM management would prohibit geophysical exploration and development 

during mating season (March 1 through June 15). The BLM would prohibit all 
4. Environmental Consequences (Recreation)

4-102 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

exploration and development within 0.6 miles of a lek. Reduced surface oil and 

gas development would minimize potential impacts on recreation by reducing 

disturbance related to these activities, as described in Nature and Types of Effects

compared to Alternative A.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as Alternative A.

4.12 RANGE MANAGEMENT

4.12.1 Methods and Assumptions

Indicators

Table 4-23, Comparison of Range Management Indicators by Alternative, 

provides a summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the effects on 

range management under each alternative.

Table 4-23

Comparison of Range Management Indicators by Alternative

Indicator Alternative

A B C D

Permitted AUMs in PH and GH 5,772 5,772 3,731 5,772

Prohibitions to the ability to construct or 

maintain range improvements and conduct 

treatments (infrastructure and vegetation)

No change Increase Increase Increase

Acres closed to livestock grazing in PH and 

GH 0 0 0 0

Acres open to livestock grazing in PH and 

GH 32,900 32,900 32,900 32,900

Changes to timing, duration or frequency of 

permitted use No change Potential increase

Potential 

increase

Potential 

increase

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

• All new and existing leases and permits would be subject to terms 

and conditions determined by the BLM Authorized Officer to 

achieve the management and resource condition objectives for 

BLM-administered lands and to meet land health standards.

• Range improvements (e.g., fences, pipeline, water wells, troughs, and 

reservoirs) could result in a localized loss of vegetation cover 

throughout the improvements’ useful life. Vegetation would be 

reestablished through reclamation practices along water pipelines 
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-103

within five years to the extent possible, whereas areas with fences, 

water wells, troughs, and reservoirs could contain a portion of the 

area disturbed during their useful life and would be revegetated 

when abandoned.

• The construction and maintenance of range improvements would 

continue in the decision area as needed. New range improvements 

could be subject to limitations, as defined in the plan. Range 

improvements lead to better livestock distribution and management, 

which would maintain or improve rangeland health and could 

benefit the forage base.

• Livestock grazing is a “diffuse” form of biotic disturbance that exerts 

repeated pressure over many years on a system; unlike point 

sources of disturbance (e.g., fires), livestock grazing exerts repeated 

pressure across the landscape.

• Vegetation could be treated to allow the current level of AUMs to 

be maintained or increased in the project area or specific 

allotments.

4.12.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Impacts on livestock grazing are generally the result of activities that affect 

forage levels, areas open to grazing, the class of livestock, the season of use and 

timing, the ability to construct range improvements, and human disturbance or 

harassment of livestock in grazing allotments. Key types of impacts are detailed 

below.

Protecting GRSG habitat may directly affect livestock grazing if management

requires limitations to areas open to grazing or available AUMs, modification of 

grazing strategies, or changes to season of use, which could result in increased 

time and cost to permittees/lessees or impact the ability of permittees/lessees 

to fully utilize permitted AUMs. For example, management actions to enhance 

habitat for GRSG could affect livestock grazing by restricting grazing intensity, 

retiring permitted grazing use in some areas, or changing livestock rotation 

patterns, in order to maintain residual herbaceous cover in sagebrush habitat 

(NTT 2011). Grazing allotments containing sagebrush habitat would be managed 

to maximize cover and forage for GRSG, not to maximize livestock forage, 

which could necessitate change in livestock management. 

Management of vegetation resources to benefit GRSG may, however, indirectly

benefit livestock grazing by increasing vegetation productivity and improving 

forage in the long term, especially in cases where current conditions are not 

meeting or exceeding land health standards. For example, in allotments with a 

history of intensive grazing, transitions in the composition of sagebrush 

communities may have occurred that have reduced cover or forage for GRSG

(Cagney et al. 2010) and grazing livestock. However, when grazing management

is put into place to promote health and vigor of the herbaceous community for 
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

4-104 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

livestock, this would generally result in sufficient herbaceous cover to meet 

habitat requirements for breeding GRSG, such as those specified by Connelly et 

al. (2000).

Similarly, vegetation management designed to curb incursion of non-native 

annual grasses such as cheatgrass, encroachment of shrubs or woody vegetation, 

could remove forage in the short-term. However, these treatments generally 

enhance rangeland conditions in the longer term (NTT 2011).

Unregimented livestock grazing can have adverse impacts on riparian

ecosystems (Armour et al. 1991); therefore, managing riparian habitat can 

directly impact livestock grazing through excluding livestock at specific sites, 

increasing herding, adding range improvements (such as cross fences and water 

gaps), and adjusting season of use and livestock numbers. Managing riparian 

habitat to maintain PFC would benefit grazing livestock by indirectly providing 

cleaner and more reliable water sources and more dependable forage 

availability. 

Protecting water quality and watershed health could require changes in livestock 

management, such as deferring or shortening grazing periods, adding range 

improvements, excluding grazing from riparian areas, establishing riparian 

pastures, and increasing livestock herding. In areas requiring exclusion of grazers 

or other restriction on livestock management, these limitations could result in 

increased costs to permittees/lessees if changes resulted in AUM reduction or 

increased livestock management costs. 

Recreation can affect livestock grazing directly through human disturbance and 

indirectly through rangeland degradation. Direct disturbance can include 

undesired animal dispersing or trespassing due to gates left open by recreational 

users; animal displacement, harassment, or injury from collisions or shooting; or 

damage to range improvements, particularly from the use of recreational 

vehicles or from recreational shooting. Disturbance could occur during the 

hunting season due to increased presence of people, vehicles, and noise and 

livestock shooting. In addition, OHV use results in indirect impacts, such as 

increased dust on forage in high use areas, leading to lower forage palatability. 

Limitations on recreational use in GRSG habitat could indirectly benefit 

livestock by reducing direct disturbances.

Other direct long-term recreation impacts include disturbance caused by 

increased levels of human activities. The degree of impacts would vary with the 

intensity of recreation (that is, large numbers of people for SRP use would likely 

have a higher level of disturbance, as compared to frequent use by a small 

number of visitors), the timing of recreation activities (livestock could be more 

susceptible to disturbance during the spring when young are present), and 

location of recreation in the allotment (a higher level of disturbance could occur 

near areas frequented by livestock, such as water sources or salt licks). As
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-105

stated above, limitations on recreational use in GRSG habitat could indirectly 

benefit livestock by reducing direct disturbances.

Limits on construction or use of transportation routes may affect livestock 

grazing practices. Road construction may cause loss of forage, harassment, and 

displacement; thus, reduction of these activities may benefit livestock by 

reducing disturbances. Closing roads or trails not leading to range 

improvements would also increase forage availability when the area is 

rehabilitated or when natural rehabilitation occurs. However, limitations on 

cross-country travel may impact permittees/lessees ability to effectively manage 

livestock if exemptions are not granted for access to allotments. Travel 

management actions for GRSG protection generally involve increased limitations 

or restrictions on travel management.

Wildland fire alters sagebrush habitat due to the long time required for 

sagebrush to regenerate, which allows for spread of cheatgrass and other 

invasive species (NTT 2011). Wildland fire would remove vegetation and forage 

over the short term. Additional impacts on livestock operations could occur 

when BLM guidelines require a rest period following rehabilitation before 

grazing is reestablished. Changes in wildland fire suppression and fuels 

management to protect GRSG habitat would have varying effects on livestock 

grazing. Measures to protect sagebrush habitat might reduce the spread of 

wildland fire and the associated disruption to livestock. The management of 

habitat for GRSG using natural disturbance regimes, such as fire and using 

vegetative treatments to accomplish biodiversity objectives to improve plant 

community resilience, could also benefit livestock grazing in the long term by 

maintaining a balance of seral stages. In general, selectively thinning woodland 

species benefits livestock grazing by creating a healthier grass, forb, and shrub 

community. 

Restrictions on ROWs or land transfers may indirectly impact grazing by 

reducing construction impacts from development of these ROWs (such as dust, 

displacement, and introduction of noxious weeds). Lands and realty actions 

taken to protect GRSG habitat would involve avoiding or excluding ROWs (e.g., 

for power lines, pipelines, and other structures) or land transfers in PH or GH.

However, the areas outside of GRSG habitat to which ROWs are relocated may 

see an increase in construction-related effects.

Energy and mineral development could impact grazing as follows: During the 

exploration and testing phase of mineral development, the footprint of 

disturbance is usually small and localized; therefore, minimal acres available for 

grazing would be directly impacted. However, during the exploration phase 

impacts on livestock dispersal and trespass could occur, increasing time and cost 

to permittees/lessees. Outside of the exploration and testing phase, surfacedisturbing mineral development directly affects areas of grazing in the short 

term during construction of well pads, roads, pipelines, and other facilities. 
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

4-106 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Potential impacts include changes in available forage, reduced forage palatability 

because of dust on vegetation, limits on livestock movement, harassment, 

temporary displacement of livestock, and an increased potential for the 

introduction and proliferation of noxious weeds that lack the nutritional value 

needed for productive grazing practices. In the long term, a smaller amount of 

grazing acreage is permanently lost from mining operations following 

rehabilitation. Improving roads associated with mineral development could 

facilitate livestock management operations by maintaining or improving access 

to remote locations within allotments. Properly implemented BMPs and 

reclamation mitigation measures would likely improve rangeland health and 

forage levels for livestock. Reduction in mineral development in GRSG habitat 

could reduce potential impacts on grazing, described above. 

Management for energy and mineral development on split estate lands would 

not impact permittees/lessees with BLM public land leases; however, impacts 

could occur to livestock grazing on private, state, or lands of other ownership 

as stated above. 

Changes in livestock grazing management could impact grazing opportunities in a

variety of ways. For example, implementing particular livestock grazing 

management requirements to benefit GRSG could affect livestock grazing by 

increasing operators’ costs or changing required management actions. Shortterm and long-term costs to permittees/lessees could increase, or AUMs could 

decrease for some permittees/lessees due to the following:

• Implementation of a grazing strategy

• Change in season-of-use or livestock class

• Modification to grazing systems

• Construction or modification of range improvements

These management requirements could result in economic impacts on 

individuals and the community at large, both direct and indirect. For example, if 

a ranch is dependent seasonally on federal forage, a reduction or eliminations of 

federal AUMS may create forage imbalances that produce a greater reduction in 

grazing capacity than just the loss of federal AUMs (Torell et al. 2002).

Some management changes may require a short-term output of cost for 

permittees/lessees, but would result in long-term benefits. For example, 

construction of range improvements to improve livestock distribution and allow 

use of a larger portion of the rangeland would generally enhance rangeland 

health in the long term; however, it could impact the livestock 

permittees/lessees economically in the short term. Constructing off-site water 

sources and fencing riparian and spring sources could keep livestock away from 

sensitive riparian areas and provide a cleaner more reliable source of water for 

livestock but would similarly represent an increased cost for permittees/lessees.
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-107

Retirement of privileges would likely result in a reduction in conflicts between 

grazing and other land uses and may improve range health and forage conditions 

for remaining permitted use in the area.

ACECs may be designated to protect sensitive habitat for the benefit of GRSG. 

Grazing availability would depend on the designated ACEC management 

objectives. Restrictions could include reduction in grazing in the ACEC, 

limitations on the class of livestock animal, or the season, duration, or location 

that livestock are allowed to graze.

4.12.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under all alternatives, motorized vehicles would be designated as limited to 

existing roads and trails, thereby limiting the impacts on livestock grazing from 

dispersed travel as discussed under Nature and Type of Effects. Access to 

authorized BLM uses, such as grazing allotments, would not be impacted in any 

alternatives. Site-specific travel management planning could, when completed, 

reduce the potential for conflicts between range management and travel 

management.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Due to the lack of current coal leasing in the project area and lack of coal 

development potential in the planning area, there is low potential for 

management of coal resources to have impacts on range management in any 

alternatives. In addition, there is no locatable mineral potential, nor any interest 

in developing locatable minerals within GRSG habitat. As a result, withdrawing 

an area or leaving an area open to locatable minerals is not expected to impact 

range management.

4.12.4 Alternative A

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative A, as under all alternatives, motorized travel would be limited 

to designated routes, and site-specific travel management planning would be 

developed, limiting disturbance to livestock. Effects would be the same as those 

described above in Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from Recreation

Under this alternative, there would be no restrictions to SRPs in the decision 

area; therefore, livestock could be disturbed by recreational activities or groups 

in the planning area. However, due to the current lack of SRPs and limited 

interest in future SRPs in the planning area, impacts would likely be minimal. 

Human disturbance and rangeland degradation from general recreational 

activities would be as described under Nature and Type of Effects.
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

4-108 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative A, no new ROW exclusion or avoidance areas would be 

present in the decision area. Disturbance of livestock could result from 

development of ROWs; therefore, this alternative would have the highest 

potential for impacts from lands and realty on range management, and impacts 

would be as described under Nature and Type of Effects, including dust, 

displacement, and noxious weeds.

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative A, livestock grazing would be allowed on all BLMadministered lands identified as authorized (approximately 32,945 acres in the 

planning area, including 32,900 acres in PH) for a total 28 allotments with 5,780

AUMs in the planning area, including 27 allotments with 5,772 AUMs in GRSG

habitat (see Table 4-23). All permits/leases under Alternative A would be 

required to meet or make progress towards meeting standards defined in the 

North and South Dakota Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 

Livestock Grazing Management (BLM 1997). Lands would be maintained and 

restored to maintain healthy native plant and animal species, and efforts to 

manage public rangeland under drought conditions would be directed first to 

allotments with resource concerns, therefore impacts on grazing management 

options or permitted AUMs would most likely change in these areas 

(approximately 1,309 acres) found to be not meeting land health standards as a 

result of livestock grazing at last assessment).

Similarly, the focus in riparian areas and wetlands would be to improve 

functioning-at-risk and non-functioning riparian areas and wetlands towards 

PFC. As described under Nature and Type of Effects, managing riparian habitat 

can directly impact livestock grazing through excluding livestock at specific sites, 

increasing herding, adding range improvements (such as cross fences and water 

gaps), and adjusting season of use and livestock numbers. Such changes in 

grazing management options may result in an increase in costs and time 

required for permittees/lessees in these areas.

Range improvements, including fences and vegetation treatments as well as 

water developments, would be allowed in the decision area when needed to 

support grazing systems or improve livestock distribution, allowing for options 

for management for permittees/lessees. Fences would be constructed to protect 

and benefit livestock and wildlife, but no specific provision are included for 

GRSG so additional costs could be limited.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative A, no lands in the planning area would be closed to 

leasing. The largest number of BLM-administered lands would be open to 

fluid mineral leasing with standard terms and conditions; approximately 30,450 

acres would also be open to livestock grazing; therefore, conflicts between 

grazing and mineral development would be more likely to occur in this area. 
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-109

Table 4-24, Fluid Mineral Impacts on Range Management by Alternative (PH

and GH), provides information on areas open to grazing and mineral 

development and areas open with stipulations by alternative.

Table 4-24

Fluid Mineral Impacts on Range Management by Alternative (PH and GH)

Management Action Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Acres open to grazing and open to 

fluid mineral development (BLM 

surface and federal minerals)

30,450 80 0 30,450

Acres open to grazing and closed to 

fluid mineral development (BLM 

surface and federal minerals)

0 30,370 30,450 0 

Acres open to grazing with 

NSO/CSU/TL restrictions for fluid 

mineral development (BLM surface 

and federal minerals)

27,267 0 0 30,370

Protection for GRSG would be provided from CSU, TL, and NSO stipulations. 

Restrictions would also be applied through site-specific conditions on approval 

for leases. While some decrease in disturbance to range management could 

occur as a result of surface use restrictions, there is the potential for 

disturbance in the majority of the decision area as discussed under Nature and 

Type of Effects. Of the area open for mineral development, approximately 27,267 

acres open to grazing would be available for leasing with stipulations under 

Alternative A (see Table 4-24).

Overall, oil and gas management would have limited impacts on range 

management under Alternative A because, although there is high potential in 

GRSG habitat, most of the resources have already been developed; therefore,

opening or closing areas to development would have minimal impacts on 

disturbance to livestock or impact range management activities.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative A, no portions of the decision area would be withdrawn from 

mineral entry, salable-non energy mineral application or closed to mineral 

material development. As a result there is potential for impacts on range 

management from mineral development as described under Nature and Type of 

Effects.

Impacts from Mineral Split Estate

Across all alternatives, federal permittees would not be impacted by split estate

lands; however, there is the potential for impacts on range management on 

other lands. Under Alternative A, standard regulations are in place for mineral 
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

4-110 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

development on non-federal surface lands, including permitting and reclamation 

requirements.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Under Alternative A, fire could be utilized as a resource for vegetation 

manipulation for range management as needed, allowing for options for 

management for permittees/lessees. Impacts would vary based on site-specific 

management actions, but fire could be utilized to maintain optimal forage for 

livestock in the long term.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Under Alternative A, no specific direction for GRSG is provided in the RMP for 

restoration and management actions. Vegetation could be managed to improve 

forage and impacts on range management from vegetation would be minimal.

Impacts from ACECs

No new ACECs would be designated under Alternative A; therefore, there 

would be no impacts on range management.

4.12.5 Alternative B

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

In PH and GH, motorized travel would be limited to existing roads as described 

under Alternative A. Travel plans to be completed would analyze PH for the 

need for road closures, and limitations would be implemented during 

development of new roads. Some reduction in routes and limitations on new 

routes as well as upgrades to existing routes would be added compared to 

Alternative A, which could result in indirect reduction in disturbance to 

livestock in PH.

Impacts from Recreation

SRPs in PH would be limited when they were found to have negative impacts on 

GRSG; potentially limiting disturbance to grazing from recreational use. Due to 

the current lack of SRPs and limited interest in future SRPs in the planning area, 

impacts would likely be minimal. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative B, management of PH as an exclusion area for new ROWs

authorizations could slightly reduce the potential for disturbance of livestock in 

this area, which covers the majority of the allotments in the planning area (and 

26 out of 27 allotments in GRSG habitat).

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative B, as in all alternatives, approximately 32,945 acres in the 

planning area (including 32,900 acres in PH) would be open to grazing. A total of 

28 allotments with 5,780 AUMs would be authorized (including 27 allotments 

with 5,772 AUMs in PH or GH), the same as Alternative A (see Table 4-23). 
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-111

Under Alternative B, all GRSG habitat objectives and management would be 

incorporated into AMP and permit renewals; therefore, impacts would occur at 

a site-specific level during the permit renewal process. Completion of land 

health assessments and permits would be prioritized within PH, particularly 

those with the best opportunity to conserve, enhance or restore habitat for 

GRSG. As a result, impacts on range management would be most likely to occur 

in these areas.

Under Alternative B, management actions (grazing decisions, AMP/Conservation 

Plan development, or other agreements) to modify grazing management would 

be made to meet seasonal GRSG habitat requirements (Connelly et al. 2011a). 

As described under Nature and Type of Effects, this could require changes to 

management of a given allotment such as in class of livestock permitted, changes 

to livestock rotation or season of grazing permitted. Such changes would have 

the potential to decrease management options and, therefore, result in 

increased time and costs required for permittees/lessees.

Work would be done with area ranchers so that operations within GRSG

habitat could be planned as single units; therefore, the time and cost required to 

implement these changes could be reduced, although they would still be higher 

than under current conditions where no change would be required.

In addition, retirement of permitted grazing use from willing permittees would 

be an option in PH. As described under Nature and Type of Effects, conflicts with 

other land uses would be reduced and land health and forage could be 

improved.

Vegetation treatments that benefit livestock forage could only be completed if 

these treatments would also conserve, enhance or improve GRSG habitat;

therefore, the management options in PH could be reduced when treatments 

would not benefit GRSG, and the ability to fully utilize permitted AUMs could 

be impacted in such cases. Land health assessment utilizing ESDs would be 

required to determine if standards of rangeland health as well as GRSG habitat 

objectives were being met. In many cases, treatments may improve both 

rangeland health and GRSG habitat; therefore, impacts on rangeland 

management would be minimized.

Under Alternative B, riparian areas and wet meadows would be managed for 

PFC within PH, with potential limitations on grazing within these areas or 

increased use of fencing/herding to manage distribution of livestock so that 

pressure on these systems is limited this could result in increased costs or time 

by permittees.

Specific objectives to conserve, enhance, or restore PH based on ESDs would 

be developed and land health assessment to measure progress towards these 

objectives would be conducted. If it was found that allotments were not meeting 
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

4-112 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

standards, changes to grazing systems or AUM levels could be required and may 

result in increased costs or time for permittees.

Under Alternative B, structural range improvements such as fences and 

exclosures would be allowed in PH, but must be developed to conserve or 

enhance GRSG habitat. In addition, fences would require flagging to lessen risk 

for GRSG impacts. The cost of building or maintaining these structures may be 

increased as compared with Alternative A. Similarly, new water developments 

from diversion from spring or seep sources would only be permitted when 

GRSG habitat would also benefit. The ability to construct these developments 

would be strictly limited.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative B, PH would be closed to fluid mineral leasing, with no new 

nominations accepted upon termination of existing leases. BLM-administered 

lands open to fluid mineral leasing with standard terms and conditions would 

cover 80 acres, more than 99 percent less than Alternative A (see Table 4-24). 

For existing leases, conservation measures would prohibit surface occupancy on 

federal leases within PH during certain time periods in order to preserve GRSG

habitat. As a result, disturbance and impacts on range management would be 

reduced.

In addition, similar to Alternative A, the limited reasonably foreseeable 

development of oil and gas would result in minimal impacts on range

management from fluid mineral development.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative B, additional restriction would be put in place on mineral 

development as compared to Alternative A. PH would be closed to mineral 

material development, non-energy leasable mineral leasing and recommended 

for withdrawal from mineral leasing. As a result, disturbance from mineral 

development and impacts on range management would decrease as all but one 

allotment in the GRSG habitat in the planning area is located within PH. Because 

mineral potential is low for coal and mineral materials, these restrictions may 

have little practical impact on range management but it would preclude any 

potential future development.

Impacts from Mineral Split Estate

As described under Alternative A, there would be no impact on BLM 

permittees from mineral development of these lands. Impacts on private range 

management would likely decrease in PH due to the application of the same 

conservation measures as applied on BLM-administered lands.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Under Alternative B, fuel treatments would be designed and implemented in PH

to protect existing GRSG ecosystems, including the potential for livestock 

utilization to strategically reduce fine fuels. As a result, there is the potential for 
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-113

the need for grazing system modification to meet GRSG objectives, with 

increased costs or time for permittees. Suppression of wildland fires could 

reduce disruption of grazing in the short term but may not provide optimal 

livestock forage conditions in the long term.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Under Alternative B, restoration projects would be designed and prioritized to 

benefit GRSG. In PH, implementation of projects to remove non-native species 

and improve habitat could improve livestock forage but may also result in the 

need to adjust grazing management with potential for increased costs or time 

for permittees.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative A.

4.12.6 Alternative C

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative C, additional restriction on road construction would be 

implemented, new road construction within four miles of active GRSG leks

would be prohibited, and new road construction in PH and GH would be 

avoided. As a result, new disturbance in allotments within PH and GH would be 

limited. Furthermore, due to the reduction of grazing in PH, impacts from travel 

management would be limited.

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts from recreation on grazing would be limited due to reduction of grazing 

in PH under Alternative C.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative C, impacts would be similar as described for Alternative B 

but would be applied across PH and GH. Due to the restrictions on ROW

development and the reduction of grazing in PH under Alternative C, disruption 

of grazing from lands and realty actions would be limited.

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative C, as in all alternatives, approximately 32,945 acres in the 

planning area (including 32,900 acres in PH) would be available for livestock 

grazing. However, permitted AUMs in the Big Gumbo area would be reduced by 

50 percent (3,739 total AUMS, including 3,731 AUMs on four allotments in PH 

or GH, a total reduction of 36 percent of AUMs in the planning area). 

The reduction in AUMs in PH would result in a potential for economic impacts 

on permittees/lessees both in the short and long term. As discussed under 

Nature and Type of Effects, permittees/lessees would be faced with reducing 

AUMs for their operations or locating replacement forage, often at higher costs 

than that currently obtained from BLM-administered lands, with potential 
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

4-114 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

impacts on individual leases/permits as well as the local community. Reduction in 

permitted AUMs would also impact ability of permittees/lessees to utilize 

seasonal rotations or other management strategies that utilize both public and 

private lands. Permittees/lessees who currently rotate pastures between private 

and public lands may need to construct additional water developments or other 

structural range improvements on private pastures, resulting in increased time 

and costs. 

In the long term, there is potential for indirect impacts in the Big Gumbo area as 

a result of changes to vegetation communities due to the reduction in grazing. 

Should the vegetation class represent non-optimal conditions for livestock, 

adjustments to management could be required. 

As a result of reduction in grazing, there is also the potential for increased

conflicts between grazing and other resources and resource uses on lands of 

other surface ownership should livestock grazing increase in this area.

Management actions for range management, including those for incorporation of 

GRSG standards and objectives, land health assessments, and changes to grazing 

systems to meet GRSG objectives, would be similar to those described for 

Alternative B, but would be applied to GH as well as PH in many instances. The 

practical application of this difference on range management, however, would be 

limited due to the presence of the majority of the area open to grazing and 

active allotments in PH (32,820 out of 32,900 acres in PH or 99.8 percent). 

Similarly, management of riparian areas and wet meadows would be as 

described for Alternative B, but apply to all PH and GH acreages instead of just 

at riparian and wetland meadow sites. Alternative C also includes a provision 

that at least six inches of stubble height must remain on all riparian/meadow 

area herbaceous species at all times. As a result, further restrictions could be 

placed on permittees, impacting their ability to distribute livestock and fully 

utilize allotted AUMs.

The ability to conduct vegetation treatments for the purpose of enhancing 

livestock forage as well as structural range improvements would be the most 

limited under this alternative for both PH and GH. As a result, the ability of 

permittees to effectively distribute livestock could be impacted, resulting in 

increases in cost or time for management. 

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative C, both PH and GH would be closed to fluid mineral leasing. 

Restrictions as discussed under Alternative B would be applied but would be 

extended to GH as well as PH. There would be no overlap of areas open to 

grazing and also open to fluid mineral development under this alternative (see 

Table 4-24). As a result, impacts from fluid minerals on range management 

would be the lowest under this alternative.
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-115

In addition, similar to Alternative A, the limited reasonably foreseeable 

development of oil and gas would result in minimal impacts on range

management from fluid mineral development.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative C, restriction on mineral development would be the 

broadest of all alternatives, with limitations on leasing and development as 

described in Alternative B, but expanded to GH as well as PH. Impacts from 

solid minerals on range management would be minimal under this alternative 

due to the limitations on nonenergy leasables and mineral materials, and the 

reduction of livestock grazing from in PH. 

Impacts from Mineral Split Estate

As in Alternative A, there is no impact of split estate mineral development on 

BLM permittees. It is likely that mineral development on split estate PH and GH

under this alternative would result in the least disturbance to private range 

management due to the application of conservation measures to these areas.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Under Alternative C, management actions would be similar to that described 

for Alternative B, but applied to PH and GH and with additional restrictions on 

the use of fuels as vegetation treatment. Impacts on range management, 

however, would be reduced under this alternative, compared to Alternative A,

due to the reduction in grazing in Alternative C.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Under Alternative C, impacts from habitat and vegetation management would 

be similar to that described under Alternative B, but applied to both PH and 

GH. Due to the reduction in grazing in this alternative, however, impacts would 

be reduced in scale.

Impacts from ACECs

Under Alternative C, the 32,900 acres of PH on BLM-administered lands would 

be designated as an ACEC to protect GRSG. Potential impacts in this area 

would be as described under Nature and Type of Effects; however, due to the 

reduction of grazing in PH, impacts would be limited.

4.12.7 Alternative D

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative D, impacts would be similar to those described under 

Alternative B but would apply both to PH and GH. As a result, disturbance from 

travel management on livestock grazing would be limited.

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts from recreation would be the same as Alternative B.
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

4-116 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative D, PH would be managed as a ROW avoidance area and 

additionally, as an exclusion area for new wind energy ROW authorizations. 

ROWs would be allowed in GH with measures to minimize surface disturbing 

and disruptive activities. Impacts on livestock grazing from ROW development 

would therefore be decreased as compared to Alternative A.

Impacts from Range Management

In Alternative D, as in all alternatives 32,945 acres (including 32,900 acres in PH) 

would be open to grazing. A total of 28 allotments with 5,780 AUMs would be 

authorized (including 27 allotments with 5,772 AUMs in PH or GH), the same as 

Alternative A (see Table 4-23). 

GRSG habitat objectives and management considerations would be 

incorporated into BLM grazing allotments through AMPs or permit renewals, 

although under Alternative D, standards would be developed with the state and 

local objectives would be developed at the field office level in partnership with 

NDGFD and USFWS. As a result, impacts on grazing systems could occur upon 

lease renewal as discussed in Alternative B, but coordination with the NDGFD

and the USFWS should decrease conflicts in standards and provide a location 

appropriate framework, assisting permittees ability to adopt these standards and 

reducing impacts.

Land health assessments would be required as discussed under Alternative B, 

with additional requirements to prioritize assessments for other priority species 

and riparian habitat in addition to GRSG with potential for broader impacts in 

the near-term in the planning area as more allotments would be prioritized for 

assessment. 

Riparian and wetland habitat would be managed to more towards or maintain 

PFC and strive towards GRSG habitat objectives; however, under Alterative D, 

objectives would be set with reference to the state vegetation relative to the 

ESD. Therefore, ability of permittees to meet these standards may be improved 

and the need to adjust management reduced. 

Rangeland improvements under Alternative D would be permitted with 

limitations, with impacts as described in Alternative B. Overall, impacts would 

vary on a site-specific basis.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative D, areas open and closed to leasing would be the same as 

described under Alternative A (see Table 4-24). However, prohibitions of 

surface occupancy and use within PH and CSU stipulations for GH would limit 

the impacts on range management as compared to Alternative A.
4. Environmental Consequences (Range Management)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-117

In addition, similar to Alternative A, the limited reasonably foreseeable 

development of oil and gas would result in minimal impacts on range

management from fluid mineral development.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative D, impacts from solid mineral development would be similar 

to those described under Alternative A; however, PH would be closed to 

mineral material development, with reduction in surface disturbance and road 

use and related impacts on livestock. Some additional site-specific restrictions 

could occur in the form of RDFs. Impacts on livestock grazing from mineral 

development would therefore be reduced as compared with Alternative A.

Because mineral potential is low for coal and mineral materials, these 

restrictions may have little practical impact on range management but it would 

preclude any potential future development.

Impacts from Mineral Split Estate

Under Alternative D, as described in Alternative A, there would be no impact 

on BLM-permittees. Conservation measures would be applied when federal 

action (mineral exploration or development) occurs, resulting in some potential 

reduction in disturbance for livestock on non-federal lands.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Under Alternative D, impacts would be similar to those described under 

Alternative B. 

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Under Alternative D, projects to reduce conifer encroachment would also 

benefit range management by improving forage conditions in the long term. As 

described under Alternative B, changes to livestock grazing systems could be 

required for post restoration management with potential impacts on costs or 

time for management by permittees.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative A.

4.13 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

4.13.1 Methods and Assumptions

Direct impacts on ACECs are considered to be those that either impair or 

enhance the relevant and important values for which the ACEC was proposed 

for designation. In this case, there are no existing ACECs, and the proposed 

GRSG ACEC would be designated to protect relevant and important values 

associated with PH. As such, this analysis focuses on the impacts on relevant and 

important PH from either the special management derived from ACEC 

designation or, under alternatives where the ACEC is not proposed for 

designation, the management actions and allocations for other resources and 
4. Environmental Consequences (Areas of Critical Environmental Concern)

4-118 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

resource uses. All impacts discussed are direct impacts, though some may not 

occur immediately after implementation of management actions.

Indicators

Table 4-25, Comparison of ACEC Indicators by Alternative, provides a 

summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the effects on ACECs 

under each alternative.

Table 4-25

Comparison of ACEC Indicators by Alternative

Indicator Alternative

A B C D

Total acreage within an ACEC boundary 0 0 32,900 0

Specific management provisions 

designed to protect the relevant and 

important values for which the ACEC

was designated 

No change No change

50% 

reduction in 

grazing

No change

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

• Permitted activities would not be allowed to impair the relevant and 

important values for which the ACEC is designated. The exception 

is locatable minerals; until withdrawn from mineral entry, a mining 

claim can be filed, and subsequent mining activities could have an 

impact. However, measures would have to be identified in a mine 

plan to mitigate unnecessary and undue degradation.

4.13.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Special status species management objectives would prevent degradation of, and 

could improve, relevant and important values where an ACEC is designated to 

protect such values. BLM management could protect the relevant and important 

values in the GRSG ACEC independent of an ACEC designation. Refer to 

Section 4.2 for a discussion of impacts on GRSG habitat.

Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or 

no impact on ACECs and are therefore not discussed in detail: recreation, lands 

and realty, range management, fluid minerals, solid minerals, mineral split estate, 

fire and fuels management, and habitat restoration/vegetation management.

4.13.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Alternative C is the only alternative under which the BLM proposes an ACEC. 

Therefore, there are no impacts on ACECs that would be common to all 

alternatives.
4. Environmental Consequences (Areas of Critical Environmental Concern)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-119

Table 4-26, ACECs by Alternative, provides a comparison of ACEC acreages 

by alternative.

Table 4-26

ACECs by Alternative

ACEC Name Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

GRSG Conservation Area

(acres) 0 0 32,900 0

4.13.4 Alternative A

Impacts from ACECs

There would be no impact on ACECs under Alternative A. The BLM would 

continue to manage BLM-administered lands in accordance with existing 

management policies. Refer to Section 4.2 for a discussion of impacts on 

habitat.

4.13.5 Alternative B

Impacts from ACECs

There would be no impact on ACECs under Alternative B. The BLM would 

implement new management strategies for the protection of PH, but without 

establishing an ACEC. Refer to Section 4.2 for a discussion of impacts on 

GRSG habitat.

4.13.6 Alternative C

Impacts from ACECs

The designation and management of a new ACEC under Alternative C (Table

4-25) could be used as a way to protect GRSG habitat. Management 

prescriptions to protect habitat areas would be similar to Alternatives B and D, 

but would include a 32,900-acre (includes all PH) ACEC administrative 

boundary designation, a restriction on new road construction within four miles 

of a lek, and a 50-percent reduction in grazing on the largest piece of BLMadministered lands in the ACEC (four allotments). Refer to Section 4.2 for a 

discussion of impacts on GRSG habitat. In addition, ACEC designation can 

heighten awareness of the resource and help prioritize BLM management. 

Acquisition of lands within a designated ACEC could help protect relevant and 

important values by bringing additional acres under BLM control and managing 

those acres according to special protection of GRSG habitats.

4.13.7 Alternative D

Impacts would be the same as those described for Alternative A. 
4. Environmental Consequences (Air Resources)

4-120 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

4.14 AIR RESOURCES

4.14.1 Methods and Assumptions

Indicators

Table 4-27, Comparison of Air Resource Indicators by Alternative, provides a 

summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the effects on air 

resources under each alternative.

Table 4-27

Comparison of Air Resource Indicators by Alternative

Indicator Alternative

A B C D

Acres closed to fluid minerals 0

61,197

(7,056 in high 

potential areas)

66,293

(7,072 in high 

potential areas)

0

Acres closed to new road 

construction 0 0 32,342 0

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

• Air resource impacts can be localized or regional.

• Weather-related events and wildfires may cause or contribute to

local or regional air resource impacts.

4.14.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Actions that reduce emissions of air pollutants improve air resources. Actions 

that initiate or increase emissions of air pollutants can degrade air resources, 

including increased concentrations of air pollutants, decreased visibility, 

increased atmospheric nitrogen and sulfur deposition on soils and vegetation, 

and acidification of sensitive water bodies. Emissions of hazardous air pollutants 

could potentially result in localized increased risk of impacts on human health. 

Criteria and hazardous air pollutants can negatively impact human health in a 

variety of ways. Exposure to air pollution most often affects the respiratory 

system, and is often also associated with pulmonary, cardiac, vascular, and 

neurological impairments (EPA 2013). Children and other high-risk groups, such 

as the elderly, pregnant women, and individuals with chronic heart and lung 

diseases, are especially susceptible to impacts from air pollution (EPA 2013). 

Actions that increase emissions of air pollutants can result in negative effects on 

AQRVs, including visibility and atmospheric deposition. An increase in SO2, 

NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions can result in decreased visibility, increased 

atmospheric nitrogen and sulfur deposition on soils and vegetation, and 
4. Environmental Consequences (Air Resources)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-121

acidification of sensitive water bodies. Fugitive dust could potentially result in 

increases in ambient concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 resulting in localized 

impacts on vegetation and increases in atmospheric deposition. Particulate 

matter also contributes to haze and limits visibility (EPA 2012e). Ozone, which 

is formed by a chemical reaction between volatile organic compounds and NOx, 

contributes to smog, which limits visibility (EPA 2012f). 

Particulate matter emissions (fugitive dust) are caused by agriculture, earthmoving activities, wind erosion, and vehicular traffic on unpaved roads and 

surfaces associated with development and operation.

Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or 

no impact on air resources and are therefore not discussed in detail: recreation, 

lands and realty, range management, solid minerals, mineral split estate, habitat 

restoration/vegetation management, and ACECs.

4.14.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts that are common to all alternatives. 

4.14.4 Alternative A

Air resource impacts under Alternative A are identical to impacts associated 

with current management as described above in Nature and Type of Effects. No 

changes to criteria air pollutant or hazardous air pollutant emissions would 

occur.

4.14.5 Alternative B

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative B, BLM management prescriptions to protect GRSG habitat 

would result in the potential for more access limitations when compared to 

Alternative A. The BLM would develop a travel and transportation management 

plan within five years of the RMP ROD, should the BLM determine there is a 

need to close certain routes. Also under Alternative B, the BLM would only 

allow new roads where access to valid existing rights is necessary and does not 

currently exist, restricting new roads and/or ROWs and access through PH.

Construction of new roads has short-term effects associated with construction 

of the roads, including fugitive dust emissions from surface disturbance and 

exhaust emissions associated with road construction equipment, worker 

vehicles, and material deliveries, and long-term effects associated with road use 

and maintenance. Limiting new road construction and closing roads would 

reduce the potential for short and long-term effects on air resources.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative B, 61,197 acres would be closed to fluid mineral

development, including 7,056 acres of high oil and gas potential. Under 

Alternative B, it is projected that 26 new exploratory and development wells 
4. Environmental Consequences (Air Resources)

4-122 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

would be drilled on federal oil and gas estate over 20 years. Of these new wells, 

21 are expected to be producing oil and gas wells through 2029 (see Table 4-

1). This represents a 57 percent decrease in projected producing wells on 

federal oil and gas estate compared with Alternative A (BLM 2013).

Oil and gas development results in short-term and long-term emissions of 

criteria and hazardous air pollutants from vehicle use, drill rigs, construction 

equipment use, flaring or venting of natural gas, and disturbance of soils (EPA 

2012g). Closing areas of high potential development would have the potential to 

result in fewer impacts on air resources, as compared to Alternative A, due to 

decreased emissions associated with exploration and development of fluid 

minerals.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Fires, particularly uncontrolled fires, can significantly affect air quality by 

introducing large amounts of particulate, carbon monoxide, atmospheric 

mercury, ozone precursors, and volatile organic compounds into the air, 

affecting both visibility and human health (BC Air Quality 2013). Under 

Alternative B, fuels treatment would be focused on protecting existing 

sagebrush in PH, and efforts would be made to ensure sagebrush canopy cover 

was not reduced to less than 15 percent. This management action restricts the 

amount of vegetation that can be burned in a prescribed burn, or that can be 

allowed to burn in an unplanned natural ignition. This would result in less 

likelihood of human-caused fires occurring compared with Alternative A. This

would result in fewer fire-related impacts on air resources.

Habitat reconstruction or vegetation treatments used in fire and fuels 

management would cause negligible increases in exhaust and fugitive dust, while 

prescribed burning would cause increased emissions and temporarily degrade 

air resources.

4.14.6 Alternative C

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative C, the BLM would close 32,342 acres of the planning area to 

new road construction compared with Alternative A. Prohibiting new road 

construction would likely result in fewer impacts on air resources, due to 

decreased emissions associated with road construction and use.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative C, 66,293 acres would be closed to fluid mineral

development, including 7,072 acres of high oil and gas potential. Under 

Alternative C, it is projected that 25 new exploratory and development wells 

would be drilled on federal oil and gas estate over 20 years. Of these new wells, 

21 are expected to be producing oil and gas wells through 2029 (see Table 4-

1). This represents a 57 percent decrease in projected producing wells on 

federal oil and gas estate compared with Alternative A (BLM 2013).
4. Environmental Consequences (Air Resources)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-123

As described under Alternative B, closing areas of high potential development 

would likely result in fewer impacts on air resources due to decreased 

emissions associated with exploration and development of fluid minerals.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Impacts from fire and fuels management would be the same as described for

Alternative B.

4.14.7 Alternative D

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative D, BLM management prescriptions to protect GRSG habitat 

would result in the potential for more impacts on travel and transportation 

management compared to Alternative A and would be similar to those 

described under Alternative B. Prohibiting new road construction would likely 

result in fewer impacts on air resources, due to decreased emissions associated 

with road construction and use.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Similar to Alternative A, under Alternative D, the BLM would not close any 

acres to fluid mineral leasing. Under Alternative D, it is projected that 51 new 

exploratory and development wells would be drilled on federal oil and gas 

estate in the short term. Of these new wells, 42 are expected to be producing 

oil and gas wells in the long term (see Table 4-1). This represents a 14 percent 

decrease in projected producing wells on federal oil and gas estate compared 

with Alternative A (BLM 2013). Impacts on air resources would be similar to 

those discussed under Alternative A.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Under Alternative D, fuels treatment would be focused on protecting existing 

sagebrush in PH, and efforts would be made to ensure sagebrush canopy cover 

was not reduced to less than eight percent. Similar to Alternative B, 

management actions would result in less likelihood of human-caused fires 

occurring. Overall, fires may be less likely to occur compared with Alternative 

A, which would result in fewer fire-related impacts on air resources. 

4.15 CLIMATE

4.15.1 Methods and Assumptions

Indicators

Table 4-28, Comparison of Climate Change Indicators by Alternative, provides 

a summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the effects related to

climate change under each alternative.
4. Environmental Consequences (Climate)

4-124 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 4-28

Comparison of Climate Change Indicators by Alternative

Indicator Alternative

A B C D

Acres closed to fluid 

minerals 0

61,197

(7,056 in high 

potential areas)

66,293

(7,072 in high 

potential areas)

0

Acres closed to new road 

construction 0 0 32,342 0

Climate change projections 

for the planning area No change

Less likely to 

contribute to 

GHG emissions

Less likely to 

contribute to 

GHG emissions

Less likely to 

contribute to 

GHG emissions

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

• There is a correlation between global concentrations of GHGs and 

climate change.

4.15.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Management actions that could affect climate change would include actions that 

increase GHG emissions, actions that reduce GHG emissions, actions that 

create carbon sinks, and actions that eliminate or damage carbon sinks.

While GHG emissions or GHG sequestration may result from many of the 

proposed management actions, these changes would be quite small relative to 

state, national, or global GHG emissions. Relative to state and national GHG 

emissions, emission changes due to management actions associated with this 

RMPA would be negligible.

Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or 

no impact on climate and are therefore not discussed in detail: recreation, lands 

and realty, range management, solid minerals, mineral split estate, habitat 

restoration/vegetation management, and ACECs.

4.15.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts that are common to all alternatives.

4.15.4 Alternative A

Climate impacts under Alternative A are identical to impacts resulting from 

current management as described above in Nature and Type of Effects. No 

changes to GHG emissions would occur.
4. Environmental Consequences (Climate)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-125

4.15.5 Alternative B

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative B, BLM management prescriptions to protect GRSG habitat 

would result in the potential for more access limitations when compared to 

Alternative A. The BLM would develop a travel and transportation management 

plan within five years of the RMP ROD, should the BLM determine there is a 

need to close certain routes. Also under Alternative B, the BLM would only 

allow new roads where access to valid existing rights is necessary and does not 

currently exist, restricting new roads and/or ROWs and access through PH.

Road construction and use emits GHGs through the combustion of fuel in 

vehicles and construction equipment. Prohibiting new road construction and 

closing roads would have the potential to reduce GHG emissions associated 

with road construction and use. 

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative B, 61,197 acres would be closed to fluid mineral

development, including 7,056 acres of high oil and gas potential. Under 

Alternative B, it is projected that 26 new exploratory and development wells 

would be drilled on federal oil and gas estate over 20 years. Of these new wells, 

21 are expected to be producing oil and gas wells through 2029 (see Table 4-

1). This represents a 57 percent decrease in projected producing wells on 

federal oil and gas estate compared with Alternative A (BLM 2013).

Oil and gas development results in short-term and long-term emissions of 

GHGs during fuel combustion in vehicles, drill rigs, and construction equipment, 

as well as GHG leaks from equipment (EPA 2012g). Oil and gas activities also 

remove vegetation and releases sequestered carbon. Closing areas of high 

potential to development would have the potential to result in fewer releases of 

GHGs in the planning area as compared to Alternative A.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Fires, particularly uncontrolled fires, can emit large quantities of GHGs into the 

atmosphere, including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide (EPA 2012h, 

page 7-21 to 7-22). Fires also remove vegetation that acts as a carbon sink. 

Under Alternative B, fuels treatment would be focused on protecting existing 

sagebrush in PH, and efforts would be made to ensure sagebrush canopy cover 

was not reduced to less than 15 percent. This management action restricts the 

amount of vegetation that can be burned in a prescribed burn or that can be 

allowed to burn in an unplanned natural ignition. Human-caused fires would be 

less likely to occur compared with Alternative A, which would result in lower 

GHG emissions and smaller contributions to climate change than under 

Alternative A.
4. Environmental Consequences (Climate)

4-126 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

4.15.6 Alternative C

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative C, the BLM would close 32,342 acres of the planning area to 

new road construction compared with Alternative A. Prohibiting new road 

construction would have the potential to reduce GHG emissions associated 

with road construction and use.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative C, 66,293 acres would be closed to fluid mineral

development, including 7,072 acres of high oil and gas potential. Under 

Alternative C, it is projected that 25 new exploratory and development wells 

would be drilled on federal oil and gas estate over 20 years. Of these new wells, 

21 are expected to be producing oil and gas wells through 2029 (see Table 4-

1). This represents a 57 percent decrease in projected producing wells on 

federal oil and gas estate compared with Alternative A (BLM 2013).

As described under Alternative B, closing areas of high potential to development 

would have the potential to reduce GHG emissions and lessen climate change 

impacts.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Impacts from fire and fuels management would be the same as described under

Alternative B.

4.15.7 Alternative D

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Under Alternative D, BLM management prescriptions to protect GRSG habitat 

would result in the potential for more impacts on travel and transportation 

management compared to Alternative A and would be similar to those 

described under Alternative B. Prohibiting new road construction would likely

have the potential to reduce GHG emissions associated with road construction 

and use.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Similar to Alternative A, under Alternative D, the BLM would not close any 

acres to fluid mineral leasing, though a slight decrease in the number of wells is 

projected. Under Alternative D, it is projected that 51 new exploratory and 

development wells would be drilled on federal oil and gas estate in the short 

term. Of these new wells, 42 are expected to be producing oil and gas wells in 

the long term (see Table 4-1). This represents a 14 percent decrease in 

projected producing wells on federal oil and gas estate compared with

Alternative A (BLM 2013). Climate change impacts would be similar to those 

discussed under Alternative A.
4. Environmental Consequences (Climate)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-127

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Under Alternative D, fuels treatment would be focused on protecting existing 

sagebrush in PH, and efforts would be made to ensure sagebrush canopy cover 

was not reduced to less than eight percent. Fires may be less likely to occur 

compared with Alternative A, which would result in fewer fire-related GHG

emissions and reduce climate change impacts.

4.16 SOIL RESOURCES

4.16.1 Methods and Assumptions

Indicators

Table 4-29, Comparison of Soils Resources Indicators by Alternative, provides 

a summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the effects on soils 

resources under each alternative. Conservation measures for GRSG would have 

only beneficial impacts on soils; therefore, indicators are worded in a way that 

measures to what degree soils would receive protections.

Table 4-29

Comparison of Soils Resources Indicators by Alternative

Indicator Alternative

A B C D

Livestock grazing AUMs 5,780 5,780 3,739 5,780

Acres in ROW exclusion 0 32,900 32,980 32,9001

Acres closed to fluid mineral leasing 0 61,197 66,293 0

Acres found unsuitable for surface coal mining 0 87,443 166,207 87,443

1 PH would be exclusion areas for new ROW wind energy developments.

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

• Soils of the BLM-administered lands will be managed to maintain 

productivity and promote sustained yields while keeping erosion at 

minimal/acceptable levels and preventing physical or chemical 

degradation.

• Proposed surface-disturbing projects will be analyzed to determine 

suitability of soils to support or sustain such projects and designed 

to minimize soil loss.

• Management actions and objectives will be consistent with soil 

resource capabilities.
4. Environmental Consequences (Soil Resources)

4-128 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

• Fuels projects, as well as planned and un-planned fire that 

contribute towards establishment of a more "natural" fire regime, 

would have long term benefits to soil health.

4.16.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Activities that disturb, compact, contaminate or remove vegetation from soils 

are generally considered to negatively affect soil health. Impacts on soil 

resources can result from a number of causes, including livestock grazing, 

recreation, mineral resource activities, renewable energy development, and road 

construction. The intensity and extent of impacts on soil resources are 

determined in part by the type and location of the surface-disturbing activities 

and surface occupancy. Impacts on soil resources can also be affected by any 

applicable stipulations and Plans of Operations that address site-specific 

environmental concerns and require mitigation to stabilize soil, to prevent 

unnecessary erosion, and to revegetate disturbed surfaces.

Grazing activities are known to alter vegetative and biological soil crust 

communities. Livestock grazing can cause adverse impacts on soils, particularly 

during high-intensity low-duration grazing systems in small pastures. Modified 

grazing management practices can be necessary to maintain soil health where 

soils are found to be sensitive to livestock disturbances (for example, soil on 

steep slopes and fragile soils). Properly managed grazing can protect soils and 

help provide healthy plant communities.

Direct and indirect impacts from resource programs on soil resources are 

generally mitigated by avoiding or minimizing the impact using designations such 

as ROW exclusion and avoidance areas, and stipulations such as NSO and CSU. 

Impacts that cannot be avoided are generally minimized by the application of 

COAs, RDFs, BMPs, and standard operating procedures.

Surface-disturbing activities and surface occupancy can impact soil resources by 

compacting soil. In some cases, soil compaction aids in plant establishment and 

growth. However, too much compaction decreases water infiltration rates and 

gas exchange rates. Decreased gas exchange rates can cause aeration problems, 

induce nitrogen and potassium deficiency, and negatively impact root 

development, which is a key component of soil stabilization. As soil compaction 

increases, the soil’s ability to support vegetation diminishes because the 

resulting increase in soil strength and change in soil structure (loss of porosity) 

inhibit root system growth and reduce water infiltration. As vegetative cover, 

water infiltration, and soil stabilizing crusts are diminished or disrupted, the 

surface water runoff rates increase, further accelerating rates of soil erosion.

Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or 

no impact on soil resources and are therefore not discussed in detail: mineral 

split estate; fire and fuels management; habitat restoration/vegetation

management; and ACECs.
4. Environmental Consequences (Soil Resources)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-129

4.16.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Table 4-30, Quantitative Impact Summary by Alternative for Soils, provides a 

comparison of the quantifiable aspects of each alternative with respect to soils.

Table 4-30

Quantitative Impact Summary by Alternative for Soils

Resource Use Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

ROW exclusion area

(acres) 0 32,900 32,980 32,9001

ROW avoidance area 

(acres) 0 80 0 32,900

Acres closed to fluid 

mineral leasing 0 61,197 66,293 0

Acres unsuitable for coal

mining 0 87,443 166,207 87,443

Livestock grazing AUMs 

over 32,945 acres 5,780 5,780 3,739 5,780

1 PH would be exclusion areas for new ROW wind energy developments.

Impacts from Recreation

Most recreation on BLM-administered lands results in vegetation loss, soil 

compaction, and soil erosion. Management approaches that direct recreation to 

specific areas and avoid dispersed recreation can result in more predictable, 

localized and manageable impacts.

Impacts from Mineral Materials and Non-Energy Leasable Minerals

Mineral development generally requires roads and large areas of soil excavation. 

Local soil health and characteristics within project footprints are typically 

severely impacted. Restoration and revegetation efforts can restore soil health 

over the long term once mineral extraction activities are complete, but 

landscapes are often scarred and areas of prior soil cover are often permanently

altered through open pits, mineshafts, and other features. Eliminating or 

reducing surface-disturbing activities related to these types of mineral 

development in GRSG habitat would reduce impacts on soil resources.

4.16.4 Alternative A

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Travel across land by foot, bicycle, horse, or OHV results in vegetation loss, soil 

compaction, and soil erosion. Management approaches that designate travel to 

specified routes can result in more predictable, localized, and manageable 

impacts. Selectively locating travel routes away from areas of fragile soil

conditions can minimize the extent of these effects, ideally limiting them to the 

footprint of the trail.
4. Environmental Consequences (Soil Resources)

4-130 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Under Alternative A, BLM-administered lands would continue to permit limited 

yearlong use for motorized wheeled vehicles, restricted to existing roads and 

trails. Continuation of this policy would allow the potential for disturbance and 

compaction of soils, fragmentation, and other effects as discussed under Nature 

and Type of Effects.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Lands and realty management decisions affect where ground disturbing activities 

can and cannot occur. The use of ROW exclusion and ROW avoidance areas 

protect certain areas from intense compaction and erosion. As shown in Table 

4-30, Alternative A has no ROW exclusion or avoidance areas.

Adjustments to land tenure and withdrawal of certain lands can determine 

where ground-disturbing activities could occur. Under Alternative A, lands 

could be considered for disposal, exchange, or withdrawal.

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative A, 5,780 AUMs would be available over 32,945 acres open 

for grazing (see Table 4-30). Compaction and erosion of soils could occur as a 

result of this grazing; however, implementing and meeting the Standards for 

Rangeland Health and Guidelines would minimize these impacts.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

No areas are closed to fluid mineral leasing and development under Alternative 

A, however, stipulations are in place and these protections would continue (see 

Table 4-30). As described in Table 4-1, there would be approximately 816 

acres of short-term disturbance and 548 acres of long-term disturbance on 

BLM-administered lands related to existing and potential development. 

However, oil and gas development would have limited impacts on soils because, 

although there is high potential in GRSG habitat, most of the resources have 

already been developed; therefore, opening or closing areas to development 

would have minimal impacts on soils related to surface disturbance and 

occupancy.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Alternative A does not allow for withdrawing any areas from mineral entry and 

does not identify any areas as unsuitable or unacceptable for surface mining of 

coal (see Table 4-30). Impact on soils related to surface disturbance and 

occupancy, as described above in Nature and Type of Effects, from these activities 

could occur.

4.16.5 Alternative B

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Travel and transportation management under Alternative B would likely reduce 

impacts on soils from roads and motorized vehicles by limiting motorized 

vehicles to existing roads and trails in PH and GH, evaluating the need to 
4. Environmental Consequences (Soil Resources)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-131

permanently or seasonally close roads or areas to traffic in PH, and restoring 

roads by re-seeding with appropriate seed mixes and considering the use of 

transplanted sagebrush. Restoration of sagebrush habitat and minimizing surface 

disturbances in sagebrush habitat would enhance soil conditions to a greater 

extent than current policy under Alternative A.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative B, PH (32,900 acres) would be managed as ROW exclusion 

and GH (80 acres) as ROW avoidance area. This would be more protective of 

soil resources than Alternative A, which has no acreage of either designation 

(see Table 4-30).

Under Alternative B, the BLM would seek to acquire lands in PH that have 

intact subsurface mineral estate and whose surface is owned by the State of 

North Dakota or private entities. The acquisition would be to conserve, 

enhance or restore sage‐grouse habitat. As such, Alternative B includes 

measures that would increase the potential to maintain soils in a healthy state, 

free from human uses that may otherwise cause compaction, erosion, or 

contamination.

Impacts from Range Management

Management under Alternative B would be the same as Alternative A with 

respect to the number of AUMs available and the acreage open for grazing (see 

Table 4-30); therefore, impacts would be the same as described under 

Alternative A.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative B, the BLM would close PH (61,197 acres) to fluid mineral

leasing and development, compared with no closures under Alternative A, 

which would protect these areas from the soil impacts of compaction, erosion 

and contamination associated with oil, gas exploration, development and 

production (see Table 4-30). As described in Table 4-1, there would be 

approximately 624 acres of short-term disturbance and 476 acres of long-term 

disturbance on BLM-administered lands related to existing and potential 

development. Impacts to soils in these areas would be the same as Alternative 

A, but would occur over a smaller area. Similar to Alternative A, oil and gas

development would have limited impacts on soils.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative B, the BLM would manage all PH (87,443 federal mineral

acres) as unsuitable for surface mining of coal, compared with 0 acres under 

Alternative A, and would allow for withdrawing areas from mineral entry within 

PH, reducing the potential for soil impacts of compaction, erosion, and 

contamination in these areas (see Table 4-30). Solid minerals management 

would be more protective of soils resources under Alternative B than under 

Alternative A. Because mineral potential is low for coal and mineral materials, 
4. Environmental Consequences (Soil Resources)

4-132 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

these restrictions may have little practical impact on soil resources but it would 

preclude any potential future development.

4.16.6 Alternative C

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Impacts from travel and transportation management would be similar to those 

under Alternative B, but protections would apply to both PH and GH and the 

BLM would apply additional mitigation requirements so impacts on soils (as 

described under the Nature and Type of Effects) would be further reduced.

Prohibiting road construction within four miles of a lek would leave only 

approximately 600 acres in PH for future road construction and would help 

prevent disturbance and degradation of soils.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative C, the BLM would manage 32,980 acres as ROW exclusion 

and 0 acres as ROW avoidance area. This would be more protective of soil 

resources than Alternative A, which has no acreage of either designation (see 

Table 4-30). The ROW exclusion and avoidance areas would protect and 

partially protect soils, respectively, from the typical impacts associated with 

developments in ROWs of erosion, compaction, and sometimes contamination. 

Alternative C allows for the acquisition of lands with suitable habitat and calls 

for the withdrawal of lands within PH from mineral activity. These acquisitions 

and withdrawals in GRSG habitat would protect soil resources in these areas 

from the impacts of erosion, compaction, and sometimes contamination that are 

typically associated with surface-disturbing activities.

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative C, 36 percent fewer AUMs would be available over the same 

number of acres open for grazing as under Alternative A (see Table 4-30). This 

lower intensity of grazing would likely be more similar to natural grazing 

scenarios, reducing erosion and compaction in heavy use areas and allowing for 

the establishment of more diverse vegetative populations. Lower grazing 

intensity could provide the potential for changes in nutrient cycling and may lead 

to excess litter buildup which would affect plant growth and succession and 

could add more organic matter to developing topsoils. Improvements in soil 

health would be expected in some areas currently not meeting Rangeland 

Health Standards. Alternative C is expected to result in improved soil health in 

some areas when compared with Alternative A.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative C, the BLM would close GH and PH (66,293 acres) to fluid 

mineral leasing and development that would otherwise not be closed under 

Alternative A (see Table 4-30). This closure would protect these areas from 

the soil impacts of erosion, compaction and sometimes contamination that are 
4. Environmental Consequences (Soil Resources)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-133

typically associated with oil, gas, and geothermal exploration, development, and 

production.

As described in Table 4-1, there would be approximately 621 acres of shortterm disturbance and 475 acres of long-term disturbance on BLM-administered 

lands related to existing and potential development. Similar to Alternative A, oil 

and gas development would have limited impacts on soil.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative C, the BLM would manage all PH and GH (166,207 acres) as 

unsuitable for surface mining of coal, compared with 0 acres under Alternative 

A (see Table 4-30). The BLM would also allow for withdrawing areas from 

mineral entry within PH. The closures and the allowance for withdrawals would 

reduce the potential for soil impacts typically associated with solid mineral 

extraction of erosion, compaction and sometimes contamination from occurring 

in these areas. Because mineral potential is low for coal and mineral materials, 

these restrictions may have little practical impact on soil resources but it would 

preclude any potential future development.

4.16.7 Alternative D

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Measures proposed under Alternative D would reduce impacts on GRSG

habitat compared to Alternative A. Many management actions and resulting 

impacts would be similar to Alternative B, with increased management flexibility 

incorporated to improve management and target those areas that need most 

protection. Other measures would be as described under Alternative B, but 

would apply to both PH and GH. Overall, management under Alternative D 

would reduce impacts on soils from activities associated with travel and 

transportation in the planning area, including those described under Nature and 

Type of Effects, compared to Alternative A.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Alternative D has zero acres of ROW exclusion area and 32,900 acres of ROW 

avoidance area (includes all PH) compared with no such areas under Alternative 

A (see Table 4-30). The ROW avoidance area would protect and partially 

protect soils, respectively, from the typical impacts associated with 

developments in ROWs of erosion, compaction, and sometimes contamination. 

Impacts from Range Management

Impacts from Alternative D would be the same as Alternative A with respect to 

the number of AUMs available and the acreage open for grazing, resulting in the 

same impacts on soils (see Table 4-30).

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative D, as under Alternative A, the BLM would not close any 

areas to fluid mineral leasing and development, resulting in similar impacts on 
4. Environmental Consequences (Soil Resources)

4-134 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

soil resources (see Table 4-30). As described in Table 4-1, there would be 

approximately 767 acres of short-term disturbance and 530 acres of long-term 

disturbance on BLM-administered lands related to existing and potential 

development. Similar to Alternative A, oil and gas development would have 

limited impacts on soils.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

As with Alternative A, under Alternative D, lands would be open to mineral 

entry. The BLM would manage all PH (87,443 acres) as unacceptable for coal

mining, which would be more protective of soil resources than management 

under Alternative A since the impacts typically associated with coal mining of 

erosion, compaction and sometimes contamination would not be able to occur 

on these lands (see Table 4-30). Because mineral potential is low for coal and 

mineral materials, these restrictions may have little practical impact on soil 

resources but it would preclude any potential future development.

4.17 WATER RESOURCES

4.17.1 Methods and Assumptions

Indicators

Table 4-31, Comparison of Water Resources Indicators by Alternative, 

provides a summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the effects on 

water resources under each alternative. It is acknowledged that conservation 

measures for GRSG would have only beneficial impacts on water resources and 

so indicators are worded in a way that measures to what degree water 

resources would receive protections.

Table 4-31

Comparison of Water Resources Indicators by Alternative

Indicator Alternative

A B C D

Livestock grazing AUMs over 32,945 acres 5,780 5,780 3,739 5,780

Acres in ROW exclusion 0 32,900 32,980 32,9001

Acres closed to fluid mineral leasing 0 61,197 66,293 0

Acres found unsuitable for surface coal

mining 0 87,443 166,207 87,443

Opportunity to restore or improve water 

sources for GRSG and their habitat No change Increase Variable –see analysis Increase

Opportunity for elimination of mosquito 

breeding water conditions No change Increase Increase Increase

1 PH would be exclusion areas for new ROW wind energy developments.
4. Environmental Consequences (Water Resources)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-135

Assumptions

The analysis includes the assumption that projects that help restore watersheds, 

desirable vegetation communities, or wildlife habitats (including surface 

disturbance associated with these efforts) would benefit water resources over 

the long term.

4.17.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Management actions could change the quality and accessibility of water features 

that serve as GRSG drinking sources. Drinking water accessibility and quality in 

turn affect the health and survival of the GRSG. Actions could also increase or 

decrease the ability of water sources to serve as mosquito breeding habitat, 

which could in turn increase or decrease, respectively, the risk of West Nile 

virus transmission to GRSG. 

Surface water quality is influenced by both natural and human factors. Aside 

from the natural factors of weather-related erosion of soils into waterways, 

surface water quality can be affected by the transport of eroded soils into 

streams due to improperly managed livestock grazing, introduction of waste 

matter such as fecal coliforms into streams from domestic livestock, and “lowwater” crossing points of roads, routes, and ways used by motorized vehicles. 

Surface-disturbing activities can remove or disturb essential soil-stabilizing 

agents, such as vegetation diversity, soil crusts, litter, and woody debris. These 

soil features function as living mulch by retaining soil moisture and discouraging 

annual weed growth (Belnap et al. 2001). Loss of one or more of these agents 

increases potential erosion and sediment transport to surface water bodies, 

leading to surface water quality degradation. Surface-disturbing activities under 

certain circumstances can also lead to soil compaction, which decreases 

infiltration rates and elevates potential for overland flow. Overland flow can 

increase erosion and sediment delivery potential to area surface water bodies, 

leading to surface water quality degradation.

In areas with NSO stipulations and managed as ROW exclusion, water quality

would be protected since ground disturbance would be prohibited and soil 

erosion limited to natural processes. In areas managed as ROW avoidance, 

water quality would receive some protection since ground disturbance would 

often be limited. ROW avoidance areas would generally result in lower impacts 

on water quality, compared with areas not managed as ROW avoidance.

Surface-disturbing activities within stream channels, floodplains, and riparian

habitats are more likely to alter natural morphologic stability and floodplain 

function. Morphologic destabilization and loss of floodplain function accelerate 

stream channel and bank erosion, increase sediment supply, dewater nearstream alluvium, cause the loss of riparian and fish habitat, and deteriorate 

water quality (Rosgen 1996). Altering or removing riparian habitats can reduce 

the hydraulic roughness of the bank and increase flow velocities near the bank 
4. Environmental Consequences (Water Resources)

4-136 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

(National Research Council 2002). Increased flow velocities near the bank can 

accelerate erosion, decreasing water quality.

When surface-disturbing impacts are allowed to alter natural drainage patterns, 

the runoff critical to recharging and sustaining locally important aquifers, 

springs/seeps/fens, wetlands, and associated riparian habitats is redirected 

elsewhere. As a result, these sensitive areas can be dewatered, compromising 

vegetative health and vigor, while degrading proper function and condition of 

the watershed. 

Subsurface disturbances can alter natural aquifer properties (e.g., enhance 

hydraulic conductivity of existing fractures, breach confining units, and change 

hydraulic pressure gradients), which can increase potential for contamination of 

surface and groundwater resources. Furthermore, altering natural aquifer 

properties can dewater locally important freshwater sources (e.g., groundwater, 

springs, seeps, fens, and streams). 

Under dry conditions, surface-disturbing activities release dust into the air. 

During winter, wind-blown dust can settle on top of snow and affect the rate of 

snowmelt. Dust-covered snow versus clean snow can have albedo (reflectivity) 

values as low as 0.35, doubling the amount of absorbed solar radiation. Research 

and simulations based on observations in the Senator Beck Basin Study Area 

near Silverton, Colorado, indicate that excess dust on snow (versus pre-1800 

conditions) increased the rate of snowmelt and advanced the timing of melting 

by about three to four weeks (Painter et al. 2007). Furthermore, results of 

studies conducted by Painter and others (2007) indicate that annual runoff is 

reduced by five percent under current dust conditions. Primary contributing 

factors for decreased runoff follow.

Greater absorption of energy during snowmelt causes more of the snow to 

sublimate directly into the atmosphere.

Earlier melting exposes the ground surface to sunlight and warmth, which both 

allow more water to evaporate directly from the soil and extend the growing 

season for plants that then can transpire additional water. It is this combined 

increase in evapotranspiration that appears to have the most impact on stream 

flow.

Surface water runoff depends on both natural factors and land management. 

Natural factors include climate, geology and soils, slope, channel conditions, and 

vegetation type and density. Land use or management actions that alter these 

natural factors play a role in altering surface water runoff. Such actions include 

grading or compacting soils for new roads or well pads and calling for

management prescriptions that alter the type or density of vegetation.

Reducing water flow can have adverse impacts on the ecology of a watershed, 

its recreational potential, the availability of drinking water and water for other 
4. Environmental Consequences (Water Resources)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-137

uses, and groundwater quality and quantity. Water quality impacts from reduced 

water supplies include increased water temperatures, pH levels, and alkaline 

levels. Reductions in water supply could result from consumptive uses of surface 

water or tributary groundwater sources that do not return water to the basin. 

Examples are evaporative loss from new surface water features, 

evapotranspiration from irrigation of vegetation, injection into deep wells, or 

use in drilling fluids that are later disposed of outside of the basin. 

Mineral development is generally associated with the risk of impairments to 

local surface waters and groundwater. Mineral development disturbs soils and 

can result in increased erosion and contamination of waterways via runoff. 

Mineral development increases the presence of petroleum-using vehicles and 

equipment on the land and increases the likelihood of chemical spills that can 

sink into the earth and contaminate groundwater. Mineral development can 

result in pools of standing water that can serve as mosquito breeding habitat, 

increasing the ability for West Nile virus to spread into a landscape otherwise 

not at risk to the pathogen.

Lands that are open for fluid minerals leasing have the potential for future health 

and safety risks related to oil, gas exploration, development, operation, and 

decommissioning. The number of acres open for leasing is proportional to the 

potential for long-term direct health and safety impacts. Use, storage, and 

transportation of fluids, such as produced water, hydraulic fracturing fluids, and 

condensate, have the possibility of spills that could migrate to surface or 

groundwater, causing human health impacts.

Potential impacts from coal, locatable mineral, mineral material, and nonenergy 

leasable mineral activities and development include the release of pollutants 

capable of contaminating surface water during stormwater runoff or 

contaminating aquifers during groundwater recharge. Mineral activities and 

developments could also alter drainage patterns, which would affect stream 

hydrographs and water supplies. Discharge of mine water can alter water 

chemistry and impair natural stream morphologic conditions.

Activities beneficial to water resources are primarily defined as improving 

conditions by enhancing or restoring degraded water quality or by reducing 

ongoing groundwater depletion. Changing grazing patterns in riparian areas 

further benefits the water quality and geomorphic function of streams. 

Management actions regarding closure or avoidance of specific areas, or 

restrictions of disturbance, protect environmental conditions and, thus, are 

beneficial. Mitigation measures also reduce the impacts on water resources from 

ongoing or future activities.

Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or 

no impact on water resources and are therefore not discussed in detail: travel 

and transportation management; recreation; mineral split estate; fire and fuels 

management; habitat restoration/vegetation management; and ACECs.
4. Environmental Consequences (Water Resources)

4-138 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

4.17.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts that are common to all alternatives.

Table 4-32, Quantitative Impact Summary by Alternative for Water Resources, 

provides a comparison of the quantifiable aspects of each alternative with 

respect to Water Resources.

Table 4-32

Quantitative Impact Summary by Alternative for Water Resources

Resource Use Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

ROW exclusion area (acres) 0 32,900 32,980 32,9001

ROW avoidance area (acres) 0 80 0 32,900

Acres closed to fluid mineral

leasing 0 61,197 66,293 0

Acres unsuitable for coal mining 0 87,443 166,207 87,443

Livestock Grazing AUMs over 

32,945 acres 5,780 5,780 3,739 5,780

1 PH would be exclusion areas for new ROW wind energy developments.

4.17.4 Alternative A

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Lands and realty management decisions affect where ground disturbing activities 

can and cannot occur. The use of ROW exclusion and ROW avoidance areas 

limit the amount of man-made runoff of soils and chemicals into waterways 

within those areas and are generally considered to be protective of water 

quality. ROW exclusion and avoidance areas are also seen to reduce the 

likelihood of chemical spills onto the ground, which can then sink into the earth 

and contaminate groundwater. Alternative A has no ROW exclusion or 

avoidance areas (see Table 4-32).

Impacts from Range Management

Livestock generally cause decreases in water quality through the heavy trampling 

of soils and vegetation along and within natural water features that are also used 

by GRSG as drinking water sources. At the same time, water supply structures 

throughout the landscape that have been established for the benefit of livestock 

also often provide drinking water sources for GRSG.

Under Alternative A, BLM would maintain PFC riparian and wetland areas. 

Water sources would be developed where needed (as indicated by monitoring) 

to improve GRSG habitat and waters used by GRSG and adversely affected by

uncontrolled livestock use would be fenced. These actions would have a 

beneficial effect on water sources over time. 
4. Environmental Consequences (Water Resources)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-139

Under Alternative A, 5,780 AUMs would be available over 32,945 acres open 

for grazing (see Table 4-32). The level of grazing itself does not necessarily 

have an impact on water sources. More important is the way in which the 

livestock and the water sources are managed, which is addressed in the 

previous paragraph.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Alternative A does not close any areas to fluid mineral leasing and development 

(see Table 4-32), nor does it not include any fluid minerals management 

actions that would protect GRSG against West Nile virus. Impacts on soils 

related to surface disturbance and occupancy from these activities, as described 

above in Nature and Type of Effects, could occur. Disturbance of soils from 

mineral development would continue to result in the potential for increased 

erosion and contamination. Disturbance of soils from mineral development 

would continue to result in the potential for increased erosion and 

contamination.

As described in Table 4-1, there would be approximately 816 acres of shortterm disturbance and 548 acres of long-term disturbance on BLM-administered 

lands related to existing and potential development. However, oil and gas

development would have limited impacts on soils because, although there is high 

potential in GRSG habitat, most of the resources have already been developed; 

therefore, opening or closing areas to development would have minimal impacts 

on soils related to surface disturbance and occupancy.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Alternative A does not include any solid minerals management actions that 

would protect GRSG against West Nile virus meaning that water sources could 

be created that foster mosquito breeding. Management under Alternative A 

does not allow for withdrawing any areas from mineral entry and does not 

identify any areas as unsuitable or unacceptable for surface mining of coal (see 

Table 4-32). There would be no impact on water resources over existing 

conditions. Impact on soils related to surface disturbance and occupancy, as 

described above in Nature and Type of Effects, from these activities could occur.

4.17.5 Alternative B

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative B, the BLM would manage PH (32,900 acres) as ROW

exclusion area and PH (80 acres) as ROW avoidance area. This would be more 

protective of water resources than Alternative A, which has no acreage of 

either designation (see Table 4-32), therefore creating fewer impacts of the 

type and nature described above in Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from Range Management

Management under Alternative B would be the same as Alternative A with 

respect to the number of AUMs available and the acreage open for grazing (see 
4. Environmental Consequences (Water Resources)

4-140 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 4-32). However, Alternative B includes measures that would provide 

greater potential for improvement of water quality sources for GRSG in riparian

areas and wet meadows for PFC than Alternative A through striving to attain 

reference state vegetation relative to the ESD. Alternative B would be of 

greater benefit to water resources than Alternative A through the analysis of 

existing water sources and the implementation of appropriate modifications to 

maintain the continuity of the predevelopment riparian area within PH. 

Alternative B includes more management options for structural range 

improvements that specifically benefit PH than Alternative A. The BLM would 

provide GRSG with greater protection against West Nile virus than under 

Alternative A through implementing RDFs when developing or modifying water 

developments in PH. Water sources are more likely to be maintained in 

conditions that would not be conducive to mosquito breeding.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative B, the BLM would close PH (61,197 acres) to fluid mineral

leasing and development. This closure would decrease the chance for the 

contamination of surface water and groundwater and would decrease the 

likelihood for the creation of new mosquito breeding habitat and the risk of 

infection of GRSG with West Nile virus (see Table 4-32).

As described in Table 4-1, there would be approximately 624 acres of shortterm disturbance and 476 acres of long-term disturbance on BLM-administered 

lands related to existing and potential development. Impacts on soils in these 

areas would be the same as Alternative A, but would occur over a smaller area.

Similar to Alternative A, oil and gas development would have limited impacts on 

water resources.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative B, the BLM would find all PH (87,443 acres) as unsuitable for 

surface mining of coal and would allow for withdrawing areas from mineral 

entry within PH (see Table 4-32); however, little-to-no coal extraction is 

expected in the planning area, so protective effects of this closure would be 

limited. This would reduce the chance for the contamination of water resources 

within PH and would reduce the chance for forming mosquito breeding habitat 

and furthering the potential transmission of West Nile virus to GRSG. The BLM

would also apply West Nile virus prevention RDFs on solid mineral projects

(BMPs would be proposed for locatable minerals). Overall, management under 

Alternative B could result in higher quality water sources, and could decrease 

the occurrence of mosquito breeding habitat and the potential for West Nile 

virus transmission than Alternative A. Because mineral potential is low for coal 

and mineral materials, these restrictions may have little practical impact on 

water resources but it would preclude any potential future development.
4. Environmental Consequences (Water Resources)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-141

4.17.6 Alternative C

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative C, the BLM would manage 32,980 acres as ROW exclusion 

area and zero acres as ROW avoidance area. The ROW exclusion and 

avoidance areas would protect and partially protect water resources, 

respectively, from the typical impacts associated with developments in ROWs of 

erosion and sometimes contamination. This would be more protective of water 

resources than Alternative A, which has no acreage of either designation (see 

Table 4-32), resulting in fewer impacts on water resources of the type and 

nature described above in Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative C, 36 percent fewer AUMs would be available over the same 

acreage of acres open for grazing as under Alternative A (see Table 4-32). This 

lower intensity of grazing would provide the potential for improved soil and 

vegetative health, would reduce the potential for soil eroding and transporting 

suspended solids into waterways, would result in thicker vegetative cover and 

organic litter that would better filter suspended solids out of surface runoff, and 

would reduce the amount of fecal coliforms being generated on the landscape 

that could then flow into waterways. Management actions under Alternative C 

would improve surface water quality over existing conditions. The lower level of 

grazing could also make some existing water sources more available to GRSG

through there being less livestock to temporarily displace the birds during 

livestock drinking events.

Under Alternative C, the BLM would provide greater protections of water 

quality than Alternative A for water sources in PH through managing riparian

areas and wet meadows for PFC. Compared with Alternative A, Alternative C 

may limit the BLM in its ability to improve water availability through banning the 

authorization of new water developments through diversions from seeps or 

springs in GRSG habitat. Impacts from Alternative C would be of greater benefit 

to GRSG than Alternative A through the analysis of existing water sources and 

the implementation of appropriate modifications to maintain the continuity of 

the predevelopment riparian area within GRSG habitats. Management under 

Alternative C would provide greater potential for new beneficial water sources 

to be installed in PH and GH than Alternative A through avoiding all new 

structural range developments except for those independently shown to benefit 

GRSG. Management actions under Alternative C would provide GRSG with 

greater protection against West Nile virus than Alternative A through 

implementing RDFs when developing or modifying water developments in PH.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative C, the BLM would close GH and PH (66,293 acres) to fluid 

mineral leasing and development, which would decrease the chance for the 

contamination of surface water and groundwater and would decrease the 
4. Environmental Consequences (Water Resources)

4-142 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

likelihood for the creation of new mosquito breeding habitat and the risk of 

infection of GRSG with West Nile virus (see Table 4-32). This management 

would make Alternative C more protective of GRSG than Alternative A.

As described in Table 4-1, there would be approximately 621 acres of shortterm disturbance and 475 acres of long-term disturbance on BLM-administered 

lands related to existing and potential development. Similar to Alternative A, oil 

and gas development would have limited impacts on water resources.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative C, the BLM would manage all PH (166,207 acres) as 

unsuitable for surface mining of coal and would allow for withdrawing areas 

from mineral entry within PH (see Table 4-32); however, little-to-no coal 

extraction is expected in the planning area so protective effects of this closure 

would be limited. This would reduce the chance for the contamination of water 

resources within PH, and would reduce the chance for forming mosquito 

breeding habitat and furthering the potential transmission of West Nile virus to 

GRSG. The BLM would also apply West Nile virus prevention RDFs (BMPs

would be proposed for locatable minerals) on solid mineral projects. Overall, 

management actions under Alternative C could be more protective of GRSG

with respect to West Nile virus transmission than Alternative A. Because 

mineral potential is low for coal and mineral materials, these restrictions may 

have little practical impact on water resources but it would preclude any 

potential future development.

4.17.7 Alternative D

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative D, the BLM would manage PH (32,900 acres) as ROW 

avoidance area; however, PH would be a ROW exclusion area for wind energy 

development. This would be more protective of water resources than 

Alternative A, which has no acreage of either designation (see Table 4-32).

Impacts from Range Management

Management under Alternative D would be the same as Alternative A with 

respect to the number of AUMs available and the acreage open for grazing (see 

Table 4-32).

Under Alternative D, management actions would provide greater potential for 

improvement of water quality sources for GRSG in riparian areas and wet 

meadows that meet PFC than Alternative A by striving to move towards GRSG

habitat objectives within capabilities of the reference state vegetation relative to 

the ESD. Unlike Alternative A, management under Alternative D would provide 

the opportunity for improving PH through new water diversions from springs 

and seeps. Impacts from Alternative D would be similar to Alternative B and 

would be of greater benefit to GRSG than Alternative A through the analysis of 

existing water sources and the implementation of appropriate modifications to 
4. Environmental Consequences (Water Resources)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-143

maintain the continuity of the predevelopment riparian area within PH. 

Alternative D provides more options than Alternative A for structural range 

improvements that specifically benefit PH. Management actions under

Alternative D would provide more opportunities to improve water resources

and greater protection against West Nile virus than Alternative A through 

implementing RDFs when developing or modifying water developments in PH.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative D, as with Alternative A, the BLM would not close any areas 

to fluid mineral leasing and development (see Table 4-32). Management under 

Alternative D would provide greater protection of GRSG from West Nile virus

than Alternative A through managing water developments to reduce the spread 

of the virus within GRSG habitat areas and through imposing NSO within PH.

As described in Table 4-1, there would be approximately 767 acres of shortterm disturbance and 530 acres of long-term disturbance on BLM-administered 

lands related to existing and potential development (less than Alternative A). 

Similar to Alternative A, oil and gas development would have limited impacts on 

water resources.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Implementation of Alternative D could potentially find all PH (87,443 acres) as 

unsuitable for surface mining of coal (see Table 4-32). Under Alternative D, 

the BLM would apply West Nile virus prevention RDFs (BMPs would be 

proposed for locatable minerals) on solid mineral projects to prevent 

unnecessary and undue degradation. Overall, management actions under 

Alternative D could be more protective of GRSG with respect to West Nile 

virus transmission than Alternative A. Because mineral potential is low for coal 

and mineral materials, these restrictions may have little practical impact on 

water resources but it would preclude any potential future development.

4.18 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES – OTHER SPECIES OF ISSUE

4.18.1 Methods and Assumptions

Although data on known locations within the planning area are available, the 

data are neither complete nor comprehensive concerning all special status 

species or potential habitat that might exist. Known Sprague’s pipit distribution 

area was considered for quantitative analysis; however, the potential presence 

of other species was also considered, and, as a result, some impacts are 

discussed in more general terms. Additionally, transient gray wolf and migrating 

whooping crane have the potential to occupy the planning area. 

Indicators

Table 4-33, Comparison of Special Status Species-Other Indicators by 

Alternative, provides a summary of the indicators that were used to analyze the 

effects on special status species under each alternative.
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

4-144 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 4-33

Comparison of Special Status Species-Other Indicators by Alternative

Indicator Alternative

A B C D

Acres in ROW exclusion 0 32,900 32,980 32,9001

Livestock grazing AUMs 5,780 5,780 3,739 5,780

Acres closed to fluid mineral leasing 0 61,197 66,293 0

Acres found unsuitable for coal mining 0 87,443 166,207 87,443

1 PH would be exclusion areas for new ROW wind energy developments.

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

• In general, special status species would be more sensitive to habitat 

fragmentation than common species, development, or changes in 

habitat conditions, as populations are often already highly 

fragmented, require specific microhabitats, and are especially 

sensitive to disturbance and human presence.

• The analysis presented is largely qualitative due to the lack of data 

or uncertainty in existing data on certain special status species’ 

occurrences, for example, many of the BLM sensitive plant species. 

Furthermore, since many special status species may potentially use 

habitats that are currently unoccupied and populations fluctuate, any 

quantitative analysis of occupied habitat would change over time as 

knowledge of where species exist increases. Where appropriate, 

acreages from Chapter 2 are included to show a comparison 

between alternatives.

• Impacts on special status species would be more significant than 

impacts on common species because population viability is already 

uncertain for special status species and certain species, such as 

special status plants, tend to be poor competitors.

• Short-term effects are defined as those that would occur over a 

timeframe of two years or less, and long-term effects would occur 

over longer than two years.

4.18.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Fish and Wildlife

Special status fish and wildlife habitats on BLM-administered lands within the 

decision area would be affected under all alternatives, and the condition of 

habitats is directly linked to vegetation conditions, water quality and quantity, 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-145

and progression towards land health standards (Section 4.4 and Section 

4.17). 

Changes to special status fish and wildlife habitats would be caused by the 

following: 1) disturbance from casual use; 2) disturbance from permitted 

activities; and 3) changes to habitat conditions. 

Disturbance from Casual Use

Substantial analysis and planning is used to determine the locations and types of 

casual use activities that would occur, such as recreation, motorized vehicle use, 

and use of authorized and unauthorized routes. Examples of impacts on special 

status fish and wildlife from casual use include habitat loss, fragmentation, or 

degradation; mortality or injury of animals; sedimentation of waterways; 

increased turbidity; decreased water quality; disturbance to species during 

sensitive or critical periods in their life cycle such as spawning, nesting, or 

denning; short-term displacement; and long-term habitat avoidance by species 

such as raptors that are sensitive to noise or human presence. Some species 

may adapt to disturbances over time and could recolonize disturbed habitats. 

While no lands within the decision area are designated open to motorized 

travel, impacts would still occur in areas limited to designated routes due to 

noise disturbance, human presence, potential for weed spread and habitat 

degradation, and the potential for injury or mortality to wildlife from vehicle 

collisions. 

Both short-term, loud noise (such as from vehicles or construction) and longterm, low-level noise (such as from oil and gas development) have been 

documented to cause physiological effects on wildlife species, including 

increased heart rate, altered metabolism, and a change in hormone balance 

(Radle 2007, pg. 5). Determining the effect of noise is complicated because 

different species and individuals have varying responses, and certain species rely 

more heavily on acoustical cues than others (Radle 2007, pg. 5). Impacts would 

be both short and long term, depending on the type and source of noise. 

On-site management of recreation and motorized activity, and designation and 

closure of travel routes could prevent or reduce impacts. Seasonal closure of 

routes would prevent impacts on species during sensitive or critical times of the 

year, such as during winter or birthing. 

Disturbance from Permitted Activities

Permitted, surface-disturbing activities (e.g., mineral exploration and 

development, and ROWs) would result in short-term direct impacts through 

mortality, injury, displacement, and noise or human disturbance caused by 

increased vehicle traffic and use of heavy machinery. Displacement of species 

could increase competition for resources in adjacent habitats. Over the long 

term, these activities would remove and fragment habitats due to road 

development and use, facility construction and placement, creation of well pads 

and pipelines, and construction within ROWs. Species could avoid developed 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

4-146 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

areas over the long-term, or may adapt and recolonize sites after construction. 

ROW avoidance and exclusion areas would reduce or avoid habitat impacts and 

could reduce the total acreage of habitat disturbance and fragmentation. 

Bird mortality or injury could occur from collision or electrocution with 

transmission lines and other ROW structures. Development in areas where 

there are existing ROWs would reduce impacts, since resident birds may have 

adapted to the existing ROWs. COAs, such as requiring flight diverters or 

following Avian Power Line Interaction Committee guidelines, would be applied 

to new ROW applications to reduce impacts. Wind energy may also cause 

direct impacts on birds and bats, including blade strikes, barotrauma (injury or 

mortality caused by rapid or excessive pressure changes), habitat loss, and 

displacement. Indirect impacts may include introduction of invasive vegetation 

that results in alteration of fire cycles; increase in predators or predation 

pressure; decreased survival or reproduction of the species; and decreased 

habitat effectiveness. Areas managed under NSO, CSU, and TL stipulations 

would limit surface disturbance and associated impacts in certain areas. 

Changes to Habitat Conditions

Changes to habitat conditions could occur from vegetation and weed 

treatments; livestock grazing; GRSG habitat enhancements; fire; fuels 

treatments; and range improvements. Overall, the BLM would aim to achieve or 

trend toward achieving Rangeland Health Standard 5: Biodiversity, which would 

maintain and/or restore habitat values for fish and wildlife. Over the short term, 

vegetation, fire, and weed treatments would remove habitat, and impacts would 

occur until the desired habitat was established. Over the long term, vegetation 

and habitat treatments would increase habitat structural and compositional 

diversity, increase cover and nesting habitat, prevent sedimentation of 

waterways, and retain riparian and wetland habitats. Depending on the extent 

and severity, fire can improve habitat for some species in the long term.

If managed improperly, overutilization of forage by livestock could occur, leading 

to increased competition with wildlife for forage, and potentially reduced cover 

and nesting habitat for other species. Livestock could also spread weeds, which 

would degrade habitats. Special status wildlife could be displaced from their 

habitats, which could increase competition for resources in adjacent habitats. 

Impacts would vary depending on the extent of vegetation removal, type of 

habitat impacted, and length of the grazing period. In general, the more acres 

that are open to grazing and AUMs available under a given alternative, the 

greater the risk for impacts. Livestock may degrade riparian areas, which could 

impact riparian-dependent, aquatic, and fish species. 

Natural disturbances such as unplanned fire ignitions could cause short- or longterm damage to habitats depending on the seral type affected, extent, and 

severity of the fire. In the short term, fire removes nesting and cover habitat 

and leaves bare areas that provide little habitat value and could erode to cause 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-147

sedimentation of waterways. Fire could displace species from suitable habitat, 

which could increase competition for resources in adjacent habitats. In the long 

term, wildland and prescribed fires, as well as fuels treatments, improve habitat 

by increasing structural diversity. Often, fire and fuels treatments lower the risk 

for an uncharacteristically large or severe wildfire that would destroy a large 

acreage of wildlife habitats. 

Management actions and special designated areas (e.g., ACECs) that restrict 

surface-disturbing activities would reduce impacts such as habitat removal, 

fragmentation, and human disturbance. Such management actions include 

stipulations to protect GRSG; closure of areas to mineral leasing and 

development; ROW avoidance and exclusion areas; areas recommended for 

withdrawal from mineral entry; restrictions within ACECs; and route closures 

or restrictions. 

Criteria would be used to guide land exchanges, disposals, and acquisitions, 

which could reduce the fragmentation of BLM-administered land in the planning 

area. This could improve the BLM’s ability to implement management actions 

that would result in improved habitats, undisturbed fish and wildlife populations, 

and attainment of land health standards. However, lands identified for disposal 

could cause fragmentation and habitat loss if the disposed land is converted to 

other uses, such as agriculture or residential or industrial development.

4.18.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

There are no impacts that are common to all alternatives.

4.18.4 Alternative A

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

BLM-administered lands would continue to permit limited yearlong use for 

motorized wheeled vehicles, restricted to existing roads and trails on 33,030 

acres. Through site-specific planning, the BLM would inventory, map, and 

designate roads and trails as open, seasonally open, or closed. Through this 

process, important wildlife habitat areas could be protected. Ecological impacts 

of roads and motorized trails include mortality due to collisions, behavior 

modifications due to noise, activity and/or habitat loss, alteration of physical 

environment, leaching of nutrients, erosion, spread of invasive plants, increased 

use, and alteration by humans due to accessibility would likely continue.

Impacts from Recreation

Under Alternative A, use authorizations would be considered as requested by 

the public. Recreational use may result in human disturbance, degradation of 

habitat, or mortality, as described in Nature and Type of Effects.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

No ROW avoidance or exclusion areas would be designated under Alternative 

A and 3,436 acres would be identified for disposal. As a result, human 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

4-148 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

disturbance- and infrastructure-related impacts described above in Nature and 

Type of Effects would continue. However, BLM would co-locate facilities where 

possible, which would reduce impacts on some special status species by 

reducing the extent of new disturbance.

Land tenure adjustments would be subject to current disposal/exchange/

acquisition criteria, which include retaining lands with threatened or endangered 

species, high quality riparian habitat, or plant and animal populations or natural 

communities of high interest. This would reduce the likelihood of habitat 

conversion to agriculture, urbanization, or other uses that would remove 

habitat.

Impacts from Range Management

The most current assessment of acres meeting land health standards in the 

planning area are described in Table 3-39. Nearly 33,000 acres were assessed 

in PPH and 80 acres in PGH. These assessments indicate that most of the PPH 

provides diverse and productive plant and animal habitat. Under Alternative A, 

the BLM would make 5,780 AUMs available, develop water sources, and allow 

land treatments. Changes to habitat conditions would be as described under 

Nature and Type of Effects. The BLM would incorporate management to reduce 

impacts during drought, and fences would be erected to protect and benefit 

wildlife. In addition, riparian and wetland habitats would be improved. Overall, 

while impacts from grazing would continue to occur, the BLM would take 

actions to reduce these impacts, which would reduce damage to habitat for 

some special status species.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Impacts could occur on 73,435 acres where BLM-administered surface lands and 

split estate would be open to fluid mineral leasing. All acres of Sprague’s pipit 

distribution would be open to fluid mineral leasing. Human disturbance and 

changes to habitat as described under Nature and Type of Effects would be 

reduced on BLM-administered and split estate lands where NSO (9,780 acres), 

CSU (21,235 acres), or TL (38,504 acres) constraints would be applied for 

GRSG. NSO or CSU would be applied on 31,015 acres of Sprague’s pipit 

distribution reducing the nature and types of the described impacts. However, 

oil and gas development would have limited differences among the alternatives 

because,, although there is high potential in GRSG habitat, most of the 

resources have already been developed; therefore, opening or closing areas to 

development would have minimal impacts on other special status species related 

to surface disturbance and occupancy.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

In Sprague’s pipit distribution, 242,743 federal mineral acres would be 

acceptable for coal leasing and open to solid mineral entry. However, there are 

no existing coal leases and development of federal coal resources is not 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-149

anticipated during the life of this plan. Therefore, no impacts are expected from 

coal.

For locatable minerals, mineral materials, and non-energy leasable minerals, a 

total of 56,681 BLM-administered acres would continue to be managed as open 

to exploration and development. Impacts from surface disturbance and changes 

in habitat, as described under Nature and Type of Effects, would continue.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Management under Alternative A does not provide much guidance on fire and 

fuels management, so it is likely that changes in habitat from fire and fuels 

management, as described under Nature and Type of Effects, would continue. In 

some instances, habitat for some special status species would be lost to fire 

while other habitats would be protected from fuels management activities.

However, the risk of wildfire is very low overall as there have been no fires on 

BLM-administered lands in the area in the past 10 years.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Management under Alternative A does not provide much guidance on habitat 

restoration and vegetation management, so it is likely that impacts from these 

activities as described above would continue. In some instances, habitat for 

other special status species would be improved from habitat restoration and 

vegetation management activities.

Impacts from ACECs

There are no designated ACECs in the planning area under Alternative A, and,

as a result, no impacts from ACEC management actions on other special status 

species.

4.18.5 Alternative B

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Similar to Alternative A, motorized wheeled vehicles would be limited to 

existing roads and trails on 30,030 acres. Under Alternative B, the BLM would 

evaluate the need for road closures in PH. If closures were applied, the impacts 

from roads would be reduced in these areas. The BLM would also impose 

limitations on new route construction and upgrading of existing routes in PH, 

which would reduce impacts from disturbance, changes to habitat, and mortality

on other special status species in these areas. The BLM would use appropriate 

seed mixes when reseeding roads, primitive roads, and trails in PH and would 

transplant sagebrush to facilitate restoration, which would improve habitat 

connectivity for some special status species over the long term as compared to 

Alternative A.
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

4-150 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Impacts from Recreation

The BLM would limit issuance of SRPs in PH to those that would have neutral 

or beneficial effects on GRSG. This action would potentially reduce impacts for 

those special status species that occur in PH as compared to Alternative A.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

The BLM would designate PH as ROW exclusion (32,900 acres) and GH as 

ROW avoidance (80 acres) areas, all of which includes Sprague’s pipit 

distribution, thereby reducing impacts on GRSG. Such designations would also 

reduce impacts from human disturbance and changes to habitat for those other 

special status species that occur in these areas. Impacts from co-location of 

facilities would be similar to those described for Alternative A, though they 

would occur in GH only, which is a reduction of impacts as compared to 

Alternative A.

Impacts from Range Management

The BLM would make the same number of AUMs available as under Alternative 

A. However, under Alternative B, the BLM would implement a number of 

additional management actions to incorporate GRSG habitat objectives and 

management considerations into livestock grazing management. These include, 

but are not limited to, consideration of grazing methods and systems to reduce 

impacts on GRSG habitat, improved management of riparian areas and wet 

meadows, evaluation of existing introduced perennial grass seedings, water 

developments, and structural range improvements, RDFs for West Nile virus, 

and fence marking. Such management actions would largely affect those special 

status species that use the same habitats as GRSG, and would reduce, but would 

not eliminate, impacts from grazing on special status species in these areas as 

compared to Alternative A.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative B, 61,197 acres of BLM-administered and split estate lands 

would be closed to fluid mineral leasing and conservation measures would be 

applied on leased fluid mineral estate and split estate lands. These actions would 

reduce the likelihood and extent of impacts on the distribution of Sprague’s pipit 

caused by fluid mineral development as compared to Alternative A.

However, oil and gas development would have limited differences among the 

alternatives because, although there is high potential in GRSG habitat, most of 

the resources have already been developed; therefore, opening or closing areas 

to development would have minimal impacts on other special status species

related to surface disturbance and occupancy.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative B, 87,443 acres of PH and of Sprague’s pipit distribution 

would be unsuitable for coal mining and minimization measures would be 

applied in GH. However, there are no existing coal leases and development of 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-151

federal coal resources is not anticipated during the life of this plan. Therefore, 

no impacts are expected from coal.

Fewer acres (46,397 acres of BLM mineral estate and Sprague’s pipit 

distribution) would be open to solid mineral exploration or development 

compared to Alternative A, and PH (46,397 acres) would be closed to mineral 

materials disposal and non-energy solid leasable mineral exploration and 

development. BMPs would be applied on existing leases, and RDFs would be 

applied to future leases (BMPs for locatable minerals). Together, these actions 

would reduce impacts on other special status species from solid minerals 

compared to Alternative A. Because mineral potential is low for mineral 

materials, these restrictions may have little practical impact on special status 

species but it would preclude any potential future development.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Fuels treatments under Alternative B would be designed to protect sagebrush 

ecosystems and would thereby protect habitat for those other special status 

species that rely on these habitats. The BLM would maintain sagebrush cover, 

apply seasonal restrictions, protect winter range, and require use of native 

seeds. The BLM would prioritize suppression in PH and in GH where fires

would threaten PH. Together these actions would reduce the effects from 

wildland fire. However, suppression over large areas could allow for fuels to 

build up and could lead to a large-scale fire over the long term.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Habitat restoration and vegetation management actions would aim to improve 

GRSG habitat and prioritize restoration efforts to benefit GRSG habitats, 

including reducing invasive plants. This would improve habitat for other special 

status species that use the same habitat as GRSG.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative A.

4.18.6 Alternative C

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Similar to Alternative A, motorized wheeled vehicles would be limited to 

existing roads and trails on 30,030 acres. Disturbance, changes in habitat, and 

mortality from travel and transportation management would be similar to 

Alternative B; however, management under Alternative C would not allow 

roads to be built within four miles of a lek in PH or GH. This buffer would 

cover nearly all PH. Impacts would be further reduced from the Alternative A 

baseline, since protections would apply to both PH and GH, and the BLM would 

apply additional mitigation requirements. In PH and GH, no upgrading of existing 

routes or capacity would be allowed unless it is necessary for motorist safety, 

or eliminates the need to construct a new road. Any impacts shall be mitigated 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

4-152 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

with methods that have been demonstrated to be effective to offset the loss of 

GRSG habitat.

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts from recreation under Alternative C would be similar to those 

described for Alternative B. However, impacts would be reduced compared to 

Alternative A (and reduced below Alternative B levels) since restrictions would 

apply to both PH and GH. These measures would further reduce disturbance 

from recreational activities in potential habitat.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative C, PH and GH would be designated as a ROW exclusion 

area and no wind energy development would be allowed. No areas would be 

identified for disposal. Together, these management actions would reduce 

impacts from human disturbance and changes to habitat.

Impacts from Range Management

Impacts from range management under Alternative C would be similar to those 

described for Alternative B, although impacts would be reduced due to 

increased restrictions that would be applied to both PH and GH. For example, 

the BLM would make fewer AUMs available (3,740 AUMs), would not allow new 

water developments, and would avoid all new structural range improvements 

and location of supplements in PH and GH. Together, these management 

actions would reduce impacts from changes to habitat as a result of grazing as 

compared to Alternative A.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative C, 66,293 acres, of which all acres would be Sprague’s pipit 

distribution, would be closed to fluid mineral leasing and conservation measures 

would be applied on leased fluid mineral estate and split estate lands. 

Conservation measures would be more restrictive compared to Alternative B. 

These actions would reduce the likelihood and extent of impacts caused by fluid 

mineral development.

However, oil and gas development would have limited differences among the 

alternatives because,, although there is high potential in GRSG habitat, most of 

the resources have already been developed; therefore, opening or closing areas 

to development would have minimal impacts on other special status species

related to surface disturbance and occupancy.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Impacts from solid minerals under Alternative C would be similar to those 

described for Alternative B. No impacts are expected from coal. Impacts would 

be reduced compared to Alternative B since closures and restrictions would 

apply to both PH and GH. Together, these actions would reduce impacts on 

other special status species from solid minerals compared to Alternative A.

Because mineral potential is low for coal and mineral materials, these 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-153

restrictions may have little practical impact on special status species but it would 

preclude any potential future development.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Impacts from fire and fuels management under Alternative C would be similar to 

those described under Alternative B, although the BLM would not consider the 

use of livestock to reduce fine fuels. While this would reduce the likelihood of 

impacts from livestock on habitat and species, it could also allow for fuels to 

build up and could increase the likelihood of a large fire that would destroy 

special status species habitat.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Impacts from habitat restoration and vegetation management would be similar 

to Alternative B but habitat improvements would be applied to both PH and GH

under Alternative C. As a result, a greater area of habitat would be improved 

for some special status species.

Impacts from ACECs

Under Alternative C, all PH (32,900 acres) would be designated as an ACEC. 

This would afford protections to other special status species that occur in the 

GRSG ACEC.

4.18.7 Alternative D

Impacts from Travel and Transportation Management

Similar to Alternative A, motorized wheeled vehicles would be limited to 

existing roads and trails on 30,030 acres. Under Alternative D, closures would 

be evaluated when OHV use is found to cause adverse habitat impacts. 

Management actions that address disturbance, changes in habitat, and mortality 

from travel and transportation management similar to Alternative B, though 

many would apply to both PH and GH and would thus encompass a larger area 

where impacts would be reduced.

Impacts from Recreation

Impacts from recreation on other special status species under Alternative D 

would be the same as those described under Alternative B.

Impacts from Lands and Realty

All lands within the decision area would be designated as ROW avoidance areas, 

although PH would be an exclusion area for wind energy. Impacts from colocation of facilities and lands disposal would be the same as those described for 

Alternative B. Overall, management actions would reduce impacts from 

disturbance and changes in habitat compared to Alternative A.

Impacts from Range Management

Impacts from range management would be similar to those described for 

Alternative B, although the BLM would have more tools available to complete 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

4-154 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

their Land Health Assessments and would thus be more likely to complete 

these assessments in a timely manner. In addition, the BLM would consider 

other priority species when conducting vegetation treatments, which could 

benefit some special status species in the long term. Together, these actions 

would reduce impacts on other special status species from range management

compared to Alternative A.

Impacts from Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative D, no lands would be closed to fluid mineral leasing, but 

61,197 acres of Sprague’s pipit distribution would be open to leasing subject to 

an NSO stipulation. The BLM would apply CSU stipulations on GH. In addition, 

a number of operational constraints would be applied to existing leases as 

COAs in PH, which would reduce impacts from disturbance and changes to 

habitat on other special status species in these areas.

However, oil and gas development would have limited differences among the 

alternatives because,, although there is high potential in GRSG habitat, most of 

the resources have already been developed; therefore, opening or closing areas 

to development would have minimal impacts on other special status species

related to surface disturbance and occupancy.

Impacts from Solid Minerals

Under Alternative D, restrictions on coal mining would be the same as 

described for Alternative B. However, there are no existing coal leases and

development of federal coal resources is not anticipated during the life of this 

plan. Therefore, no impacts are expected from coal.

Acres open to solid mineral exploration or development would be the same as 

under Alternative A, although under Alternative D, the BLM would apply RDFs

(BMPs for locatable minerals) as needed to reduce impacts. Impacts from 

mineral materials disposal and non-energy solid leasable mineral exploration and 

development would be the same as described for Alternative B. Together, these 

actions would reduce impacts from disturbance and changes in habitat on other 

special status species compared to Alternative A. Because mineral potential is 

low for mineral materials, these restrictions may have little practical impact on 

special status species but it would preclude any potential future development.

Impacts from Fire and Fuels Management

Impacts from fire and fuels management would be similar to those described for 

Alternative B, although requirements and restrictions under Alternative D 

would be less stringent and could allow for increased impacts on special status 

species habitat in comparison.

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management

Impacts from habitat restoration and vegetation management would be similar 

to those described for Alternative B, but BLM would consider other priority 

species habitat when prioritizing restoration projects and creating landscape 
4. Environmental Consequences (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-155

patterns. This could improve habitat for other special status species over the 

long term.

Impacts from ACECs

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative A.

4.19 RENEWABLE ENERGY

4.19.1 Methods and Assumptions

Indicators

Indicators of impacts on renewable energy are as follows:

• Acres of lands with “Good” or better solar potential within ROW

exclusion and avoidance areas within PH/GH

• Acres of lands with “Good” or better wind potential within ROW

exclusion and avoidance areas within PH/GH

Assumptions

The analysis includes the following assumptions:

• “Good” or better wind potential is classified as wind speeds of 7.0 

meters/second at 50 meter height or at wind power density of 

above 400 watts/meter (NREL 2012a).

• “Good” or better solar potential is classified as having average 

annual solar energy above 6.0 kilowatt-hour/square meter/day or a 

solar power density above 400 watts/square meter (NREL 2012b).

• Existing ROWs may be modified on their renewal, assignment, or 

amendment if the requested actions meet the objectives of the 

amended RMP. 

• ROW holders may continue their authorized use as long as they are 

in compliance with the terms and conditions of their grant.

• The demand for ROWs would increase over the life of the 

amended RMP.

• Renewable energy resources include solar, wind, and biomass 

facilities. Biomass projects are authorized under the timber 

regulations, unless a new facility is being authorized for biomass 

production. Based on recent trends (see Chapter 3), the 

development of biomass facilities within the planning area is unlikely; 

therefore, impacts from biomass production facilities are not 

analyzed.

Alternatives were evaluated for acres of ROW avoidance, acres of ROW 

exclusion, areas where new road construction is prohibited or to be avoided. 
4. Environmental Consequences (Renewable Energy)

4-156 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

All of these factors are considered to be impediments to solar and wind

development. Alternatives with greater acreages of such restrictions are 

considered to have a greater impact on solar and wind development potential 

then alternatives with fewer acres of such restrictions.

4.19.2 Nature and Type of Effects

Impacts on solar and wind developments are generally related to where ROW

authorizations are allowed to occur, the mitigation measures required for 

specific project siting, and special stipulations required for resource protection.

ROWs can only occur on lands that are not ROW exclusion areas. Alternatives 

with greater ROW exclusion areas would have long-term direct impacts on the 

ability for solar and wind projects to be developed.

As discussed in Section 4.3, Lands and Realty, ROW applications may be filed 

within ROW avoidance areas; however, projects proposed in such areas may be 

subject to restrictions that would add application processing time and increased 

project costs. Alternatives with greater ROW avoidance areas are considered 

to have short-term direct impacts (e.g., special surveys, reports, and 

construction and reclamation BMPs) and long-term direct impacts (e.g., 

potential operation and maintenance requirements) on the development of 

renewable energy resources.

Implementing management for the following resources would have negligible or 

no impact on renewable energy and are therefore not discussed in detail: travel 

and transportation management, recreation, range management, fluid minerals, 

solid minerals, mineral split estate, fire and fuels management, habitat 

restoration/vegetation management, and ACECs.

4.19.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

The acreages of ROW exclusion and avoidance areas vary across alternatives 

and are provided in Table 4-34, BLM-Administered Lands Managed as ROW

Exclusion and Avoidance Areas.

Table 4-34

BLM-Administered Lands Managed as ROW Exclusion and Avoidance Areas

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

ROW exclusion

area (acres) 0 32,900 32,980 32,900

ROW avoidance

area (acres) 0 80 0 32,900

Open area 

(acres) 33,030 50 50 1301

1 PH would be exclusion areas for new ROW wind energy developments.
4. Environmental Consequences (Renewable Energy)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-157

There is no “Good” (6.0 kilowatt-hour/square meter/day) or better solar 

potential within the planning area. As such, none the alternatives would result in 

impacts on solar energy development potential.

Table 4-35, “Good” or Better Wind Potential That Would Be Managed as 

ROW Exclusion and Avoidance Areas, provides an overview of impacts across 

alternatives on wind development potential through showing the number of 

acres of “Good” or better (Class 4 or higher) wind potential within ROW 

exclusion and avoidance areas.

Table 4-35

“Good” or Better Wind Potential That Would Be Managed as ROW Exclusion and 

Avoidance Areas

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

ROW exclusion

area (acres) 0 3,606 3,686 32,9001

ROW avoidance

area (acres) 0 80 0 3,686

1 PH would be exclusion areas for new ROW wind energy developments.

4.19.4 Alternative A

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative A, zero acres of lands with “Good” or better wind potential 

would be affected by ROW exclusion or avoidance areas. All lands with such 

potential would continue to be open for ROW applications on a case-by-case 

basis.

4.19.5 Alternative B

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative B, PH (32,900 acres) would be managed as ROW exclusion 

areas and would not be open for ROW authorizations. Within this ROW 

exclusion area there are 3,606 acres considered to have “Good” or better wind 

potential. This represents 3,606 fewer acres open to wind energy development 

than under Alternative A. Therefore 97 percent of lands with “Good” or better 

wind potential that are open for ROW applications under Alternative A would 

become ROW exclusion areas under Alternative B.

Under Alternative B, an additional 80 acres would be managed as ROW

avoidance areas. Within this ROW avoidance area all 80 acres are considered 

to have “Good” or better wind potential. This represents 80 fewer acres 

available for wind development without substantial restrictions. Therefore, 

under Alternative B, two percent of lands with “Good” or better wind potential 
4. Environmental Consequences (Renewable Energy)

4-158 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

available for ROW authorizations would be subject to substantial development 

and operation restrictions when compare with Alternative A.

In total, 99 percent of the lands with “Good” or better wind potential within 

the decision area would be affected under Alternative B. Ninety seven percent 

of these lands would be completely unavailable for wind development while the 

other remaining would be substantially restricted as compared to Alternative A.

Table 4-36, Wind Potential Affected by Alternative B, provides a detailed 

overview of how these ROW restrictions relate to individual wind classes.

Table 4-36

Wind Potential Affected by Alternative B

Wind Potential

(m/s at 50m)

Total Acres on 

BLMAdministered 

Land

Acres of 

ROW Exclusion 

(percent of total)

Acres of 

ROW Avoidance 

(percent of 

total)

Class 1 “Poor” 0.0-5.6 0 0 0

Class 2 “Marginal” 5.6-6.4 11,074 11,074 0

Class 3 “Fair” 6.4-7.0” 16,198 16,198 0

Class 4 “Good” 7.0-7.5 3,730 3,606 (97%) 80 (0.3%)

Class 5 “Excellent” 7.5-8.0 0 0 0

Class 6 “Outstanding” 8.0-8.8 0 0 0

Class 7 “Superb” 8.8 & above 0 0 0

Total Classes 1-7 31,002 30,878 (99.6%) 80 (0.3%)

NREL 2012a; BLM 2012a

Collocating new utilities within existing ROWs could reduce land use conflicts 

by grouping similar facilities and activities in specific areas and away from 

conflicting developments and activities. However, developing in existing ROWs 

could limit options for facility design and selection of more-preferable locations.

4.19.6 Alternative C

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative C, 32,980 acres would be managed as ROW exclusion areas 

and would not be open for ROW applications. Within this ROW exclusion 

area, 3,686 of these acres are considered to have “Good” or better wind 

potential. Across the entire decision area, there are 3,730 acres of land 

considered to have “Good” or better wind potential; therefore, the ROW 

exclusion areas applied under Alternative C represent 99 percent of those 

lands. Under Alternative C, 3,686 fewer acres would be open to wind energy 

development than under Alternative A. In summary, 99 percent of lands with 
4. Environmental Consequences (Renewable Energy)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-159

“Good” or better wind potential that are open for ROW applications under 

Alternative A would become ROW exclusion areas under Alternative C and 

would not be available for wind development.

Under Alternative C, zero acres would be managed as ROW avoidance areas.

Table 4-37, Wind Potential Affected By Alternative C, provides a detailed 

overview of how these ROW restrictions relate to individual wind classes.

Table 4-37

Wind Potential Affected By Alternative C

Wind Potential

(m/s at 50m)

Total Acres on 

BLM-Administered 

Land

Acres of 

ROW Exclusion 

(percent of total)

Acres of 

ROW Avoidance 

(percent of total)

Class 1 “Poor” 0.0-5.6 0 0 0

Class 2 “Marginal” 5.6-6.4 11,074 11,074 0

Class 3 “Fair” 6.4-7.0” 16,198 16,198 0

Class 4 “Good” 7.0-7.5 3,730 3,686 (99%) 0

Class 5 “Excellent” 7.5-8.0 0 0 0

Class 6 “Outstanding” 8.0-8.8 0 0 0

Class 7 “Superb” 8.8 & above 0 0 0

Total Classes 1-7 31,002 30,958(99.9%) 0(0%)

Source: NREL 2012a; BLM 2012a

4.19.7 Alternative D

Impacts from Lands and Realty

Under Alternative D, PH (32,900 acres) would be managed as ROW exclusion 

areas for wind energy ROW applications Therefore the same acreage would be 

closed to wind development as Alternative B.

Under Alternative B, an additional 80 acres would be managed as ROW

avoidance areas. Impacts from avoidance areas would be the same as Alternative 

B.

Table 4-38, Wind Potential Affected By Alternative D, provides a detailed 

overview of how these ROW restrictions relate to individual wind classes.
4. Environmental Consequences (Renewable Energy)

4-160 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 4-38

Wind Potential Affected By Alternative D

Wind Potential

(m/s at 50m)

Total Acres on 

BLM-Administered 

Land

Acres of 

ROW Exclusion 

(percent of total)

Acres of 

ROW Avoidance 

(percent of total)

Class 1 “Poor” 0.0-5.6 0 0 0

Class 2 “Marginal” 5.6-6.4 11,074 0 11,074

Class 3 “Fair” 6.4-7.0” 16,198 0 16,198

Class 4 “Good” 7.0-7.5 3,730 0 3,606 (97%)

Class 5 “Excellent” 7.5-8.0 0 0 0

Class 6 “Outstanding” 8.0-8.8 0 0 0

Class 7 “Superb” 8.8 & above 0 0 0

Total Classes 1-7 31,002 0(0%) 30,878(99.6%)

Source: NREL 2012a; BLM 2012a

4.20 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

4.20.1 Methods and Assumptions

The analysis of economic effects considers job and labor income in an economic 

impact analysis. Economic impact analysis is used to evaluate potential direct, 

indirect, and induced effects on the economy. The analytical technique used by 

the BLM to estimate employment and income impacts is "input-output" analysis 

using the IMPLAN Pro software system. Input-output analysis is a means of 

examining relationships within an economy both between businesses and 

between businesses and final consumers. It captures all monetary market 

transactions for consumption in a given time period. The resulting mathematical 

representation allows one to examine the effect of a change in one or several 

economic activities on an entire economy with all else constant. This 

examination is called economic impact analysis. IMPLAN translates changes in 

final demand for goods and services into economic effects, such as labor income 

and employment of the affected area’s economy. The IMPLAN modeling system 

requires one to build regional economic models of one or more counties for a 

particular year. The model for this analysis uses 2010 IMPLAN data and the 

impact area for this analysis includes Bowman, Golden Valley and Slope 

counties.

The economic impacts on the local economy from the RMPA are measured by 

estimating the employment (full- and part-time jobs) and labor income 

generated by grazing on allotments potentially affected under the alternatives. 

The direct employment and labor income benefit employees and their families 

and therefore directly affect the local economy. Additional indirect and induced 

multiplier effects (ripple effects) are generated by the direct activities. Together 
4. Environmental Consequences (Social and Economic Conditions)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-161

the direct and multiplier effects comprise the total economic impacts on the 

local economy (Table 4-39, Employment and Labor Income Generated from 

Grazing on Allotments Covered under the RMPA). The multiplier effects tied to 

grazing were estimated using IMPLAN. Potential limitations of these estimates 

are the time lag in IMPLAN data and the data intensive nature of the inputoutput model. 

4.20.2 Alternative A

A summary of impacts on employment and labor income across alternatives is 

provided in Table 4-39. Details of analysis are provided below by resource and 

resource use.

Table 4-39

Employment and Labor Income Generated from Grazing on Allotments Covered under 

the RMPA 

Employment 

(full and part time jobs)

Labor Income 

(thousands of 2013 dollars)

Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D

Direct 7 7 4 7 $13,693 $13,693 $8,859 $13,693

Indirect & 

Induced 3 3 2 3 $99,350 $99,350 $64,274 $99,350

Total 10 10 6 10 $113,043 $113,043 $73,133 $113,043

Source: IMPLAN 2010

Impacts from Range Management

Livestock grazing would continue to be managed under the existing RMP and 

Standards for Rangeland Health. Consequently current economic contributions 

from allocated grazing on allotments covered under this RMPA would continue.

Use of allocated forage on these allotments generates 10 total jobs (direct, 

indirect and induced) and $113,000 in labor income (direct, indirect and 

induced) on an average annual basis within the impact area economy (Table 4-

39). As noted in the discussion of employment specialization above, the threecounty impact area can be considered specialized with respect to the grazing 

sector. Direct employment generated as a result of grazing under this 

alternative would provide seven jobs, which would comprise about 5.6 percent 

of employment in this sector.

Forage provided by the BLM is not the entire source of forage used by 

permittees: it provides an important source of forage that complements 

additional sources on other public or private land that may be used for unique 

purposes or during other parts of the year. Estimating the contribution of 

livestock grazing on the impact area using only BLM AUMs may underestimate 

the actual importance of BLM-administered lands as a forage resource if BLM 

AUMs are part of an overall grazing system; where a change in BLM grazing 
4. Environmental Consequences (Social and Economic Conditions)

4-162 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

affects the optimal use of the rest of forage resources. For example, reductions 

in allocated forage on BLM-administered lands could reduce use on private land 

given this interdependency in use. Consequently the employment and income

estimates from allocated use (10 jobs and $113,000 in labor income) are likely 

an underestimate of employment and income estimates with additional use of 

other sources of forage attributable to BLM. Estimates of this additional use are 

not available for allocated use in the decision area but are acknowledged and 

discussed qualitatively for each alternative.

Impacts from Energy Development

Under Alternative A, existing contributions from oil and gas development on 

federal mineral estate in the decision area would continue. Approximately 9,860 

acres of PH is found on unleased federal mineral estate and has high potential. 

Existing oil and gas leases would continue to be developed according to existing 

lease terms. Consequently future potential development of high potential federal 

mineral estate could occur in the decision area. Estimates of potential 

exploration and development under this alternative indicate that approximately

four wells could be drilled on an average annual basis between 2013 and 2029

(DOI 2011). If this exploration and development occurred, levels of 

employment and income could be slightly greater than currently supported in 

the three county area. Effects from levels of production and anticipated levels of 

exploration and development under this alternative are depicted in Table 4-40,

Employment and Labor Income Generated from Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development on BLM in the Decision Area. Actual future production and 

market price cannot be projected; therefore, estimates of effects under this 

alternative may not be an accurate portrayal of actual impacts under future 

market conditions.

Table 4-40

Employment and Labor Income Generated from Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development on BLM in the Decision Area

Employment 

(full and part time jobs)

Labor Income 

(thousands of 2013 dollars)

Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D

Direct 16.0 15.8 15.8 15.9 $639,234 $632,858 $628,128 $628,116

Indirect & 

Induced 5.4 5.1 5.1 5.3 $42 $30 $30 $39

Total 21.4 20.9 20.9 21.3 $639,276 $632,888 $628,157 $628,155

Source: IMPLAN 2010

Under Alternative A annual payments to local governments in the analysis area 

would be approximately $6.5 million which includes a portion of oil and gas 

royalties from existing production and anticipated production under this 

alternative. These payments would support about 116 jobs and $4 million in 
4. Environmental Consequences (Social and Economic Conditions)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-163

labor income (direct, indirect and induced effects) on an average annual basis. 

Payments to counties and their impacts under this alternative are slightly higher 

than the other alternatives since anticipated well drilling is higher. As discussed 

above, this estimate is based on current prices and potential production. Actual 

production and market price cannot be projected thus, these estimates may not 

be an accurate portrayal of actual impacts. Regardless contributions from these 

payments would remain an important portion of general government revenue 

(approximately 30 percent of allocated revenue from all sources). 

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management and 

ACECs

Management under this alternative would not specifically protect GRSG habitat.

In addition, no ACECs to protect GRSG habitat would be included in this 

alternative. As a result well-being and non-market values associated with GRSG

habitat would not be protected.

4.20.3 Alternative B

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative B, there would be no change to the acreage open for grazing 

or available AUMs. AMPs and permit renewals would be used to incorporate 

GRSG management objectives into grazing allotments. Consequently, it is 

anticipated that current economic contributions from allocated grazing on 

allotments covered under this RMPA would continue. Use of allocated forage 

on these allotments generates 10 total jobs (direct, indirect and induced) and 

$113,000 in labor income (direct, indirect and induced) on an average annual 

basis within the impact area economy (Table 4-39). As noted in the discussion 

of employment specialization above, the three-county impact area can be 

considered specialized with respect to the grazing sector. Direct employment 

generated as a result of grazing under this alternative would provide seven jobs 

which would comprise about 5.6 percent of employment in this sector. Use on 

BLM-administered lands that complements additional sources of forage on other 

public or private land would continue under this alternative.

Impacts from Energy Development

Under Alternative B, prior existing rights on developed oil and gas leases would 

enable current contributions to continue from oil and gas development on 

federal mineral estate in the decision area. However, future development within 

PH found on unleased federal mineral estate with high potential would not 

occur since all federal mineral estate within PH would be closed to fluid mineral

leasing. Regardless, some anticipated development is expected on other lands in 

the decision area; estimates of potential exploration and development under this 

alternative indicate that approximately two wells could be drilled on an average 

annual basis between 2013 and 2029 (DOI 2011). If this exploration and 

development occurred, levels of employment and income could be slightly 

greater than currently supported, but less than estimated under Alternative A. 
4. Environmental Consequences (Social and Economic Conditions)

4-164 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Effects from levels of production and anticipated levels of exploration and 

development under this alternative are depicted in Table 4-40. Actual future 

production and market price cannot be projected; therefore, estimates of 

effects under this alternative may not be an accurate portrayal of actual impacts 

under future market conditions.

Under Alternative B, annual payments to local governments in the analysis area 

would be approximately $6.4 million which includes a portion of oil and gas 

royalties from existing production and anticipated production under this 

alternative. These payments would support about 114 jobs and $4 million in 

labor income (direct, indirect and induced effects) on an average annual basis.

Payments to counties and their impacts under this alternative are slightly lower 

than the other alternatives since anticipated well drilling is lower. Regardless,

current contributions from oil and gas production in the decision area (as 

presented Section 3.21, Social and Economic Conditions) could be 

accommodated under this alternative. As discussed above, this estimate is based 

on current prices and potential production. Actual production and market price 

cannot be projected; therefore, these estimates may not be an accurate 

portrayal of actual impacts. Contributions from these payments would remain 

an important portion of general government revenue (approximately 30 percent 

of allocated revenue from all sources).

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management and 

ACECs

Under this alternative restoration projects would be prioritized based on 

benefit to GRSG; however, no ACECs to protect GRSG habitat would be 

included in this alternative. As a result well-being non-market values associated 

with GRSG habitat would be protected to a greater degree than Alternative A 

and D but less than Alternative C.

4.20.4 Alternative C

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative C, grazing would be reduced by 50 percent on all allotments 

within the Big Gumbo area. Consequently, it is anticipated that economic 

contributions from allocated grazing on allotments covered under this RMPA 

would be less than currently contributed. As a result of the reductions in the 

Big Gumbo area employment would decrease from 10 to six total jobs (direct, 

indirect and induced), and labor income would decrease from $113,000 to 

$73,000 (direct, indirect, and induced) on an average annual basis within the 

impact area economy (Table 4-39). As noted in the discussion of employment 

specialization, the three-county impact area can be considered specialized with 

respect to the grazing sector. Direct employment generated as a result of 

grazing under this alternative would decrease from seven jobs to four jobs 

which would correspond to a decrease from 5.6 percent to 3.4 percent of 

employment in this sector. Use on BLM-administered lands that complements 
4. Environmental Consequences (Social and Economic Conditions)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-165

additional sources of forage on other public or private land would decrease 

under this alternative.

Impacts from Energy Development

Under Alternative C, prior existing rights on developed oil and gas leases would 

enable current contributions to continue from oil and gas development on 

federal mineral estate in the decision area. However, future development within 

GH and PH found on unleased federal mineral estate with high potential would 

not occur since all federal mineral estate within PH and GH would be closed to 

fluid mineral leasing. Regardless some anticipated development is expected on 

other lands in the decision area; estimates of potential exploration and 

development indicate that approximately two wells could be drilled on an 

average annual basis between 2013 and 2029 (DOI 2011). If this exploration and 

development occurred, levels of employment and income could be slightly 

greater than currently supported, but less than estimated under Alternative A. 

Effects from levels of production and anticipated levels of exploration and 

development under this alternative are depicted in Table 4-40. Actual future 

production and market price cannot be projected; therefore, estimates of 

effects under this alternative may not be an accurate portrayal of actual impacts 

under future market conditions.

Under Alternative C, annual payments to local governments in the analysis area 

would be approximately $6.4 million, which includes a portion of oil and gas 

royalties from existing production and anticipated production under this 

alternative. These payments would support about 114 jobs and $4 million in 

labor income (direct, indirect and induced effects) on an average annual basis. 

Payments to counties and their impacts under this alternative are slightly lower 

than the other alternatives since anticipated well drilling is lower. Regardless,

current contributions from oil and gas production in the decision area (as 

presented Section 3.21, Social and Economic Conditions) could be 

accommodated under this alternative. As discussed above, this estimate is based 

on current prices and potential production. Actual production and market price 

cannot be projected; therefore, these estimates may not be an accurate 

portrayal of actual impacts. Contributions from these payments would remain 

an important portion of general government revenue (approximately 30 percent 

of allocated revenue from all sources).

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management and 

ACECs

Under this alternative, additional actions would promote expansion of GRSG

habitat at levels greater than the other alternatives. In addition, an ACEC to 

protect GRSG habitat would be designated under in this alternative. As a result 

well-being and non-market values associated with GRSG habitat would be 

protected to a greater degree than the other alternatives.
4. Environmental Consequences (Social and Economic Conditions)

4-166 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

4.20.5 Alternative D

Impacts from Range Management

Under Alternative D, there would be no change to the acreage open for grazing 

or available AUMs. GRSG habitat objectives would be considered when 

evaluating land health standards. Consequently, it is anticipated that current 

economic contributions from allocated grazing on allotments covered under this 

RMPA would continue. Use of allocated forage on these allotments generates 10 

total jobs (direct, indirect and induced) and $113,000 in labor income (direct, 

indirect and induced) on an average annual basis within the impact area 

economy (Table 4-39). As noted in the discussion of employment 

specialization above, the three-county impact area can be considered specialized 

with respect to the grazing sector. Direct employment generated as a result of 

grazing under this alternative would provide seven jobs, which would comprise 

about 5.6 percent of employment in this sector. Use on BLM-administered lands 

that complements additional sources of forage on other public or private land

would continue under this alternative.

Impacts from Energy Development

Under Alternative D, prior existing rights on developed oil and gas leases would 

enable current contributions to continue from oil and gas development on 

federal mineral estate in the decision area. However, future development within 

PH found on unleased federal mineral estate with high potential could occur 

since PH would be subject to NSO stipulations. In addition, anticipated 

development is expected on other lands with lower potential in the decision 

area; estimates of potential exploration and development under this alternative 

indicate that approximately three wells could be drilled on an average annual 

basis between 2013 and 2029 (DOI 2011). If this exploration and development 

occurred, levels of employment and income could be slightly greater than 

Alternatives B and C but less than estimated under Alternative A. Effects from 

levels of production and anticipated levels of exploration and development 

under this alternative are depicted in Table 4-40. Actual future production and 

market price cannot be projected; therefore, estimates of effects under this 

alternative may not be an accurate portrayal of actual impacts under future 

market conditions.

Under Alternative D, annual payments to local governments in the analysis area 

would be approximately $6.5 million which includes a portion of oil and gas 

royalties from existing production and anticipated production under this 

alternative. These payments would support about 115 jobs and $4 million in 

labor income (direct, indirect and induced effects) on an average annual basis. 

Payments to counties and their impacts under this alternative are slightly higher 

than Alternatives B and C since anticipated well drilling is higher. Regardless,

current contributions from oil and gas production in the decision area (as 

presented Section 3.21, Social and Economic Conditions) could be 

accommodated under this alternative. As discussed above, this estimate is based 
4. Environmental Consequences (Social and Economic Conditions)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-167

on current prices and potential production. Actual production and market price 

cannot be projected; therefore, these estimates may not be an accurate 

portrayal of actual impacts. Contributions from these payments would remain 

an important portion of general government revenue (approximately 30 percent 

of allocated revenue from all sources).

Impacts from Habitat Restoration and Vegetation Management and 

ACECs

Under this alternative, consideration for other threatened, endangered, or 

sensitive species would be evaluated in addition to GRSG, when prioritizing 

restoration projects. In addition, no ACECs to protect GRSG habitat would be 

included in this alternative. As a result, well-being and non-market values 

associated with GRSG habitat would be protected to a greater degree than 

Alternative A, but less than the other alternatives.

4.21 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

While minority and low-income populations exist in the area, the alternatives 

are not expected to have a disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on these communities. Impacts to local communities are 

expected to be negligible, and there is no reason to suspect that any impacts 

would disproportionately affect minority and low income populations. For 

example, decreases in employment and income anticipated under Alternative C 

would be distributed amongst all segments of the population regardless of 

minority or poverty status.

4.22 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Section 102(C) of NEPA requires disclosure of any adverse environmental 

effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented. 

Unavoidable adverse impacts are those that remain following the 

implementation of mitigation measures or impacts for which there are no 

mitigation measures. Some unavoidable adverse impacts occur as a result of 

implementing the North Dakota Greater GRSG RMPA. Others are a result of 

public use of the decision area lands. This section summarizes major unavoidable 

impacts; discussions of the impacts of each management action (in the discussion 

of impacts by alternatives for each resource topic) provide greater information 

on specific unavoidable impacts.

Surface-disturbing activities would result in unavoidable adverse impacts under 

current BLM policy to foster multiple uses. Although these impacts would be 

mitigated to the extent possible, unavoidable damage would be inevitable. Longterm conversion of areas to other uses such as mineral and energy development 

would increase erosion and change the relative abundance of species within 

plant communities, the relative distribution of plant communities, and the 

relative occurrence of seral stages of those communities. Where habitat areas 

are not protected by specific wildlife stipulations, oil and gas development would 

result in unavoidable long-term wildlife habitat loss where developed. However, 
4. Environmental Consequences (Unavoidable Adverse Impacts)

4-168 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

oil and gas development would have limited impacts on disturbance because, 

although there is high potential in GRSG habitat, most of the high potential 

resources have already been developed; therefore, opening or closing areas to 

development would have minimal changes among the alternatives from 

converting areas to oil and gas development.

Wildlife and livestock would contribute to soil erosion, compaction, and 

vegetation loss, which could be extensive during drought cycles and dormancy 

periods. Conversely, unavoidable losses or damage to forage from resource 

development in the planning area would affect livestock and wildlife. Some level 

of competition for forage between these species, although mitigated to the 

extent possible, would be unavoidable. Instances of displacement, harassment, 

and injury could also occur.

Recreational activities, mineral resource development, and general use of the 

planning area would introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, 

which would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence and the need for 

suppression activities. These activities, combined with continued fire suppression, 

would also affect the overall composition and structure of vegetation 

communities, which could increase the potential for high-intensity wildland fires.

As recreation demand increases, recreation use would disperse, creating 

unavoidable conflicts as more users compete for a limited amount of space. In 

areas where development activities would be greater, the potential for displaced 

users would increase.

Numerous land use restrictions imposed throughout the planning area to 

protect sensitive resources and other important values, by their nature, affect 

the ability of operators, individuals, and groups who use BLM-administered lands 

to do so freely without limitations. These restrictions could also require closing 

roads or trails, or limiting certain modes or seasons of travel. Although attempts 

would be made to minimize these impacts by limiting them to the level of 

protection necessary to accomplish management objectives, and providing 

alternative use areas for affected activities, unavoidable adverse impacts would 

occur under all alternatives.

4.23 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

Section 102(C) of NEPA requires a discussion of any irreversible or irretrievable 

commitments of resources that are involved in the proposal should it be 

implemented. An irretrievable commitment of a resource is one in which the 

resource or its use is lost for a period of time (e.g., extraction of any solid

mineral ore or oil and gas). An irreversible commitment of a resource is one 

that cannot be reversed (e.g., the extinction of a species).

Implementing the North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA management 

actions would result in surface-disturbing activities, including permitted 

recreation activities, mineral and energy development, and development in 
4. Environmental Consequences (Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 4-169

ROWs, which result in a commitment to the loss of irreversible or irretrievable 

resources. Mineral extraction or sale eliminates a nonrenewable resource, 

thereby resulting in irreversible and irretrievable commitment of the resource. 

Surface disturbance associated with energy development is reclaimed after the 

resource is removed. However, surface disturbances from gas storage, road

ROWs, and wind and solar development are a long-term encumbrance of the 

land. Soil erosion or the loss of productivity and soil structure may be 

considered irreversible commitments to resources. Surface-disturbing activities, 

therefore, would remove vegetation and accelerate erosion that would 

contribute to irreversible soil loss; however, management actions, RDFs, and 

BMPs are intended to reduce the magnitude of these impacts and restore some 

of the soil and vegetation lost. Primarily because of the number of acres 

available for energy and mineral development, and development in ROWs, such 

disturbances would occur to the greatest degree under Alternative A; 

management actions under Alternative D would be similar but with more 

stipulations for surface-disturbing activities. Alternative B, and to a greater 

extent Alternative C, contains additional conservation measures, mitigation 

measures, RDFs, and stipulations to protect planning area resources.

Across all alternatives, an irreversible commitment of nonrenewable fossil fuels 

(e.g., oil, gas, and coal), solid minerals, and mineral materials would occur from 

development over the life of the North Dakota RMP.

4.24 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM 

PRODUCTIVITY

Section 102(C) of NEPA requires discussion of the relationship between local, 

short-term uses of the human environment, and the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity of resources. As described in the 

introduction to this chapter, “short term” is defined as anticipated to occur 

within one to five years of the activity’s implementation. “Long term” is defined 

as following the first five years of implementation, but within the life of the

North Dakota RMP.

Short-term use of air resources would not affect long-term productivity, except 

that air quality emissions in high enough concentrations could reduce vegetation 

and plant vigor. Across all alternatives, management actions would result in 

various short-term effects, such as increased localized soil erosion, fugitive dust

emission, vegetation loss or damage, and wildlife disturbance. Surface-disturbing 

activities, including utility construction and mineral resource development would 

result in the greatest potential for impacts on long-term productivity. 

Management prescriptions, RDFs, and BMPs are intended to minimize the effect 

of short-term commitments and reverse change over the long term. These 

prescriptions and the associated reduction of impacts would be greatest under 

Alternative C and are present to a lesser extent under Alternative B for 

resources such as vegetation and wildlife habitat. However, BLM-administered 
4. Environmental Consequences (Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity)

4-170 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

lands are managed to foster multiple uses, and some impacts on long-term 

productivity could occur.

Short-term use of an area to foster energy and minerals, and development in 

ROWs would result in long-term loss of soil productivity and vegetation 

diversity. Impacts would persist as long as surface disturbance and vegetation 

loss continue. In general, the loss of soil productivity would be directly at the 

point of disturbance, although long-term vegetation diversity and habitat value 

could be reduced due to fragmentation and the increased potential for invasive 

species to spread from the developments or disturbances. Alternatives A would 

have the greatest potential for short-term loss of productivity and diversity due 

to less stringent mitigation and reclamation standards contained under 

Alternatives B and C and D. Management actions under Alternative C would 

provide the greatest long-term productivity by deferring development in many 

areas through closures or application of major restrictions on development 

activities.

The short-term use of potential habitat for energy and minerals, and

development in ROWs could also affect the long-term sustainability of some 

special status species. Sprague's pipit, as well as other terrestrial special status 

species, could be affected by habitat fragmentation associated with short-term 

resource uses and road construction and use.
Chapter 5

Cumulative Impacts

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 5-1

CHAPTER 5

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the likely cumulative impacts on the human and natural 

environment that could occur from implementing the alternatives presented in 

Chapter 2, Alternatives. This chapter is organized by topic, similar to Chapter 

3, Affected Environment, and Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences.

Cumulative impacts are effects on the environment that result from the impact 

of implementing any one of the North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS

alternatives in combination with other actions outside the scope of this plan, 

either within the planning area or adjacent to it. Cumulative impact analysis is 

required by CEQ regulations because environmental conditions result from 

many different factors that act together. The total effect of any single action 

cannot be determined by considering it in isolation, but must be determined by 

considering the likely result of that action in conjunction with many others. 

Evaluation of potential impacts considers incremental impacts that could occur 

from the proposed project, as well as impacts from past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions. Management actions could be influenced 

by activities and conditions on adjacent public and non-public lands beyond the 

planning area boundary; therefore, assessment data and information could span 

multiple scales, land ownerships, and jurisdictions. These assessments involve 

determinations that often are complex and, to some degree, subjective.

5.1.1 Cumulative Analysis Methodology

The cumulative impacts discussion that follows considers the alternatives in the 

context of the broader human environment – specifically, actions that occur 

outside the scope and geographic area covered by the planning area. Cumulative 

impact analysis is limited to important issues of national, regional, or local 

significance.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Introduction)

5-2 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Because of the programmatic nature of the RMPA and cumulative assessment, 

the analysis tends to be broad and generalized to address potential impacts that 

could occur from a reasonably foreseeable management scenario combined with 

other reasonably foreseeable activities or projects. Consequently, this 

assessment is primarily qualitative for most resources because of a lack of 

detailed information that would result from project-level decisions and other 

activities or projects. Quantitative information is used whenever available and as 

appropriate to portray the magnitude of an impact. The analysis assesses the 

magnitude of cumulative impacts by comparing the environment in its baseline 

condition with the expected impacts of the alternatives and other actions in the 

same geographic area. The magnitude of an impact is determined through a 

comparison of anticipated conditions against the naturally occurring baseline as 

depicted in the affected environment (see Chapter 3) or the long-term 

sustainability of a resource or social system.

The following factors were considered in this cumulative impact assessment:

• Federal, nonfederal, and private actions.

• Potential for synergistic effects or synergistic interaction among or 

between effects.

• Potential for effects across political and administrative boundaries.

• Other spatial and temporal characteristics of each affected 

resource.

• Comparative scale of cumulative impacts across alternatives.

The geographic scope for the cumulative impact analysis extends to the planning 

area boundary. For Section 5.1.3, Special Status Species – Greater SageGrouse, the cumulative impact analysis includes an analysis at the WAFWA 

Management Zone 1 level, in addition to the planning area analysis. WAFWA 

management zones are biologically based delineations that were determined by 

GRSG populations and sub-populations identified within seven floristic 

provinces. Analysis at this level enables the decision maker to understand the 

impacts on GRSG at a biologically meaningful scale.

5.1.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are considered in the 

analysis to identify whether and to what extent the environment has been 

degraded or enhanced, whether ongoing activities are causing impacts, and 

trends for activities in and impacts on the area. Projects and activities are 

evaluated on the basis of proximity, connection to the same environmental 

systems, potential for subsequent impacts or activity, similar impacts, the 

likelihood a project would occur, and whether the project is reasonably 

foreseeable.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Introduction)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 5-3

Projects and activities considered in the cumulative analysis were identified 

through meetings held with cooperators and BLM employees with local 

knowledge of the area. Each was asked to provide information on the most 

influential past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions. Additional 

information was obtained through discussions with agency officials and review of 

publicly available materials and websites.

Effects of past actions and activities are manifested in the current condition of 

the resources, as described in the affected environment (see Chapter 3) and in 

Table 5-1, Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects, Plans, or 

Actions that Comprise the Cumulative Impact Scenario. Reasonably foreseeable 

future actions are actions that have been committed to or known proposals that 

would take place within a 20-year planning period. Table 5-1 provides a list of 

future actions considered in the cumulative effects analysis.

Reasonably foreseeable future action scenarios are projections made to predict 

future impacts – they are not actual planning decisions or resource 

commitments. Projections, which have been developed for analytical purposes 

only, are based on current conditions and trends and represent a best 

professional estimate. Unforeseen changes in factors such as economics, 

demand, and federal, state, and local laws and policies could result in different 

outcomes than those projected in this analysis.

Other potential future actions have been considered and eliminated from 

further analysis because there is a small likelihood these actions would be 

pursued and implemented within the life of the plan or because so little is 

known about the potential action that formulating an analysis of impacts is 

premature and/or speculative. In addition, potential future actions protective of 

the environment (such as new regulations related to fugitive dust emissions) 

have less likelihood of creating major environmental consequences alone, or in 

combination with this planning effort. Federal actions such as species listing 

would require BLM to reconsider decisions created from this action because 

the consultations and relative impacts might no longer be appropriate. These 

potential future actions may have greater capacity to affect resource uses within 

the planning area; however, until more information is developed, no reasonable 

estimation of impacts could be developed.

Data on the precise locations and overall extent of resources within the 

planning area are considerable, although the information varies according to 

resource type and locale. Furthermore, understanding of the impacts on and the 

interplay among these resources is evolving. As knowledge improves, 

management measures (adaptive or otherwise) would be considered to reduce 

potential cumulative impacts in accordance with law, regulations, and North 

Dakota RMP.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Introduction)

5-4 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Table 5-1

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects, Plans, or Actions that Comprise the 

Cumulative Impact Scenario

Human Actions

Energy and 

minerals 

development

See Table 4-1 for short-term and long-term estimates of the number of oil and gas 

wells and their acres of disturbance across the planning area. Acres of long-term 

disturbance from oil and gas wells in the planning area would be approximately 2,900 

acres from new and existing wells and pads; this would be the same amongst all the 

alternatives. The number of new and existing wells would range from 475 to 548, 

depending on the alternative. 

No locatable minerals or coal projects are anticipated to occur in the next 20 years 

due to low potential.

Vegetation 

management

Vegetation treatments – potential conifer encroachment reduction project on BLMadministered lands within the southern portion of the PH core area. Project would 

not include prescribed fire.

On private lands within Bowman and Slope Counties, through the NRCS SGI, the 

following has been accomplished since 2010: 

• 41 contracts that cover 73,993 acres have been written to improve GRSG

habitat (13 contracts have been completed in the three years of the initiative 

and 28 are currently active).

• 2,308 acres of cover crops have been planted to provide brood habitat for 

GRSG chicks.

• 1,305 acres have been planted to permanent vegetation to increase nesting 

habitat and cover or improve brood rearing habitat. 

• 4,909 acres of native sagebrush habitat have been improved through 

prescribed grazing management for wildlife habitat management. 

• Many supporting practices have been installed such as fence and water 

developments to facilitate range management.

Lands and realty Wind and Solar applications – no applications on BLM-administered lands in the past 

and none are expected.

Built wind projects – one wind farm (13 turbines) located five miles west of Rhame, 

North Dakota on private lands.

Proposed transmission lines greater than 230 kV – one potential proposal, totaling 

approximately 15 acres.

Existing transmission line at 230 kV – one current 230 kV line, totaling approximately 

13 acres.

Existing transmission lines greater than 230 kV – none.

Recreation and 

visitor use

Site-specific travel plan to be completed within five years of ROD.

Recreation use to remain according to past trends.

Livestock grazing Rangeland health evaluations will continue.

One range improvement planned - seven mile pipeline on BLM-administered lands in 

Big Gumbo area.

Roadway 

development

Current roads are filling the needs of the oil and gas companies. However, any new 

oil and gas wells may include a new road to the location. New well numbers in the 

planning area are anticipated to be low due to planning area being outside the Bakken 

field.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Introduction)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 5-5

Table 5-1

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects, Plans, or Actions that Comprise the 

Cumulative Impact Scenario

Natural Processes

Wildland fires Historically there has been wildfire in the planning area on Forest Service, state, and 

private lands (not on BLM-administered lands) in the past 10 years. Fires have 

occurred on approximately 9,900 acres of National Forest System lands, 1,700 acres 

of state lands, and 9,500 acres of private lands (Forest Service 2013a).

Climate change GHGs will continue to be emitted locally, regionally, and globally and continue to 

contribute to climate change.

Projects and activities identified as having the greatest likelihood to generate 

potential cumulative impacts when added to the North Dakota Greater SageGrouse RMPA/EIS alternatives are displayed in Table 5-1.

5.2 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES – GREATER SAGE-GROUSE

5.2.1 Introduction

The cumulative effects analysis study area for GRSG extends beyond the 

planning area boundary and consists of WAFWA Sage-Grouse MZ I, which 

includes North Dakota. This Draft EIS contains a quantitative cumulative effects 

analysis for GRSG habitat within the planning area boundary. At the larger 

WAFWA Management Zone level, the analysis is primarily qualitative in nature. 

Data and information to enable a more comprehensive quantitative analysis may 

become available between the Draft EIS and the Final EIS, and may include the 

following: ongoing land use plan amendments and revisions, state plans that may 

not yet be completed, coordination with states and agencies during consistency 

reviews, and data from non-BLM-administered lands. Those data that become 

available will be compiled and included in the quantitative cumulative effects 

analysis for sage-grouse in the Final EIS.

The timeframe for this analysis is ten years. The assumptions and indicators 

follow those established for the analysis of direct and indirect effects in 

Chapter 4.

5.2.2 WAFWA Management Zone 1 Analysis

According to the COT report (USFWS 2013), the four most substantial threats 

to GRSG habitats and populations occurring across populations in MZ I include 

energy development, infrastructure, disease, and conversion of habitat to 

agricultural use. MZ I consists of four GRSG populations in relatively large 

regions: the Dakotas, northern Montana, the Powder River Basin and the 

Yellowstone Watershed (Garton et al. 2011). Privately-owned lands make up 66 

percent of sagebrush in the Great Plains, with BLM-administered land making up

17 percent (Knick 2011). This management zone contains some of the highestconnected network of sage-grouse leks in the range (Knick and Hanser 2011), 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-6 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

but also contains less productive sagebrush similar to areas where sage-grouse 

have been extirpated (Wisdom et al. 2011). Sagebrush cover is naturally limited 

due to the preponderance of grassland ecosystems, and, with agricultural 

pressure and energy production, results in substantial habitat limitations for 

GRSG populations.

Regional assessments estimated that 7.2 percent of PPH and PGH in MZ I are 

directly influenced by agricultural development, and over 99 percent of these 

habitats are within approximately four miles of agricultural land. Less than one

percent of GRSG habitats are directly influenced by a natural gas or oil well, but 

nearly 100 percent lie within 12 miles of a well (Johnson et al. 2011; Taylor et al. 

2012). Currently, 6.3 million acres (14 percent) of GRSG habitat is leased for 

the development of federal fluid minerals. Most GRSG habitats within MZ I have 

the potential to be influenced by coal mining and geothermal energy

development, although coal and mineral developments directly influence less 

than one percent of the lands in the region. 

Livestock grazing, wildfire, spread of noxious weeds, especially cheatgrass, and 

other factors also threaten GRSG in this region, but are of less concern than 

the four major factors listed above, and are not discussed in detail in this 

section.

Table 5-1 lists past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that would 

affect the planning area and vicinity. The most numerous expected projects are 

the development of oil and gas wells. According to Table 4-1, over 1,200 new 

wells in the Planning Area are anticipated under each of the alternatives, with 

over 4,000 acres impacted for short-term disturbance, 600 to 800 of which are 

BLM-administered lands. One additional transmission line is proposed in 

addition to an existing 230-kV transmission line. For vegetation management, 

the BLM is planning one conifer encroachment reduction project in PH on BLMadministered lands, and several other projects are planned under the NRCS SGI, 

including habitat improvements, cover crop planting, sagebrush improvements, 

and other supporting range improvements, described in Table 5-1. The 

vegetation management projects are intended to benefit GRSG populations. No 

major projects are planned in recreation, roadways, or grazing. 

WAFWA is implementing its Sage-Grouse Strategy across management zones

and includes monitoring, research, outreach, and funding of conservation 

projects for GRSG. A basic premise of the WAFWA Sage-Grouse Strategy is 

that additional conservation capacity must be developed at all levels (local, state 

and agency, and range-wide) for both the short term (first three to five years) 

and for the long term to ensure GRSG conservation.

Energy Development

Impacts from energy development can result in direct habitat loss; fragmentation 

of important habitats by roads, pipelines, and power lines; noise; and direct 

human disturbance. The effects of energy development often add to the impacts 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 5-7

from other human development and result in GRSG population declines. 

Population declines associated with energy development result from the 

abandonment of leks, decreased attendance at leks that persist, lower nest 

initiation, poorer nest success, decreased yearling survival, and avoidance of 

energy infrastructure in important wintering habitat areas (Holloran 2005; 

Aldridge and Boyce 2007).

As discussed in Chapter 4, oil and gas development impacts GRSG and 

sagebrush habitats through direct disturbance and habitat loss from well pads, 

access construction, seismic surveys, roads, power lines, and pipeline corridors; 

indirectly from noise, gaseous emissions, changes in water availability and quality, 

and human presence. The interaction and intensity of effects could cumulatively 

or individually lead to habitat fragmentation in the long term (Connelly et al. 

2004; Holloran 2005). Declines in GRSG population growth (21 percent) 

between pre- and post-mine development were attributable to decreased nest 

success and adult female survival; the treatment effect was more noticeable 

closer to gas field infrastructure. Annual survival of individuals reared near gas 

field infrastructure (yearling females and males) was significantly lower than 

control individuals that were not reared near infrastructure (Holloran 2005).

Despite significant closures of public lands to oil and gas leasing within GRSG

habitat, current leases are substantial across GRSG ranges with potential for 

development based on locations of geologic fields for traditional oil and gas 

distributed extensively across eastern portions of GRSG range (Manier et al. 

2013). The Dakotas population is heavily influenced by oil and gas development, 

and oil and gas developments are scattered throughout the Yellowstone 

watershed area (USFWS 2013). The Powder River Basin contains substantial 

energy resources, including oil, natural gas and coal bed natural gas (USFWS 

2013), while the northern Montana population has little energy development. 

Mining of various federal mineral resources currently directly affects 

approximately 3.5 percent of potential GRSG habitat with indirect effects 

potentially affecting larger portions in some areas. 

No locatable or coal projects are anticipated in the next 20 years, so there 

would be no impact on GRSG even though there are differences among the 

alternatives. However, potential future development would be precluded in PH

(87,443 acres) in Alternatives B and D, and in PH and GH (166,207 acres) in 

Alternative C.

As discussed in Table 4-1, new well development is anticipated in the 

cumulative analysis area, with over 4,000 acres of short-term habitat disturbance 

anticipated, 600 to 800 acres on BLM-administered land. These numbers vary 

little under the different alternatives, indicating that the planned operations will 

occur beyond the scope of BLM decision-making and only be minimally affected 

under the restrictions envisioned in Alternatives B, C, or D. However, the 

projections from the BLM in Table 4-1 suggest that the management in 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-8 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Alternatives B, C, or D would have a measurable, but limited impact on the 

acreage of GRSG habitat lost to energy development as it would apply to only a 

small portion of the overall development area. As described in Chapter 4, oil 

and gas development would also have limited contributions to cumulative 

impacts because, although there is high potential in GRSG habitat, most of the 

resources have already been developed. Cumulatively, energy development 

remains a substantial threat to GRSG under any of the alternatives.

Infrastructure

Developments, such as power lines, communication towers, fences, roads, and 

railroads, contribute to habitat loss and fragmentation, with power lines and 

roads having the largest effects (Connelly et al. 2004; Naugle et al. 2011). 

Human disturbance is increased over the short term during infrastructure 

construction. In the long term, increased threats from predators perching on 

infrastructure may cause declines in lek attendance or nest success. GRSG

population declines have resulted from avoidance of infrastructure, reduced 

productivity, and/or reduced survival in the vicinity of infrastructure (Naugle et 

al. 2011).

As discussed in Chapter 4, power lines can directly affect GRSG by posing a 

collision and electrocution hazard, and can indirectly decrease lek attendance 

and recruitment by providing perches and nesting habitat for potential avian 

predators, such as golden eagles and ravens (Connelly et al. 2004). In addition, 

power lines are linear and often extend for many miles. Thus, ground 

disturbance associated with construction, as well as vehicle and human presence 

during maintenance activities, may introduce or spread invasive weeds over 

large areas, thereby degrading habitat.

Impacts from roads may include direct habitat loss from road construction and 

direct mortality from collisions with vehicles. Roads may also present barriers 

to migration corridors or seasonal habitats, facilitate predator movements, 

spread invasive plants, and increase human disturbance from noise and traffic 

(Forman and Alexander 1998). Research suggests that road traffic within 4.7 

miles of leks negatively influence male lek attendance (Connelly et al. 2004). 

Railroads presumably have the same potential impacts to GRSG as do roads 

because they create linear corridors within sagebrush habitats, promoting 

habitat fragmentation and other disturbance.

Impact analysis details for each alternative are presented in Chapter 4. 

Considering that infrastructure development would occur beyond the scope of 

BLM decision-making and not affected by the restrictions envisioned in 

Alternatives B, C, or D, impacts from infrastructure development such as those 

described above would continue on GRSG and its habitat.

According to Table 5-1, one ROW project is planned, a transmission line 

approximately 15 acres in size. By designating ROW avoidance and exclusion 

areas, the BLM would reduce or minimize impacts from infrastructure, as new 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 5-9

ROWs would be prohibited (ROW exclusion) or would be sited to avoid 

sensitive areas (ROW avoidance), or designed to otherwise reduce or minimize 

direct and indirect effects to GRSG. Renewals or upgrades of existing facilities 

could incorporate additional conservation actions. Co-location or clustering of 

facilities would reduce impacts and would prevent disturbance in new areas. The 

restrictions in Alternatives B and C would block this near transmission line from 

being located in PH, while Alternative D would avoid siting it in PH. Alternative 

A would not restrict the siting of the transmission line, though existing policy 

does recommend co-locating ROWs when possible. Management under 

Alternatives B, C, or D would benefit GRSG more than Alternative A, by 

locating the infrastructure in a way that minimizes loss and fragmentation of 

habitat.

Habitat connectivity is threatened by existing roadways in the Yellowstone 

watershed, and Powder River Basin areas; the Dakotas populations are isolated 

but may have east-west connectivity to populations in Montana (USFWS 2013). 

No new roadway projects are envisioned in the planning area in Table 5-1, 

though the planned new oil and gas wells may require access roads. Given the 

numbers of wells anticipated under the alternatives, it is likely that a number of 

new access roads would be constructed in the short- and long-term. The 

alternatives do not vary the acreage of habitat restricted to existing roads; 

however, the restrictions on locating fluid mineral development in PH under 

Alternatives B and C may limit development of well access roads in GRSG

habitat. Thus, these alternatives may be more protective of GRSG populations 

from impacts associated with roads. In addition, as described in Chapter 4, oil 

and gas development would have limited impacts because, although there is high 

potential in GRSG habitat, most of the resources have already been developed.

Any of the action alternatives (B, C, or D) would site the planned transmission 

line such that impacts on GRSG habitat are minimized, thereby reducing 

impacts. 

Disease

West Nile virus represents the only active disease which threatens GRSG

populations with heavy mortality (USFWS 2010). GRSG are highly susceptible to 

West Nile virus, with resultant high levels of rapid mortality, typically in midsummer (Clark et al. 2006). Data indicate that populations exposed to West 

Nile virus experience substantial drops in annual survival, and suggest that the 

virus could contribute to local population extirpation (Walker et al. 2004). 

Small, isolated populations, such as the Dakotas or the Powder River Basin, are 

more susceptible to stressors like disease because of their low numbers and 

lower ability to sustain numbers by recruitment from other populations. 

West Nile virus is thought to have caused millions of wild bird deaths since its 

introduction in 1999. The disease has been detected in at least 326 species of 

dead birds in the US (Centers for Disease Control 2012). The dominant vector 

for the virus is Culex tarsalis, a common, widely distributed mosquito species 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

5-10 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

found in sagebrush habitats. Individuals may disperse more than 10 miles to 

colonize surface water and prefer sites with warm standing water and 

submerged vegetation on which to deposit eggs. Since mosquitoes require 

water to breed, impacts are more likely near anthropogenic water sources such 

as stock ponds and coal-bed methane ponds (Walker and Naugle 2011).

The BLM may require certain management of or changes to the design of stock 

ponds, coal-bed methane ponds, and other anthropogenic water sources 

associated with uses of public lands to reduce the likelihood for mosquito 

breeding and disease transmission. Alternative A does not contain any 

provisions for restricting the spread of West Nile virus. Alternatives B, C and D 

would design new water features for livestock such that they do not contribute 

to the spread of West Nile virus. Although the specific design and extent of 

deployment of these protective features is unclear, the provision makes 

Alternatives B, C and D more likely to reduce the threat of disease to GRSG

populations. In practical terms, the large number of anthropogenic water 

sources, particularly for grazing, would make mitigation of this threat difficult. 

Climate change is expected to worsen the threat of disease by reducing 

naturally mesic areas and causing GRSG to congregate near anthropogenic 

water sources during the summer (Manier et al. 2013). While the BLM can 

require management actions to reduce the effects of West Nile virus on GRSG, 

these actions would not apply on non-BLM-administered lands or projects; 

therefore, the types of impacts described above would continue to affect the 

birds across the cumulative analysis area.

Conversion to Agriculture

Conversion of sagebrush habitat to agricultural use, or sodbusting, results in the 

loss of habitat available for GRSG use. In addition, habitat loss decreases the 

connectivity between seasonal habitats, increasing population isolation and 

fragmentation. Fragmentation then increases the probability for loss of the 

population, reduced genetic diversity and extirpation from stochastic events 

(Knick and Hanser 2011). In addition to reducing the land area available to 

support GRSG, habitat loss and fragmentation also increases the likelihood of 

other disturbances, such as human traffic, wildfire, and spread of invasive plants. 

Threats posed by conversion to agriculture as well as isolation, infrastructure, 

and energy development, all stem from the loss, fragmentation and degradation 

of habitat.

While habitat conversion for agriculture is not directly tied to BLM 

management, land tenure decisions, such as acquisitions and disposals, can 

indirectly affect the acreage available for agriculture and urbanization. For 

example, if the BLM disposes of a land parcel characterized as sagebrush-steppe, 

it could potentially be converted to farmland or sub-divided into home sites at 

the third party’s discretion. It is assumed that lands retained in BLM 

management would not be converted for agriculture or urbanization. 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 5-11

Special designations, such as ACECs, provide protection to GRSG and their 

habitats, as they include special management prescriptions which provide broad 

protection from habitat fragmentation, loss and human disturbance. In general, 

the greater the acreage managed as ACECs, the greater the protection from 

surface disturbance that would be provided to GRSG and the more likely 

population stability and recruitment would be maintained.

The only alternative which establishes an ACEC is Alternative C, which 

designates all PH as an ACEC. Thus, this alternative provides the highest degree 

of protection from conversion to agriculture, though no disposals of BLMadministered land are planned, as indicated in Table 5-1. Alternatives B, C, and 

D all provide for protection of GRSG habitat from disposal, and recommend 

acquisition of private lands where possible to increase GRSG habitat and 

improve connectivity. Alternative A does not make a specific recommendation 

for acquisitions, but does evaluate wildlife habitat value in considering disposals. 

The three action alternatives are more protective of GRSG habitat than current 

policy under Alternative A, but BLM land management would have limited 

cumulative contributions on conversion of private lands to agricultural use, 

regardless of alternative.

Conclusion

While implementation of the action alternatives would reduce threats faced by 

GRSG in MZ I, overall cumulative trends toward habitat loss and fragmentation 

are likely to continue, primarily due to energy and infrastructure development 

pressures in GRSG habitat, notably in the Dakotas and Powder River Basin. The 

isolation and small size of these populations increases the risk posed by disease 

as well. The Yellowstone watershed faces habitat loss pressure from energy and 

infrastructure development, and fragmentation risk due to the low percentage 

of land in public management. The northern Montana population, on a large, 

relatively intact area of sagebrush mainly used for grazing, is largely resistant to 

these trends, and is at low risk of decline.

5.3 LANDS AND REALTY

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within 

the cumulative impact analysis area that have affected and would likely to 

continue to affect the lands and realty program are lands and realty actions, 

energy and minerals development, travel management, and climate change.

Land use authorizations in the planning area place the largest demand on the 

BLM lands and realty program. Past lands use authorizations include 79 linear 

ROW features such as transmission lines, roads, and water pipelines, as well as 

33 site-specific authorizations for oil and gas. Under all alternatives, there is 

expected to be a steadily increasing demand for ROWs to accommodate new 

power, water, and telecommunication lines; roadways; and other similar 

development. Any BLM management prescriptions such as ROW exclusion and 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Lands and Realty)

5-12 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

avoidance areas that limit the BLM’s ability to accommodate ROW development 

would influence the level of cumulative impacts on lands and realty.

Under Alternative A, BLM management would continue to allow land use 

authorizations throughout the planning area. As a result, impacts on lands and 

realty as described in Chapter 4 would continue to occur and accumulate as 

new ROWs are proposed. 

Under Alternatives B, C, and D, BLM management would include varying levels 

of ROW restrictions. Designations of areas as avoidance or exclusion would 

neither impact existing ROW authorizations, such as an existing 230-kV 

electrical transmission line, nor ROW applications already being processed, such 

as a proposed 230-kV transmission line (see Table 5-1). The restrictions 

would, however, impact the BLM’s ability to accommodate future development

in ROWs. New ROW development in the cumulative impacts study area would 

be reduced or directed to non-BLM-administered lands. Cumulative impacts on 

lands and realty under Alternative C would include a reduction in the number of 

future ROW authorizations because PH and GH would be designated ROW 

exclusion. The closure of PH to mineral development combined with the 

prohibition of new road construction in PH within four miles of a lek would 

limit the BLM’s ability to authorize new road ROWs and accommodate any 

increase in demand for access on BLM-administered lands. At the same time, the 

management prescriptions under the action alternatives, particularly Alternative 

C, would affect the BLM’s ability to carry out certain goals of its lands and realty 

program. 

National policies to mitigate climate change through the expansion of renewable 

energy production could also contribute long-term cumulative impacts on the 

lands and realty program in the planning area. According to the National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory, there are approximately 3,700-acres of viable 

wind resource areas (i.e., areas where the wind energy potential is greater than 

or equal to 400 watts per square meter) on BLM-administered lands in the 

planning area (see Section 4.19). There are no “Good” (6.0 kilowatthour/square meter/day) or better solar potential within the planning area. As 

such, none the alternatives would result in cumulative impacts on solar energy 

development potential.

As demand for renewable energy sources increases at the same time as wind 

energy technology, requests for ROWs, including transmission line ROWs 

through the planning area from adjacent wind generation facilities, could impact 

the lands and realty program. The potential for cumulative impacts would result 

under all alternatives. ROW development prohibitions under Alternative C and 

wind energy ROW development restrictions Alternative D would reduce the 

potential for new wind energy development in the planning area. Because 

comparable or higher wind resource potential, along with established electrical 

transmission infrastructure, exists elsewhere in North Dakota (US Department 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Lands and Realty)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 5-13

of Energy 2012), the greatest potential for cumulative impacts from renewable 

energy development is likely to be from transmission line development within 

the planning area.

5.4 VEGETATION (INCLUDING NOXIOUS WEEDS; RIPARIAN AND WETLANDS)

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within 

the cumulative impact analysis area that have affected and would likely to 

continue to affect vegetation are; energy and mineral development, vegetation 

management, and infrastructure development, primarily in support of oil and gas 

well development.

Oil and gas energy development impacts sagebrush habitats through direct 

disturbance and habitat loss from well pads, seismic surveys, roads, power lines, 

and pipeline corridors; indirectly from gaseous emissions, changes in water 

availability and quality, and human disturbance. The interaction and intensity of 

effects could cumulatively or individually lead to habitat fragmentation in the 

long term (Connelly et al. 2004, pg. 7-41, Holloran 2005, pg. 57-60).

Conversion of sagebrush habitat to agricultural use, or sodbusting, results in the 

loss of habitat available for GRSG use. In addition, habitat loss decreases the 

connectivity between seasonal habitats, increasing population isolation and 

fragmentation (Knick and Hanser 2011). In addition to reducing the land area 

available to support GRSG, habitat loss and fragmentation also increases the 

likelihood of other disturbances, such as human traffic, wildfire, and spread of 

invasive plants.

5.4.1 Alternative A

Under Alternative A, current management would continue on BLMadministered lands in the planning area. There would be no ROW avoidance or 

exclusion areas established, and no areas closed or restricted to fluid mineral

leasing. Current management does consider wildlife habitat value in decisionmaking which could indirectly effect vegetation cumulatively. A planned 

transmission line could increase fragmentation of vegetation, and a substantial 

number of new wells and pad are planned on BLM-administered land, which 

would increase loss of sagebrush vegetation and degradation of vegetation 

conditions. The well activity would be particularly harmful to vegetation in the 

Powder River Basin and the Dakotas, where energy resources are plentiful in 

sagebrush habitat (USFWS 2013).

Energy development impacts sagebrush habitats through direct disturbance of 

vegetation and habitat loss from well pads and associated infrastructure, 

including access roads, power lines, and pipeline corridors; and vehicle use. 

Surface mining also results in direct loss of habitat, subsurface mining a lesser 

impact. Overburden storage, staging areas, roads, and other infrastructure also 

disturb vegetation and contribute to the risk of wildfire and introduction of 

noxious weeds. These trends would likely continue and increase given the 

energy development pressure in many areas of the planning area, and the lack of 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

5-14 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

specific management tools to mitigate them under Alternative A. As described 

in Chapter 4, oil and gas development on BLM-administered lands would have 

limited contributions to cumulative impacts because, although there is high 

potential in GRSG habitat, most of the resources have already been developed.

A planned conifer encroachment reduction project on BLM-administered lands 

(see Table 5-1) would benefit vegetation health and diversity under all the 

alternatives, and planned NRCS projects on private lands would improve 

rangeland health, increase herbaceous cover and create beneficial range 

improvements. These projects combined with the management actions under 

Alternative A would improve vegetation condition in discrete areas, but would 

not impact the larger trend toward habitat loss.

5.4.2 Alternative B

Under Alternative B, ROW exclusion and avoidance areas would be established. 

Habitat areas would be restricted or closed to fluid mineral leasing. No ACECs

would be established, but land disposals and acquisitions would focus on 

maintaining sagebrush acreage and connectivity. Alternative B would slightly 

reduce the number of planned wells and anticipated acres of sagebrush habitat 

disturbed, compared to Alternative A (see Table 4-1), but over 600 acres of 

BLM-administered land are anticipated to be disturbed under this alternative.

Additional habitat may be lost to access roads and associated infrastructure. As 

described in Chapter 4, oil and gas development would have limited 

contributions to cumulative impacts because, although there is high potential in 

GRSG habitat, most of the resources have already been developed.

The vegetation management and restoration projects mentioned above would 

benefit the planning area in discrete locations, as described above. Overall, the 

trend toward loss of sagebrush habitat would continue from energy 

development pressure, but development restrictions on lands retained as PH

and improvements on private ranchlands in the planning area would improve 

habitat quality on remaining sagebrush acreage.

5.4.3 Alternative C

Alternative C would establish an ACEC on PH administered by the BLM, and 

PH and GH would be closed to fluid mineral leasing. Alternative C would 

designate both PH and GH as ROW exclusion areas. These provisions would 

protect vegetation from loss, fragmentation, and disturbance. As shown in 

Table 4-1, approximately 200 fewer acres of BLM-administered land would be 

disturbed by energy development under this alternative, but a number of wells 

would still be constructed. As described in Chapter 4, oil and gas development 

on BLM-administered lands would have limited contributions to cumulative 

impacts because, although there is high potential in GRSG habitat, most of the 

resources have already been developed.

As under the other alternatives, the vegetation management and restoration 

projects conducted by BLM and NRCS would benefit vegetation. Alternative C 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds; Riparian and Wetlands))

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 5-15

would impose the most stringent restrictions on development of GRSG habitat. 

Overall, the trend toward loss of vegetation would continue from energy 

development, but development restrictions on habitat areas on public lands and 

improvements on private ranchlands would improve habitat quality on remaining 

sagebrush acreage. 

5.4.4 Alternative D

Alternative D would improve vegetation protection compared to current 

management, but with more limited actions than Alternatives B or C. 

Alternative D would not close habitat to fluid mineral leasing but would place it 

under NSO stipulation. It would establish ROW avoidance areas but not 

exclusion areas for transmission lines (ROW exclusion areas would be 

established for wind energy.) These provisions would maintain flexibility for land 

managers in areas with mixed public and private ownership, where exclusion 

areas may result in more widespread development on private lands, and not 

reduce overall impacts on sagebrush habitat. Alternative D anticipates a minor 

reduction in well construction and acres impacted compared to Alternative A

(see Table 4-1). As described in Chapter 4, oil and gas development would 

have limited contributions to cumulative impacts because, although there is high 

potential in GRSG habitat, most of the resources have already been developed.

As under the other alternatives, the vegetation management and restoration 

projects conducted by BLM and NRCS would benefit vegetation. Development 

restrictions on PH and GH, and improvements on private ranchlands would 

improve vegetation quality on sagebrush acreage, though overall, the trend 

toward loss of sagebrush would continue from energy and infrastructure 

development.

5.5 WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT AND ECOLOGY

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within 

the cumulative impact analysis area that have affected and would likely continue 

to affect wildland fire management and ecology are; vegetation management

projects, projects that impact ability to respond to wildland fire, projects that 

would increase ROWs and energy and mineral development, and projects that 

would increase access to land and consequently increase the risk of humancaused ignitions.

Although past, present, and future actions may increase the likelihood of wildfire

as described below, wildland fire in the cumulative impact analysis area in the 

past has been rare, and the risk of wildfire is likely to remain relatively low in 

the future, regardless of alternative. 

Vegetation management that could change FRCC could affect wildland fire

management in the future. Projects on private lands through the NRCS SGI have 

focused on creating additional GRSG habitat. If any of these projects change fuel 

loads or result in a change in FRCC on private lands adjacent to the planning 

area, those lands may be more susceptible to fire and fire could spread from 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Wildland Fire Management and Ecology)

5-16 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

those lands to the near-by planning area. Under Alternatives B, C, and D, there 

is a slightly larger possibility of alteration of vegetative cover resulting in a shift 

in FRCC than under Alternative A due to increased restrictions on vegetation 

management on public lands under the action alternatives. 

Past energy development projects, such as the wind farm west of Rhame and 

existing transmission lines described in Table 5-1 increase the risk of humancaused ignitions due to the construction, maintenance, and operation of those 

facilities as well as related transportation increases. Additionally, there is one 

potential transmission line proposal, which could increase the risk of fire. Well 

exploration and associated development, including access roads in the future 

would also increase the risk of human-caused ignition, which could impact 

wildland fire management. Alternatives B, C, and D place more restrictions on 

energy and mineral development and have more acres closed to ROWs than do 

Alternative A. Consequently, the cumulative risk of fire would be lower under 

Alternatives B, C, and D than under Alternative A. 

As the global effects of climate change continue into the future, the likelihood of 

natural, unplanned ignition within the planning area may increase due to the 

irregular weather patterns, increased likelihood of storms, and drought. As 

climate change is a global process, impacts on climate change from management 

actions related to this project would be negligible and would be similar across all 

alternatives.

5.6 FLUID MINERALS

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within 

the cumulative impact analysis area that have affected and would likely to 

continue to affect fluid minerals are development of and exploration for fluid 

minerals on oil and gas estate that is not owned by the federal government. This 

exploration and development must be considered in combination with 

exploration and development on federal oil and gas estate to assess the 

cumulative impacts of this RMPA/EIS. Under Alternative A, 384 new exploratory 

and development wells are projected to be drilled on all mineral ownerships in 

the planning area in the short term (the life of the RMP) (see Table 4-1). Sixty 

of these new wells are projected to be on federal oil and gas estate. In the long 

term (between now and 2029), 314 of these new wells are expected to become 

producing wells, 49 of which are projected to be on federal oil and gas estate.

The management actions proposed under this RMPA/EIS would cumulatively 

impact fluid mineral development through surface use restrictions (e.g., closures, 

and NSO, CSU, and TL stipulations) that ultimately would decrease the number 

of oil and gas wells drilled in the planning area during the planning period. 

Surface use restrictions, such as NSO restrictions, could also cause an operator 

to move to nearby areas with no such restrictions. While the management 

actions under Alternatives B and C would reduce new producing wells on 

federal oil and gas estate in the planning area by approximately 57 percent, as 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Fluid Minerals)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 5-17

shown in Table 4-1, new producing wells throughout the planning area would 

be expected to decrease from 314 wells under Alternative A to 289 wells under 

Alternatives B and C, an eight percent decrease. Under Alternative D, new 

producing wells on federal oil and gas estate would be expected to decrease by 

14 percent compared with Alternative A. However, new producing wells 

throughout the planning area would be expected to decrease from 314 wells to 

308 wells, a two percent decrease.

As the analysis above shows, the management actions proposed under this 

RMPA/EIS would likely have a much greater impact on oil and gas activity on 

federal oil and gas estate than on oil and gas activity throughout the planning 

area. Under all alternatives, the projected reduction in new producing wells 

throughout the planning area is less than 10 percent. However, the reduction in 

producing wells on federal oil and gas estate may be as high as 57 percent. As 

described in Chapter 4, oil and gas development would have limited 

contributions to cumulative impacts because, although there is high potential in 

GRSG habitat, most of the resources have already been developed.

5.7 COAL

The BLM has not identified any past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions and conditions within the cumulative impact analysis area that are likely 

to affect coal (see Table 5-1). Therefore, cumulative impacts on coal are not 

anticipated. Refer to Section 4.7 for the direct and indirect impacts. 

5.8 LOCATABLE MINERALS

The BLM has not identified any past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions and conditions within the cumulative impact analysis area that are likely 

to affect locatable minerals (see Table 5-1). Therefore, cumulative impacts on 

locatable minerals are not anticipated. Refer to Section 4.8 for the direct and 

indirect impacts. 

5.9 MINERAL MATERIALS

The BLM has not identified any past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions and conditions within the cumulative impact analysis area that are likely 

to affect mineral materials (see Table 5-1). Therefore, cumulative impacts on 

mineral materials are not anticipated. Refer to Section 4.9 for the direct and 

indirect impacts. 

5.10 COMPREHENSIVE TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within 

the cumulative impact analysis area that have affected and would likely continue 

to affect Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management include the 

BLM OHV Final EIS and Proposed Plan Amendment ROD (BLM 2003c), which 

limits year-round motorized wheeled travel to existing roads and trails. BLM 

management would continue to limit motorized wheeled travel to existing roads 

and trails under all alternatives. There would be no additional cumulative 

impacts from closures of existing routes.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management)

5-18 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

For all alternatives, cumulative impacts on Comprehensive Travel and 

Transportation Management would occur primarily from actions that facilitate, 

limit, or preclude motorized access, including the closure of areas to certain 

types of travel or through the designation of routes as part of a future travel 

management planning process. Beyond the OHV ROD and any future 

implementation-level transportation planning processes, the BLM has not 

identified any past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and 

conditions within the cumulative impact analysis area that are likely to affect 

Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management.

In addition to the cumulative impacts applicable to all alternatives, the BLM 

would prohibit new road construction in PH within four miles of a lek under 

Alternative C. Cumulative impacts on Comprehensive Travel and 

Transportation Management as a result of this limitation could include 

congestion on the existing travel route network within and adjacent to the 

planning area, particularly where routes provide access to multiple resource 

uses. Congestion would prevent access and require more active management 

(i.e. enforcement, signage, education) by the BLM. 

5.11 RECREATION

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within 

the cumulative impact analysis area that have affected and would likely continue 

to affect recreation are activities that conflict with recreation opportunities, 

particularly big game hunting. Past and present activities include ROW

development, grazing and range improvements, and mineral development. 

Recreation in the planning area is expected to generally increase over time.

Fluid mineral development is and would continue to be the primary impact on 

recreation in the planning area. For all alternatives, long-term disturbance in the 

planning area from oil and gas activity would be approximately 2,900 acres (see 

Table 4-1) resulting in a contribution to cumulative impacts on popular 

recreation activities such as big game hunting, wildlife viewing, and hiking. The 

nature of cumulative impacts on recreation from oil and gas activity includes 

noise, dust, vehicle traffic, night lighting, increased safety hazards on roads due 

to traffic, loss of solitude, decreased tourism revenue, and increased conflict 

between recreation users and oil and gas activities. 

Cumulative impacts from existing ROWs in the planning area would also 

continue to impact recreation activities and opportunities. An existing 230-kV 

electrical transmission line covering approximately 13 acres, combined with a 

proposed 230-kV electrical transmission line covering 15 acres would impact 

recreation opportunities in the vicinity of those ROWs. ROW development 

conflicts with recreation activities, particularly big game hunting, by creating 

linear obstructions for game and hunters. Cumulative impacts from existing and 

ongoing ROW development also reduce the quality of the rural outdoor 

experience sought by recreation users in planning area. 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Recreation)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 5-19

Under Alternative A, the BLM would continue to allow ROW development, 

mineral development, and grazing throughout the planning area resulting in a 

contribution to cumulative impacts on recreation activities and opportunities. 

Management under Alternatives B, C, and D would include limitations on 

surface disturbing activities, such as ROW development, grazing, and mineral 

development; therefore, reducing the potential to contribute to long-term 

cumulative impacts on recreation. Management under Alternative C, which 

would include the designation of PH as ROW exclusion area, a reduction in 

livestock grazing allotments by 50 percent, the designation of a new ACEC, and 

the closure of PH and GH to mineral development, would overall result in the 

least contribution to cumulative impacts on recreation compared to the other 

alternatives. Limitations on new road development within four miles of leks

under Alternative C would impact certain recreation opportunities by 

decreasing the potential for new access, while at the same time, maintaining 

primitive dispersed recreation experiences such as hunting, especially in areas 

where few roads current exist.

5.12 RANGE MANAGEMENT

Past, present, and future actions within the cumulative impact analysis area that 

have affected and would likely to continue to affect livestock grazing are mainly 

those that reduce available grazing acreage, the level of forage production in 

those areas, or inhibit livestock improvements, such as water development or 

fences. Generally, livestock use has decreased over the past 100 years in the 

region. 

Past and present actions that have affected livestock grazing include humancaused surface disturbances such as those associated with mineral development, 

recreation, and historic grazing practices. Vegetation treatments and range 

improvements on private lands in Bowman and Slope counties through the 

NRCS SGI may have resulted in some required changes to grazing management

on private lands, but is likely to improve forage in the long term.

Future factors affecting livestock grazing are similar to present actions, and 

include any restriction on grazing management associated with future species 

listings under the ESA and additional changes to forage condition due to 

continued drought or climate change. Cumulative projects that increase human 

disturbance in grazing areas could also indirectly impact grazing by increasing 

weeds and invasive species, and by disturbing or displacing livestock. 

The contribution of the management actions under any of the alternatives to 

cumulative impacts would parallel the impacts of the alternatives as described in 

Chapter 4; the greatest contribution to cumulative effects on livestock grazing 

would be seen in Alternative C, due to the reduction on grazing in the planning 

area. The reduction in grazing on public lands could impact area 

lessees/permittees economically and may put additional pressure on forage 

resources on private lands in the area.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Areas of Critical Environmental Concern)

5-20 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

5.13 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

There are currently no ACECs in the planning area. Under Alternative C, the 

BLM would designate a new 32,900-acre GRSG ACEC as a way to prioritize 

BLM management of GRSG PH. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions and conditions within the cumulative impact analysis area that would 

affect the proposed new ACEC would include any action or condition that 

would impact the GRSG habitat health for which the ACEC would be 

established. Such actions or conditions include oil and gas production, ROW

development, livestock grazing and range improvements, travel routes, and 

climate change. Although management under Alternative C would restrict 

activities such as ROW development, grazing, mineral entry, and new road 

construction within the ACEC, existing and future ROWs, oil and gas 

development, and travel routes would result in cumulative impacts on the 

ACEC. Examples of long-term impacts on the ACEC from these activities 

include noise, heavy vehicle traffic, and dust.

A proposed 230-kV transmission line would create long-term surface 

disturbance on 15 acres in the ACEC, as would a proposed 7-mile pipeline to 

supply water to livestock. The BLM also anticipates valid existing oil and gas 

leases in the planning area to result in the long-term disturbance of 

approximately 2,900 acres (see Table 4-1). Together, these actions would 

result in long-term cumulative impacts of the nature and type described in 

Chapter 4 on the ACEC proposed under Alternative C. 

Climate change would also pose a long-term threat of cumulative impacts on the 

relevant and important values of the ACEC proposed under Alternative C. 

Cumulative impacts on GRSG habitat and, consequently, on the ACEC from 

climate change could include vegetation regime changes (e.g., from sagebrush to 

grasslands) and increased wildfire potential due to drought (Connelly et al. 

2004). 

5.14 AIR QUALITY

The management actions proposed in this RMPA/EIS would reduce the number 

of oil and gas wells developed on the federal mineral estate in the planning area 

compared with current management actions (see Table 4-1), thereby reducing 

air emissions associated with these actions on BLM-administered lands. While 

air emissions would likely be reduced and proposed BLM management actions 

would have no incremental cumulative air quality impact, restricting oil and gas 

development on federally-administered lands could shift development to nonfederal lands. Compared with Alternative A, cumulative air quality impacts 

would be slightly reduced under Alternatives B, C, and D, with the most 

reductions under Alternatives B and C. The cumulative actions identified in 

Table 5-1 are not expected to result in a violation of the NAAQS under any 

alternative. 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Climate)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 5-21

5.15 CLIMATE

Oil and gas development has occurred, is occurring, and would continue to 

occur on both federal and non-federal oil and gas estate within the planning 

area. The management actions proposed in this RMPA/EIS would reduce the 

number of oil and gas wells developed on the federal mineral estate in the 

planning area compared with current management actions (see Table 4-1), 

thereby reducing GHG emissions associated with these actions on BLMadministered lands. While GHG emissions would likely be reduced, restricting 

oil and gas development on federally-administered lands could shift development 

to non-federal lands. 

Fires, particularly uncontrolled fires, can emit large quantities of GHGs into the 

atmosphere, including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide (EPA 2012h,

page 7-21 to 7-22); fires also remove vegetation that acts as a carbon sink. 

Proposed management actions would restrict the amount of vegetation that can 

be burned in a prescribed burn, or that can be allowed to burn in an unplanned 

natural ignition, to maintain sagebrush canopy cover, potentially resulting in 

fewer fire-related emissions in the short term.

Compared with Alternative A, climate change impacts would be slightly reduced 

under Alternatives B, C, and D, with the most reductions under Alternatives B 

and C. The cumulative actions identified in Table 5-1 are not expected to 

result in a change in GHG emissions that would be large enough to alter climate 

change impacts in the region. 

Overall, federal and nonfederal actions within the planning area would not have 

a significant cumulative impact on climate change. Actions in the planning area 

contribute a very small percentage of state and national GHG; CO2 emissions 

for all of North Dakota were 1.3 percent of total US CO2 emissions (2010 

numbers) (US Energy Information Administration 2013c).

5.16 SOIL RESOURCES

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within 

the cumulative impact analysis area that have affected and would likely to 

continue to affect soil resources are energy and mineral development, 

vegetation management, lands and realty actions, livestock grazing and range 

improvements, wildland fires, drought, and climate change. 

Fluid mineral development would continue to impact soil resources in the 

planning area. For all alternatives, long-term disturbance in the planning area 

from oil and gas activity would be approximately 2,900 acres (see Table 4-1). 

This disturbance would impact soil resources through the removal of topsoil 

and the compaction, denuding, and eroding of soils within and alongside 

temporary roads, wells, and associated well pads. As described in Chapter 4, 

oil and gas development would have limited contributions to cumulative impacts 

because, although there is high potential in GRSG habitat, most of the resources 

have already been developed.
5. Cumulative Impacts (Soil Resources)

5-22 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Vegetation management is important for soil stability as vegetation anchors soils 

in place and prevents excessive erosion and runoff into waterways. Vegetation 

management includes hazardous fuels reduction through prescribed fires, 

chemical and mechanical treatments, and seeding. Active vegetation 

management should contribute to the stabilization and protection of soils in 

these areas from erosion and compaction. Existing, proposed, and foreseeable 

ROW development in the planning area would also result in cumulative impacts 

on soil resources through vegetation loss, compaction, and erosion.

Livestock grazing would continue to have a range of effects on soils, with 

degradation of soils expected to continue in heavy use areas particularly around 

stock ponds and other water sources. The proposed installation of a seven-mile 

pipeline could cumulatively impact soils through compaction during construction 

and through the rearrangement of cattle movement in the planning area. 

Fire can impact soils in the short term through the removal of vegetation 

resulting in instability and increased erosion and sediment runoff. Long-term 

effects of fire are considered beneficial as the landscape can be returned to a 

healthier state with proper seeding and management, which would indirectly 

reduce the risk of fire and provide for more established vegetation 

communities, resulting in more stable soils. 

Drought and water availability impacts vegetation in the planning area, which 

impacts soil resources. Drought affects the health of rangeland, riparian areas, 

and forests, making them more susceptible to the invasion of weeds and fire. 

Past drought, along with associated wildland fire that has occurred in the 

planning areas since 2002, has contributed to current ecological conditions by 

impacting vegetation communities, which keep soils stabilized and reduce 

erosion and runoff into waterways. 

Climate change would also pose a long-term threat of cumulative impacts soil 

resources. Cumulative impacts on soil resources from climate change could 

include vegetation regime changes (e.g., from sagebrush to grasslands), increased 

wildfire potential due to drought, and increased sedimentation and erosion 

(Connelly et al. 2004). 

Under Alternative A, the BLM would continue to allow ROWs and mineral 

development throughout the planning area with the result of continued 

cumulative impacts on soil resources. Management under Alternatives B, C, and 

D would include limitations on surface disturbing activities, such as ROW 

development and mineral development; therefore, reducing the potential for

contributing to long-term cumulative impacts on soil resources. When 

considered in conjunction with other non-BLM actions and compared to the 

other alternatives, management under Alternative C would result in the least 

amount of contribution to cumulative impacts on soil resources due to 

proposed management prescriptions that include the designation of PH and GH

as ROW exclusion area, restrictions on road construction, removal of livestock 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Soil Resources)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 5-23

grazing in GRSG habitat, and closure or application of lease stipulations to 

mineral development in PH and GH.

5.17 WATER RESOURCES

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within 

the cumulative impact analysis area that have affected and would likely to 

continue to affect water resources are fluid mineral development, lands and 

realty actions, livestock grazing and range improvements, vegetation 

management, drought and climate change. 

For all alternatives, long-term disturbance in the planning area from oil and gas 

activity would be approximately 2,900 acres (see Table 4-1). These activities 

could impact water resources through an increase in the presence of 

petroleum-using vehicles and equipment which increases the likelihood of 

chemical spills, erosion, and contamination of waterways. Fluid mineral

development can increase the likelihood of the creation of pools of standing 

water, which can serve as mosquito breeding habitat, increasing the ability for 

West Nile virus to spread into a landscape otherwise not at risk to the 

pathogen. As described in Chapter 4, oil and gas development would have 

limited contributions to cumulative impacts because, although there is high 

potential in GRSG habitat, most of the resources have already been developed.

Vegetation management is important for soil stability as vegetation anchors soils 

in place and prevents excessive erosion and runoff into waterways. Vegetation 

management includes hazardous fuels reduction through prescribed fires, 

chemical and mechanical treatments, and seeding. Active vegetation 

management should contribute to the stabilization and protection of soils in 

these areas from erosion and subsequent runoff contributing to higher pollutant 

loads in waterways.

Existing, proposed, and foreseeable ROW development in the planning area 

would also result in cumulative impacts on water resources through humanmade runoff of soils and chemicals into waterways. The development allowed 

under these authorizations would result in surface-disturbance, which would 

generally contribute to a decrease in water quality through compaction, erosion, 

and sediment runoff into waterways as well as an increase in the potential for 

chemical contamination. 

Livestock grazing can affect water resources through the trampling of soils and 

vegetation along and within natural water features, and through the formation of 

fecal coliforms in waterways. Livestock grazing is associated with range 

management, which involves constructing infrastructure in order to support 

livestock grazing. Proposed rangeland improvement projects are limited to a 

single seven-mile long stock water pipeline. This action and other unforeseen 

actions could cumulatively impact waters through compaction and erosion of 

soils during construction and subsequent runoff into waterways. 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Water Resources)

5-24 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Drought affects the health of rangeland, riparian areas, and forests which make 

them more susceptible to the invasion of weeds and fire. Fire can impact water 

resources in the short term through the removal of vegetation resulting in 

instability of soils and increased erosion and sediment into waterways. Longterm effects of fire are considered beneficial as the landscape can be returned to 

a healthier state with proper seeding and management, which would indirectly 

reduce the risk of fire which would reduce erosion of soils into waterways. 

Climate change would also pose a long-term threat of cumulative impacts water 

resources. Cumulative impacts from climate change on water resources could 

include vegetation regime changes (e.g., from sagebrush to grasslands), increased 

wildfire potential due to drought, and increased sedimentation and erosion into 

waterways (Connelly et al. 2004). 

Under Alternative A, the BLM would continue to allow ROW development, 

mineral development, and grazing throughout the planning area with the result 

of contributing to cumulative impacts on water resources. Alternatives B, C, and 

D would include limitations on surface disturbing activities, such as ROW 

development, grazing, and mineral development; therefore, reducing the 

potential for long-term cumulative impacts on water resources. When 

considered in conjunction with other non-BLM actions and compared to the 

other alternatives, Alternative C would result in the least amount of

contribution to cumulative impacts on waters due to proposed management 

prescriptions that include the designation of PH and GH as ROW exclusion

area, reduction of livestock grazing in GRSG habitat, and closure or application 

of lease stipulations to mineral development in PH and GH.

5.18 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES – OTHER SPECIES OF ISSUE

Many past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions 

within the cumulative impact analysis area that have affected and would likely 

continue to affect special status species other than GRSG are described in 

Table 5-1. The most significant impacts likely to affect special status species,

including Sprague’s pipit distributions, include energy development, livestock 

grazing, and roadway development. Some special status species are in decline

within and adjacent to the planning area as a result of increased habitat 

fragmentation, spread of noxious weeds, lack of fire on the landscape or fire 

suppression, and infrastructure development (BLM 2010a, pg. 227). Other 

actions that may contribute to cumulative impacts include vegetation 

management, recreation (OHV use), and climate change.

Cumulative impacts from future management actions proposed in Table 5-1

would increase the number of surface acres disturbed by oil and gas well 

development up to approximately 2,900 acres in the planning area over the long 

term (see Table 4-1). However, contracts with private landowners are 

expected to improve 73,993 acres of GRSG habitat through the SGI program 

(Table 5-1). Additional vegetation management actions have occurred on 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Special Status Species – Other Species of Issue)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 5-25

private lands in the planning area that collectively have increased GRSG habitat 

well beyond the projected potential increase in disturbed surface acres from 

future oil and gas well development. These planned improvements would also 

increase available habitat within and adjacent to the planning area for Sprague’s 

pipit and other special status species that use similar habitat as GRSG. 

Four indicators were identified to analyze the effects on special status species 

under each alternative in Section 4.18. These indicators include acres in ROW

exclusion, livestock grazing AUMs, acres closed to fluid mineral leasing, and 

acres found unsuitable for surface coal mining. Management under Alternative A 

would have the greatest negative contribution to cumulative impacts on 

Sprague’s pipit distribution and other special status species because it provides 

the fewest considerations of ecological impacts in management decisions. 

Management under Alternative D would result in slightly fewer contributions to 

cumulative impacts on Sprague’s pipit distribution and other special status 

species due to an increase in the number of acres unsuitable for coal mining 

compared to Alternative A. Management under Alternatives B and C would 

reduce cumulative impacts on special status species, compared with Alternative 

A, due to the proposed increases in ROW exclusion areas and acres closed to 

fluid mineral leasing. Management under Alternative C would result in the least 

cumulative impacts among the proposed alternatives as livestock grazing AUMs 

would be decreased compared to no proposed changes in AUMs under 

Alternatives A, B, and D.

5.19 RENEWABLE ENERGY

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within 

the cumulative impact analysis area that have affected and would likely to 

continue to affect renewable energy are the construction of existing and 

proposed roads and transmission lines. They would have a minor cumulative 

effect by increasing the routing options and possibly reducing project 

construction or implementation costs. There would be no cumulative impacts 

for any of the alternatives on solar energy because there are no “Good” or 

better solar potential in the planning area.

Across all alternatives the primary indicator of impacts on wind energy is acres 

of BLM lands with “Good” or better wind potential within ROW exclusion and 

ROW avoidance areas. The minor cumulative impacts of increased routing 

options, and decreased project costs caused by construction of existing and 

proposed roads and transmission lines could encourage wind energy 

development on the small percentage of BLM-administered lands that would not 

be subject to these ROW restrictions. However, under Alternatives B, C, and 

D, development of wind energy resources on BLM lands are still unlikely due to 

the fact that 99 percent of “Good” or better wind potential land within the 

planning area would be designated as either ROW avoidance or exclusion areas. 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Renewable Energy)

5-26 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Under Alternative A, wind energy development applications would continue to 

be processed on a case-by-case basis, with no additional acres designated as 

ROW exclusion or ROW avoidance area. Therefore the cumulative impacts of 

increased routing options and decreased project costs caused by the 

construction of existing and proposed roads and transmission lines would 

encourage wind energy development the most of any Alternative. However, this 

cumulative effect would still be considered minor.

Under Alternative B, 3,606 acres or 97 percent of lands with “Good” or better 

wind potential that are open for ROW applications under Alternative A would 

become exclusion areas. Another 80 acres or two percent of lands would 

become ROW avoidance area. This would leave 44 acres or one percent of 

lands with “Good” or better wind potential available for wind power 

development. Therefore, regardless of the cumulative impacts of increased 

routing options and decreased project costs caused by the construction of 

existing and proposed roads and transmission lines, this area is too small for a 

commercial-scale wind power plant.

Under Alternative C, 3,686 acres or 99 percent of lands with “Good” or better 

wind potential that are open for ROW applications under Alternative A would 

become exclusion areas and would not be available for wind development. This 

would leave 44 acres or one percent of lands with “Good” or better wind 

potential available for wind power development. Therefore, regardless of the 

cumulative impacts of increased routing options and decreased project costs 

caused by the construction of existing and proposed roads and transmission 

lines, this area is too for a commercial-scale wind power plant.

Under Alternative D, 3,606 acres or 97 percent of lands with “Good” or better 

wind potential that are open for ROW applications under Alternative A would 

become exclusion areas and thus would be subject to substantial restrictions. 

This would leave 44 acres or one percent of lands with “Good” or better wind 

potential available for wind power development without substantial restriction.

Additionally, 80 acres of GH would be managed as ROW avoidance area. This 

would further restrict wind development in this area. Therefore, the cumulative 

impacts of increased routing options and decreased project costs caused by the 

construction of existing and proposed roads and transmission lines would be 

negated by these substantial restrictions to wind energy development.

Alternative A is the only Alternative that does not limit current available 

acreage for wind energy development. Therefore the minor cumulative effect of 

increased routing options and decreased project costs caused construction of 

existing and proposed roads and transmission lines could act to encourage wind 

energy development on BLM-administered lands

5.20 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions have 

affected and would likely to continue to affect social and economic conditions. 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Social and Economic Conditions)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 5-27

Indicators used to examine effects to social and economic conditions (i.e. 

employment, income, effects to quality of life and related non-market values) are 

likely to be affected by past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

These activities include mineral exploration and development, unauthorized 

travel, livestock grazing, recreation, ROW development, weed invasion and 

spread, prescribed and wildland fires, land planning efforts, vegetation 

treatments and habitat improvement projects, insects and disease, and drought. 

Actions proposed in this project would contribute to the cumulative impacts on 

employment and labor income directly as a result of labor required, and 

indirectly as purchases are made between industry sectors and households 

spend resulting income. These contributions would accrue to the three-county 

impact area alongside impacts from other projects occurring on public and 

private land in the area notably, ongoing oil and gas development as well as the 

existing wind farm and proposed transmission line (see Table 5-1). 

The economy can be also be affected by a variety of factors including population 

growth, changes in interest rates, recession, growth of new sectors, tax policy, 

State economic policy, etc. When compared to these factors, the RMPA 

alternatives are likely to have a negligible cumulative impact on the area 

economy. For example, in 2010 total employment in the three-county impact

area was 4,309 and labor income was $214,000,000. Employment decreases 

under Alternative C (the most restrictive alternative on resource uses) would 

comprise 0.08 and 0.02 percent of total employment and labor income. Because 

any changes in economic activity from the proposed action would be minimal at 

these levels, there would be no cumulative economic effects for the entire 

economy.

However, as noted above the three-county impact area can be considered 

specialized with respect to the grazing sector. Decreases in employment and 

labor income under Alternative C resulting from the reduction of AUMs on 

public lands would reduce contributions to the grazing sector from seven to

four jobs which could result in a 2.6 percent decrease in employment in this 

sector. Decreases portrayed here could be lessened if alternative sources of 

forage are found for willing lessees/permittees. Regardless, an impact could 

occur to the grazing sector if changes occur for ranching and grazing on private 

and other public lands outside the scope of this RMPA, such as an increase in 

price of factors of production, drought, market conditions, etc. 

5.21 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Actions in the proposed plan are not anticipated to have a disproportionate 

impact on those in low income or minority populations in any alternative. As a 

result, the project would not contribute to cumulative impacts for 

environmental justice. 
5. Cumulative Impacts (Environmental Justice)

5-28 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 6

Consultation and Coordination

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 6-1

CHAPTER 6

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

This chapter describes the public outreach and participation opportunities made 

available through the development of this RMPA/EIS, and consultation and 

coordination efforts with tribes, government agencies, and other stakeholders. 

This chapter also lists the interdisciplinary team of staff who prepared the draft 

RMPA/EIS.

The BLM land use planning activities are conducted in accordance with

requirements of NEPA, CEQ regulations, 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 to develop a reasonable range of alternatives to proposed 

actions and to prepare environmental documents that disclose the potential 

impacts of proposed actions and alternatives. Public involvement and agency 

consultation and coordination, which have been at the heart of the planning 

process leading to this draft RMPA/EIS, were achieved through Federal Register

notices, public and informal meetings, individual contacts, media releases, and 

the Rocky Mountain Region – National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy

website (http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/sagegrouse/eastern.html).

6.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Public involvement is a vital and legal component of both the RMPA and EIS 

processes. Public involvement vests the public in the decision making process 

and allows for full environmental disclosure. Guidance for implementing public 

involvement under NEPA is codified in 40 CFR, Part 1506.6, thereby ensuring 

that federal agencies make a diligent effort to involve the public in the NEPA 

process. Section 202 of FLPMA directs the Secretary of the Interior to establish 

procedures for public involvement during land use planning actions on BLMadministered lands. These procedures can be found in the BLM’s Land Use 

Planning Handbook (H-1601-1; BLM 2005). Public involvement for the North 

Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS includes the following four phases:
6. Consultation and Coordination (Public Involvement)

6-2 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

1. Public scoping before beginning NEPA analysis to determine the 

scope of issues and alternatives to be addressed in the RMPA/EIS

2. Public outreach via news releases

3. Collaboration with federal, state, local, and tribal governments, and 

cooperating agencies

4. Public review of and comment on the draft RMPA/EIS, which 

analyzes likely environmental effects and identifies the BLM’s 

preferred alternative

The public scoping phase (phase I) of the process has been completed and is 

described in Section 6.1.1, Scoping Process. The public outreach and 

collaboration phases (2 and 3) are ongoing throughout the RMPA/EIS process 

and are described in Section 6.2, Consultation and Coordination, and Section 

6.3, Cooperating Agencies. Phase 4 started with the 90-day public comment 

period on the draft RMPA/EIS.

6.1.1 Scoping Process

The formal public scoping process for the North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse 

RMPA/EIS began on December 9, 2011, with the publication of the notice of 

intent in the Federal Register (76 Federal Register 77008-77011). The notice of 

intent notified the public of the BLM’s intent to prepare EISs and supplemental 

EISs to incorporate GRSG conservation measures into land use plans; it also 

initiated the public scoping period. A notice of correction to the notice of intent 

was released on February 10, 2012 (77 Federal Register 7178-7179). The notice 

of correction extended the scoping period until March 29, 2012.

Project Website

The BLM launched a national GRSG conservation website as part of its efforts 

to maintain and restore GRSG habitat on BLM-administered lands. The national 

website is available on the Internet at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/

sagegrouse.html. The BLM has also launched a Rocky Mountain regional website:

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/sagegrouse/eastern.html. These sites 

are regularly updated to provide the public with the latest information about the 

planning process. The Rocky Mountain website provides background 

information about the project, a public involvement timeline, maps of the 

planning areas, and copies of public information documents and notice of intent. 

The dates and locations of scoping open houses were also announced on the 

Rocky Mountain website.

Press Release

A press release was made available on the national and Rocky Mountain Region 

websites on December 8, 2011, announcing the scoping period for the EIS 

process. The NDFO also distributed a press release on December 22, 2012,

announcing the scoping period for the EIS process. The press releases provided 

information on the scoping open houses being held and described the various 
6. Consultation and Coordination (Public Involvement)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 6-3

methods for submitting comments. A second press release was posted on the 

national and Rocky Mountain websites on February 7, 2012, announcing the 

extension of the public scoping period to March 23, 2012.

Public Scoping Open House

The BLM hosted an open house in Bowman, North Dakota, on January 17, 

2012, to provide the public with an opportunity to become involved, learn 

about the project and the planning process, meet the planning team members, 

and offer comments. The open house was advertised via a press release and the 

Rocky Mountain website. The scoping meeting was held in an open house 

format to encourage participants to discuss concerns and questions with the 

BLM and other agency staff representatives.

Scoping Comments Received

Detailed information about the comments received can be found in the National 

Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy Scoping Summary Report, finalized in May 

2012 (BLM 2012b). A total of 272 unique written submissions for the Rocky 

Mountain Region, which includes North Dakota, were received during the public 

scoping period. In the Greater Sage-Grouse Scoping Summary Report, North

Dakota and South Dakota are combined for analysis purposes. There were only 

14 unique comments specific to North Dakota and South Dakota. The issues 

identified during public scoping and outreach helped refine the list of planning 

issues, included in Section 1.6.3, which guided the development of alternative 

management strategies for the RMPA.

6.2 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Federal laws require the BLM to consult with certain federal and state agencies 

and entities and Native American tribes (40 CFR, Part 1502.25) during the 

NEPA decision making process. The BLM is also directed to integrate NEPA 

requirements with other environmental review and consultation requirements 

to reduce paperwork and delays (40 CFR, Part 1500.4-5).

In addition to formal scoping (Section 6.1.1), as summarized below, the BLM 

has implemented an extensive collaborative outreach and public involvement 

process that has included coordinating with cooperating agencies. The BLM will 

continue to meet with interested agencies and organizations throughout the 

planning process, as appropriate, and will continue coordinating closely with 

cooperating agencies.

The NDFO initiated consultation with tribes that are identified as having 

interests or aboriginal territories in the RMPA planning area. Letters were 

mailed to the tribes listed below in December 2011, with follow-up letters 

mailed in August 2012 (both letters offering to meet with the tribes and inviting 

them to be cooperating agencies). Consultation with American Indian’s and 

federally recognized tribes is required under a variety of laws, regulations, 

Executive Orders, and BLM policies. Federally recognized tribes with interests 

in the planning area include Three Affiliated Tribes: Mandan, Hidatsa, and 
6. Consultation and Coordination (Consultation and Coordination)

6-4 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Arikara; Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe; Turtle Mountain 

Band of Chippewa; and the Lower Sioux Indian Community.

No written comments were received from tribal agencies during the scoping 

period. Government-to-government consultation will continue throughout the 

RMPA process to ensure that the concerns of tribal groups are considered in 

development of the RMPA. This EIS does not impact any tribal lands or any 

tribal oil and gas interests (there are none within this planning area), nor does it 

restrict any access to sacred sites.

Consultation with State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) will occur along 

with SHPO’s review of the DEIS.

To comply with Section 7(c) of the ESA, the BLM coordinated with the USFWS

early in the planning process. The USFWS provided input on planning issues, 

data collection and review, and alternatives development. The USFWS is also a 

cooperating agency in this process and has participated throughout the 

development of this DRMPA/DEIS.

6.3 COOPERATING AGENCIES

A cooperating agency is any federal, state, or local government agency or Indian 

tribe that enters into a formal agreement with the lead federal agency to help 

develop an environmental analysis. More specifically, cooperating agencies 

“work with the BLM, sharing knowledge and resources, to achieve desired 

outcomes for public lands and communities within statutory and regulatory 

frameworks” (BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1; BLM 2005). The 

primary role of cooperating agencies during the planning process is to provide 

input on issues for which they have a special expertise or jurisdiction. 

On December 7, 2012, the BLM wrote to 23 local, state, federal, and tribal 

representatives, inviting them to participate as cooperating agencies for the

North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS. Four agencies agreed to 

participate in the RMPA as designated cooperating agencies, all of which have 

signed memoranda of understanding with the BLM (Table 6-1, Cooperating 

Agencies).

Table 6-1

Cooperating Agencies

Agencies and Tribes Invited to be Cooperators Agencies that Signed 

MOUs

DOI, Fish and Wildlife Service 

North Dakota Game and Fish Department 

Bowman County Commissioners 

Bowman-Slope Conservation District 

Slope County Commissioners

Theodore Roosevelt National Park

US Forest Service – Bismark
6. Consultation and Coordination (Cooperating Agencies)

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 6-5

Table 6-1

Cooperating Agencies

Agencies and Tribes Invited to be Cooperators Agencies that Signed 

MOUs

US Forest Service – Dickinson

North Dakota Department of Health

North Dakota Industrial Commission

North Dakota State Historical Society

North Dakota State Land Department

North DakotaState Water Commission

North Dakota Geological Survey

USDA NRCS

North Dakota Department of Agriculture

State of North Dakota

North Dakota Public Service Commission

Golden Valley County Commissioners

North Dakota State Historical Preservation Office

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Bureau of Reclamation

US EPA – Region 8

Three Affiliated Tribes: Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara Nation

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe

Turtle Mountain Chippewa Tribe

Lower Sioux Indian Community

These agencies have been engaged throughout the planning process, including 

during alternatives development. Two cooperating agency meetings were held in 

Bowman, North Dakota, on July 25, 2012, and September 5, 2012, to help 

develop alternatives. A third meeting was held with cooperators during the 

Draft EIS local/state/federal review on March 18, 2013. Cooperating agencies 

were also encouraged to attend the scoping open house and provide comments 

during the scoping period (Section 6.1.1).

6.4 LIST OF PREPARERS

This RMPA/EIS was prepared by an interdisciplinary team of staff from the BLM 

and Environmental Management and Planning Solutions, Inc. The following is a 

list of people that prepared or contributed to the development of the 

RMPA/EIS.

Name Role/Responsibility

BLM

Susan Bassett Air Resources, Climate

Carmen Drieling Range Management, Soil, Water, Vegetation

Shelly Gerhardt Recreation, Comprehensive Travel Management

Linda Gisvold Lands and Realty

Eric Lepisto Wildland Fire Management and Ecology
6. Consultation and Coordination (List of Preparers)

6-6 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Name Role/Responsibility

Ruth Miller

Jessica Montag

Project Lead

Socioeconomics

Allen Ollila Fluid Minerals

Phil Perlewitz Solid Minerals

Randy Schardt GIS

Tim Zachmeier Wildlife, Vegetation

EMPSi: Environmental Management and Planning Solutions, Inc.

Angie Adams ACECs

David Batts Program Manager

Amy Cordle Air Resources, Climate

Annie Daly Air Resources, Climate, Wildland Fire Management and Ecology

Andrew Gentile Soil Resources, Water Resources, Renewable Energy

Zoe Ghali Wildland Fire Management and Ecology; Range Management, Socioeconomics

Peter Gower Recreation, Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management, Lands 

and Realty, ACECs

Brandon Jensen Special Status Species

Matt Kluvo Renewable Energy

Laura Long Technical Editor

Katie Patterson Fluid and Solid Minerals

Holly Prohaska Range Management

Chad Ricklefs Project Manager, Lands and Realty

Jennifer Whitaker Fluid and Solid Minerals

Liza Wozniak Vegetation; Special Status Species

Drew Vankat Recreation, Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management

Randy Varney Technical Editor

Meredith Zaccherio Vegetation, Special-Status Species

US Forest Service TEAMS Planning Enterprise Unit

Jennifer Dobb Socioeconomics

Henry Eichman Socioeconomics
Chapter 7

References

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 7-1

CHAPTER 7

REFERENCES

Aldridge, C. L. and M. S. Boyce. 2007. Linking occurrence and fitness to persistence: a habitat-based 

approach for endangered greater sage-grouse. Ecological Applications 17:508-526.

Aldridge, C. L., S. E. Nielsen, H. L. Beyer, M. S. Boyce, J. W. Connelly, S. T. Knick, and M. A. Schroeder. 

2008. Range-wide patterns of Greater Sage-Grouse persistence. Diversity and Distributions 

17:983-994.

Armour, C. L., D. A. Duff and W. Elmore. 1991. The effects of livestock grazing on riparian and stream 

ecosystems. Fisheries 16(1): 7 – 11.

Balch, J. K., B. A. Bradley, C. M. D’Antonio, and J. Gomez-Dans. 2012. Introduced annual grass increases 

regional fire activity across the arid western USA (1980–2009). Global Change Biology vol. 19 

(1) p. 173-183.

Bangsund and Leistritz. 2010. Agribusiness and Applied Economics Report. Petroleum Industry’s 

Economic Contribution to North Dakota in 2009. 

http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/99252/2/AAE676.pdf.

BC Air Quality (British Columbia Air Quality). 2013. How Forest Fires Affect Air Quality. Internet Web

site: http://www.bcairquality.ca/topics/forest-fires-air-quality.html. Accessed on February 1, 2013. 

Beck, J. L. and D. L. Mitchell. 2000. Influences of livestock grazing on sage grouse habitat. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 28:993-1002.

Beck, J. L., K. P. Reese, J. W. Connelly, and M. B. Lucia. 2006. Movements and survival of juvenile greater 

sage‐grouse in southeastern Idaho. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:1070‐1078.

Beck, J. L., J. W. Connelly, and K. P. Reese. 2009. Recovery of greater sage‐grouse habitat features in 

Wyoming big sagebrush following prescribed fire. Restoration Ecology 17:393‐403.
7. References

7-2 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Belnap, J., R. Prasse, and K. T. Harper. 2001. Influences of Biological Soil Crusts on Soil Environments 

and Vascular Plants. Biological Studies, Vol 150: 281-300.

Belnap, J., J. H. Kaltenecker, R. Rosentreter, J. Williams, S. Leonard, and D. Eldridge. 2001. Biological soil 

13 crusts: ecology and management. Technical Reference 1730-2. BLM, Denver, CO. 118 pp.

BLM (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 1986. North Dakota Draft 

Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. 

_____. 1987. North Dakota Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. Billings, 

Montana. July 1987.

_____. 1988a. North Dakota Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, Record 

of Decision. Billings, Montana. 1988.

_____. 1988b. Bureau of Land Management, Policy Manual 1613 – Areas of Critical Environmental

Concern. Washington, DC. September 29, 1988.

_____. 1990. Handbook H-1624-1—Planning for Fluid Mineral Resources. Washington, DC. May 1990.

_____. 1991. Final Environmental Impact Statement Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western 

States. Washington, DC. May 1991.

_____. 1997. 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. Billings, 

Montana. August 1997.

_____. 1998. Riparian Area Management: Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition. 

Technical Reference 1737-9. Revised 1998.

_____. 2003a. Fire/Fuels Management Plan Environmental Assessment/Plan Amendment for Montana and the 

Dakotas. Billings, Montana. July 2003.

_____. 2003b. Dakota Prairie Grasslands Oil and Gas Leasing Record of Decision. Billings, Montana. 

June 2003.

_____. 2003c. Off-Highway Vehicle Record of Decision and Proposed Plan Amendment for Montana, North 

Dakota, and Portions of South Dakota. Billings, Montana. June 2003.

_____. 2004a. Policy for Administering Public Land Grazing in Montana, North and South Dakota 

During Periods of Drought.

_____. 2004b. North Dakota Field Office Fire Management Plan. US Department of the Interior, US 

BLM, North Dakota Field Office. 2004.

_____. 2004c. Instruction Memorandum 2004-227, Bureau of Land Management’s Biomass Utilization 

Strategy. Washington, DC. August 16, 2004.
7. References

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 7-3

_____. 2005. Handbook H-1601-1—Land Use Planning Handbook. Washington, DC. March 2005.

_____. 2007. Final Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Associated Record of Decision. Washington, DC. 

September 2007.

_____. 2008a. Handbook H-1790-1—National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, DC. January 2008.

_____. 2008b. Bureau of Land Management, Policy Manual 6840 – Special Status Species Management. 

Washington, DC. December 12, 2008.

_____. 2008c. Bureau of Land Management, Policy Manual Handbook H-1740-01 – Renewable Resource 

Improvement and Treatment Guidelines and Procedures. Washington, DC. February 29, 2008.

_____. 2008d. Instruction Memorandum 2009-018, Process for Setting Priorities for Issuing Grazing 

Permits and Leases. October 31, 2008.

_____. 2008e. Instruction Memorandum 2009-043, Wind Energy Development Policy. Washington, DC. 

December 19, 2008.

_____. 2009a. Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas Activities on Bureau Managed 

Lands in the North Dakota Study Area. US BLM, North Dakota. 94 pp.

_____. 2009b. Instruction Memorandum 2009-120, Updated Contract Clause for Utilization of Woody 

Biomass. Washington, DC. May 7, 2009.

_____. 2010a. Analysis of the Management Situation. North Dakota. April 2010.

_____. 2010b. Climate Change Supplementary Information Report for Montana, North Dakota, and 

South Dakota, Bureau of Land Management. October 2010.

_____. 2011a. Instructional Memorandum 2011-138, Sage-grouse Conservation Related to Wildland 

Fire and Fuels Management. Washington, DC. June 13, 2011.

_____. 2011b. Instruction Memorandum 2012-044, BLM National. Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use 

Planning Strategy. Washington, DC. December 27, 2011.

_____. 2011c. Instructional Memorandum 2011-003, Solar Energy Development 1 Policy. Washington, 

DC. October 7, 2010.

_____. 2011d. Instructional Memorandum 2011-061, Solar and Wind Energy Applications – PreApplication and Screening. Washington, DC. February 7, 2011.

_____. 2012a. BLM GIS data.

_____. 2012b. National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy, Land Use Plan Amendments and 

Environmental Impact Statements; Scoping Summary Report. Washington, DC. May 2012.
7. References

7-4 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

_____. 2012c. Instruction Memorandum 2012-169—RMP Alternative Development for Livestock Grazing. 

Washington, DC. August 16, 2012.

_____. 2012d. Instruction Memorandum MT-2012-042—Guidance to Address Alternative Development in 

Livestock Grazing Permit Renewals. Billings, MT. February 14, 2012.

_____. 2012e. Instruction Memorandum 2012-043— Greater Sage-Grouse Interim Management Policies 

and Procedures. Washington, DC. December 22, 2011.

_____. 2013. GIS data calculated by Reservoir Management Group.

Bowman County. 2012. Bowman County Comprehensive Plan Update: 2012. Adopted April 3, 2012.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2011. Local Area Unemployment Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/lau/#tables 

Unemployment Rates for States http://www.bls.gov/lau/lastrk10.htm.

Braun, C. E. 1998. Sage grouse declines in western North America: What are the problems? Proceedings 

of the Western Association of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies 78:139–56.

Brown, J. K. 1982. Fuel and fire behavior prediction in big sagebrush. US Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Research Paper INT‐290. 

Ogden, UT.

Cagney et al. 2010. Grazing Influence, Objective Development, and Management in Wyoming’s Greater 

Sage-Grouse Habitat with Emphasis on Nesting and Early Brood Rearing.

CEC (Commission for Environmental Cooperation). 2012. Invasive Species. The Northern American 

Mosaic: An Overview of Key Environmental Issues. Commission for Environmental Cooperation 

document. p. 1-4.

Centers for Disease Control. 2012. West Nile Virus. Internet Web site: 

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/birds&mammals.htm.

Center for Integrative Environmental Research. 2008. Economic Impacts of Climate Change on North 

Dakota. September 2008.

CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 1981. Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s NEPA 

Regulations. March 23, 1981.

_____. 1997. Environmental Justice, Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act. 

Washington, D.C. December 10, 1997. Internet Web site: 

http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ej/ej.pdf.

Clark, L. J. Hall, R. McLean, M. Dunbar, K. Klenk, R. Bowen C. A. Smeraski. 2006. Susceptibility of 

Greater Sage-Grouse to Experimental Infection with West Nile Virus. Journal of Wildlife 

Diseases 42: 14-22.
7. References

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 7-5

Coates, P. S. 2007. Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) nest predation and incubation 

behavior. Idaho State University, Boise, ID.

Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage Sage Grouse 

populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967-985.

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.

Connelly, J. W., C. A. Hagen, and M. A. Schroeder. 2011a. Characteristics and dynamics of Greater 

Sage-Grouse populations. Pp. 53-67 in S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly (editors). Greater SageGrouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian 

Biology (vol. 38), University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Connelly, J. W., E. T. Rinkes, and C. E. Braun. 2011b. Characteristics of Greater Sage-Grouse habitats: a 

landscape species at micro- and macroscales. Pp. 69-83 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, CA.

Cronk, Q. and J. Fuller. 1995. Plant Invaders: The threat to natural ecosystems. Chapman & Hall. New 

York.

DOI (US Department of the Interior). 2004. Bureau of Land Management National Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Conservation Strategy.

_____. 2011. Elser, A.M, Stilwell, D.P, Davis-Lawrence. Revised Activity and Surface Disturbance 

Projections for the Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas Activities on 

Bureau Managed Lands in the North Dakota Study Area. 

DOI and USDA (US Department of the Interior and US Department of Agriculture). 2007. Surface 

Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development. 

BLM/WO/ST-06/021+3071/REV 07. Bureau of Land Management. Denver, Colorado. 84 pp.

DOI, USDA, DOE, DOD, DOC, EPA, FEMA, and NASF (US Department of the Interior. US 

Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, Department of Defense, Department of 

Commerce, US Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Emergency Management Agency and 

National Association of State Foresters). 2001. Review and Update of the 1995 Federal 

Wildland Fire Management Policy, January, 2001.

Doherty, K .E., D. E. Naugle, and B. L. Walker. 2010. Greater sage‐grouse nesting habitat: The 

importance of managing at multiple scales. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:1544‐1553.

Eiswerth, M. E. and J. S. Shonkwiler. 2006. Examining post‐wildfire reseeding on arid arid rangeland: a 

multivariate tobit modeling approach. Ecological Modeling 192:286‐298.

Ellis, K. L. 1984. Behavior of lekking sage-grouse in response to a perched golden eagle. Western Birds 

15:37–38.
7. References

7-6 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

_____. 1985. Effects of a new transmission line on distribution and aerial predation of breeding male 

sage grouse. 28 pp. Final Report.

Enz, John W. 2003. North Dakota Topographic, Climatic, and Agricultural Overview. January 2003.

EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2004-2010. CASTNET Annual Reports. Internet Web site: 

http://java.epa.gov/castnet/documents.do. Accessed on January 31, 2013.

_____. 2010a. Primary Distinguishing Characteristics of Level III Ecoregions of the Continental United 

States, revised July 2010. Internet Web site: http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/ 

level_iii_iv.htm. Accessed on August 22, 2011, p. 7.

_____. 2010b. EPA GHGData. 2010 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Large Facilities. Internet Web

site: 

http://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do#/facility/?q=Facility%20or%20Location&st=ND&fc=&fid=&lo

wE=0&highE=23000000&&g1=1&g2=1&g3=1&g4=1&g5=1&g6=1&g7=1&s1=1&s2=1&s3=1&s4=1

&s5=1&s6=1&s7=1&s8=1&s9=1&s301=1&s302=1&s303=1&s304=1&s305=1&s306=1&s401=1&s

402=1&s403=1&s404=1&s601=1&s602=1&s701=1&s702=1&s703=1&s704=1&s705=1&s706=1&

s707=1&s708=1&s709=1&s710=1&s711=1&s801=1&s802=1&s803=1&s804=1&s805=1&s901=1

&s902=1&s903=1&s904=1&s905=1&ss=&so=0&ds=E&yr=2010. Accessed on January 17, 2013.

_____. 2011a. Level III Ecoregions of the Continental United States. Revised December 2011.

_____. 2011b. Climate Change, Basic Information. Internet Web site: 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html. Accessed on October 18, 2011.

_____. 2012a. EPA Green Book. Internet Web site: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl3.html. 

Accessed on September 5, 2012.

_____. 2012b. Air Quality Statistics Report. Internet Web site: 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_rep_con.html. Accessed on January 16, 2013. 

_____. 2012c. Air Quality Index Report. Internet Web site: 

http://www.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_aqi.html. Accessed on September 4, 2012.

_____. 2012d. Glossary of Climate Change Terms. Internet Web site:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html. Accessed January 20, 2013.

_____. 2012e. Visibility, Basic Information. Internet Web site: http://www.epa.gov/visibility/what.html. 

Accessed January 21, 2013.

_____. 2012f. Ground Level Ozone, Basic Information. Internet Web site: 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/ozonepollution/basic.html. Accessed January 21, 2013.

_____. 2012g. Emissions from the Oil and Natural Gas Industry. Last updated October 10, 2012. 

Internet Web site: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/basic.html. Accessed on February 1, 

2013.
7. References

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 7-7

_____. 2012h. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sink: 1990-2010. Chapter 3, Land Use, 

Land-Use Change, and Forestry. April 15, 2012. Internet Web site: 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html. Accessed on February 

1, 2013.

_____. 2013. Health Effects of Air Pollution. Internet Web site: 

http://www.epa.gov/region07/air/quality/health.htm. Accessed March 20, 2013.

Forest Service (US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 1998. Economic and Social Conditions of 

Communities: Economic and Social Characteristics of Interior Columbia Basin Communities and 

an Estimation of Effects on Communities from the Alternatives of the Eastside and Upper 

Columbia River basin DEIs.

_____. 2001. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Northern Great Plains Management Plans Revision.

Chadron, Nebraska. May 2001.

_____. 2013a. Personal communication from Arden Warm, wildlife biologist, Medora Ranger District, 

Dakota Prairie Grasslands. April 17, 2013.

_____. 2013b. North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse EIS/RMPA, Social and Economic Conditions and 

Analysis Report. TEAMS Planning Enterprise Unit. January 17, 2013.

Forman R. T. T. and L. E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and Their Major Ecological Effects. Annual Review of 

Ecology and Systematics 29, pp. 207-231.

Fuhlendorf, S. D. and D. M. Engle. 2001. Restoring Heterogeneity on Rangelands: Ecosystem 

Management Based on Evolutionary Grazing Patterns. BioScience, 51(8): 625–632.

Garton, E. O., J. W. Connelly, J. S. Horne, C. A. Hagen, A. Moser, M. Schroder. 2011. Greater sagegrouse 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, CA.

Golden Valley County. 2012. Golden Valley County Comprehensive Plan Update: 2012. 

Hagen, C. A., J. W. Connelly, and M. A. Schroeder. 2007. A meta‐analysis for greater sage‐grouse 

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

Hagen, C. A. 2010. Impacts of energy development on prairie grouse ecology: a research synthesis. 

Transactions of North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference 75:96-103.

Hann, W. J. and D. L. Bunnell. 2001. Fire and land management planning and implementation across multiple 

scales. Int. J. Wildland Fire. 10:389-403.

Hann, W., A. Shlisky, D. Havlina, K. Schon, S. Barrett, T. DeMeo, K. Pohl, J. Menakis, D. Hamilton,J. 

Jones, and M. Levesque. 2008. Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class Guidebook. Version 

1.3.0 [Online]. Available: www.frcc.gov.
7. References

7-8 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Herman-Brunson K. 2007. Nesting and Brood Rearing Habitat Selection of Greater Sage-Grouse and 

Associated Survival of Hens and Broods at the Edge of their Historic Distribution. Masters 

thesis, South Dakota State University. http://pubstorage.sdstate.edu/wfs/thesis/Herman-BrunsonKatie-M-M-S-2007.pdf.

Holloran, M. J. 2005. Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) population response to natural 

gas field development in western Wyoming. Dissertation, Department of Zoology and 

Physiology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.

IMPLAN. 2010. Minnesota IMPLAN Group 2010. Data for purchase and additional information can be 

found at www.implan.com.

IMPROVE. 2011. Spatial and Seasonal Patterns and Temporal Variability of Haze and its Constituents in 

the United States: Report V. Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments 

(IMPROVE). June 2011.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science 

Basis: Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. 

Marquis, K.B. Avery, M. Tignor, and H. L. Miller, eds.]. New York, NY: Cambridge University 

Press. 996 p. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/.

Johnson, D. H., M. J. Holloran, J. W. Connelly, S. E. Hanser, C. L. Amundson, and S. T. Knick. 2011. 

Influences of environmental and anthropogenic features on Greater Sage-Grouse populations, 

1997-2007. Pp. 407-450 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, CA.

Kazcor, N. 2008. Nesting and Brood-rearing Success and Resource Selection of Greater Sage-grouse in 

Northwestern South Dakota. Master’s thesis, South Dakota State University. http://pubstorage. 

sdstate.edu/wfs/thesis/Kaczor-Nicholas-W-M-S-2008.pdf.

Knapp, A. K., J. M. Blair, J. M. Briggs, S.C. Collins, D. C. Hartnett, L.C. Johnson, and E. G. Towne. 1999. 

The keystone role of bison in North American tallgrass prairie. Bison increase habitat 

heterogeneity and alter a broad array of plant, community, and ecosystem processes. BioScience, 

49(1):39–50.

Knick S. T. 2011. Historical development, principal federal legislation and current management of 

sagebrush habitats: implications for conservation. Pp. 13-31 in S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly, 

editors. Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology of a landscape species and its habitats. Cooper 

Ornithological Union, University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Knick, S. T. and J. W. Connelly. 2011. Greater Sage-Grouse and sagebrush: an introduction to the 

landscape. Pp. 1-9 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, CA.
7. References

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 7-9

Knick, S. T. and S. E. Hanser. 2011. Connecting pattern and process in Greater Sage-Grouse populations 

and sagebrush landscapes. Pp. 383-405 in S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly (editors). Greater SageGrouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian 

Biology (vol. 38), University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

LeBeau 2012. Evaluation of greater sage-grouse reproductive habitat and response to wind energy 

development in south-central Wyoming. Master’s Thesis. University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY.

Lyon, L. A. and S. H. Anderson. 2003. Potential gas development impacts on sage grouse nest initiation 

and movement. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:486-491.

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). U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2013-1098, Fort 

Collins, Colorado.

MDU (Montana-Dakotas Utilities). 2013. Internet Web site: 

http://www.mdu.com/OurBusiness/UtilityResources/Pages/MontanaDakotaUtilities.aspx. 

Accessed May 29, 2013.

Meinke, C. W., S. T. Knick, and D. A. Pyke. 2009. A spatial model to prioritize sagebrush landscapes in 

the intermountain west (USA) for restoration. Restoration Ecology 17:652‐659.

Milchunas, D. G., O. E. Sala, and W. K. Lauenroth. 1988. A Generalized Model of the Effects of Grazing 

by Large Herbivores on Grassland Community Structure. The American Naturalist, 132(1):87-106.

Miller, R. F. and L. L. Eddleman. 2001. Spatial and Temporal Changes of Sage Grouse Habitat in the 

Sagebrush Biome. Oregon State University Agricultural Experiment Station. Technical Bulletin 

151. Corvallis, OR. 39 pp. Available at Internet Web site: 

http://greatbasin.wr.usgs.gov/LWG/Floristic_Provinces.asp.

NADP/NTN (National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network). 2012. NTN Site 

ND00 interactive trend plots. Internet Web site: 

http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/sites/ntn/NTNtrends.html?siteID=ND00. Accessed January 16, 2013.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2011. Estimates of Windy Land Area and Wind Energy 

Potential, by State, for Areas >=30% Capacity at 80m. Updated April 13, 2011. Internet Web

site: http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/filter_detail.asp?itemid=2542. Accessed May 3, 2013.

_____. 2012a. “Classes of Wind Power Density at 10m and 50m”. Internet Web site: http: 

//rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/tables/1-1T.html. Accessed December 2012.

_____. 2012b. “Fuel from the Sky: Solar Power’s Potential for Western Energy Supply”. Internet Web

site: http://www.nrel.gov/csp/pdfs/32160.pdf. Accessed December 2012.

National Research Council. 2002. Riparian areas: functions and strategies for management. National 

Academy of Science. Washington, DC.
7. References

7-10 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

_____. 2010. Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to Millennia. 

NRC of the National Academies. Prepublication version released July 16. 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12877. Page 180.

Naugle D. E., K. E. Doherty, B. L. Walker, M. J. Holloran, and H. E. Copeland. 2011. Energy development 

and greater sage-grouse. Pages 489-504 in S.T. Knick and C.J.W., editors. Greater Sage-Grouse: 

ecology of a landscape species and its habitats. Cooper Ornithological Union, University of 

California Press, Berkeley, CA.

National Conference of State Legislatures. 2008. North Dakota- Assessing the Costs of Climate Change. 

Climate Change and the Economy. Internet Web site: 

http://www.ncsl.org/print/environ/ClimateChangeND.pdf. Accessed on August 31, 2012.

NDDoH (North Dakota Department of Health). 2011. North Dakota Air Quality Monitoring Data 

Summary 2010. Internet Web site: 

http://www.ndhealth.gov/aq/ambient/Annual%20Reports/ANN_10.pdf. Accessed on August 31, 

2012.

_____. 2012. Annual Report. North Dakota Ambient Monitoring Network Plan. Internet Web site: 

http://www.ndhealth.gov/aq/ambient/nwrev_12.pdf. Accessed on February 1, 2013.

NDGFD (North Dakota Game and Fish Department). 2005. Management Plan and Conservation 

Strategies for Greater Sage-Grouse in North Dakota. July 2005.

_____. 2012a. Sage-grouse spring census data, North Dakota, 1951-2012.

_____. 2012b. 2012 Small Game and Furbearer Regulations Set. Internet Web site: 

http://www.gf.nd.gov/news/2012-small-game-and-furbearer-regulations-set. Accessed September 

9, 2012.

North Dakota Geological Survey. 2013. “Mineral Resources of North Dakota: Uranium.” Internet Web

site: https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/Mineral/nd_uraniumnew.asp. Accessed February 25, 2013.

North Dakota Industrial Commission. 2012a. 2012 North Dakota Gas Production by Formation. North 

Dakota Industrial Commission, Department of Mineral Resources, Oil and Gas Division. 

Internet Web site: https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/stats/2012Formation.pdf. Accessed on August 

28, 2012.

_____. 2011b. 2011 North Dakota Oil Production by Formation. North Dakota Industrial Commission, 

Department of Mineral Resources, Oil and Gas Division. Internet Web site: 

https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/stats/2011Formation.pdf. Accessed on August 28, 2012.

_____. 2013a. ND Historical Barrels of Oil Produced by County. North Dakota Industrial Commission, 

Department of Mineral Resources, Oil and Gas Division. Internet Web site: 

https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/stats/countymot.pdf. Accessed on August 21, 2013.
7. References

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 7-11

_____. 2013b. ND Historical MCF Gas Produced by County. North Dakota Industrial Commission, 

Department of Mineral Resources, Oil and Gas Division. Internet Web site: 

https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/stats/countymgt.pdf. Accessed on August 21, 2013.

_____. 2013c. ND State Industrial Commission June 2013 Oil and Gas Production Report. June 2013. 201 pp.

North Dakota State Soil Conservation Committee. 2011. 2011 Surface Mining Report for Minerals Other 

Than Coal. Bismarck, North Dakota. 14 pp.

NPS (National Park Service). 2009. Air Resources Division. Air quality in national parks: 2008 annual 

performance and progress report. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/ARD/NRR—2009/151. 

National Park Service, Denver, Colorado.

NTT (Sage-Grouse National Technical Team). 2011. A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Measures. December 2011.

Painter, T. H., A. P. Barrett, C. C. Landry, J. C. Neff, M. P. Cassidy, C. R. Lawrence, K. E. McBride, and 

G. L. Farmer. 2007. Impact of disturbed desert soils on duration of mountain snow cover. 

Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, L12502, doi:10.1029/2007GL030284, 2007.

Parks Canada. 2002. Grasslands National Park of Canada Management Plan. 2002. Parks Canada, The 

National Parks and National Historic Sites of Canada. Quebec, Canada.

Radle, A. L. 2007. The effect of noise on wildlife: a literature review. Accessed online at the World 

Forum for Acoustic Ecology Online Reader. Internet Web site: 

http://interact.uoregon.edu/MediaLit/wfae/library/articles/radle_effect_noise_wildlife.pdf.

Rosgen, D. L. 1996. A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers. Proceedings of the 

Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision, 1997.

Schroeder, M. A., C. L. Aldridge, A. D. Apa, J. R. Bohne, C. E. Braun, S. D. Bunnell, J. W. Connelly, P.

Diebert, 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 American. Condor 106:363-376.

Shlisky, A., J. Waugh, P. Gonzalez, M. Gonzalez, M. Manta, H. Santoso, E. Alvarado, A. Ainuddin 

Nuruddin, D. Arturo Rodríguez-Trejo, R. Swaty, D. Schmidt, M. Kaufmann, R. Myers, A. 

Alencar, F. Kearns, D. Johnson, J. Smith, and D. Zollner. 2007. Fire, ecosystems and people: 

Threats and strategies for global biodiversity conservation. The Nature Conservancy Global Fire 

Initiative Technical Report 2007-2.

Slope County. 2010. Slope County Comprehensive Plan. 

State Department (US Department of State) 2010. Fifth US climate action report. Washington, DC: 

Global Publishing Services. 180 p. Available at: http://www.state.gov/e/oes/rls/rpts/car/index.htm.

State of North Dakota 2013a. Department of Mineral Resources. Oil and Gas Division. Chart of daily 

oil production with price per barrel. https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/stats/DailyProdPrice.pdf 
7. References

7-12 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

_____. 2013b. Department of Mineral Resources. Oil and Gas Division. ND Historical Barrels of Oil 

Produced by County. https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/stats/countymot.pdf.

Steenhof, K., M. N. Kochert, and J. A. Roppe. 1993. Nesting by raptors and common ravens on electrical 

transmission line towers. Journal of Wildlife Management 57:271-281.

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.

Swanson, C. 2009. Ecology of Greater Sage-Grouse in the Dakotas. PhD dissertation. Wildlife and 

Fisheries Science, South Dakota State University. http://pubstorage.sdstate.edu/wfs/

thesis/Swanson-Christopher-C-Ph-D-2009.pdf.

Taylor R. L., B. L. Walker, D. E. Naugle, L. S. Mills. 2012. Managing multiple vital rates to maximize 

greater sage-grouse population growth. Journal of Wildlife Management 76: 336-347.

Torell, L. A., J. A. Tanaka, N. Rimbey, T. Darden, L. Van Tassell and A. Harp. 2002. Ranch- level impacts 

of changing grazing policies on BLM land to protect the Greater Sage-Grouse: Evidence from 

Idaho, Nevada and Oregon. Policy Analysis Center for Western Public Lands, policy paper SG01-02, Caldwell, ID.

US Climate Change Science Program. 2008. The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land 

Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States. May 2008.

USDA (US Department of Agriculture). 2000. Coarse-scale Potential Natural Vegetation Groups, v2000. 

USDA, US Forest Service. Internet Web site: http://www.firelab.org/science-applications/firefuel/181-pnvg. Accessed August 28, 2012.

_____. 2012. National Agricultural Statistical Service. Statistics by State. 

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/North_Dakota/Publications/County_Estimates/inde

x.asp.

USDA and DOI (US Department of Agriculture and US Department of the Interior). February 

2009. Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. Wildland 

Fire Leadership Council.

US Department of Commerce. 2000, 2005 and 2010. Decennial census data Historic data 

http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/nd190090.

_____. 2007. Census of Governments Survey of State and Local Government Finances, Washington, 

D.C. Obtained from EPS-HDT Federal Payments report page 4.

_____. 2012a. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Office, Washington, D.C.

_____. 2012b. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System, Washington, D.C. 

Table CA30.
7. References

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS 7-13

US Department of Energy. 2012. Wind Powering America: North Dakota 80-Meter Wind Map and 

Wind Resource Potential. Available at: 

http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_resource_maps.asp?stateab=nd.

US Energy Information Administration. 2013a. State Energy Profiles. Internet Web site: 

http://www.eia.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=ND. Accessed on March, 19 2013.

_____. 2013b. State Energy Reserves and Supply. Internet Web site: 

http://www.eia.gov/state/data.cfm?sid=ND#ReservesSupply. Accessed on March, 19 2013. 

_____. 2013c. US States, Rankings: Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2010. Internet Web site: 

http://www.eia.gov/beta/state/rankings/?sid=US#/series/98. Accessed on February 15, 2013. 

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.” Federal Register 75 p. 13910. March 23, 2010.

_____. 2012. Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and Candidate Species North Dakota. Ecological 

Services North Dakota Field Office. Internet Web site: 

http://www.fws.gov/northdakotafieldoffice/endspecies/endangered_species.htm. Accessed 

September 11, 2012.

_____. 2013. Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. February 2013.

US Global Change Research Program. 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. 

Cambridge University Press. Downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impactsreport.pdf.

USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2006. Effects of Fire in the Northern Great Plains; Effects of 

Fire on Some Undesirable Species. Internet Web site: 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/habitat/fire/undesire.htm. Accessed January 29, 2013.

_____. 2010. GAP Land Cover Data Set, version 2.

_____. 2012. National Hydrography Dataset.

Verma, S. and S. Jayakumar. 2012. Impact of forest fire on physical, chemical and biological properties of 

soil: A review. Proceedings of the International Academy of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 

2(3): 168-176.

Walker, B. L., D. E. Naugle, K. E. Doherty, T. E. Cornish. 2004. Outbreak of West Nile virus in greater 

sag-grouse and guidelines for monitoring, handling and submitting dead birds. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 32: 1-7.

Walker, B. L., D. E. Naugle, and K. E. Doherty. 2007. Greater sage-grouse population response to 

energy development and habitat loss. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2644-2654.
7. References

7-14 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Walker B. L. and D. E. Naugle. 2011. West Nile virus ecology in sagebrush habitat and impacts on 

greater sage-grouse populations. Pp. 127-143 in S. Knick, editor. Greater Sage-Gouse: ecology of 

a landscape species and its habitat. Cooper Ornithological Union, University of California Press, 

Berkeley.

Westbrooks, R. 1998. Invasive plants, changing the landscape of America: Fact book. Federal Interagency 

Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds (FICMNEW). Washington, DC.

Wildland Fire Leadership Council. 2009. Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire 

Management Policy. US Department of the Interior, WFLC. February, 2009.

Wisdom, M. J., C. W. Meinke, S. T. Knick, and M. A. Schroeder. 2011. Factors associated with 

extirpation of Sage-Grouse. Pp. 451-472 in S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly (editors). Greater SageGrouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian 

Biology (vol. 38), University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Glossary

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS Glossary-1

GLOSSARY

2008 WAFWA Sage‐grouse MOU. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) among 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, US Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, US Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, US Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, US 

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the US Department of 

Agriculture, Farm Service Agency. The purpose of the MOU is to provide for cooperation 

among the participating state and federal land, wildlife management and science agencies in the 

conservation and management of sage‐grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) sagebrush (Artemisia 

spp.) habitats and other sagebrush‐dependent wildlife throughout the western United States and 

Canada and a commitment of all agencies to implement the 2006 WAFWA Conservation 

Strategy.

2011 Partnership MOU. A partnership agreement among the US Department of Agriculture, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Forest Service, US Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management, and Fish and Wildlife Service in 2011. This MOU is for range management 

– to implement NRCS practices on adjacent federal properties.

Acquisition. Acquisition of lands can be pursued 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); an activity plan usually 

describes multiple projects and applies best management practices to meet land use plan 

objectives. Examples of activity plans include 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.
Glossary

Glossary-2 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

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. A term used to describe access for resource management and 

administrative purposes such as fire suppression, cadastral surveys, permit compliance, law 

enforcement and military in the performance of their official duty, or other access needed to 

administer BLM‐managed lands or uses.

Air basin. A land area with generally similar meteorological and geographic conditions 

throughout. To the extent possible, air basin boundaries are defined along political boundary 

lines and include both the source and receptor areas. 

Air pollution. The addition to the atmosphere of any material that may have a deleterious 

effect to life on our planet.

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 may include one or more separate 

pastures. Livestock numbers and periods of use are specified for each allotment. 

Allotment management plan (AMP). A concisely written program of livestock grazing

management, including supportive measures if required, designed to attain specific, multiple-use 

management goals in a grazing allotment. An AMP is prepared in consultation with the 

permittee(s), lessee(s), and other affected interests. Livestock grazing is considered in relation to 

other uses of the range and to renewable resources, such as watershed, vegetation, and wildlife. 

An AMP establishes seasons of use, the number of livestock to be permitted, the range 

improvements needed, and the grazing system.

Alluvial soil. A soil developing from recently deposited alluvium and exhibiting essentially no 

horizon development or modification of the recently deposited materials.

Alluvium. Clay, silt, sand, gravel, or other rock materials transported by moving water. 

Deposited in comparatively recent geologic time as sorted or semi-sorted sediment in rivers, 

floodplains, lakes, and shores, and in fans at the base of mountain slopes.

Ambient air quality. The state of the atmosphere at ground level as defined by the range of 

measured and/or predicted ambient concentrations of all significant pollutants for all averaging 

periods of interest.

Amendment. The process for considering or making changes in the terms, conditions, and 

decisions of approved Resource Management Plans or management framework plans. Usually 

only one or two issues are considered that involve only a portion of the planning area.
Glossary

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS Glossary-3

Animal unit month (AUM). The amount of forage necessary for the sustenance of one cow 

or its equivalent for a period of one month. 

Anthropogenic disturbances. Features include but are not limited to 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.

Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). Special area designation established 

through the BLM’s land use planning process (43 CFR 1610.7-2) where special management 

attention is required (when such areas are developed or used or where no development is 

required) to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic 

values, fish and wildlife resources, or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and 

safety from natural hazards. The level of allowable use within an ACEC is established through

the collaborative planning process. Designation of an ACEC allows for resource use limitations 

in order to protect identified resources or values.

Atmospheric deposition. Air pollution produced when acid chemicals are incorporated into 

rain, snow, fog, or mist and fall to the earth. Sometimes referred to as “acid rain” and comes 

from sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides, products of burning coal and other fuels and from 

certain industrial processes. If the acid chemicals in the air are blown into the area where the 

weather is wet, the acids can fall to earth in the rain, snow, fog, or mist. In areas where the 

weather is dry, the acid chemicals may become incorporated into dust or smoke.

Attainment area. A geographic area in which levels of a criteria air pollutant meet the healthbased National Ambient Air Quality Standard for that specific pollutant.

Authorized/authorized use. This is an activity (i.e., resource use) occurring on the public 

lands that is either explicitly or implicitly recognized and legalized by law or regulation. This 

term may refer to those activities occurring on the public lands for which the BLM, Forest 

Service, or other appropriate authority (e.g., Congress for RS 2477 rights-of-way, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for major, interstate rights-of-way), has issued a formal 

authorization document (e.g., livestock grazing lease/permit; right-of-way grant; coal lease; oil 

and gas permit to drill; etc.). Formally authorized uses typically involve some type of commercial 

activity, facility placement, or event. These formally authorized uses are often spatially or 

temporally limited. Unless constrained or bounded by statute, regulation, or an approved land 

use plan decision, legal activities involving public enjoyment and use of the public lands (e.g., 

hiking, camping, hunting, etc.) 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 1508.20), avoidance means to 

circumvent, or bypass, an impact altogether by not taking a certain action, or parts of an action. 

Therefore, the term "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 “right-of-way avoidance area” definition.
Glossary

Glossary-4 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

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.

Big game. Indigenous, ungulate (hoofed) wildlife species that are hunted, such as elk, deer, 

bison, bighorn sheep, and pronghorn antelope.

Biodiversity (biological diversity). The variety of life and its processes, and the 

interrelationships within and among various levels of ecological organization. Conservation, 

protection, and restoration of biological species and genetic diversity are needed to sustain the 

health of existing biological systems. Federal resource management agencies must examine the 

implications of management actions and development decisions on regional and local 

biodiversity.

Biological soil crust. A complex association between soil particles and cyanobacteria, algae, 

microfungi, lichens, and bryophytes that live within or atop the uppermost millimeters of soil.

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 1536(a)(2) for special management consideration. By national policy,

federally listed 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 US Fish and Wildlife Service 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 issuance of 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 examples for rights of ways see 43 CFR 

2801.5. For examples for locatable minerals see 43 CFR 3809.5.

Categorical exclusion. A category of actions (identified in agency guidance) that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, and for which 

neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required (40 

CFR 1508.4), but a limited form of NEPA analysis is performed.

Checkerboard. This term refers to a land ownership pattern of alternating sections of Federal 

owned lands with private or State owned lands for 20 miles on either side of a land grant 

railroad (e.g. Union Pacific, Northern Pacific, etc.). On land status maps this alternating 

ownership is either delineated by color coding or alphabetic code resulting in a "checkerboard" 

visual pattern. 
Glossary

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS Glossary-5

Chemical vegetation treatment. Application of herbicides to control invasive 

species/noxious weeds and/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. 

Clean Air Act of 1963 (as amended). Federal legislation governing air pollution control.

Clean Water Act of 1972 (as amended). Federal legislation governing water pollution 

control.

Climate change. Any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature, 

precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Climate change may 

result from:

• natural factors, such as changes in the sun's intensity or slow changes in the Earth's 

orbit around the sun;

• natural processes within the climate system (e.g., changes in ocean circulation); and

• human activities that change the atmosphere's composition (e.g., driving 

automobiles) and the land surface (e.g., deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, 

desertification, etc.).

Closed area. An area where one or more uses are prohibited either temporarily or over the 

long term. Areas may be closed to uses such as, but not limited to, off-road vehicles, mineral 

leasing, mineral or vegetative material collection, or target shooting. In off-road vehicle use 

closed areas, motorized and mechanized off-road vehicle use is prohibited. Use of motorized 

and mechanized off-road vehicles in closed areas may be allowed for certain reasons; however, 

such use shall be made only with the approval of the authorized officer (43 CFR 8340.0-5).

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; 

on-the-ground management and administration of travel networks (both motorized and nonmotorized) to ensure 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 wide variety of uses (including uses for recreational, traditional, 

casual, agricultural, commercial, educational, landing strips, and other purposes).

Condition class (fire regimes). Fire regime condition classes are a measure describing the 

degree of departure from historical fire regimes, possibly resulting in alterations of key 

ecosystem components, such as species composition, structural stage, stand age, canopy closure, 

and fuel loadings. One or more of the following activities may have caused this departure: fire 
Glossary

Glossary-6 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

suppression, timber harvesting, livestock grazing, introduction and establishment of exotic plant

species, introduced insects or disease, or other management activities.

Conformance. A proposed action shall be specifically provided for in the land use plan or, if 

not specifically mentioned, shall be clearly consistent with the goals, objectives, or standards of 

the approved land use plan.

Conservation measures. Measures to conserve, enhance, and/or restore Greater SageGrouse habitat by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing threats to that habitat. 

Conservation plan. The recorded decisions of a landowner or operator, cooperating with a 

conservation district, on how the landowner or operator plans, within practical limits, to use 

his/her land according to its capability and to treat it according to its needs for maintenance or 

improvement of the soil, water, animal, plant, and air resources.

Conservation strategy. A strategy outlining current activities or threats that are contributing 

to the decline of a species, along with the actions or strategies needed to reverse or eliminate 

such a decline or threats. Conservation strategies are generally developed for species of plants 

and animals that are designated as BLM sensitive species or that have been determined by the 

US Fish and Wildlife Service or National Oceanographic and Atmospheric AdministrationFisheries to be federal candidates under the ESA.

Controlled surface use (CSU). CSU 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 

(e.g., truck-mounted drilling and geophysical exploration equipment off designated routes, 

construction of wells and/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 200 meters (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. These can be any agency with jurisdiction by 

law or special expertise for proposals covered by NEPA (40 CFR 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 of the US 

established by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It reviews federal programs to 

analyze and interpret environmental trends and information.

Criteria pollutant. The US EPA uses six “criteria pollutants” as indicators of air quality, and 

has established for each of them a maximum concentration above which adverse effects on 

human health may occur. These threshold concentrations are called National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards. The criteria pollutants are ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur 

dioxide, particulate matter and lead.
Glossary

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS Glossary-7

Crucial wildlife habitat. The environment essential to plant or animal biodiversity and 

conservation at the landscape level. Crucial habitats include, but are not limited to, biological 

core areas, severe winter range, winter concentration areas, reproduction areas, and movement 

corridors.

Cultural resources. Locations of human activity, occupation, or use. Cultural resources 

include archaeological, historic, or architectural sites, structures, or places with important public 

and scientific uses, and locations of traditional cultural or religious importance to specified social 

and/or cultural groups.

Cumulative effects. The direct and indirect effects of a proposed project alternative’s 

incremental impacts when they are added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions, regardless of who carries out the action.

Decision area. Lands and federal mineral estate within the planning area that are administered 

by the BLM.

Deferred/deferred use. To set-aside, or postpone, a particular resource use(s) or activity(ies) 

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 timeframe of associated serial actions 

(e.g., action B will be deferred until action A is completed, etc.). 

Degraded vegetation. Areas where the plant community is not complete or is under threat. 

Examples include missing components such as perennial forbs or cool season grasses, weed 

infestations, or lack of regeneration of key species such as sagebrush or cottonwoods trees. 

Designated roads and trails. Specific roads and trails identified by the BLM (or other agency) 

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. 

Direct impacts. Direct impacts are caused by an action or implementation of an alternative 

and occur at the same time and place. 

Directional drilling. A drilling technique whereby a well is deliberately deviated from the 

vertical in order to reach a particular part of the oil- or gas-bearing reservoir. Directional 

drilling technology enables the driller to steer the drill stem and bit to a desired bottom hole 

location. Directional wells initially are drilled straight down to a predetermined depth and then 
Glossary

Glossary-8 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

gradually curved at one or more different points to penetrate one or more given target 

reservoirs. This specialized drilling usually is accomplished with the use of a fluid-driven 

downhole motor, which turns the drill bit. Directional drilling also allows multiple production 

and injection wells to be drilled from a single surface location such as a gravel pad, thus 

minimizing cost and the surface impact of oil and gas drilling, production, and transportation 

facilities. It can be used to reach a target located beneath an environmentally sensitive area

(Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas 2009).

Disposal lands. Transfer of public land out of federal ownership to another party through sale, 

exchange, Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1926, Desert Land Entry or other land law 

statutes.

Disruptive activities. Those public land resource uses/activities that are likely to alter the 

behavior, displace, or cause excessive stress to existing animal or human populations occurring 

at a specific location and/or time. In this context, disruptive activity(ies) refers to those actions 

that alter behavior or cause the displacement of 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 disturbance of the land surface, 

vegetation, or features. When administered as a land use restriction (e.g., No Disruptive Activities), 

this term may prohibit or limit the physical presence of sound above ambient levels, light beyond 

background levels, and/or the nearness of people and their activities. The term is commonly 

used in conjunction with protecting wildlife during crucial life stages (e.g., breeding, nesting, 

birthing, etc.), although it could apply to any resource value on the public lands. The use of this 

land use restriction is not intended to prohibit all activity or authorized uses.

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 emphasis area. The central and primary area of habitat for a population of a given 

species or group of species. These areas include corridors, which are strips of land that aid in 

the movement of species between disconnected emphasis areas of their natural habitat. 

Emphasis areas may be divided into smaller geographical zones.

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 (BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species Manual). Under the Endangered 
Glossary

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS Glossary-9

Species Act in the US, “endangered” is the more-protected of the two categories. Designation 

as endangered (or threatened) is determined by USFWS as directed by the Endangered Species 

Act.

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 Act is administered by two federal agencies, USFWS 

and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The purpose of the Act is to 

protect species and also the ecosystems upon which they depend (16 US Code 1531-1544).

Enhance. The improvement of habitat by increasing missing or modifying unsatisfactory 

components and/or attributes of the plant community to meet sage‐grouse objectives. 

Environmental assessment (EA). 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 (EIS). 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 (BLM National Management Strategy for OHV Use on Public Lands).

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 National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 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 on the public lands where a certain activity(ies) is prohibited to insure 

protection of other resource values present on the site. The term is frequently used in 

reference to lands/realty actions and proposals (e.g., rights-of-way, etc.), but is not unique to 

lands and realty program activities. This restriction is functionally analogous to the phrase "no 

surface occupancy" used by the oil and gas program, and is applied as an absolute condition to 

those affected activities. The less restrictive analogous term is avoidance area. Also see “right-ofway exclusion area” definition.

Exemplary (vegetation). An area of vegetation that does not show signs of degradation and 

which may serve as a comparison to illustrate what the vegetation potential is for a given type of 

environment.

Existing routes. The roads, trails, or ways that are used by motorized vehicles (jeeps, allterrain vehicles, motorized dirt bikes, etc.), mechanized uses (mountain bikes, wheelbarrows, 
Glossary

Glossary-10 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

game carts), pedestrians (hikers), and/or equestrians (horseback riders) and are, to the best of 

BLM’s knowledge, in existence at the time of RMPA/EIS publication. 

Exploration. Active drilling and geophysical operations to:

a. Determine the presence of the mineral resource; or

b. Determine the extent of the reservoir or mineral deposit.

Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA). Administrative units that require 

specific management consideration in order to address recreation use, demand, or Recreation 

and Visitor Services program investments. ERMAs are managed to support and sustain the 

principal recreation activities and the associated qualities and conditions of the ERMA. ERMA 

management is commensurate and considered in context with the management of other 

resources and resource uses.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). 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 US and administered by the 

BLM. Federal mineral estate under BLM jurisdiction is composed of mineral estate underlying 

BLM 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 management plan (FMP). A plan that identifies and integrates all wildland fire 

management and related activities within the context of approved land/resource management 

plans. It defines a program to manage wildland fires (wildfire, prescribed fire, and wildland fire 

use). The plan is supplemented by operational plans including, but not limited to, preparedness 

plans, preplanned dispatch plans, and prevention plans. Fire Management Plans assure that 

wildland fire management goals and components are coordinated.

Fire Regime Condition Classification System (FRCCS). 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.

Forage base. The amount of vegetation available for wildlife and livestock use.

Fragile soils. Soils having a shallow depth to bedrock, minimal surface layer of organic material, 

textures that are more easily detached and eroded, or are on slopes over 35 percent.
Glossary

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS Glossary-11

Fugitive dust. Significant atmospheric dust arises from the mechanical disturbance of granular 

material exposed to the air. Dust generated from these open sources is termed "fugitive" 

because it is not discharged to the atmosphere in a confined flow stream. Common sources of 

fugitive dust include unpaved roads, agricultural tilling operations, aggregate storage piles, and 

heavy construction operations.

General sage‐grouse habitat. Is occupied (seasonal or year‐round) habitat outside of priority 

habitat. These areas have been identified by the BLM in coordination with respective state 

wildlife agencies.

Geographic Information System (GIS). 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. Efforts to locate deposits of oil and gas resources and to better 

define 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; usually not quantifiable and may not have 

established timeframes for achievement.

Grandfathered right. The right to use in a non-conforming manner due to existence prior to 

the establishment of conforming terms and conditions. 

Grazing preference. Grazing preference or preference means the total number of animal unit 

months on public lands apportioned and attached to base property owned or controlled by a 

permittee, lessee, or an applicant for a permit or lease. Grazing preference includes active use 

and use held in suspension. Grazing preference holders have a superior or priority position 

against others for the purpose of receiving a grazing permit or lease (43 CFR 4100.0-5).

Grazing relinquishment. The voluntary and permanent surrender by an existing permittee or 

lessee, (with concurrence of any base property lienholder(s)), of their priority (preference) to 

use livestock forage allocation on public land as well as their permission to use this forage. 

Relinquishments do not require consent or approval by BLM. 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. Include, but are not limited to, 

developing pastures, utilization levels, grazing rotations, timing and duration of use periods, and 

necessary range improvements.

Groundwater. Water held underground in soil or permeable rock, often feeding springs and 

wells.
Glossary

Glossary-12 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

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 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.

Hazardous material. A substance, pollutant, or contaminant that, due to its quantity, 

concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a potential hazard to human health 

and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. 

Communication site. Sites that include broadcast types of uses (e.g., television, AM/FM radio, 

cable television, broadcast translator) and non-broadcast uses (e.g., commercial or private 

mobile radio service, cellular telephone, microwave, local exchange network, passive reflector).

Impact. The effect, influence, alteration, or imprint caused by an action.

Impairment. The degree to which a distance of clear visibility is degraded by man-made 

pollutants.

Implementation decisions. Decisions that take action to implement land use planning; 

generally appealable to Interior Board of Land Appeals under 43 CFR 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 and can help the BLM 

determine trends over time.

Indirect impacts. Indirect impacts 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 takes a holistic look at all 

elements of the ranching operations, including strategic and tactical planning, rather than 

approaching planning as several separate enterprises.

Intermittent stream. An intermittent stream is a stream that flows only at certain times of 

the year when it receives water from springs or from some surface sources such as melting 

snow in mountainous areas. During the dry season and throughout minor drought periods, 

these streams will not exhibit flow. Geomorphological characteristics are not well defined and 

are often inconspicuous. In the absence of external limiting factors, such as pollution and 

thermal modifications, species are scarce and adapted to the wet and dry conditions of the 

fluctuating water level.

Invertebrate. An animal lacking a backbone or spinal column, such as insects, snails, and 

worms. The group includes 97 percent of all animal species.
Glossary

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS Glossary-13

Key wildlife ecosystems. Specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species in 

which are found those physical and biological features 1) essential to the conservation of the 

species, and 2) which may require special management considerations or protection.

Land health condition. A classification for land health which includes these categories: 

“Meeting Land Health Standard(s)” and “Not Meeting Land Health Standard(s)”.

Land tenure adjustments. Land ownership or jurisdictional changes. To improve the 

manageability of the 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, through 

jurisdictional transfers to other agencies, and through the use of cooperative management 

agreements and leases.

Land treatment. All methods of artificial range improvement arid soil stabilization such as 

reseeding, brush control (chemical and mechanical), pitting, furrowing, water spreading, etc.

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 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 1600. When they are presented to 

the public as proposed decisions, they can be protested to the BLM Director. They are not 

appealable to Interior Board of Land Appeals. 

Late brood-rearing area. Habitat includes mesic sagebrush and mixed shrub communities, 

wet meadows, and riparian habitats as well as some agricultural lands (e.g. alfalfa fields, etc).

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 non-energy 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, 
Glossary

Glossary-14 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

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 nonirrigation facilities. The regulations 

establishing procedures for processing these leases and permits are found in 43 CFR 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 adjacent to 

sagebrush dominated 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 less 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 2.5 km (1.5 mi) of each other between 

which male sage-grouse 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 

documentation of either: 1) an absence of sage‐grouses 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 date based on local 

conditions), no precipitation, light or no wind, half‐hour before sunrise to one hour 

after sunrise) or 2) 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, feathers) of strutting 

activity. Data collected by aerial surveys should not be used to designate inactive status 

as the aerial survey may actually disrupt activities.

Occupied lek. A lek that has been active during at least one strutting season within the 

prior 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 sage‐grouse breeding.
Glossary

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS Glossary-15

Abandoned lek. A lek in otherwise suitable habitat that has not been active during a 

period of 10 consecutive years. To be designated abandoned, a lek must be “inactive” 

(see above criteria) in at least four non‐consecutive strutting seasons spanning the 10 

years. The site of an “abandoned” lek should be surveyed at least once every 10 years 

to determine whether it has been re‐occupied by sage‐grouse.

Lentic. Pertaining to standing water, such as lakes and ponds.

Locatable minerals. Minerals subject to exploration, development, and disposal by staking 

mining claims as authorized by the Mining Law of 1872, as amended. This includes deposits of 

gold, silver, and other uncommon minerals not subject to lease or sale.

Long-term effect. The effect could occur for an extended period after implementation of the 

alternative. The effect could last several years or more.

Lotic. Pertaining to moving water, such as streams or rivers.

Management decision. A decision made by the BLM to manage public lands. Management 

decisions include both land use plan decisions and implementation decisions.

Master development plans. A set of information common to multiple planned wells, 

including drilling plans, Surface Use Plans of Operations, and plans for future production.

Mechanized transport. Any vehicle, device, or contrivance for moving people or material in 

or over land, water, snow, or air that has moving parts.

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.

Mineralize. The process where a substance is converted from an organic substance to an

inorganic substance.

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 
Glossary

Glossary-16 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

mining claim may contain as many adjoining locations as the locator may make or buy. There are 

four categories of mining claims: lode, placer, millsite, 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.”

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 change to the provisions of a lease stipulation, either temporarily or for the 

term of the lease. Depending on the specific modification, the stipulation may or may not apply 

to all sites within the leasehold to which the restrictive criteria are applied.

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 but not limited to jeeps, 

all-terrain vehicles (all-terrain vehicles, such as four-wheelers and three-wheelers), trail

motorcycles or dirt bikes, and aircrafts.

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).

Municipal watershed. A watershed area that provides water for use by a municipality as 

defined by the community and accepted by the State.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Public Law 91-190. Establishes 

environmental policy for the nation. Among other items, NEPA requires federal agencies to 

consider environmental values in decision-making processes.
Glossary

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS Glossary-17

Native vegetation. Plant species which were found here prior to European settlement, and 

consequently are in balance with these ecosystems because they have well developed parasites, 

predators, and pollinators.

Natural processes. Fire, drought, insect and disease outbreaks, flooding, and other events 

which existed prior to European settlement, and shaped vegetation composition and structure.

Non-energy leasable minerals. Those minerals or materials designated as leasable under the 

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. Non-energy 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, improving water quality, etc. 

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 (e.g., truck-mounted drilling and geophysical exploration equipment off 

designated routes, construction of wells and/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 US.

Objective. A description of a desired outcome for a resource. Objectives can be quantified and 

measured and, where possible, have established timeframes for achievement. 

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, excluding: (1) 

any non-amphibious registered motorboat; (2) any military, fire, emergency, or law enforcement 

vehicle while being used for emergency purposes; (3) any vehicle whose use is expressly 

authorized by the authorized officer, or otherwise officially approved; (4) vehicles in official use; 

and (5) any combat or combat support vehicle when used for national defense emergencies (43 

CFR 8340.0-5). 

Open. Generally denotes that an area is available for a particular use or uses. Refer to specific 

program definitions found in law, regulations, or policy guidance for application to individual 

programs. For example, 43 CFR 8340.0-5 defines the specific meaning of “open” as it relates to 

OHV use.

Ozone. A faint blue gas produced in the atmosphere from chemical reactions of burning coal, 

gasoline, and other fuels and chemicals found in products such as solvents, paints, and hairsprays.
Glossary

Glossary-18 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Paleontological resources. The physical remains or other physical evidence of plants and 

animals preserved in soils and sedimentary rock formations. Paleontological resources are 

important for correlating and dating rock strata and for understanding past environments, 

environmental change, and the evolution of life.

Particulate matter (PM). One of the six “criteria” pollutants for which the US EPA

established National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Particulate matter is defined as two 

categories, fine particulate, with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers (PM10) or less, and 

fine particulate with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5).

Perennial stream. A stream that flows continuously. Perennial streams are generally 

associated with a water table in the localities through which they flow.

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 

4100.0-5).

Permittee. A person or company permitted to graze livestock on public land.

Physiography. The study and classification of the surface features of the earth.

Plan of Operations. A Plan of Operations is required for all mining activity exploration 

greater than 5 acres or surface disturbance greater than casual use on certain special category 

lands. Special category lands are described under 43 CFR 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 3814). The Plan of Operations needs to be filed in the

BLM field office with jurisdiction over the land involved. The Plan of Operations does not need 

to be on a particular form but must address the information required by 43 CFR 3809.401(b).

Planning area. The geographical area for which sage-grouse management plan amendments

are developed and maintained. The NDFO Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA/EIS planning area

boundary defines the area assessed in this RMPA. The planning area encompasses 963,017 acres 

in Bowman, Slope, and Golden Valley counties in southwestern North Dakota. The BLM

administers 33,030 acres (about 3.4 percent) of the planning area, and 396,053 acres of federal 

mineral estate.

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 
Glossary

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS Glossary-19

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. A wildland fire originating from a planned ignition to meet specific objectives 

identified in a written, approved, prescribed fire plan for which NEPA requirements (where 

applicable) have been met prior to ignition.

Primitive road. A linear route managed for use by four-wheel drive or high-clearance vehicles. 

Primitive roads do not normally meet any BLM road design standards.

Primitive route. Any transportation linear feature located within 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 areas would 

include breeding, late brood‐rearing, and winter concentration areas. These areas have been 

identified by the BLM 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.

Public domain. The term applied to any or all of those areas of land ceded to the Federal 

Government by the Original States and to such other lands as were later acquired by treaty, 

purchase or cession, and are disposed of only under the authority of Congress.

Public land. Land or interest in land owned by the US and administered by the Secretary of the 

Interior through the BLM without regard to how the US acquired ownership, except lands 

located on the Outer Continental Shelf and land held for the benefit of Indians, Aleuts, and 

Eskimos (H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook).

Public lands not designated as recreation management areas. All lands not designated 

as an SRMA or ERMA.

Range improvement. The term range improvement means any activity, structure or program 

on or relating to rangelands which 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, but is not limited 

to, structures, treatment projects, and use of mechanical means to accomplish the desired 

results.
Glossary

Glossary-20 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Range improvement project. An authorized physical modification or treatment which 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, but is not limited to: structures, treatment projects and use of 

mechanical devices, or modifications achieved through mechanical means.

Raptor. Bird of prey with sharp talons and strongly curved beaks, such as hawks, owls, falcons, 

and eagles.

Reasonable foreseeable development scenario. The prediction of the type and amount of 

oil and gas activity that would occur in a given area. The prediction is based on geologic factors, 

past history of drilling, projected demand for oil and gas, and industry interest.

Reclamation. 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 and/or make it acceptable for certain defined resources (e.g., wildlife 

habitat, grazing, ecosystem function, etc.).

Recreation management area. Includes Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) and 

Extensive Recreation Management Areas (ERMAs); see SRMA and ERMA definitions.

Recreation experiences. Psychological outcomes realized either by recreation-tourism 

participants as a direct result of their on-site leisure engagements and recreation-tourism 

activity participation or by nonparticipating community residents as a result of their interaction 

with visitors and guests within their community or interaction with the BLM and other public 

and private recreation-tourism providers and their actions. 

Recreation opportunities. Favorable circumstances enabling visitors’ engagement in a leisure 

activity to realize immediate psychological experiences and attain more lasting, value-added 

beneficial outcomes. 

Recreation settings. The collective distinguishing attributes of landscapes that influence and 

sometimes actually determine what kinds of recreation opportunities are produced. 

Reference state. The reference state is the state 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. This state usually includes, but is not limited to, what is 

often referred to as the potential natural plant community.

Rehabilitate. Returning disturbed lands as near to its 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.
Glossary

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS Glossary-21

Required design features (RDF). Means, measures, or practices intended to reduce or avoid 

adverse environmental impacts. A suite of features that would establish the minimum 

specifications for certain activities (i.e., water developments, mineral development, and fire and 

fuels management) and mitigate adverse impacts. These design features would be required to 

provide a greater level of regulatory certainty than through implementation of best management 

practices. In general, the design features are accepted practices that are known to be effective 

when implemented properly at the project level. However, their applicability and overall 

effectiveness cannot be fully assessed except at the project-specific level when the project 

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

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

variations from what is described in the EIS/RMP amendment (e.g., a larger or smaller protective 

area). All variations in design features would require appropriate analysis and disclosure as part 

of future project authorizations. Additional mitigation measures may be identified and required 

during individual project development and environmental review. 

Resource management plan (RMP). 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 a set of actions that promotes plant community 

diversity and structure that allows plant communities to be 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. Short‐term goal may be to restore the landform, soils 

and hydrology and 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 and/or spatial constraints, or certain authorizations.

Revegetate/revegetation. The process of putting vegetation back in an area where 

vegetation previously existed, which may or may not simulate natural conditions.

Revision. The process of completely rewriting the land use plan due to changes in the planning 

area affecting major portions of the plan or the entire plan. 

Right-of-way (ROW). Public lands authorized to be used or occupied for specific purposes 

pursuant to a right-of-way authorization, which are in the public interest and which require 

ROWs over, on, under, or through such lands.

Right-of-way avoidance area. An area identified through resource management planning to 

be avoided but may be available for ROW location with special stipulations.

Right-of-way exclusion area. An area identified through resource management planning that 

is not available for ROW location under any conditions.
Glossary

Glossary-22 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

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 include lands along, 

adjacent to, or contiguous with 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.

Riparian zone. An area one-quarter mile wide encompassing riparian and adjacent vegetation.

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.” 

Sale (public land). A method of land disposal pursuant to Section 203 of FLPMA, whereby the 

US 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.

Saturated soils. Occur when the infiltration capacity of the soil is exceeded from above due to 

rainfall or snowmelt runoff. Soils can also become saturated from groundwater inputs.

Scoping process. An early and open public participation process for determining the scope of 

issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action.

Season of use. The time during which livestock grazing is permitted on a given range area, as 

specified in the grazing lease.

Seeding. Seeding is 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. The effect occurs only during or immediately after implementation of the 

alternative.

Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA). An administrative public lands unit 

identified in land use plans where the existing or proposed recreation opportunities and 
Glossary

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS Glossary-23

recreation setting characteristics are recognized for their unique value, importance, and/or 

distinctiveness, especially as compared to other areas used for recreation.

Special Recreation Permit (SRP). Authorization that allows for recreational uses of public 

lands and related waters. Issued as a means to control visitor use, protect recreational and 

natural resources, and 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: (1) species listed, candidate, or 

proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act; and (2) species 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 BLM sensitive by the 

BLM State Director(s). 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 (e.g., 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).

State. A state is comprised of an integrated soil and vegetation unit having one or more 

biological communities that occur on a particular ecological site and that are functionally similar 

with respect to the three attributes (soil/site stability, hydrologic function, and biotic integrity) 

under natural disturbance regimes.

Stipulation (general). A term or condition 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.
Glossary

Glossary-24 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Surface disturbance. Suitable habitat is considered disturbed when it is removed and 

unavailable for immediate sage‐grouse use.

a. 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, 

powerline, well pad or active mine. Long‐term removal may also result from any 

activities that cause soil mixing, soil removal, and exposure of the soil to erosive 

processes.

b. Short–term removal occurs when vegetation is removed in small areas, but restored 

to suitable habitat within a few years (< 5) of disturbance, such as a successfully 

reclaimed pipeline, or successfully reclaimed drill hole or pit.

c. Suitable habitat rendered unusable due to numerous anthropogenic disturbances

d. Anthropogenic surface disturbance are surface disturbances meeting the above 

definitions which result from human activities.

Surface disturbing activities. An action that alters the vegetation, surface/near surface soil 

resources, and/or surface geologic features, beyond natural site conditions and on a scale that 

affects other public land values. Examples of surface disturbing activities may include: operation 

of heavy equipment to construct well pads, roads, pits and reservoirs; installation of pipelines 

and power lines; and the conduct of several types of vegetation treatments (e.g., prescribed fire, 

etc.). Surface disturbing activities may be either authorized or prohibited.

Surface use(s). These are all the various activities that may be present on the surface or nearsurface (e.g., pipelines), of the public lands. It does not refer to those subterranean activities 

(e.g., underground mining, etc.) occurring on the public lands or federal mineral estate. When 

administered as a use restriction (e.g., No Surface Use [NSU]), 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 

(e.g., plant community study exclosure, etc.), and/or administrative sites (e.g., government wareyard, etc.) 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. This term is used as the opposite of the term permanent/ 

permanent use. It is a relative term and has to be considered in the context of the resource 

values affected and the nature of the resource use(s)/activity(ies) 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.

Threatened species. Any species that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (BLM Manual 6840, Special Status 
Glossary

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS Glossary-25

Species Management). Under the Endangered Species Act in the US, “threatened” is the lesserprotected of the two categories. Designation as threatened (or endangered) is determined by 

USFWS as directed by the Endangered Species Act.

Timber. Standing trees, downed trees, or logs which 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 (e.g., truck-mounted drilling and 

geophysical exploration equipment off designated routes, construction of wells and/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 in nature are not allowed. Intensive maintenance, such as workovers on wells, is not 

permitted. TLs can overlap spatially with NSO and CSU, as well as with areas that have no other 

restrictions.

Total dissolved solids. Salt, or an aggregate of carbonates, bicarbonates, chlorides, sulfates, 

phosphates, and nitrates of calcium, magnesium, manganese, sodium, potassium, and other 

cations that form salts.

Total maximum daily load (TMDL). An estimate of the total quantity of pollutants (from all 

sources: point, nonpoint, and natural) that may be allowed into waters without exceeding 

applicable water quality criteria.

Trail. A linear route managed for human-power (e.g., hiking or bicycling), stock (e.g., 

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.

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 open, closed or limited, and have identified and/or designated a network 
Glossary

Glossary-26 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

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 timeframes for allowable access or other limitations (BLM Handbook H1601-1 Land Use Planning Handbook). 

Trespass. Any unauthorized use of public land.

Tribal interests. Native American or Native Alaskan economic rights such as Indian trust 

assets, resource uses and access guaranteed by treaty rights, and subsistence uses. 

Understory. That portion of a plant community growing underneath the taller plants on the 

site.

Unitization. Operation of multiple leases as a single lease under a single operator.

Unitized area. a group of contiguous oil and gas lease holdings where the lessee holds an 

agreement with the federal government so that exploration, drilling, and production of the 

resource proceeds in the most efficient and economical manner possible.

Utility corridor. Tract of land varying in width forming passageway through which various 

commodities such as oil, gas, and electricity are transported.

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 but 

are not limited to 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 manipulation. Planned alteration of vegetation communities through use of 

mechanical, chemical, seeding, and/or prescribed fire or managed fire to achieve desired 

resource objectives.

Vegetation treatments. Management practices which 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 

upon and named after the apparent dominant plant species.

Visibility (air quality). A measure of the ability to see and identify objects at different 

distances.

Visitor day. Twelve visitor hours that may be aggregated by one or more persons in single or 

multiple visits.

Visual resources. The visible physical features on a landscape, (topography, water, vegetation, 

animals, structures, and other features) that comprise die scenery of the area.
Glossary

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS Glossary-27

Watershed. Topographical region or area delineated by water draining to a particular 

watercourse or body of water.

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 sage-grouse.

Wildcat well. An exploratory oil well drilled in land not known to be an oil field.

Wilderness. A congressionally designated area of undeveloped federal land retaining its 

primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, that is 

protected and managed to preserve its natural conditions and that (1) generally appears to have 

been affected mainly by the forces of nature, with human imprints substantially unnoticeable; (2) 

has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) 

has at least 5,000 acres or is large enough to make practical its preservation and use in an 

unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of 

scientific, educational, scenic, or historic value. The definition is contained in Section 2(c) of the 

Wilderness Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 891).

Wilderness characteristics. Wilderness characteristics attributes 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 lands that have been inventoried and determined by the BLM to 

contain wilderness characteristics as defined in section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act.

Wilderness Study Area (WSA). 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.

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: 

• Wildfires: Unplanned ignitions or prescribed fires that are declared wildfires.

• Prescribed fires: Planned ignitions.

Wildland fire use. A term no longer used; the new terminology is “managed fire” (see “managed 

fire” definition). A vegetation treatment that involves taking advantage of a naturally-ignited 

wildland fire in an area where fire would benefit resources. Wildland fire use would be 

conducted in specific areas needing treatment after a site-specific plan and NEPA analysis are 

completed and only if predetermined prescriptive parameters (e.g., weather/fire behavior) can 

be met. Until this planning and NEPA analysis are accomplished, wildland fires would be 

suppressed using an appropriate management response.

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.
Glossary

Glossary-28 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Winter concentration areas. Sage‐grouse winter habitats which are occupied annually by 

sage‐grouse 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.
Index

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS Index-1

INDEX

Air quality, 3-56, 3-57, 3-58, 3-60, 3-62, 4-122, 

4-169, 5-20

Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACEC), ES-5, 1-7, 2-9, 2-11, 2-12, 2-19, 

2-22, 2-28, 2-42, 2-54, 3-2, 3-17, 3-55, 3-56, 

4-15, 4-19, 4-24, 4-28, 4-44, 4-45, 4-46, 4-56, 

4-59, 4-61, 4-63, 4-65, 4-68, 4-70, 4-72, 4-74, 

4-78, 4-89, 4-97, 4-98, 4-100, 4-101, 4-102, 

4-107, 4-110, 4-113, 4-115, 4-117, 4-118, 

4-119, 4-121, 4-124, 4-128, 4-137, 4-147, 

4-149, 4-151, 4-153, 4-155, 4-156, 4-163, 

4-164, 4-165, 4-167, 5-11, 5-14, 5-19, 5-20, 

6-6

Best Management Practice (BMP), ES-7, ES-11, 

ES-12, 1-4, 1-12, 2-5, 2-8, 2-20, 2-34, 2-37, 

2-36, 2-40, 4-3, 4-8, 4-21, 4-30, 4-58, 4-62, 

4-79, 4-106, 4-128, 4-140, 4-142, 4-143, 

4-151, 4-154, 4-156, 4-169

Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), 4-41, 6-5

Candidate species, 3-4, 3-5, 3-70

Cheatgrass, 2-39, 3-22, 3-23, 3-25, 3-26, 3-55, 

4-12, 4-49, 4-50, 4-64, 4-65, 4-104, 4-105, 5-6

Clean Water Act, 3-65, 3-69

Coal, ES-9, 1-14, 2-5, 2-9, 2-11, 2-12, 2-21, 

2-36, 2-50, 3-2, 3-29, 3-34, 3-39, 3-40, 3-41, 

3-42, 4-16, 4-20, 4-21, 4-26, 4-30, 4-36, 4-56, 

4-58, 4-60, 4-62, 4-66, 4-70, 4-72, 4-73, 4-87, 

4-97, 4-107, 4-112, 4-117, 4-127, 4-129, 

4-130, 4-131, 4-133, 4-134, 4-137, 4-138, 

4-139, 4-140, 4-142, 4-143, 4-144, 4-148, 

4-150, 4-152, 4-154, 4-169, 5-4, 5-6, 5-7, 

5-10, 5-17, 5-25

Communication site, 3-11, 3-17, 3-18, 4-40, 

4-41, 4-42, 4-43

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), ES-8, 

ES-11, ES-13, 1-13, 2-1, 2-3, 2-7, 2-19, 3-92, 

3-93, 4-7, 5-1, 6-1

County, Bowman, ES-4, 1-5, 1-20, 3-10, 3-20, 

3-30, 3-31, 3-36, 3-37, 3-39, 3-40, 3-41, 3-43, 

3-49, 3-66, 3-83, 3-87, 3-89, 3-90, 3-93, 4-9, 

4-87, 4-97, 4-98, 6-4

County, Golden Valley, ES-3, ES-4, 1-4, 1-5, 

1-20, 3-1, 3-28, 3-30, 3-87, 3-89, 3-93, 4-9, 

6-5

County, Slope, ES-4, 1-5, 1-20, 2-60, 3-30, 3-31, 

3-42, 3-60, 3-84, 3-85, 3-87, 3-89, 3-90, 3-91, 

3-93, 4-9, 4-160, 5-4, 5-19, 6-4

Eagle, golden, 3-75, 4-11, 5-8

Emergency stabilization and rehabilitation, 2-40, 

2-41, 4-22, 4-58

Endangered species, 4-8, 4-14

Endangered Species Act (ESA), ES-1, ES-2, ES-4, 

ES-5, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-10, 3-4, 3-5, 3-70, 5-19, 

6-4

Environmental justice, ES-6, 3-93, 5-27

Exclusion area, 2-4, 2-5, 2-8, 2-10, 2-21, 2-27, 

2-46, 2-48, 2-52, 2-55, 2-57, 2-59, 3-17, 4-11, 

4-21, 4-26, 4-30, 4-36, 4-37, 4-41, 4-43, 4-44, 

4-45, 4-51, 4-54, 4-57, 4-59, 4-61, 4-67, 4-69, 

4-72, 4-75, 4-78, 4-79, 4-85, 4-88, 4-89, 4-90, 

4-96, 4-98, 4-99, 4-100, 4-101, 4-110, 4-116, 

4-127, 4-129, 4-133, 4-134, 4-138, 4-139, 

4-141, 4-142, 4-144, 4-146, 4-147, 4-152, 

4-153, 4-156, 4-157, 4-158, 4-159, 5-8, 5-13, 

5-14, 5-15, 5-19, 5-22, 5-24, 5-25, 5-26
Index

Index-2 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Extensive recreation management area (ERMA), 

3-48

Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

(FLPMA), ES-1, ES-5, ES-8, ES-10, ES-13, 1-1, 

1-5, 1-7, 1-12, 1-13, 2-3, 2-6, 2-17, 3-12, 3-48, 

3-55, 4-2, 4-44, 4-97, 6-1

Federal mineral estate, ES-3, ES-4, ES-13, 1-4, 

1-5, 2-59, 3-1, 3-34, 3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 3-41, 

3-42, 3-43, 4-1, 4-3, 4-76, 4-79, 4-81, 4-88, 

4-89, 4-90, 4-162, 4-163, 4-165, 4-166, 5-20, 

5-21

Fire management, ES-7, 2-4, 2-5, 2-40, 2-48, 

3-25, 3-26, 4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-67, 4-68, 4-69, 

4-70, 4-71, 4-72, 4-73

Fire regime condition class (FRCC), 3-25, 3-28, 

4-63, 4-70, 5-15

Fire, prescribed, 2-5, 2-39, 3-25, 3-28, 4-18, 

4-65, 4-66, 4-147, 5-4, 5-22, 5-23

Fire, suppression, 2-4, 2-9, 2-40, 2-48, 3-26, 

3-66, 3-71, 4-12, 4-22, 4-38, 4-50, 4-58, 4-63, 

4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-68, 4-69, 4-70, 4-71, 4-72, 

4-105, 4-113, 4-151, 4-168, 5-24

Fuel load, 4-13, 4-27, 4-50, 4-53, 4-58, 4-63, 

4-64, 4-65, 4-68, 4-71, 5-15

Fugitive dust, 4-51, 4-53, 4-121, 4-122, 4-169, 

5-3

General habitat (GH), ES-2, ES-5, ES-10, ES-11, 

ES-12, ES-13, 1-2, 1-4, 2-4, 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, 2-10, 

2-11, 2-12, 2-14, 2-21, 2-25, 2-26, 2-27, 2-28, 

2-29, 2-30, 2-31, 2-32, 2-33, 2-34, 2-33, 2-34, 

2-36, 2-37, 2-38, 2-39, 2-40, 2-41, 2-42, 2-43, 

2-44, 2-46, 2-47, 2-48, 2-50, 2-51, 2-52, 2-54, 

2-55, 2-56, 2-56, 2-57, 2-58, 2-60, 4-15, 4-21, 

4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-28, 4-30, 4-31, 4-34, 

4-35, 4-36, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-43, 4-44, 4-45, 

4-46, 4-47, 4-51, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 

4-61, 4-68, 4-70, 4-71, 4-72, 4-79, 4-82, 4-85, 

4-86, 4-87, 4-90, 4-99, 4-100, 4-101, 4-102, 

4-105, 4-109, 4-110, 4-113, 4-114, 4-115, 

4-116, 4-130, 4-131, 4-132, 4-133, 4-141, 

4-150, 4-151, 4-152, 4-153, 4-154, 4-155, 

4-165, 5-7, 5-12, 5-14, 5-15, 5-19, 5-22, 5-24, 

5-26

General habitat, preliminary (PGH), ES-2, ES-3, 

ES-4, ES-6, ES-11, 1-2, 1-4, 1-5, 1-9, 1-11, 2-7, 

2-25, 3-4, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 3-13, 3-14, 3-15, 

3-16, 3-17, 3-18, 3-22, 3-27, 3-28, 3-31, 3-32, 

3-33, 3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 3-38, 3-40, 3-41, 3-43, 

3-44, 3-45, 3-50, 3-51, 3-52, 3-53, 3-54, 3-64, 

3-65, 3-67, 3-71, 3-83, 4-10, 4-148, 5-6

Geothermal, ES-9, 1-14, 3-17, 3-29, 3-81, 4-133, 

5-6

Grazing, allotment, 1-6, 2-9, 2-10, 2-12, 2-29, 

2-30, 2-31, 2-45, 3-49, 3-50, 3-51, 3-52, 3-53, 

3-54, 3-89, 4-18, 4-23, 4-27, 4-32, 4-38, 

4-100, 4-103, 4-104, 4-107, 4-111, 4-112, 

4-116, 4-163, 5-19

Grazing, management, 1-17, 2-9, 2-17, 2-18, 

2-30, 2-32, 2-40, 2-39, 2-40, 2-41, 2-47, 2-53, 

2-54, 2-56, 2-57, 3-48, 3-55, 3-65, 4-22, 4-52, 

4-57, 4-65, 4-103, 4-106, 4-108, 4-111, 4-113, 

4-128, 4-150, 5-4, 5-19

Land tenure adjustments, 3-11, 3-12, 3-18, 4-8, 

4-9, 4-14, 4-40, 4-42, 4-44, 4-45, 4-46, 4-54, 

4-148

Leasing, oil and gas, 1-17, 1-18, 2-8, 2-10, 2-11, 

2-12, 2-20, 2-33, 2-49, 3-39, 4-10, 4-51, 5-7

Lek, 1-20, 2-10, 2-12, 2-26, 2-33, 2-34, 2-45, 

2-46, 2-51, 2-54, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-10, 3-37, 

3-46, 4-10, 4-11, 4-15, 4-29, 4-37, 4-45, 4-55, 

4-59, 4-78, 4-79, 4-93, 4-94, 4-100, 4-101, 

4-113, 4-119, 4-132, 4-151, 5-5, 5-7, 5-8, 

5-12, 5-18, 5-19

Listed species, see Threatened and endangered 

species

Minerals, entry, 2-22, 2-36, 4-21, 4-58, 4-109, 

4-118, 4-130, 4-131, 4-133, 4-134, 4-139, 

4-140, 4-142, 4-147, 4-148, 5-20

Minerals, fluid, ES-9, ES-12, 1-14, 2-4, 2-6, 2-9, 

2-10, 2-21, 2-33, 2-37, 2-38, 2-44, 2-47, 2-48, 

2-49, 2-50, 2-49, 2-50, 2-52, 2-53, 2-54, 2-55, 

2-56, 2-58, 2-60, 3-2, 3-9, 3-12, 3-29, 4-3, 

4-15, 4-19, 4-20, 4-24, 4-25, 4-29, 4-30, 4-35, 

4-36, 4-42, 4-55, 4-57, 4-58, 4-60, 4-62, 4-67, 

4-69, 4-71, 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, 4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 

4-79, 4-82, 4-85, 4-86, 4-87, 4-89, 4-96, 4-98, 

4-100, 4-101, 4-108, 4-109, 4-112, 4-114, 

4-115, 4-116, 4-117, 4-118, 4-120, 4-121, 

4-122, 4-123, 4-124, 4-125, 4-126, 4-127, 

4-129, 4-130, 4-131, 4-132, 4-133, 4-134, 

4-137, 4-138, 4-139, 4-140, 4-141, 4-143, 

4-144, 4-148, 4-150, 4-152, 4-154, 4-156, 

4-163, 4-165, 5-6, 5-9, 5-13, 5-14, 5-15, 5-16, 

5-18, 5-21, 5-23, 5-25, 6-6

Minerals, leasable, 2-5, 2-9, 2-11, 2-12, 2-22, 

2-37, 2-37, 3-17, 3-29, 3-39, 3-81, 4-16, 4-21, 

4-56, 4-58, 4-70, 4-112, 4-129, 4-137, 4-149

Minerals, locatable, 2-5, 2-6, 2-9, 2-11, 2-12, 

2-22, 2-36, 2-37, 2-44, 2-50, 3-2, 3-41, 3-42, 

4-3, 4-16, 4-21, 4-30, 4-36, 4-55, 4-56, 4-58, 
Index

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS Index-3

4-60, 4-62, 4-66, 4-87, 4-97, 4-107, 4-118, 

4-137, 4-140, 4-142, 4-143, 4-149, 4-151, 

4-154, 5-4, 5-17

Minerals, material, 2-5, 2-9, 2-11, 2-12, 2-22, 

2-37, 2-51, 3-2, 3-42, 3-43, 4-16, 4-21, 4-26, 

4-30, 4-36, 4-56, 4-58, 4-60, 4-62, 4-67, 4-70, 

4-72, 4-73, 4-87, 4-88, 4-89, 4-90, 4-91, 4-97, 

4-109, 4-112, 4-115, 4-117, 4-129, 4-131, 

4-133, 4-134, 4-137, 4-140, 4-142, 4-143, 

4-149, 4-151, 4-152, 4-154, 4-169, 5-17

Minerals, solid leasable, 2-22, 3-39, 4-151, 4-154

Mining operations, 2-21, 2-36, 4-97, 4-106

National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 3-56, 

3-57, 3-60, 5-20

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA), ES-5, ES-8, ES-10, ES-13, 1-6, 1-7, 

1-8, 1-12, 1-13, 1-18, 1-19, 2-2, 2-3, 2-13, 

2-16, 2-19, 2-30, 2-33, 2-36, 2-39, 3-92, 4-3, 

4-7, 4-167, 4-168, 4-169, 6-1, 6-2, 6-3

Off-highway vehicle (OHV), ES-13, 1-12, 1-19, 

1-20, 2-4, 2-5, 2-45, 3-24, 3-43, 3-46, 3-71, 

3-92, 4-1, 4-2, 4-17, 4-22, 4-26, 4-31, 4-37, 

4-91, 4-96, 4-97, 4-99, 4-104, 4-129, 4-153, 

5-17, 5-18, 5-24

Ozone (O3), 3-56, 3-57, 4-121, 4-122

Planning issue, ES-5, ES-10, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 2-1, 

2-2, 2-3, 2-4, 2-19, 2-20, 2-23, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4

Plants, invasive, see Vegetation, invasive/noxious 

weeds

Particulate matter (PM2.5), 3-56, 3-57, 3-58, 

4-120, 4-121, 4-122

Priority habitat (PH), ES-2, ES-5, ES-10, ES-11, 

ES-12, ES-13, 1-2, 1-4, 2-4, 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, 2-10, 

2-11, 2-12, 2-14, 2-21, 2-25, 2-26, 2-27, 2-28, 

2-29, 2-30, 2-31, 2-32, 2-33, 2-32, 2-33, 2-32, 

2-33, 2-33, 2-34, 2-35, 2-33, 2-34, 2-35, 2-36, 

2-37, 2-38, 2-39, 2-40, 2-41, 2-42, 2-43, 2-44, 

2-44, 2-46, 2-47, 2-48, 2-50, 2-50, 2-51, 2-52, 

2-53, 2-54, 2-55, 2-56, 2-55, 2-56, 2-57, 2-58, 

2-59, 2-60, 2-59, 3-7, 3-10, 4-4, 4-9, 4-15, 

4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 

4-27, 4-28, 4-29, 4-30, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 

4-35, 4-36, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-43, 4-44, 4-45, 

4-46, 4-47, 4-51, 4-52, 4-54, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 

4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-62, 4-67, 4-68, 4-69, 4-70, 

4-71, 4-72, 4-73, 4-75, 4-79, 4-82, 4-85, 4-86, 

4-87, 4-88, 4-89, 4-90, 4-91, 4-94, 4-95, 4-99, 

4-100, 4-101, 4-102, 4-105, 4-108, 4-109, 

4-110, 4-111, 4-112, 4-113, 4-114, 4-115, 

4-116, 4-117, 4-119, 4-121, 4-122, 4-123, 

4-125, 4-127, 4-129, 4-130, 4-131, 4-132, 

4-133, 4-134, 4-138, 4-139, 4-140, 4-141, 

4-142, 4-143, 4-144, 4-149, 4-150, 4-151, 

4-152, 4-153, 4-154, 4-155, 4-156, 4-157, 

4-159, 4-162, 4-163, 4-165, 4-166, 5-4, 5-6, 

5-7, 5-9, 5-11, 5-12, 5-14, 5-15, 5-18, 5-19, 

5-20, 5-22, 5-24

Priority habitat, preliminary (PPH), ES-2, ES-3, 

ES-4, ES-6, ES-11, 1-2, 1-4, 1-5, 1-9, 1-11, 2-7, 

2-25, 3-4, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-10, 3-13, 3-14, 

3-15, 3-16, 3-17, 3-18, 3-22, 3-26, 3-27, 3-28, 

3-31, 3-32, 3-33, 3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 3-38, 3-40, 

3-41, 3-43, 3-44, 3-45, 3-46, 3-49, 3-50, 3-51, 

3-52, 3-53, 3-54, 3-64, 3-65, 3-67, 3-71, 3-83, 

4-10, 4-148, 5-6

Proper functioning condition, 2-29, 2-31, 2-47, 

2-57, 3-20, 3-21, 3-23, 3-24, 4-18, 4-47, 4-49, 

4-53, 4-54, 4-104, 4-108, 4-111, 4-116, 4-138, 

4-140, 4-141, 4-142

Public access, 4-92

Rangeland health, 2-29, 2-45, 2-57, 3-49, 3-54, 

4-22, 4-32, 4-38, 4-49, 4-52, 4-55, 4-103, 

4-106, 4-111, 5-4, 5-14

Raptor, 3-9, 3-50, 4-11, 4-13, 4-49, 4-82, 4-145

Reasonably foreseeable future actions, 5-1, 5-2, 

5-3, 5-11, 5-13, 5-15, 5-16, 5-17, 5-18, 5-20, 

5-21, 5-23, 5-24, 5-25, 5-26

Record of Decision (ROD), ES-11, 1-15, 1-17, 

1-18, 1-19, 2-3, 2-6, 2-7, 2-19, 2-25, 2-26, 

2-33, 4-17, 4-22, 4-26, 4-31, 4-68, 4-94, 

4-121, 4-125, 5-4, 5-17, 5-18

Renewable energy, ES-6, 1-9, 1-11, 3-17, 3-81, 

3-82, 3-84, 4-41, 4-44, 4-64, 4-96, 4-128, 

4-155, 4-156, 5-12, 5-25

Rights-of-way (ROW), ES-11, ES-12, 2-4, 2-5, 

2-7, 2-8, 2-10, 2-12, 2-21, 2-27, 2-34, 2-44, 

2-46, 2-48, 2-51, 2-52, 2-55, 2-57, 2-59, 3-10, 

3-11, 3-12, 3-16, 3-17, 3-18, 3-69, 3-81, 3-82, 

4-3, 4-11, 4-16, 4-17, 4-21, 4-26, 4-30, 4-36, 

4-37, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-45, 4-46, 

4-50, 4-51, 4-54, 4-57, 4-59, 4-61, 4-64, 4-66, 

4-67, 4-69, 4-71, 4-72, 4-75, 4-78, 4-79, 4-85, 

4-86, 4-88, 4-89, 4-90, 4-91, 4-92, 4-94, 4-96, 

4-97, 4-98, 4-99, 4-100, 4-101, 4-105, 4-108, 

4-110, 4-113, 4-116, 4-121, 4-125, 4-127, 

4-128, 4-129, 4-130, 4-131, 4-132, 4-133, 

4-134, 4-135, 4-138, 4-139, 4-141, 4-142, 

4-144, 4-145, 4-146, 4-147, 4-150, 4-152, 

4-153, 4-155, 4-156, 4-157, 4-158, 4-159, 

4-160, 4-169, 4-170, 5-8, 5-11, 5-12, 5-13, 
Index

Index-4 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

5-14, 5-15, 5-16, 5-18, 5-19, 5-20, 5-22, 5-23, 

5-24, 5-25, 5-26, 5-27

Sensitive species, 1-11, 2-41, 2-58, 3-4, 3-5, 

3-70, 3-71, 4-32, 4-62, 4-167

Socioeconomics, ES-6, ES-8, ES-9, 1-9, 1-13, 

1-14, 3-84, 5-26, 6-6

Soils, erodible, 2-31, 2-32, 2-33, 4-18, 4-55

Soils, fragile, 4-128, 4-129

Special recreation management area (SRMA), 

3-48

Split estate, ES-8, 1-13, 1-17, 1-18, 2-44, 2-58, 

4-2, 4-3, 4-35, 4-53, 4-65, 4-76, 4-89, 4-106, 

4-109, 4-115, 4-118, 4-121, 4-124, 4-128, 

4-137, 4-148, 4-150, 4-152, 4-156

Stipulation, Controlled surface use (CSU), 2-4, 

2-5, 2-12, 2-22, 2-33, 2-47, 2-49, 2-50, 2-52, 

2-56, 2-56, 2-58, 3-37, 3-38, 3-39, 4-3, 4-11, 

4-15, 4-55, 4-75, 4-76, 4-79, 4-80, 4-83, 4-86, 

4-96, 4-109, 4-116, 4-128, 4-146, 4-148, 

4-154, 5-16

Stipulation, No surface occupancy (NSO), 2-4, 

2-5, 2-12, 2-22, 2-33, 2-34, 2-47, 2-48, 2-49,

2-52, 2-53, 2-56, 2-55, 2-56, 2-58, 2-59, 3-16, 

3-37, 3-38, 3-39, 4-3, 4-11, 4-15, 4-29, 4-35, 

4-55, 4-62, 4-73, 4-75, 4-76, 4-78, 4-79, 4-80, 

4-83, 4-86, 4-96, 4-109, 4-128, 4-135, 4-143, 

4-146, 4-148, 4-154, 4-166, 5-15, 5-16

Stipulation, Timing limitation (TL), 2-4, 2-5, 

2-22, 2-34, 2-49, 2-58, 3-37, 3-38, 3-39, 4-3, 

4-11, 4-15, 4-41, 4-55, 4-75, 4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 

4-79, 4-80, 4-82, 4-83, 4-86, 4-109, 4-146, 

4-148, 5-16

Threatened and endangered species, ES-1, ES-2, 

1-1, 1-2, 3-5, 3-71, 4-8, 4-14, 4-54, 4-148

Travel management, ES-7, 1-19, 2-4, 2-5, 2-8, 

2-21, 2-25, 2-26, 2-40, 2-39, 2-41, 3-2, 3-10, 

3-43, 4-21, 4-37, 4-42, 4-64, 4-66, 4-71, 4-88, 

4-91, 4-92, 4-93, 4-96, 4-105, 4-107, 4-113, 

4-115, 5-11, 5-17, 5-18, 6-6

Travel, dispersed, 4-107

Travel, mechanized, ES-7, 1-9, 2-21, 4-42, 4-66, 

4-92, 4-93

Travel, motorized, 2-8, 2-10, 2-11, 2-25, 2-52, 

3-46, 4-42, 4-66, 4-91, 4-92, 4-96, 4-98, 4-99, 

4-107, 4-110, 4-145

Travel, non-motorized, 3-46

United States Forest Service, ES-3, ES-4, 1-4, 

1-5, 1-15, 1-16, 1-17, 1-18, 2-14, 3-1, 3-13, 

3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 3-26, 3-27, 3-32, 3-33, 3-34, 

3-40, 3-41, 3-44, 3-45, 3-49, 3-50, 3-51, 3-84, 

3-87, 4-76, 5-5, 6-4, 6-5, 6-6

Utility corridor, 3-11, 3-14, 3-17, 4-96

Vegetation, invasive /noxious weeds, ES-6, 1-9, 

2-47, 2-46, 2-47, 2-52, 3-21, 3-22, 3-23, 3-24, 

3-26, 3-71, 4-9, 4-11, 4-13, 4-14, 4-47, 4-48, 

4-49, 4-50, 4-51, 4-52, 4-53, 4-58, 4-64, 4-65, 

4-105, 4-106, 4-108, 4-147, 4-151, 5-6, 5-8, 

5-10, 5-13, 5-24

Vegetation, Riparian, 2-28, 2-29, 2-30, 2-31, 

2-47, 2-57, 3-2, 3-9, 3-18, 3-20, 3-21, 3-22, 

3-23, 3-25, 3-26, 3-49, 3-65, 3-68, 3-69, 3-71, 

3-75, 3-76, 3-77, 4-9, 4-14, 4-18, 4-23, 4-27, 

4-46, 4-47, 4-49, 4-53, 4-54, 4-57, 4-104, 

4-106, 4-108, 4-111, 4-114, 4-116, 4-135, 

4-136, 4-137, 4-138, 4-140, 4-141, 4-142, 

4-146, 4-148, 4-150, 5-13, 5-22, 5-24

Vegetation, wetlands, 2-27, 2-30, 2-31, 3-2, 

3-18, 3-20, 3-21, 3-22, 3-23, 3-24, 3-25, 3-26, 

3-65, 3-68, 3-71, 3-73, 3-74, 3-75, 3-76, 3-77, 

3-79, 4-46, 4-47, 4-53, 4-108, 4-114, 4-116, 

4-136, 4-138, 4-146, 4-148, 5-13

Water quality, 2-29, 2-31, 3-20, 3-21, 3-65, 

3-66, 3-68, 3-69, 3-70, 4-13, 4-46, 4-52, 

4-104, 4-135, 4-137, 4-138, 4-140, 4-141, 

4-142, 4-144, 4-145, 5-23

Water, groundwater, 3-20, 3-21, 3-67, 3-68, 

3-69, 4-136, 4-137, 4-138, 4-140, 4-141

Water, surface water, 3-66, 3-68, 3-69, 4-78, 

4-128, 4-135, 4-136, 4-137, 4-140, 4-141, 

5-10

Watershed, 2-18, 3-6, 4-47, 4-104, 4-135, 

4-136, 5-5, 5-7, 5-9, 5-11

West Nile virus, ES-7, 1-9, 2-19, 2-32, 2-34, 

3-11, 4-29, 4-135, 4-137, 4-139, 4-140, 4-141, 

4-142, 4-143, 4-150, 5-9, 5-10, 5-23

Wilderness Characteristics, 1-12

Wilderness study area (WSA), 1-12

Wildland fire, ES-7, 1-9, 2-4, 3-25, 3-26, 3-27, 

3-29, 3-63, 4-47, 4-50, 4-63, 4-65, 4-67, 4-68, 

4-105, 4-113, 4-151, 4-168, 5-5, 5-15, 5-16, 

5-21, 5-22, 5-27

Withdrawal, 2-9, 2-10, 2-12, 2-22, 2-28, 2-36, 

3-11, 3-12, 3-13, 3-18, 4-9, 4-21, 4-36, 4-40, 

4-41, 4-58, 4-112, 4-130, 4-132, 4-133, 4-147
Appendices

Appendix A

Figures

APPENDIX A. FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Project Planning Area

Figure 2-1 Travel and Transportation Management Alternatives A-D 

Figure 2-2 Rights-of-Way Alternative A

Figure 2-3 Rights-of-Way Alternative B

Figure 2-4 Rights-of-Way Alternative C

Figure 2-5 Rights-of-Way Alternative D

Figure 2-6 Retention/Disposal Alternative A

Figure 2-7 Retention/Disposal Alternative B and D

Figure 2-8 Retention/Disposal Alternative C

Figure 2-9 Grazing Allotments Alternatives A, B and D

Figure 2-10 Grazing Allotments Alternative C

Figure 2-11 Unleased Fluid Mineral Leasing Categories Alternative A

Figure 2-12 Unleased Fluid Mineral Leasing Categories Alternative B

Figure 2-13 Unleased Fluid Mineral Leasing Categories Alternative C 

Figure 2-14 Unleased Fluid Mineral Leasing Categories Alternative D 

Figure 2-15 Coal Resources Alternative A

Figure 2-16 Coal Resources Alternative B

Figure 2-17 Coal Resources Alternative C

Figure 2-18 Coal Resources Alternative D

Figure 2-19 Locatable Minerals Alternatives A and D

Figure 2-20 Locatable Minerals Alternative B

Figure 2-21 Locatable Minerals Alternative C

Figure 2-22 Mineral Materials Alternative A 

Figure 2-23 Mineral Materials Alternatives B and D

Figure 2-24 Mineral Materials Alternative C

Figure 2-25 ACEC Alternative C

Figure 3-1 North Dakota Preliminary Sage-Grouse Habitat

Figure 3-2 Greater Sage-Grouse Distribution and Preliminary Priority Habitat

Figure 3-3 Surface and Mineral Management Status

Figure 3-4 Planning Area Fire Regime Condition Class

Figure 3-5 Oil and Gas Potential

Figure 3-6 Transportation Routes

Figure 3-7 Planning Area Grazing Allotments
This page intentionally left blank.


































Appendix B

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Required Design 

Features and Best Management Practices

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS B-1

APPENDIX B

GREATER SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT REQUIRED 

DESIGN FEATURES AND BEST MANAGEMENT 

PRACTICES

B.1 INTRODUCTION

Required Design Features (RDFs) are a suite of features that would establish 

the minimum specifications for certain activities (i.e., water developments, fluid 

mineral development, and fire and fuels management) to help mitigate adverse 

impacts. In general, the design features are accepted practices that are known to 

be effective when implemented properly at the project level. However, their 

applicability and overall effectiveness cannot be fully assessed until the projectlevel when the project location and design are known. Because of site-specific 

circumstances, some features 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 design features would require 

appropriate analysis and disclosure as part of future project authorizations. 

Additional mitigation measures may be identified and required during individual 

project development and environmental review, and it is not possible to list 

them all at the planning level.

Best Management Practices (BMPs) are a suite of techniques that guide or 

may be applied to management actions to aide in achieving desired outcomes. 

BMPs are continuously improving as new science and technology become 

available and therefore are subject to change.

Alternatives Summary: There are no RDFs in the current North Dakota 

Resource Management Plan (RMP). Current management does include the use 

of BMPs at the project level; however, these are not a land use plan-level 

decision; for example, the fluid minerals program uses Surface Operating 

Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development (The 
B. Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Required Design Features and Best Management Practices

B-2 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Gold Book) – these standard and guidelines are updated as needed and not

listed in the 1988 North Dakota RMP. 

The RDFs listed below apply where applicable and appropriate for all action 

alternatives (Alternatives B-D) in the North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse RMP 

Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). An example of where an 

RDF would not be applicable would be Alternative C – for fluid minerals, the 

entire priority habitat (PH) and general habitat (GH) would be No Lease, so 

many of the fluid minerals RDFs would not be necessary. For Alternative D, PH 

is a no surface occupancy (NSO); therefore, many of the measures that discuss 

locating oil and gas facilities outside of PH would not be relevant.

B.2 ALTERNATIVES B-D REQUIRED DESIGN FEATURES

B.2.1 Required Design Features for how to make a pond that won’t 

produce mosquitoes that transmit West Nile virus (from Doherty 

[2007])

1. Increase the size of ponds to accommodate a greater volume of 

water than is discharged. This will result in un‐vegetated and muddy 

shorelines that breeding Cx. tarsalis avoid (De Szalay and Resh 2000). 

This modification may reduce Cx. tarsalis habitat but could create 

larval habitat for Culicoides sonorensis, a vector of blue tongue 

disease, and should be used sparingly (Schmidtmann et al. 2000). 

Steep shorelines should be used in combination with this technique 

whenever possible (Knight et al. 2003). 

2. Build steep shorelines to reduce shallow water (>60 centimeters 

[cm]) and aquatic vegetation around the perimeter of 

impoundments (Knight et al. 2003). Construction of steep 

shorelines also will create more permanent ponds that are a 

deterrent to colonizing mosquito species like Cx. tarsalis which 

prefer newly flooded sites with high primary productivity (Knight et 

al. 2003).

3. Maintain the water level below that of rooted vegetation for a 

muddy shoreline that is unfavorable habitat for mosquito larvae. 

Rooted vegetation includes both aquatic and upland vegetative 

types. Avoid flooding terrestrial vegetation in flat terrain or low 

lying areas. Aquatic habitats with a vegetated inflow and outflow 

separated by open water produce 5‐10 fold fewer Culex 

mosquitoes than completely vegetated wetlands (Walton and 

Workman 1998). Wetlands with open water also had significantly 

fewer stage III and IV instars which may be attributed to increased 

predator abundances in open water habitats (Walton and Workman 

1998).
B. Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Required Design Features and Best Management Practices

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS B-3

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.

B.2.2 Literature Cited

De Szalay, F.A. and V.H. Resh. 2000. Factors influencing macroinvertebrate 

colonization of seasonal wetlands: responses to emergent plant cover. 

Freshwater Biology. 45: 295‐308.

Doherty, M.K. 2007. Mosquito populations in the Powder River Basin, 

Wyoming: a comparison of natural, agricultural and effluent coal bed 

natural gas aquatic habitats. M.S. Thesis. Montana State University, 

Bozeman, U.S.A.

Knight, R.L., W.E. Walton, G.F. Meara, W.K. Riesen and R. Wass. 2003. 

Strategies for effective mosquito control in constructed treatment 

wetlands. Ecological Engineering. 21: 211‐232.

Schmidtmann, E.T., R.J. Bobian, R.P. Beldin. 2000. Soil chemistries define aquatic 

habitats with immature populations of the Culicoides variipennis complex 

(Diptera: Ceratopogonidae). Journal of Medical Entomology. 37: 38‐64.

Walton, W.E., and P.D. Workman. 1998. Effect of marsh design on the 

abundance of mosquitoes in experimental constructed wetlands in 

Southern California. Journal of the American mosquito control 

Association 14:95‐107.

B.2.3 Required Design Features for Fluid Mineral Development

Priority Habitats

Roads

• Design roads to an appropriate standard no higher than necessary 

to accommodate their intended purpose.
B. Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Required Design Features and Best Management Practices

B-4 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

• Locate roads to avoid important areas and habitats.

• Coordinate road construction and use among right-of-way (ROW)

holders. 

• Construct road crossing at right angles to ephemeral drainages and 

stream crossings.

• Establish speed limits on BLM system roads to reduce 

vehicle/wildlife collisions or design roads to be driven at slower 

speeds.

• Establish trip restrictions or minimization through use of telemetry 

and remote well control (e.g., Supervisory Control and Data 

Acquisition).

• Do not issue ROWs to counties on newly constructed energy 

development roads, unless for a temporary use consistent with all 

other terms and conditions included in this document.

• Restrict vehicle traffic to only authorized users on newly 

constructed routes (use signing, gates, etc.) 

• Use dust abatement practices on roads and pads.

• Close and rehabilitate duplicate roads.

Operations 

• Cluster disturbances, operations (fracture stimulation, liquids 

gathering, etc.), and facilities.

• Use directional and horizontal drilling to reduce surface disturbance.

• Place infrastructure in already disturbed locations where the habitat 

has not been restored.

• Consider using oak (or other material) mats for drilling activities to 

reduce vegetation disturbance and for roads between closely spaced 

wells to reduce soil compaction and maintain soil structure to 

increase likelihood of vegetation reestablishment following drilling.

• Apply a phased development approach with concurrent reclamation.

• Place liquid gathering facilities outside of priority areas. Have no 

tanks at well locations within priority areas (minimizes perching and 

nesting opportunities for ravens and raptors and truck traffic). 

Pipelines must be under or immediately adjacent to the road (Bui et 

al. 2010).

• Restrict the construction of tall facilities and fences to the minimum 

number and amount needed. 

• Site and/or minimize linear ROWs to reduce disturbance to 

sagebrush habitats.
B. Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Required Design Features and Best Management Practices

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS B-5

• Place new utility developments (power lines, pipelines, etc.) and 

transportation routes in existing utility or transportation corridors.

• Bury distribution power lines.

• Corridor power, flow, and small pipelines under or immediately 

adjacent to roads.

• Design or site permanent structures which create movement (e.g. a 

pump jack) to minimize impacts to sage-grouse. 

• Cover (e.g., fine mesh netting or use other effective techniques) all 

drilling and production pits and tanks regardless of size to reduce 

sage-grouse mortality.

• Equip tanks and other above ground facilities with structures or 

devices that discourage nesting of raptors and corvids.

• Control the spread and effects of non-native plant species (e.g. by 

washing vehicles and equipment).

• Use only closed-loop systems for drilling operations and no reserve 

pits.

• Restrict pit and impoundment construction to reduce or eliminate 

threats from West Nile virus (Doherty 2007).

• Remove or re-inject produced water to reduce habitat for 

mosquitoes that vector West Nile virus. If surface disposal of 

produced water continues, use the following steps for reservoir 

design to limit favorable mosquito habitat:

o Overbuild size of ponds for muddy and non-vegetated 

shorelines.

o Build steep shorelines to decrease vegetation and increase 

wave actions.

o Avoid flooding terrestrial vegetation in flat terrain or low 

lying areas.

o Construct dams or impoundments that restrict down slope 

seepage or overflow.

o Line the channel where discharge water flows into the pond 

with crushed rock.

o Construct spillway with steep sides and line it with crushed 

rock.

o Treat waters with larvicides to reduce mosquito production 

where water occurs on the surface.
B. Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Required Design Features and Best Management Practices

B-6 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

• 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 sage-grouse-safe fences.

• Locate new compressor stations outside PH and design them to 

reduce noise that may be directed towards PH.

• Clean up refuse.

• Locate man camps outside of PH.

Reclamation

• Include objectives for ensuring habitat restoration to meet sagegrouse habitat needs in reclamation practices/sites (Pyke 2011). 

Address post reclamation management in reclamation plan such that 

goals and objectives are to protect and improve sage-grouse habitat 

needs.

• Maximize the area of interim reclamation on long-term access roads 

and well pads including reshaping, topsoiling and revegetating cut 

and fill slopes.

• Restore disturbed areas at final reclamation to the pre-disturbance 

landforms and desired plant community.

• Irrigate interim reclamation if necessary for establishing seedlings 

more quickly.

• Utilize mulching techniques to expedite reclamation and to protect 

soils. 

General Sage-Grouse Habitat

Make applicable BMPs mandatory as Conditions of Approval (COA) within GH. 

BMPs are continuously improving as new science and technology become 

available and therefore are subject to change. At a minimum include the 

following BMPs:

Roads

• Design roads to an appropriate standard no higher than necessary 

to accommodate their intended purpose.

• Do not issue ROWs to counties on mining development roads, 

unless for a temporary use consistent with all other terms and 

conditions included in this document.
B. Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Required Design Features and Best Management Practices

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS B-7

• Establish speed limits on BLM system roads to reduce 

vehicle/wildlife collisions or design roads to be driven at slower 

speeds.

• Coordinate road construction and use among ROW holders.

• Construct road crossing at right angles to ephemeral drainages and 

stream crossings.

• Use dust abatement practices on roads and pads.

• Close and reclaim duplicate roads, by restoring original landform 

and establishing desired vegetation.

Operations 

• Cluster disturbances associated with operations and facilities as 

close as possible.

• Use directional and horizontal drilling to reduce surface disturbance.

• Clean up refuse.

• Restrict the construction of tall facilities and fences to the minimum 

number and amount needed.

• Cover (e.g., fine mesh netting or use other effective techniques) all 

pits and tanks regardless of size to reduce sage-grouse mortality.

• Equip tanks and other above ground facilities with structures or 

devices that discourage nesting of raptors and corvids.

• Use remote monitoring techniques for production facilities and 

develop a plan to reduce the frequency of vehicle use.

• Control the spread and effects of non-native plant species (Gelbard 

and Belnap 2003, Bergquist et al. 2007).

• Restrict pit and impoundment construction to reduce or eliminate 

augmenting threats from West Nile virus (Doherty 2007).

Reclamation

• Include restoration objectives to meet sage-grouse habitat needs in 

reclamation practices/sites. Address post reclamation management 

in reclamation plan such that goals and objectives are to protect and 

improve sage-grouse habitat needs.

Literature Cited

Blickley, J.L., D. Blackwood, and G.L. Patricelli. In preparation. Experimental 

evidence for avoidance of chronic anthropogenic noise by greater sage‐

grouse. University of California‐Davis, California, USA.
B. Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Required Design Features and Best Management Practices

B-8 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Bui, T.D., J.M. Marzluff, and B. Bedrosian. 2010. Common raven activity in 

relation to land use in western Wyoming: implications for greater sage‐

grouse reproductive success. Condor 112:65‐78.

Doherty, M.K. 2007. Mosquito populations in the Powder River Basin, 

Wyoming: a comparison of natural, agricultural and effluent coal‐bed 

natural gas aquatic habitats. M.S. thesis, Montana State University, 

Bozeman, Montana, USA.

Evangelista, P.H., A.W. Crall, and E. Bergquist. 2011. Invasive plants and their 

response to energy development. Pages 115‐129 in D.E. Naugle, editor. 

Energy development and wildlife conservation in western North 

America. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Lammers, W.M., and M.W. Collopy. 2007. Effectiveness of avian predator perch 

deterrents on electric transmission lines. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 71:2752‐2758.

Lyon, A.G. and S.H. Anderson. 2003. Potential gas development impacts on sage 

grouse nest initiation and movement. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31: 486‐

491.

Patricelli, G.L., J.L. Blickley, and S. Hooper. 2010. Incorporating the impacts of 

noise pollution into greater sage‐grouse conservation planning. 27th 

Meeting of the Western Agencies Sage and Columbian Sharp‐tailed 

Grouse Technical Committee Workshop. Twin Falls, Idaho, USA.

Pyke, D.A. 2011. Restoring and rehabilitating sagebrush habitats. Pp. 531‐548 in 

S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly (editors). Greater sage‐grouse: ecology 

and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian 

Biology 38. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA.

B.2.4 Required Design Features for Fire & Fuels

Fuels Management

1. Where applicable, design fuels treatment objective to protect 

existing sagebrush ecosystems, modify fire behavior, restore native 

plants, and create landscape patters which most benefit sage‐grouse 

habitat.

2. Provide training to fuels treatment personnel on sage‐rouse biology, 

habitat requirements, and identification of areas utilized locally.

3. Use fire prescriptions that minimize undesirable effects on 

vegetation or soils (e.g., minimize mortality of desirable perennial 

plant species and reduce risk of hydrophobicity).

4. Ensure proposed sagebrush treatments are planned with 

interdisciplinary input from BLM and /or state wildlife agency 
B. Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Required Design Features and Best Management Practices

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS B-9

biologist and that treatment acreage is conservative in the context 

of surrounding sage-grouse seasonal habitats and landscape.

5. Where appropriate, ensure that treatments are configured in a 

manner (e.g., strips) that promotes use by sage‐grouse (See 

Connelly et al. 2000*)

6. Where applicable, incorporate roads and natural fuel breaks into 

fuel break design.

7. Power‐wash all vehicles and equipment involved in fuels 

management activities prior to entering the area to minimize the 

introduction of undesirable and/or invasive plant species.

8. Design vegetation treatment in areas of high frequency to facilitate 

firefighting safety, reduce the risk of extreme fire behavior; and to 

reduce the risk and rate of fire spread to key and restoration 

habitats.

9. Give priority for implementing specific sage‐grouse habitat 

restoration projects in annual grasslands first to sites which are 

adjacent to or surrounded by sage‐grouse key habitats. Annual 

grasslands are second priority for restoration when the sites not 

adjacent to key habitat, but within two miles of key habitat. The

third priority for annual grasslands habitat restoration projects are 

sites beyond two miles of key habitat. The intent is to focus 

restoration outward from existing, intact habitat.

10. As funding and logistics permit, restore annual grasslands to a 

species composition characterized by perennial grasses, forbs, and 

shrubs.

11. Emphasize the use of native plant species, recognizing that non‐

native species may be necessary depending on the availability of 

native seed and prevailing site conditions.

12. Remove standing and encroaching trees within at least 100 meters 

of occupied sage‐grouse leks and other habitats (e.g., nesting, 

wintering, and brood rearing) to reduce the availability of perch 

sites for avian predators, as appropriate, and resources permit.

13. Protect wildland areas from wildfire originating on private lands, 

infrastructure corridors, and recreational areas.

14. Reduce the risk of vehicle or human‐caused wildfires and the spread 

of invasive species by planting perennial vegetation (e.g., green‐

strips) paralleling road rights‐of‐way.

15. Strategically place and maintain pre‐treated strips/areas (e.g., 

mowing, herbicide application, and strictly managed grazed strips) to 

ail in controlling wildfire should wildfire occur near key habitats or
B. Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Required Design Features and Best Management Practices

B-10 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

important restoration areas (such as where investments in 

restoration have already been made).

Fire Management

1. Develop state‐specific sage‐grouse toolboxes containing maps, a list 

of resource advisors, contact information, local guidance, and other 

relevant information.

2. Provide localized maps to dispatch offices and extended attack 

incident commanders for use in prioritizing wildfire suppression 

resources and designing suppression tactics.

3. Assign a sage‐grouse resource advisor to all extended attack fires in 

or near key sage‐grouse habitat areas. Prior to the fire season, 

provide training to sage‐grouse resource advisors on wildfire 

suppression organization, objectives, tactics, and procedures to 

develop a cadre of qualified individuals.

4. On critical fire weather days, pre‐position additional fire 

suppression resources to optimize a quick and efficient response in 

sage‐grouse habitat areas.

5. During periods of multiple fires, ensure line officers are involved in 

setting priorities.

6. To the extent possible, locate wildfire suppression facilities (i.e., 

base camps, spike camps, drop points, staging areas, heli‐bases) in 

areas where physical disturbance to sage‐grouse habitat can be 

minimized. These include disturbed areas, grasslands, near 

roads/trails or in other areas where there is existing disturbance or 

minimal sagebrush cover.

7. Power‐wash all firefighting vehicles, to the extent possible, including 

engines, water tenders, personnel vehicles, and all-terrain vehicles

prior to deploying in or near sage‐grouse habitat areas to minimize 

noxious weed spread.

8. Minimize unnecessary cross‐country vehicle travel during fire 

operations in sage‐grouse habitat.

9. Minimize burnout operations in key sage‐grouse habitat areas by 

constructing direct fireline whenever safe and practical to do so.

10. Utilize retardant and mechanized equipment to minimize burned 

acreage during initial attack.

11. As safety allows, conduct mop‐up where the black adjoins unburned 

islands, dog legs, or other habitat features to minimize sagebrush 

loss.
B. Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Required Design Features and Best Management Practices

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS B-11

Literature Cited

Connelly, J.W., M.A Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun 2000. Guidelines to 

Manage Sage‐grouse Populations and Their Habitats. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 28:967‐985.

B.3 ALTERNATIVES B-D SOLID MINERALS DEVELOPMENT – REQUIRED DESIGN 

FEATURES AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

B.3.1 Introduction

The following measures would be applied as RDFs for all solid minerals, except 

locatable minerals. The measures outlined below would be applied as 

recommended BMPs for locatable minerals. The RDFs or BMPs would be 

applied as appropriate in PH and GH, and to the extent allowable by law (i.e., to 

prevent unnecessary and undue degradation). For example, Alternative B 

proposes to withdraw PH from mineral entry; therefore, these measures would 

not be relevant to PH, but would apply to GH. Alternative C proposes to 

withdraw minerals from both PH and GH; therefore, these measures would not 

be necessary.

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.
B. Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Required Design Features and Best Management Practices

B-12 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

• Place infrastructure in already disturbed locations where the habitat 

has not been restored.

• Restrict the construction of tall facilities and fences to the minimum 

number and amount needed.

• Site and/or minimize linear ROWs to reduce disturbance to 

sagebrush habitats.

• Place new utility developments (power lines, pipelines, etc.) and 

transportation routes in existing utility or transportation corridors.

• Bury power lines.

• Cover (e.g., fine mesh netting or use other effective techniques) all 

pits and tanks regardless of size to reduce sage‐grouse mortality.

• Equip tanks and other above ground facilities with structures or 

devices that discourage nesting of raptors and corvids.

• Control the spread and effects of non‐native plant species (Gelbard 

and Belnap 2003, Bergquist et al. 2007).

• Restrict pit and impoundment construction to reduce or eliminate 

threats from West Nile virus (Doherty 2007).

• Remove or re‐inject produced water to reduce habitat for 

mosquitoes that vector West Nile virus. If surface disposal of 

produced water continues, use the following steps for reservoir 

design to limit favorable mosquito habitat:

• Overbuild size of ponds for muddy and non‐vegetated shorelines.

• Build steep shorelines to decrease vegetation and increase wave 

actions.

• Avoid flooding terrestrial vegetation in flat terrain or low lying 

areas.

• Construct dams or impoundments that restrict down slope seepage 

or overflow.

• Line the channel where discharge water flows into the pond with 

crushed rock.

• Construct spillway with steep sides and line it with crushed rock.

• Treat waters with larvicides to reduce mosquito production where 

water occurs on the surface.

• Require sage‐grouse‐safe fences around sumps.

• Clean up refuse (Bui et al. 2010).

• Locate man camps outside of PH.
B. Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Required Design Features and Best Management Practices

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS B-13

Reclamation

• Include restoration objectives to meet sage‐grouse habitat needs in 

reclamation practices/sites.

• Address post reclamation management in reclamation plan such that 

goals and objectives are to protect and improve sage‐grouse habitat 

needs.

• Maximize the area of interim reclamation on long‐term access roads 

and well pads including reshaping, topsoiling and revegetating cut 

and fill slopes.

• Restore disturbed areas at final reclamation to pre‐disturbance 

landform and desired plant community.

• Irrigate interim reclamation as necessary during dry periods.

• Utilize mulching techniques to expedite reclamation.

Literature Cited

Bergquist, E., P. Evangelista, T. J. Stohlgren, and N. Alley. 2007. Invasive species 

and coal bed methane development in the Powder River Basin, 

Wyoming. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 128:381‐394.

Bui, T.D., J.M. Marzluff, and B. Bedrosian. 2010. Common raven activity in 

relation to land use in western Wyoming: implications for greater sage‐

grouse reproductive success. Condor 112:65‐78.

Doherty, M.K. 2007. Mosquito populations in the Powder River Basin, 

Wyoming: a comparison of natural, agricultural and effluent coal bed 

natural gas aquatic habitats. Thesis. Montana State University, Bozeman, 

U.S.A.

Gelbard, J.L., and J. Belnap. 2003. Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in 

a semiarid landscape. Conservation Biology 17:420‐432.
B. Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Required Design Features and Best Management Practices

B-14 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix C

Oil and Gas Stipulations

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS C-1

APPENDIX C

OIL AND GAS STIPULATIONS

ALTERNATIVE A

Serial Number______________________

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY STIPULATION

No surface occupancy or use is allowed within one-quarter mile of active sage-grouse strutting 

grounds.

On the lands described below:

For the purpose of:

Protect sage-grouse leks. (NDRMP, p. 20)

Any changes to this stipulation will be made in accordance with the land use plan and/or the regulatory 

provisions for such changes.

NSO 11-35
C. Oil and Gas Stipulations

C-2 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Serial Number________________________

TIMING LIMITATION STIPULATION

No surface use is allowed within two miles of active strutting grounds during the following time period: 

March 1 to June 15

This stipulation does not apply to the operation and maintenance of production facilities.

On the lands described below:

For the purpose of:

Protect sage-grouse strutting activities. (NDRMP, p. 20)

Any changes to this stipulation will be made in accordance with the land use plan and/or the regulatory 

provisions for such changes.

TL 13-17
C. Oil and Gas Stipulations

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS C-3

Serial Number________________

CONTROLLED SURFACE USE STIPULATION

Surface occupancy or use would be subject to the following special operating constraint: 

No surface use would be allowed within two miles of active strutting grounds during the 

following time period: March 1 to June 15.

This stipulation does not apply to operating and maintenance of production facilities.

On the lands described below:

For the purpose of:

Protection of sage-grouse strutting activities. (NDRMP, p. 20)

Any changes to this stipulation will be made in accordance with the land use plan and/or the regulatory 

provisions for such changes.

CSU 12-16
C. Oil and Gas Stipulations

C-4 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

ALTERNATIVE B

General Habitat

Alternative A stipulations above apply to all general habitat (GH).

Priority Habitat

No Lease in priority habitat (PH).
C. Oil and Gas Stipulations

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS C-5

ALTERNATIVE C

Priority and General Habitat

No Lease in PH and GH.
C. Oil and Gas Stipulations

C-6 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

ALTERNATIVE D

General Habitat

Stipulation: Controlled Surface Use (CSU). All identified Greater Sage-Grouse 

(GRSG) habitat within GH is subject to the following operating constraints:

Maintain GRSG habitat to promote movement and genetic diversity of GRSG

populations.

To minimize the impacts of surface disturbing/disruptive activities and insure 

maintenance of habitat for sustainable populations of GRSG within GH, surface 

disturbing and disruptive activities are subject to the following requirements.

a) Surface disturbing/disruptive activities will prevent or minimize 

disturbance to GRSG or their habitat. Except as identified above or 

during emergency situations, activities will not compromise the 

functionality of the habitat.

b) Continuous noise (related to long-term operations and/or 

activities) would be no greater than 49 decibels at 1/4 mile from 

the perimeter of the lek.

c) Temporary noise (related to installation, maintenance, one-time 

use, emergency operations, etc.) exceeding 49 decibels at 1/4 mile 

from the perimeter of a lek or surface disturbing/disruptive 

activities may be allowed, but only from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. between 

March 15 and May 15.

d) Manage water developments to reduce the spread of West Nile 

virus within GRSG habitat areas.

e) Site and/or minimize linear ROW to reduce disturbance to 

sagebrush habitats.

f) Maximize placement of new utility developments (power lines, 

pipelines, etc.) and transportation routes in existing utility or 

transportation corridors.

g) Power lines would be buried, eliminated, designed or sited in a 

manner which does not impact GRSG. 

h) Placement of other high profile structures, exceeding 10 feet in 

height, would be eliminated, designed or sited in a manner which 

does not impact GRSG.

i) Remote monitoring of production facilities must be utilized and all 

permit applications must contain a plan to reduce the frequency of 

vehicle use.
C. Oil and Gas Stipulations

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS C-7

j) Maximize the area of interim reclamation on long-term access 

roads and well pads including reshaping, topsoiling and revegetating 

cut and fill slopes.

k) Restore disturbed areas at final reclamation to pre-disturbance 

conditions or desired plant community.

l) Permanent (longer than two months) structures which create 

movement must be designed or sited to minimize impacts to 

GRSG.

m) Consider use of off-site mitigation, (e.g., creation of sagebrush 

habitat, purchase conservation easements, or buying down grazing) 

with proponent dollars to offset habitat losses.

n) Consider creation of a “Mitigation Trust Account” when impacts 

cannot be avoided, minimized, or effectively mitigated through 

other means. If approved by the BLM, the proponent may 

contribute funding to maintain habitat function based on the 

estimated cost of habitat treatments or other mitigation needed to 

maintain the functions of impacted habitats. Off-site mitigation 

should only be considered when no feasible options are available to 

adequately mitigate within and immediately adjacent to the 

impacted site, or when the off-site location would provide more 

effective mitigation of the impact than can be achieved on-site.

Objective: Within GH, maintain integrity of the habitat, to support sustainable 

GRSG populations.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception to specific 

requirements of this stipulation if the action, as proposed or conditioned would 

not compromise the functionality of the habitat for GRSG and meet the goals 

for GRSG habitat.

Modification: The authorized officer may modify the area subject to the 

stipulation if an environmental analysis finds a portion of GH is nonessential or 

no longer GRSG habitat.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived, if 1) after consultation with the 

appropriate North Dakota Game and Fish Department, it is determined 

significant portions of GH have been altered to the point GRSG no longer 

occupy the site and there is no reasonable likelihood of functional habitat being 

restored, or 2) GRSG are no longer a BLM Special Status Species and are not 

listed as threatened or endangered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, or 3) no 

reasonable alternative development scenario mitigating the impacts is possible.
C. Oil and Gas Stipulations

C-8 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Priority Habitat

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited (NSO) within GRSG PH. 

Objective: To protect the integrity of the habitat to maintain or improve 

GRSG populations.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer, in consultation 

with North Dakota Game and Fish Department, determines that the entire 

leasehold is no longer greater sage-grouse habitat.

Exception: The authorized officer, in consultation with North Dakota Game 

and Fish Department may grant an exception if portions of the area can be 

occupied without adversely affecting GRSG habitat.

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the 

authorized officer, in consultation with North Dakota Game and Fish 

Department, determines that portions of the area can be occupied without 

adversely affecting GRSG. The authorized officer, in consultation with North 

Dakota Game and Fish Department, may also modify the size and shape of the 

area based on studies documenting actual habitat suitability and/or actual use.
Appendix D

Area of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation 

of Relevance and Importance Criteria

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS D-1

APPENDIX D

AREA OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

EVALUATION OF RELEVANCE AND IMPORTANCE 

CRITERIA

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) are BLM-administered lands 

where special management attention is needed to protect important and 

relevant values. Special management attention refers to management 

prescriptions developed during preparation of a resource management plan 

(RMP) or RMP amendment (RMPA) expressly to protect the important and 

relevant values of an area from the potential effects of actions permitted by the 

RMP, including proposed actions deemed to be in conformance with the terms, 

conditions, and decisions of the RMP (BLM Manual 1613).

To be a potential ACEC, a nominated area must meet the criteria of relevance 

and importance as outlined in 43 CFR 1610.7-2 and BLM Manual 1613. If the 

relevance and importance criteria are met, an area must be identified as a 

potential ACEC and considered for designation and management in the 

resource planning process. Designation is based on whether or not a potential 

ACEC requires special management attention in the selected plan alternative.

An area meets the “relevance” criteria if it contains one or more of the 

following relevance values:

• A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value (including but not 

limited to rare or sensitive archeological resources and religious or 

cultural resources important to Native Americans).

• A fish and wildlife resource (including but not limited to habitat for 

endangered, sensitive, or threatened species or habitat essential for 

maintaining species diversity).
D. Area of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation of Relevance and 

Importance Criteria 

D-2 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

• A natural process or system (including but not limited to 

endangered, sensitive, or threatened plant species; rare, endemic, or 

relic plants or plant communities, which are terrestrial, aquatic, or 

riparian; or rare geological features).

• Natural hazards (including but not limited to areas of avalanche, 

dangerous flooding, landslides, unstable soils, seismic activity, or 

dangerous cliffs). A hazard caused by human action may meet the 

relevance criteria if it is determined through the resource 

management planning process that it has become part of a natural 

process.

The value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above must have 

substantial significance and values in order to satisfy the “importance” criteria. 

This generally means that the value, resource, system, process, or hazard is 

characterized by one or more of the following:

• More than locally significant qualities which give it special worth, 

consequence, meaning, distinctiveness, or cause for concern, 

especially compared to any similar resource.

• Qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, 

irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, endangered, threatened, or 

vulnerable to adverse change.

• Recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national 

priority concerns or to carry out the mandates of Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act (FLPMA).

• Qualities which warrant highlighting in order to satisfy public or 

management concerns about safety and public welfare.

• Poses a significant threat to human life and safety, or to property.

Because the importance criteria are subjective, it is essential to create common 

assumptions on how they are applied by the RMPA. The facts on the ground 

need to support the decisions made. BLM, working with State Fish and Wildlife 

agencies, has developed preliminary priority habitat (PPH) maps, displaying 

habitat that has been identified as the most important to the long-term viability 

of the Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG).

In response to the “Notice of Intent to Prepare Environmental Impact 

Statements To Incorporate Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Measures Into 

Land Use Plans and Land Management Plans” (76 Fed. Reg. 77008), the BLM 

received an ACEC nomination for GRSG that was considered in this planning 

process. This report presents the completed evaluation form for the nominated

ACEC in the planning area (Table D-1, Greater Sage-Grouse Relevance and 

Importance Evaluation). An ACEC that meets both relevance and importance 
D. Area of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation of Relevance and 

Importance Criteria

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS D-3

Table D-1

Greater Sage-Grouse Relevance and Importance Evaluation

Area Considered: Bowman County, North Dakota

General Location: BLM –administered lands managed by the North Dakota Field Office in the 

southwestern portion of North Dakota

General Description: Priority habitat areas for Greater Sage-Grouse

Acreage: 32,900 acres

Values Considered: Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Relevance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

A significant historic, 

cultural, or scenic 

value

No No significant historic or cultural values are known. Scenic values are 

moderate and are similar to those of many other areas in the 

planning area.

A fish and wildlife 

resource

Yes The nomination meets the relevance criterion for wildlife resources. 

The nominated area provides habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse

(GRSG) (32,900 BLM-administered acres), a BLM sensitive species, 

and the area has also been identified as preliminary priority habitat

(PPH) by North Dakota Game and Fish Department and BLM.

A natural process or 

system

Yes The nomination also meets the criterion for a natural system or 

process because of the condition of the sagebrush habitat in portions 

of the nomination area.

Natural hazards No No natural hazards are known.

Importance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

More than locally 

significant qualities

No Although the area contains habitat for GRSG conservation as noted 

in the nomination material, the area is not significantly unique or 

more important than other habitat areas in this region. GRSG are 

distributed throughout the western United States. The portion of 

the distribution in Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, 

Alberta, and Saskatchewan are designated as Western Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Management Zone I (Stiver et 

al. 2006).

While all of these areas are considered important to GRSG

conservation, the areas are dispersed throughout the region and are 

not significantly unique to a specific region or planning unit. In 

addition, GRGS habitat in these core areas is owned by a number of 

different entities and habitat on BLM-administered lands is not 

distinct from habitat managed by other ownership.

Special qualities No The area is not particularly fragile or sensitive to change as 

compared to other sites in North Dakota.

Warrants national 

priority/FLPMA 

protection

Yes Satisfies national priority concerns.

Safety/public welfare 

concerns

No No safety or public welfare concerns are known.

Poses a significant 

threat

No No significant threats.
D. Area of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation of Relevance and 

Importance Criteria 

D-4 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

criteria is included in at least one management alternative analyzed in the 

RMPA/environmental impact statement (EIS). The attached map identifies the 

locations of the nominated ACEC.

Whether a particular ACEC nomination meets the relevance and importance 

criteria depends on the specific facts of each area. GRSG conservation is a 

national priority, and PPH has been recognized as having the highest 

conservation value to maintaining sustainable populations. This Appendix

documents and substantiates how the nomination meets the existing relevance 

and importance criteria.

A finding that the ACEC nomination meets the relevance and importance 

criteria does not mean that it requires special management attention or will be 

designated as an ACEC. However, it does mean that the ACEC nomination will

be carried forward for the development of management prescriptions in at least 

one alternative.

Background Information: GRSG are distributed throughout the western United 

States (Figure D-1, Greater Sage-Grouse Distribution). The portion of the 

distribution in Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alberta, and 

Saskatchewan is designated as WAFWA Management Zone I (Figure D-2, 

Greater Sage-Grouse Management Zones (MZ)) (Stiver, et al. 2006).

Management zones are delineations of GRSG populations and sub-populations 

within floristic zones with similar management issues. Within MZ I in Montana, 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) designated core areas (MFWP 2009) 

and Wyoming Game and Fish has also designated core areas in Wyoming 

(Wyoming Game and Fish, 2009). In addition, Montana Audubon has also 

designated five important bird areas for sage-steppe associated birds, including 

GRSG, in Montana, most of which are contained within the MFWP core areas. 

North Dakota has identified PPH.
D. Area of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation of Relevance and 

Importance Criteria

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS D-5

Figure D-1

Greater Sage-Grouse Distribution

Source: Stiver, et al. 2006

Figure D-2

Greater Sage-Grouse Management Zones (MZ)

Source: Stiver, et al. 2006

Appendix E

Regional Mitigation Strategy

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS E-1

APPENDIX E

REGIONAL MITIGATION STRATEGY

INTRODUCTION

Mitigation strategies, which take into account the mitigation hierarchy (avoid, 

minimize, restore, offset), are an important tool for ensuring the US Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) meet their Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) resource 

objectives while continuing to honor our multiple-use mission. The BLM priority 

is to mitigate impacts to an acceptable level onsite, to the extent practical, 

through avoidance (not taking a certain action or parts of an action), 

minimization (limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its 

implementation), rectification (repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected 

environment), or reduction of impacts over time (preservation and maintenance 

operations during the life of the action). While mitigating impacts for proposed 

projects to an acceptable level onsite is typically analyzed and determined 

through site-specific, implementation-level National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) documents and their commensurate decision documents, the analysis 

and mitigation for project level activities would be tiered to the analysis and 

mitigation proposed throughout each of the action alternatives in this Resource 

Management Plan (RMP) amendment.

For those impacts that cannot be sufficiently avoided or minimized onsite, the 

BLM must ensure implementation of effective measures to offset (or 

compensate for) such impacts and to maintain or improve the viability of GRSG 

habitat and populations over time, as described in the US Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) Conservation Objectives Team Report. Regional mitigation 

may be a necessary component for many large renewable and nonrenewable 

energy development projects as well as many smaller projects with cumulative 

effects on the GRSG and its habitat.

Any regional mitigation strategy for BLM-administered lands would comply with 

BLM’s Regional Mitigation Manual Section (MS) 1794, which provides policies, 

procedures, and instructions for:
E. Regional Mitigation Strategy

E-2 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse DraFt RMPA/EIS September 2013

1. Adopting a regional approach to planning and implementing 

mitigation, including pre identifying potential mitigation sites, 

projects, and measures; and

2. Identifying the type of mitigation that is needed to compensate for 

impacts to resources or values caused by a land use authorization. 

It is important to note that any mitigation strategy must include the cooperation 

and coordination of appropriate and pertinent federal, state and local land and 

resource management agencies across the landscape. The final strategy adopted 

and implemented within a landscape would be dependent on the unique 

resources and values of the regional landscape and the mitigation strategies and 

resources contributed by the regional partners. It is important to acknowledge 

that the North Dakota Game and Fish Department (NDGFD) working with the 

BLM as a cooperating agency on this RMP amendment may have already 

completed, or is currently working on, statewide mitigation strategies. The BLM 

would continue to work with and support those NDGFD efforts. 

The BLM would establish a Mitigation Implementation Team for each of the six 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) management 

zones in the West, following the completion of each of the 15 sub-regional EISs 

that are associated with the National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy. 

The planning area presented in this sub-regional EIS lies within WAFWA 

Management Zone I. The teams are responsible for developing a Mitigation 

Strategy consistent with BLM MS 1794, as appropriate. The teams would

coordinate recommended mitigation strategies between RMP planning areas, 

WAFWA management zones, and local and state jurisdictions for mitigation 

consistency, where appropriate.

These implementation teams would be responsible for implementing BLM MS 

1794, and making recommendations regarding the following items related to 

compensatory mitigation:

1. A structure for determining appropriate mitigation, including impact 

(debit) and benefit (credit) calculation methods, mitigation ratios, 

mitigation “currency” (i.e., numbers of birds, acres, etc.), location, 

and performance standards options by considering local and 

regional, mitigation options;

2. How to resolve mitigation oriented discrepancies that arise within 

the WAFWA management zone or between zones;

3. The application and the holding and disposition of any mitigation 

funds;

4. The most appropriate mitigation for impacts from a given land use 

authorization and type of seasonal habitat impacted;
E. Regional Mitigation Strategy

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS E-3

5. Prioritization of potential mitigation sites, projects, and measures, 

as guided by conservation strategies (e.g. Priority Areas of 

Conservation (PACs), priority habitat areas); and

6. Reviewing mitigation monitoring reports and analyzing and reporting 

on project effectiveness, corrective measures/adaptive management 

(where required), and cumulative effects of mitigation actions at the 

PAC and the WAFWA management zone.

These WAFWA management zone Implementation Teams would function as 

inter-disciplinary teams (IDTs) composed of BLM, US Forest Service, USFWS 

and state fish and game agencies. The Mitigation Implementation Team would

make recommendations to the BLM Authorized Officer. If the 

recommendations are rejected for any reason, the Mitigation Implementation 

Team would be re-convened to develop additional recommendations.
E. Regional Mitigation Strategy

E-4 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse DraFt RMPA/EIS September 2013

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix F

Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS F-1

APPENDIX F

GREATER SAGE-GROUSE DRAFT MONITORING 

FRAMEWORK

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this Draft US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Greater Sagegrouse Monitoring Framework (hereafter, draft monitoring framework) is to 

evaluate the implementation and success of the BLM resource management 

plans (RMP) in maintaining and restoring habitat conditions necessary to support 

sustainable greater sage-grouse (hereafter, sage-grouse) populations. 

Monitoring data will also be used to help inform adaptive management under 

these plans.

This draft framework outlines the general monitoring approach, consisting of 

implementation monitoring and effectiveness monitoring. Implementation 

monitoring will evaluate whether (and to what extent) the RMP decisions to 

ameliorate threats to sage-grouse have been implemented. Effectiveness 

monitoring will consist of a multi-scale analysis of our habitat and disturbance 

monitoring data. Best available population data, provided by the states, will be 

used to supplement effectiveness analysis.

This draft monitoring framework establishes the use of measurable quantitative 

indicators for habitat availability and maintenance of habitat types (e.g., priority 

and general habitats) to ensure BLM’s ability to make broad (yet consistent) 

generalizations about habitat across the range of the species. Monitoring 

methods and indicators are derived from the best available science. Corporate 

data-sets will be established or acquired so that data can easily be “rolled up” 

for reporting monitoring results across the range of sage-grouse, as defined by 

Schroeder et al. (2004); by populations and subpopulations as defined by 

Connelly et al. (2004); by RMP area; by the six Western Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Sage-grouse Management Zones (Stiver et al. 

2006) covered by the planning efforts; by BLM Priority and General Habitat; and 

by Priority Areas for Conservation (PACs) as defined in the sage-grouse 
F. Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

F-2 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Conservation Objectives Team (COT) Report (US Fish and Wildlife Service 

2013). Funding support and dedicated personnel for broad and mid-scale

monitoring will be renewed annually through the normal budget process.

Sage-grouse are a landscape species, and conservation is a scale-dependent 

process whereby priority landscapes are identified across the species range and 

appropriate conservation actions are implemented within seasonal habitats to 

benefit populations. Following guidelines established by multiple agencies in the 

Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment Framework (HAF; Stiver et al. 2010), this 

approach uses the four orders of sage-grouse habitat selection (Johnson 1980): 

first order (broad scale), second order (mid-scale), third order (fine scale), and 

fourth order (site scale). Because RMP decisions are made largely at the broad 

and mid-scale, this draft monitoring framework focuses on these two larger 

spatial scales. The need for fine and site scale habitat monitoring may vary by 

area depending on existing conditions, habitat variability, threats, and land 

health; however indicators at these scales will be consistent with the HAF. 

Thus, this draft monitoring framework includes methods, data standards, and 

intervals of monitoring at the broad and mid scales, while outlining indicators to 

be measured at all scales.

BROAD AND MID SCALES

First order habitat selection at the broad scale describes the selection of 

physical or geographical range of a species. There is one first order habitat, the 

range of the species defined by populations of sage-grouse associated with 

sagebrush landscapes (Schroeder et al. 2004; Connelly et al. 2004). Additionally, 

there is an intermediate scale between the broad and mid scales that was 

delineated from floristic provinces within which similar environmental factors 

influence vegetation communities. This scale was developed by WAFWA and is 

referred to as the WAFWA Sage-grouse Management Zones. 

Second order habitat selection at the mid-scale includes sage-grouse 

populations, subpopulations, and PACs. The second order includes at least 40 

discrete populations and subpopulations (Connelly et al. 2004). Subpopulations 

range in area from 300 to 22,400 square miles, while populations range in area 

from 150 to 54,600 square miles. PACs range from 20 to 20,400 square miles.

Broad- and mid-scale monitoring results will be reported at the appropriate and 

applicable geographic scale (Table F-1, Indicators for Monitoring 

Implementation of Decisions, Sage-grouse Habitat, and Sage-grouse Populations 

at the Broad and Mid Scales, and Diagram F-1, GRSG Priority Areas for 

Conservation, Subpopulations, and Populations).
F. Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS F-3

Table F-1

Indicators for Monitoring Implementation of Decisions, Sage-grouse Habitat, and Sagegrouse Populations at the Broad and Mid Scales

Implementation Habitat Population 

(States)

Geographic 

Scales Decisions Disturbance Vegetation Demographics

Broad Scale: 

From the range 

of sage-grouse to 

WAFWA 

Management 

Zones

RMP objectives, 

thresholds, and 

management 

actions

Distribution of sagebrush within 

occupied habitat

WAFWA 

Management Zone 

population level and 

population trends

Mid-Scale: From 

WAFWA 

Management 

Zone scale to 

subpopulation/

Priority Area for 

Conservation

scale

RMP decisions, 

vegetation/ midscale decisions

Percent of 

sagebrush per unit

area, 

anthropogenic 

footprint, density 

of energy 

development

Sagebrush patch 

characteristics, 

sage-grouse 

habitat indicators

Subpopulation scale, 

dispersal, and lek 

complex trends
F. Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

F-4 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Diagram F-1. GRSG Priority Areas for Conservation, Subpopulations, and Populations
F. Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS F-5

Implementation (Decision) Monitoring

The regulations for the BLM (43 CFR 1610.4-9) require that RMPs establish 

intervals and standards for monitoring and evaluations, based on the sensitivity 

of the resource decisions involved. Implementation monitoring is the process of 

tracking and documenting the implementation (or the progress toward 

implementation) of land use plan decisions. A North Dakota Greater SageGrouse Implementation Workbook will be completed within one year of the 

Record of Decision to track the number and type of applicable implementation 

actions related to each decision for each resource program, and maintained as 

actions occur. The BLM will be documenting progress annually toward full 

implementation of the RMP.

Habitat (Vegetation) Monitoring

The current geographic extent of sagebrush vegetation within the rangewide 

distribution of sage-grouse populations will be ascertained using the most recent 

version of the Existing Vegetation Type (EVT) layer in LANDFIRE (2006). 

LANDFIRE EVT was selected to serve as the base sagebrush layer for five 

reasons: 1) it is the only nationally consistent vegetation layer that has been 

updated since 2001; 2) the ecological systems classification includes multiple 

sagebrush type classes that, when aggregated, provide more accurate (compared 

to individual classes) and seamless sagebrush base layer across jurisdictional 

boundaries; 3) LANDFIRE performed a vigorous spatial accuracy assessment 

from which to derive the rangewide uncertainty of the base map 4) LANDFIRE 

EVT can be compared against the geographic extent of land that has the 

capability to support sagebrush vegetation using LANDFIRE Biophysical Setting 

(BpS) to provide a reference point for understanding how much sagebrush can 

be supported in a defined geographic area, and 5) LANDFIRE is consistently 

used in several recent analyses of sagebrush habitats (Knick et al, 2011, Leu and 

Hanser 2011, and Knick and Hanser 2011). Therefore, BLM has determined that 

LANDFIRE provides the best available data at broad and mid scales to serve as 

an initial base layer for monitoring habitat characteristics and by which 

disturbance changes are measured, incorporated, and reported. Along with the 

aggregated sagebrush base map, BLM will aggregate the accuracy assessment 

reports from LANDFIRE to document the cumulative accuracy for our final 

base map. Looking at the long-term, BLM through its AIM program and 

specifically the Landscape Monitoring Framework, will provide field data to the 

LANDFIRE program to support overall accuracy improvements in their 

products.

Within isolated areas, 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 products are useful below 

the mid-scale for establishing baseline conditions for monitoring. The fact that 

they are not available everywhere however limits their utility for monitoring at 

the broad and mid-scale where consistency of data products is necessary 

regardless of land ownership.
F. Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

F-6 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

The BLM is improving the quality of vegetation map products for broad and 

mid-scale analyses through the Grass/Shrub mapping effort in partnership with 

the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC). The 

Grass/Shrub mapping effort applies the Homer et al. (2009) methodology to 

spatially depict fractional percent cover estimates for four components range 

and west-wide. These four components are the percent cover of sagebrush 

vegetation, percent bare ground, percent herbaceous vegetation (grass and 

forbs combined), and percent shrubs. One of the benefits of the design of these 

fractional cover maps is that they facilitate monitoring “with-in” class variation. 

This “with-in” class variation can serve as one indicator of sagebrush quality that 

we cannot derive from vegetation type information from LANDFIRE.

The base sagebrush layer, whether derived from LANDFIRE or Grass/Shrub, 

will allow for estimation of mid-scale indicators, e.g. patch size and number, 

patch connectivity, linkage areas, and landscape matrix and edge effects (Stiver 

et al. 2010). The actual methods used to calculate these metric will be derived 

from existing literature (Knick et al, 2011, Leu and Hanser 2011, and Knick and 

Hanser 2011). Disturbance updates, generated annually, will be included into the 

base layer and the landscape metrics will be recalculated to examine changes in 

pattern and abundance of sagebrush at the various geographic boundaries. The 

appropriate geographic boundaries for this base layer include the range, 

management zone, population, subpopulation, and PAC. Other data sources 

would need to be used to report landscape metrics any finer than the PAC.

The sagebrush base layer and disturbance data provide the ability to calculate 

landscape metrics as one element of habitat monitoring at the broad and mid 

scales. Habitat quality, however, will be monitored using field data collected with 

a statistically valid sampling design (e.g., Landscape Monitoring Framework, a 

collaborative effort with NRCS on BLM-administered lands (USDI-BLM 2011); 

AIM monitoring data (Toevs et al. 2011); and see "II. Fine and Site Scales"). 

These efforts can quantify indices such as percent annual grasses, species 

composition, sagebrush height, and bare ground at the PAC scale with known 

error estimates that are continually reduced as more data are collected. Point 

data will also be used to enhance the accuracy and precision of the Shrub/Grass 

mapping product. This product can in turn provide additional information about 

habitat quality at the mid-scale. Long-term, BLM will be able to provide a suite 

of monitoring metrics for the PACs and larger scales that will provide a 

comprehensive view of sagebrush and sage-grouse habitat condition when 

combined with population data supplied by the states.

Habitat (Disturbance) Monitoring

Most of the decisions in this RMP are in response to “Factor A: The Present or 

Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or Range” in 

the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS’s) 2010 listing decision for sagegrouse (75 FR 13910 2010). The USFWS identified several “threats” affecting 

Factor A; therefore, the BLM will monitor the relative extent of these threats 
F. Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS F-7

on sagebrush, both spatially and temporally, to report on conditions at the 

appropriate and applicable geographic scales and boundaries.

Disturbance data will include:

1. Agriculture

2. Urbanization

3. Habitat treatments

4. Wildfire

5. Invasive plants

6. Conifer encroachment

7. Energy (oil and gas wells and development facilities)

8. Energy (coal mines)

9. Energy (wind towers)

10. Energy (solar fields)

11. Energy (geothermal)

12. Mining (active developments; locatable, leasable, salable)

13. Infrastructure (roads)

14. Infrastructure (railroads)

15. Infrastructure (power lines)

16. Infrastructure (communication towers)

17. Infrastructure (other vertical structures)

18. Other developed right-of-ways

Cumulative disturbance monitoring will aggregate these 18 threats into the 

following three general measures (see Attachment A, Geospatial data layers 

used to determine three factors for greater sage-grouse habitat disturbance 

monitoring at the broad and mid scales):

1. Percent of sagebrush per unit area

2. Percent of non-habitat (human footprint) per unit area 

3. Number of energy facilities and mining locations per unit area 

(density)

To accomplish disturbance monitoring, the BLM will begin with a base layer of 

sagebrush described previously in Habitat (Vegetation) Monitoring. Restored 

areas will also be considered when evaluating the percentage of sagebrush on 

the landscape.
F. Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

F-8 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Next, the BLM will use the best available rangewide data (external and/or 

internal data) to evaluate anthropogenic and natural disturbances (direct 

physical footprint) of sage-grouse habitat based on threats listed in Factor A. 

The Sage-Grouse Baseline Environmental Report (BER; Manier et al. 2013) 

essentially provided a baseline collection of datasets across jurisdictions where 

available, however for some threats, the data were for federal lands only. Most 

of the data used in the BER were from external data sources; therefore, the 

BLM will use the most currently available versions to evaluate changes 

(additional footprints) from the baseline dataset. A subset of these data (e.g. fire 

perimeters, mine and energy sites), provided by BLM field and state offices will 

be updated and reported to agency headquarters annually. The BLM will report 

the change in footprints for each of the 18 threats as well as cumulatively for 

the three general measures described previously.

Population (Demographics) Monitoring

State wildlife management agencies are responsible for monitoring sage-grouse 

populations within their respective states. The BLM has initiated a process to 

establish that WAFWA will coordinate collection of annual population data by 

state agencies. To establish certainty that the data will be provided to the BLM, 

the existing memorandum of understanding signed by WAFWA, the BLM, the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the USFWS 

(http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Planning_and_Renewable_

Resources/fish_wildlife_and/sage-grouse.Par.6386.File.dat/MOU%20on%20

Greater%20Sage-Grouse.pdf) could be revised to outline collaboration, process, 

and responsibilities for data analysis and transfer related to management of sagegrouse. These population data will be used for analysis at the applicable scale to 

supplement habitat effectiveness monitoring of management actions.

Effectiveness Monitoring

The BLM will analyze the monitoring data to characterize the relationship 

among the disturbance, implementation actions, and habitat condition at the 

appropriate and applicable geographic scale or boundary to accomplish 

effectiveness monitoring for the North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA. 

This will involve evaluating the change in habitat conditions from the baseline 

conditions in relation to the goals and objectives of the plan and other 

rangewide conservation strategies (US Department of the Interior 2004; Stiver 

et al. 2006; US Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). When available from WAFWA 

and/or state wildlife agencies, effectiveness monitoring can be supplemented 

with population trends (taking into consideration the lag effect response of 

populations to habitat changes [Garton et al. 2011]). The compilation of broad 

and mid-scale data (and population trends as available) will be on a five-year 

reporting schedule or as needed to respond to emerging issues. In addition, 

effectiveness monitoring will be used to identify emerging issues and research 

needs and will be consistent with and inform the BLM adaptive management 

strategy (see Chapter 2, Section 2.5, Adaptive Management of the North 

Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMP amendment/EIS).
F. Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS F-9

FINE AND SITE SCALES

Third order habitat selection at the fine scale describes the physical and 

geographic area within home ranges. At this level, maps of seasonal habitats 

(breeding, summer, and winter) and the connectivity between these seasonal 

use areas can be examined to determine limiting factors for populations, 

subpopulations, and PACs.

Fourth order habitat selection at the site scale is based on physical conditions 

and the geographic area within seasonal ranges to meet life requisite needs (e.g., 

nesting and brood rearing). Specific habitat measures are used at this scale as 

microsite conditions within the seasonal range to determine distribution and 

use. These measures are typically sampled across a defined area to inform third 

order habitat selection.

Details and application of monitoring at these two scales will be determined 

during implementation of the North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA. 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. For example, implementation monitoring will track decisions in 

priority habitat; habitat vegetation monitoring will be conducted to evaluate 

projects targeting sage-grouse habitat enhancement and/or restoration; habitat 

disturbance monitoring will be conducted where mid-scale monitoring indicates 

the need for fine-scaled anthropogenic disturbance footprints; and population 

monitoring (in cooperation with state wildlife agencies) will be analyzed below 

the subpopulation/PAC level where needed for more specific effectiveness 

monitoring (some RMP objectives, activity plans, development plans, leasing 

plans, etc.).

Habitat indicator data collected at the fine and site scales will be consistent with 

the HAF and information provided in the sage-grouse guidelines (Connelly et al. 

2000) as well as the core indicators in the assessment, inventory and monitoring 

(AIM) strategy (Toevs et al. 2011). However the metrics for quantifying the 

indicators can be adjusted for local conditions. If local adjustments to metrics 

are made, the adjustments will be appropriate to the floristic province/sagegrouse management zone where the data were collected and reflect local plant 

productivity and sage-grouse habitat data collected within the area. In short, 

adjustments will be science-based (i.e., predicated on data collected locally and 

published in a peer-review outlet) and ecologically defensible (i.e., generally 

supported by the broad base of knowledge on sagebrush and sage-grouse 

provided in the peer-review literature). When evaluating the land health habitat 

standard in designated sage-grouse habitats, the BLM will analyze core indicators 

and other supplemental site scale sage-grouse habitat indicators (see HAF) as 

appropriate for the seasonal habitat. The activity level plans will describe a 

sampling scheme for collecting indicators with a non-biased sampling design for 

vegetation treatments or management actions implemented at the site scale. In 

addition, the consistent collection of these data will be used to inform the 
F. Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

F-10 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

classification and interpretation of imagery and habitat quality at the mid-scale as 

described above.

For examples of current applications of disturbance and reclamation monitoring 

at the fine scale, see 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.

FINAL MONITORING PLAN

This draft monitoring framework was developed for draft environmental impact 

statements to describe the proposed monitoring activities for this plan. The 

BLM will consider public comments and collaborate with other agencies to 

finalize the North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA Sage-grouse Monitoring 

Plan.

REFERENCES

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. 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 sage-grouse (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, CA. 

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: 

U.S. 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, CA.

LANDFIRE. 2006.National existing vegetation type layer. USDI Geological 

Survey. http://gisdata.usgs.net/website/lanfire/ (21 August 2009).
F. Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS F-11

Manier, D.J., D.J.A Wood, Z.H. Bowen, R.M. Donovan, M.J. Holloran, L.M. 

Juliusson, K.S. Mayne, S.J. Oyler-McCance, F.R. Quamen, D.J. Saher, and 

A.J.Titolo 2013. Summary of science, activities, programs, and policies 

that influence the rangewide conservation of greater sage-grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus): US Geological Survey Open–File Report 

2013–1098, 170 pp.

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, WY, USA. 

http://www.wafwa.org/documents/pdf/GreaterSagegrouseConservationStrategy2006.pdf 

Stiver, S.J., E.T. Rinkes, and D.E. Naugle. 2010. Sage‐grouse habitat assessment 

framework – a multi-scale habitat assessment tool. Bureau of Land 

Management Unpublished Report. US Department of the Interior, BLM, 

Idaho State Office, Boise, ID. http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/

Departments/Wildlife/pdfs/SG_HABITATASESSMENT0000669.pdf

Toevs, G.R., J.J. Taylor, C.S. Spurrier, W.C. MacKinnon, and M.R. Bobo. 2011. 

Assessment, inventory, and monitoring strategy: For integrated 

renewable resource management. US Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, Denver, CO.

U.S. 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.

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2011. 

BLM Memorandum of Understanding Washington Office 220-2011-02. 

BLM Washington Office, Washington D.C.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) conservation objectives: final report. US Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Denver, CO.
F. Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

F-12 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

ATTACHMENT A, GEOSPATIAL DATA LAYERS USED TO DETERMINE THREE FACTORS FOR 

GRSG HABITAT DISTURBANCE MONITORING AT THE BROAD AND MID SCALES

Geospatial Data Layer Percent of 

Sagebrush

Percent of 

Non-habitat 

(Human 

Footprint)

Number of 

Energy and 

Mining 

Facilities

Sagebrush X

Areas with biotic potential for sagebrush X

Agriculture X

Urbanization X

Habitat treatments X

Wildfire X

Invasive plants X

Conifer encroachment 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

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
Appendix G

Land Pattern Review and Land Adjustment

LAND PATTERN REVIEW 

- AND 

~ LAND ADJUSTMENT 

Supplement to State Director 


Guidance for Resource Management 


PlanninginMontana andthe Dakotas 


Edwin Zaidlicz 

State Director 
BLM-MT-PT-84-015-4111 

J}'; Rf.P\.Y REFf.R TO· 

1601 (930) United States Department ofthe Interior 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 


222 North 32nd Street 


P.O. Box 30157 


Billings. Montana 59107 


June 8, 1984 

Dear Reader: 

This s upplement to the "State Director Guidance for Resource Management 

Planning in Montana and the Dakotas" encorporates changes and corrections 

resulting from · the public review of the Harch 1984 draft. The document 

updates and replaces the Land Adjustment portion of the April 1983 State 

Director Guidance . 

The portions of the 1983 document replaced are as follows : on page B- 1 

beginning with the "Land Pattern Review and Adjustments" paragraph 

continuing to "Corridor Planning" on the middle of page B-6. Appendix 1 

is deleted because this information has been revised and incorporated 

into the Supplement. The Rec r eation Program Guidance (pages H-1 through 

H-3) is replaced with minor revisions. 

I appreciate the effort and concern of all who s ubmitted comments on the 

draft. All comments were carefully considered and many of the suggestions 

have been incorporated . 

Response to Comments Not Incorporated 

Some comments urged greater emphasis on wildlife values in the planning 

for land adjustment, and to eliminate reference to economics, agricultural 

and community expansion interests. We believe the criteria as developed 

provide a balanced treatment of all resources and public interests. 

This is an objec tive we strive for a·s a multiple use agency, within the 

constraints established by the law and national policy . 

Questions were raised regarding definition of several terms such as 

public interest and public values . These are general terms which we 

beli eve should not be rigidly defined in a broad scope guidance document. 

They take on specific meaning as land adjustments are considered and 

processed. At each step relevant laws, regulations, national policies 

and public involvement guide the Bureau in defining what decisions are 

in the public int erest or which may reflect the highest public interest. 

In r esponse to a question raised about the program specific acquisition 

criteria, no priority is implied by the order of their listing. 

Concern was expressed over the Bureau's evaluation of the resources 

involved in exchanges or other land adjustments. The information and 
rationale for BLM land adjustments are always open to public scrutiny, 

and opportunity for formal comment or protest occurs at key points in 

the process (i.e., during land use planning and when a Notice of Realty 

Action is issued). 

One commentor perceived differences between field offices in making land 

adjustment decisions. All such variation cannot be eliminated, but it 

is one of the purposes of this guidance to increase consistency across 

our three states. It also provides standards against which consistencv 

can be measured . 

More exchanges between the BLM and the US Forest Service were urged and 

we are open to these opportunities. We plan to act on these opportunities 

within priorities as they are established for the limited r esources 

available for land adjustment. 

In a similar vein we were urged to support three-way exchanges involving 

the state or other Federal agencies. Such actions are within the scope 

of the guidance as written. However, regardless of the agencies involved 

BLM will evaluate the lands to be disposed or acquired against the 

criteria in this document and the overall objective under the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act that the bulk of the public lands be 

retained and managed for multiple use and sustained yield . 

Finally, one commentor urged that an Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) be prepared on the Guidance Supplement. An EIS was not prepared 

for the following reasons: The document is guidance for preparation of 

land use plans and s ub s equent program management. A land use plan 

(Resource Management Plan) includes an EIS and a plan amendment requires 

an Environmental Assessment (EA) or possibly an EIS . Every specific 

land adjustment pr oposal r equires its own EA and technical report on the 

land involved. Environmental i~pacts will be thoroughly examined, and, 

most appropriately, at the stages in case processing when the actions 

are tangible and meaningful analysis can be done. 

Map Revisions 

\~ e have reprinted the South Dakota map because of several errors. There 

were minor errors on the Montana map and the North Dakota map which are 

addressed with the enclosed errata sheet . 

Some commentors seemed concerned that the maps present final Bureau 

decisions. This is not the case; the maps are generalized graphic 

displays of long term goals and expectations for the Land Adjustment 

Program. As was explained in the document, exceptions will be made in 

both retention and non-retention zones as the adjustment process unfolds 

and more detailed information is acquired on specific land transactions . 
It should not be assumed that lands outside a retention zone are automatically intended for disposal. For example, concern was expressed 

over some small BLM tracts at Big Lake in Yellowstone County. These 

lands are involved in a cooperative wildlife project and will be retained. 

The overriding issue is not the zone in which a tract of land is displayed 

but whether it meets criteria for retention or disposal. The zones 

provide insight into Bureau emphasis and the most probable type of 

adjustment action, but are not meant to be tract specific in most cases. 

One comment requested widening the retention zone along the Yellowstone 

River between Glendive and Sidney. We believe that expanding this 

corridor might raise the issue of conflict with important agricultural 

development i~ this area. We intend to retain and acquire lands in this 

corridor which have wildlife and recreation values but which are not 

primarily valuable for agricultural use. \.;Te do no t intend to pursue 

acquisitions in conflict with productive agriculture. 

Finally, two larger retention areas were inadvertently omitted from the 

Montana map. These involve BLM lands on the upper Stillwater River in 

Stillwater County and land along the lower Missouri River extending to 

the North Dakota border . These areas are defined in more detail on the 

errata sheet and will be added to the map when next revised . 

Sincerely yours, 

2 Enclosures 

Encl . 1 - Guidance Supplement 

Encl. 2 - South Dakota Map 
ERRATA 


Land Pattern Adjustment Maps 

Montana Map 

Roosevelt County- Within T. 27 N .. R. 59 E .. an area ofapproximately 2,500 federally-owned 

acres should be mapped as a retention zone. Other lands north of the Missouri River which 

possess river access will also be considered for retention. The retention zone south of the 

Missouri in Richland County should also he extended eastward to the North Dakota statt> line. 

This includes the area in Townships 26 N. and 27 N. 

Stillwater County - BLM administered land in the upper Stillwater drainage should be 

mapped as a retention zone. These lands are in Bad Canyon and south of Beehive. In total 

about 2,500 acres are involved and lie primarily in Township 4 S., R. 16 E. 

North Dakota Map 

Burleigh-Marton Counties- A zone along the Missouri should be mapped for retention from 

the upper end of Oahe Reservoir northward approximately six miles. 

McKenzie County- The retention zone on the lower Yellowstone is incorrectly placed on the 

east side of the river. This retention zone should include both sides of the Yellowstone and 

extended to its confluence with the Missouri. 
••••• • ••• 

CONTENTS 


STATE DIRECTOR GUIDANCE 

LAND BASE ADJUSTMENT SUPPLEMENT 

Introduction .................................... .. ......... .. ....... . ......... .. ....... ... . . 


Scope o f Program ..... .... . . .. ........ . . . ............................. .. ...... .. ....... ... .. 2 


Goals a nd Objectives . ............... ..... ...... .. ......... .. ....... . ......... . ............. :~ 

Map Basis and Interpretation ...................................... .......... ...... .. ...... :~ 

Retention Zones ........... . 3 


Public Review . .............. . .. : ........................................................... 3 


Planning .......... . ......... . ......... .. ............................ . ......... . ....... . . . .. 3 


Map Interpretation . . ..... . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. ....... .. ...... . .. . . .. ... .......... .. . . .. 0 3 


0 •••••••• • ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0 •••••••••••••• 0 • • • • • • • • • • • 

Other Lands ........................ . ............................. . ....................... 3 


Land Pattern Review . ......... 0 •• 0 •• •••• ••••••• • ••••• 0 •••• • •••• 0 •• •• •••• • ••• • •••••• 0 0 • •• 0 •• -1


Land Adjustment Program Phases ......... 0 ••••••••••••••• •• •••••••••••••••••••••• 0 0 ••• 0 • • • 4


Land Pattern Review and Adjustment Criteria .... . 0 ••••••• • •••••••• 0 • • ••••••• 0 • • ••• ••• •••••• 4


Retention .................. . ... 0 ••••••••••••••• •• ••••••••••••••• • • • ••••••••••••••••••••••• 4


Disposal ........... 0 0. 0 •••• 0 •••••••• •• •••• 0 ••••• 0 •••••••••• 0 •••••••••• 0 •••••••••• 0 •• • • •••• 5


Acquisition ..... 0 • • 0 ••••• • • •• • • 0 0 •• 0 • • •• • 0 •• 0 • • •• ••••••• •• 0 • • •• • ••••••• •• •••• 0 •• 0 •• ••••• •• 6


General Criteria for Aquisition a nd Retention . . 0 •• 0 •••• • •••• 0 0 •• •• •••••••• • •••••••••••••• () 

Program Specific Acquisition Criteria .... . . 0 •••••••••• 0 ••••••••••••• 0 •••• 0 ••••••••• 0 •••• 6


Minerals ....... 0 0. 0 ••••••••••••••••••••• 0 • • 0 • •• •••••••• 0 ••••• •••• 0. 0 ••••••••••••• • ••• 6


Livestock Management ........................ 0 ••••• •• • 0 ••••••••• 0 •••• •• ••• 0 ••••••• • • 7


Timber Ma nagement.. ..... ... .... 0 •••••••• • •••••••• 0 ••••• ••• • 0 ••••••••• •• •••••• 0 ••••• 7


Recreation ... 0 •• 0 ••• ••••••• 0 •••• •••••• 0 0 ••••••••••••• 0 ••••• 0 ••••••••••••••••••••••• • •• 7


\\:ildern ess ............ .. ............................................................. ';' 


Cultural Resources . ........ 0 ••••• •• •••••••••••• 0. 0 ••• • •••• 0 •••• • ••• 0 ••••• • •••••• • • •• 0 • 1 


Wildlife Habitat .... . . . 0 •• 0 •••• •• ••• 0 •• 0 •• •••• 0. 0 0 •••• 0 . 0 0 • •••••• ••• ••••• 0. 0 0 0 0. 0. 0. 0. 8

Map A n alysis . 0 ••• • 0 . 0 0. 0 •• 0 •••• 0 ••••••••••••••••••• 0 •••• 0 0 ••••• 0. 0 •••• ••••••• •• 0. 0 •••• ••• •• 9


Retention Zones . 0 •••• 0 ••••• •• 0 •• 0 ••••• 0 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• .' ••••••• 0 •••••••• 9


Other Lands ...... . . 0 ••••••••••••••••••••••• 0 •• 0 •••• • 0 •••••••• 0 • 0. 0 •• 0 ••••••• 0 ••••• 0 •• 0 ••••• 9


Montana l\1ap . 0 •• 0 . 0. 0 ••• ••• •••••••• •••••• •••• 0 • ••••••• 0 • • • • 0 0. 0 •••• ••••••• • • • •••• 0 0 •• •• • • 0 9


South Dakota Map . .. 0 • 0 ••• ••••• 0 • 0 •••••••• 0 •• 0 • •• ••••• 0 0 • 0 •• 0. 0 •••• • •••••••••• ••• • 0 •• 0 • • •• 0 9


Korth Dakota Map ..... 0 •• 0 •••• 0 •• 0 •• •••• ••••••• •• ••••••••••••• 0 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 10


Land Adjustment Impacts .. .. ... 0 ••••• • •••• 0 •• 0 ••••• 0 •••••••••••••••• • •••••• •••• ••• 0 •••••• 11


Resourc<' Impacts ... . 0 0. 0 •• 0 • ••• 0 0. 0 0 ••••••••• 0 0 • • • •• 0. 0 0 •• • • 0 0 0 •••••••••• 0 •••• •••• • • 0 • • ••• 11


Management and Access 0 0 0 • •• • • 0 ••• • 0 • • 0 ••••••• • 0 •••• 0 •• 0 • • ••••• 0 • • ••• 0 0 0 ••• • ••••••••• 0 ••• 11


Social nnd Economic Effects .... 0 •••• ••••• • 0 ••••• ••••• ••••• ••• ••• 0 •• 0 •••• 0 ••••••••••••••••• 11


RECREATION PROGRAM GUIDANCE REVISIONS 

Recreation ......... .. ... 0. 0 • •••••• •••• •• • • • 0 ••• •• 0 0 0 •• • 0. 0 •• • •• •• 0 0 • • •• • 0 0 •• •• •• 0 •••••••• •• 13


Kin d of Ownership Actions Vole Will Table . 0 0. 0 ••••• 0 •• 0 •••• • ••••• 0 ••••• • 0 0 ••••••••••••••••• 13 

Kinds of Opportunities on Which V•/e Will Concentrate ...... ...... 0 ••••••• 0 • ••••• ••••••••••• 13

Kinds and Levels of Development We Will Consider ............ 0 0 •••• 0 •• 0. 0 •••••••••••• 0 •••• 14


Off.Road Vehicle Designations. 0 •••••••••••••• 0 •• • 0 0 •• 0 • • • •• 0 •••••••••• • ••• 0 •• •• ••• 0. 0 •••• • 14

STATE DIRECTOR GUIDANCE 


LAND BASE ADJUSTMENT SUPPLEMENT 


This supplement replaces the "Land Pattern Review a nd Land Adjustments"' Section of the 1983 

State Director Guidance beginning on page B-1 through midpage B-6 and including Appendix 1. In 

addition, pages H-1 through H-3 ofthe Recreation Program Guidance are revised and included with 

the Supplement. 

INTRODUCTION 

A new era in public land management began with t he enactment of the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (FLPMA) in 1976. Prior to FLPMA public land management policy emphasized 

custodial management pending disposal. FLPMA prescribed retention of the public lands. but also 

authorizes BLM to enter into land adjustments. 

The 8.4 million acre public land pattern in Montana and the Dakotas is ch aracteristicall y fragmented. and typically consists oflands left over after the most desirable areas were placed in private 

ownership. Some 2.5 million acres exist in a scattered pattern ofrelatively small tracts from 40 to 160 

acres in size. 

Additional large but fragmented areas ofsplit mineral estate occur. particularly in eastern Montana 

and the Dakotas. Some ofthese areas are underlain by minable coal deposits and/ or have oil and gas 

development potential. The remaining public lands occur in relatively large tracts but it is usually 

only coincidental when the BLM lands are in a pattern conducive to ease ofmanagement or optimum 

utilization of the resources. 

Major types of land adjustment concerning the BLM in Montana and the Dakotas are: 

State Exchange 

Regular Private Exchange 

Multi-party Exchanges 

State Selection 

Mineral Exchanges 

Acquisition 

BLM, Forest Service Jurisdictional Transfers 

Withdrawals 

Community Expansion 

Publi c Sale 

No particular priority is implied by this list other than state land adjustments will take precedence 

over priva te proposals. 

The State Director Guidance issued in April 1983 included criteria for planning decisions involving 

exchanges. jurisdictional tra nsfers. or land sales. This supplement integrates existing plans and 

categorizes lands to provide a framework for future planning. Using this framework and the 1983 

State Director Guidance v-: e have completed maps showing a reas where public lands will generally be 

retained. Until s uch tim e as land use plans are amended or revised. these maps will serve as a guide 

for all land adjustments. 

The land retention maps are presented as a gt-neral policy guide to aid the public and agency 

personnel in evaluating proposals for la nd transactions. They should be helpful in distinguishing 

between proposals worthy of more detailed evaluation and those which are n ot. These maps and the 

accompanying analysis provide an indica tion of the probable long term magnitude of land adjustment in Montana and the Oakot.:ts. This guidance supplement also provides an opportunity to revise 

and clarify the criteria published in 10x:; and for public revi ew and comment on these revisions. 

Tract-specific land adjustments must he based upon land use plan decisions followed by more detailed 

activity planning. Land exc hange~ will be based upon the voluntary offering by the owners of the 

land which BLM may acquire. and ,._·i ll involve exchange of appraised value for value. This does not 

mean that the same kind of values mu.-< iw exchanged. Relative abundance ofthe resources involved 

and their place in agency and public , .. iorities must be considered. 

1 
SCOPE OF THE PROGRAM 

Of the 8.4 million acres administered by BLM in Montana and the Da kotas. 7.3 million acres (87 

percent) are classified within retention zones. Approximately 1.1 million acres (13 percent) lie outside 

these retention zones, and it is estimated that over the expected life of the program (7 to 10 years) 

roughly half of this acreage may be involved in some type of land adjustment. 

A stable level of land adjustment actions over the life ofthe program is our objective. however. some 

year-to-year variation will occur. Long-term accomplishments will depend upon public response in 

offering suitable lands in exchange for BLM disposal tracts as well as the availability of budgets to 

carry through the necessary planning and implementation action. Other factors which may limit the 

level of adjustment actions include the presence of mining claims, sensitive resource values such as 

archeological sites, unique fish, wildlife and recreational values, and economic limitations on the 

capacity of some adjacent landowners to participate. 

Land adjustment would be predominately through exchanges. A small acreage may be disposed of 

under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act and some acreage may be involved in boundary 

adjustments with the U.S. Forest Service. Based on experience to date, sales will be a very minor part 

of the total land transactions. Although exchange will predominate there could be some reduction in 

total federal ownership because many transactions will require that the BLM acreage be greater than 

the acreage acquired to equalize values. 

Goals and Objectives 

The overall goal of the land adjustment program is a public land pattern which balances multiple 

resource valu es while at the same time brings a bout better manageability. N o individual land 

adjustment will ach ieve all resource objectives listed in this document. but the cumulative effect of 

land adjustments should result in improved multiple use management. These adjustments will 

achieve better overall public usability. greater management efficiency, and optimum accomplishments for a ll resource interests. 

The Burea u's adjustment decisions should be made after thorough analysis and study of land use 

potential a nd s hou ld achieve the following long term objectives: · 

1. 	 Retain those public lands having significant public values; acquire (primarily by exchange) 

other lands which will contribute significantly to accomplishing public land management 

objectives. 

2. 	 Adjus t the BLM land pattern to gt>t the highest public value. 

3. 	 Land use planning and public revi ew and participation will occur as required by FLPMA. 

!'\EPA. a nd other related legislation. 

4. 	 Identify a nd transfer those public lands which could attain a higher and better use in the private 

sector or if managed by a nother public agency. 

2 

MAP BASIS AND INTERPRETATION 

Public Review 

The land retention maps in this supplement were prepared using criteria published in the 1983 State 

Director Guidance. This guidance, and in particular the land review and adjustment criteria. received 

extensive inter-governmental and public review. In accordance with the majority of the comments 

received, the land adjustment program will emphasize exchanges. 

Planning 

The land review criteria were applied in four recently completed land use plans. These are the Billing-s 

and Headwaters Resource Management Plans (RMPs) in Montana and the Southwf'st and Md~(·nzie

Williams Management Framework Plans (MFPs) in North Dakota. RMPs are in progress in tht' 

Powder River, Garnet and South Dakota Resource Areas. 

The maps in this supplement incorporate decisions made in the recently completed plans. In areas 

where plans are under way, the retention zones are preliminary and may be adjusted when the land 

use plans are completed. In other areas retention zones were developed by District interdisciplinary 

teams applying the adjustment criteria and using existing planning documents and inventory. 

Map Interpretation 

As stated earlier,the maps of public land retention zones are presented as a policy guide. not as a rigid 

prescription. Future land use plans may revise the boundaries currently drawn. Activity plans done 

on individual tracts may reveal lands within the retention zone appropriate for disposal and many 

tracts outside the retention zones essential to retain or acquire. 

Retention Zones 

The retention zones define art'as where BLM intends primarily to retain or enhance the existing 

public land holdings. Public lands in most of these zones amount to sizeable acreages. most are in 

reasonably consolidated holdings or contain resource values appropriate for public ownership. 

Individual tracts in retention zones rna~· he exchanged when significant management efficiency or a 

greater public values would be acquired. Under some circumstances a tract may be sold to serve an 

important public purpose. Public land acreage within these zones is not anticipated to decline butmay 

increase because land acquisition in exchanges will be concentrated in these zones. 

Other Lands 

Public lands in this area are open to consideration on theirindividual merits for retention, exchange. 

transfer or sale. In general. the lands are in small tracts. widely scattered and often without legal or 

physical access. It is in this zone that the majority ofdisposal tracts will be found. Lands meeting the 

retention criteria (having significant public values) will be retained or exchanged for land with higher 

public values. 

The preferred action regarding lands which fit the disposal criteria is to exchange them for lands 

within a retention zone. Recent examples inc! ude the acquisition of recreation and wildlife lands on 

Holter Lake near Helena and Howery Island on the Yellowstone River in exchange for a number of 

rangeland tracts in eastern Montana. Exchanges may also be considered which will acquire publicly 

desirable tracts outside the retention zones. A net reduction in BLM administered acreage outside the 

retention zones is expected. 

3 

LAND PATTERN REVIEW AND LAND ADJUSTMENT 

PROGRAM (EXCHANGES, JURISDICTION TRANSFERS, 

SALES) 

Land Adjustment Program Phases 

Phase /-State Director Guidance 

Published in 1983 and containing criteria for categorizing public lands, State Director Guidance is . revised with this supplement. 

Phase II-Land Categorization 

Retention areas a re delineated th roug-h use of existing com pleted pla ns, ongoing planning and the 

State Director Guidance Supplement. The current delineation/ categorization effort is summarized in 

this supplement and may be modified as a result of future land use planning. 

Phase Ill-Land Actiuity Planning and Realty Implementation 

Progra m priorities are developed followed by implementation which includes site specific land 

report-environmental analysis, a ppraisal, decisionmaking and land title processing. 

Land Pattern Review and Adjustment Criteria 

Three types of criteria are presented (retention. disposal. and acquisition) to provide guid a nce in 


categorizing the public lands and in making decisions concerning specific land pattern a djustment 


action s. 


The criteria range from specific to general a nd give direction forsta tewide consistency while allowing 


the ma nager flexibility in responding to local circumstance$. 


The criteria will be applied on an interdisciplinary basis. This requires consideration of all resource 


values. but since all valut:s a re not normally represented on every tract of land, trade-offs between 


resource values will usually be necessary when making decisions on specific land adjustment actions. 


Such trade-offs will be based on a hi erarch y of values defi ned as follows: 


1. 	 Requirements of applicabl e iaws. executive orders and regulations will be followed. 

2. 	 Priority will be determined by the area directly impacted a nd the significance ofthe resources in 

descending order of national. regwnal. statewide, and local. Both econ omic a nd non-economic 

val ues will be considE>red in assessing resource significance. 

::1. 	 A critica l level of significance will be nssigned to resource values ifthey are adversely impacted 

over an area larger than the specific tract bein g con sidered for land adjustment action. 

4. 	 P ubli c value losses which cannot be mitigated will be assigned a higher level of significance 

than those which can be mitigated. 

5. 	 A higher level ofsignificance will be assigned to public values which a re associated with solving 

chronic management problems which past efforts have failed to resolve a nd for which no other 

solutions are evident. 

Retention 

These a re la nds which will remain in public ownership and be ma naged by BLM. BLM is interested in 

exchanges to improve manageability ofareas with important public values. Alt hough the underlying 

philosophy is long term public owner~ hip. minor ad justments involving sales and exchanges oflands 

may occur when the public interest is better served. 

1. 	 Areas of n a tion a l environmental s ignificance: These include but are not limited to: 

a. 	 Wilderness. Wilderness Study Areas and Former WSAs being Studied for Protective 

Management 

b. 	 Wild & Scenic River~ 

c. 	 !\Jation a l Scenic & Hist oric· Tra ils a nd Study Trails 

d. 	 Lands containing nation;: i! ~· significan t cultural resource sites nominated to or eligible for 

the Nation a l Register of r: :swric Places 

e. 	 :'\ationol Conservation ar, 

f. 	 Wetlands and Riparian A: ·::s under Executive Order 11990 

g. 	 Other Congressionally Designated Areas and Study Areas 

h. 	 Wild Horse Mana gement Arens 

1. 	 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

4 

2. Areas of national economic significance: these include but are not limted to: 

a. 	 Designated Mineral Resource Areas where disposal of the surface v.:ould unnecessarily 

interfere with the logical development of the mineral estate, e.g.. surface minerals, coal. 

phosphate, known geologic structures, etc. 

h. 	 Public lands containing strategic mineral~ needed for national defense. 

~- Public lands used in support of national defense: these incl ude but are not limited to !\ational 

Guard maneuver areas. 

4. 	 Areas where management is cost-effective or lands containing other important characteristics 

and public values which can best be managed in public ownership b~· BLM will be retained. 

These include hut are not limited to: 

a. 	 strategic tra-cts along rivers. streams, lak(.'s. ponds, springs. and trails 

b. 	 community watersheds and 1 or flood plains 

c. 	 wildlife priority areas as defined under acquisition criteria for wildlife habitat areas 

d. 	 Important hunting or fishing areas 

P. 	 R<>creation sites anrl an•as 

f. 	 Cultural resource sites where the cost of mitigation actions req uired by chsposal would 

exceed the public benefits of land disposal. 

5. 	 Lands with a combination ofmultiple use valurs which dictate they should be retained in public 

ownership and managed b;,· BLM. 

6. 	 Areas where futur<> plans will lead to further consolidation and improvement of land patterns 

and management efficiency. 

7. 	 Areas which the general public. state and local government consider suitable for permanent 

public ownership. 

8. 	 Public lands withdrawn by the BLM or another federal agency for which the purpose of the 

withdrawal remains valid a nd the resource uses can be managed concurrently by BLM. 

9. 	 Public lands that contribute significantly to the stability of the local economy by virture of 

federal ownership. 

10. 	 Public lands which provide public access and contain previously mentioned public values 

which. when considered together. warrant their retention. 

Guidelines for the retention of the mineral estate are fairlv well described and are mandated under 

FLPMA. These require that the mineral estate will be reser~ed by the U .S. in all land disposals except 

in som<> cases where exchanges are involved. In exchanges. the mineral estate may be reserved by 

both parties presuming no material interference with development of the mineral resource due to 

disposal of the s urface estate. If values are equal. title may pass with the surface estate. 

Disposal 

These are lands identified for potential removal from BLM administration through exchange. 

through transfer to federal, state. county or local public entities or through sale. In addition to land 

internally identified for disposal. BLM will respond to proposals from the public. Disposal decisions 

will be made in the public interest based upon the following criteria: 

1. 	 Lands specifically identified through land use plans for exchange, transfer, Recreation and 

Public Purposes Act applications or sale. 

2. 	 Lands of limited public value. 

:3. 	 Widely scattered parcels which an· rliffi('ult for Bl .M to manage with anything beyond minimal 

custodial administration and have no significant public values. 

4. 	 Lands with high public values proper for management by other federal agencies, orstate or local 

government. 

;:>. 	 Lands which will serve important nuhlic objectives (such as community expansion) as provided 

in FLPMA Sec. 2m3(a)(~) . 

6. 	 Lands where disposal would aid in aggregating or repositioning other public lands or public 

land resource values in retention ar<>as to facilitate national. state and local objectives. 

5 
7. 	 Lands acquired for a specific federal purpose which are no longer required for that or any other 

federal purpose. 

8. 	 Lands with long term unauthorized use problems, if the lands are not required for public 

purposes. 

9. 	 Lands in which the highest public value will be attained through long term agricultural. 

commercial or industrial development. 

Acquisition Criteria 

These are used to evaluate proposals which would result in the acquisition of lands. easements or 

minerals by the Bureau of Land Management through exchange or other transactions. 

These criteria help to assure that any BLM decision to acquire a tract of land provides significant 

public benefits. The criteria range from "general" standards to evaluate all proposals, to "specific'' 

guidelines covering the selected or prioritized program areas. 

These standards are designed to provide consistent direction, while allowing management flexibility 

to meet local, state and national needs. 

General Criteria for Acquisition (and Retention Decisions) 

All proposals will be evaluated to determine if the acquired lands will: 

1. 	 Facilitate access to areas retained for long term public use. 

2. 	 Enhance Congressionally designated areas, rivers or trails. 

3. 	 Be primarily focused in the "retention" areas. Acquisition outside the retention areas will only 

be considered if the action leads to and; or facilitates long term needs or program objectives. 

4. 	 Facilitate national. state and local BLM priorities or mission statement needs. 

5. 	 Place emphasis where BLM land use or activity plans are completed. Proposals must facilitate 

implementation a nd t or be consistent with these plans. 

6. Stabilize or enhance local economies or values. 


' · Meet long term public lnnd mana~ ment goals as opposed to shor t term. 


8. 	 Be ofsufficient size to improve use ofadjoining public lands or. ifisolated, large enough to allow 

the identified potential public land use. 

9. 	 Allow more diverse use. more intensive use, or a change in uses to better fulfill the Bureau's ·mission. 

10. 	 Enhance the opportunity for new or emerging public land uses or values. 

11. 	 Contribute to a wide spectrum of uses or large number of public land users. 

12. 	 Facilitate management practices. uses. scale of operations or degrees of management intensity 

that are viable under economic program efficiency standards. 

13. 	 Secure for the public sit.mificant water related land interests. These interests will include lake 

s hore. river front. stream. pond or spring sites. 

Program Specific Acquisition Criteria 

Any of these program criteria may providt• the rationale for acquiring a particular tract of land in 

la nd adjustment transaction: however. priority' will be determined on the basis of multiple use 

analysis. That is, the greater the numhPr of programs and public values served, the higher the priority 

for acquisition. 

Minerals 

1. 	 Consolidation of a 5 mint'ral estates-from the minerals program viewpointthisis probably 

the most important reason for ::1cquisition. The primary purpose for consolidation of estates is 

improvement ofpotential fordevt·topment while improving resource management and economic 

values. 

This concept can be appli ed to soml· deposits ofcoal, phosphate, potash, oil shale and tar sands. 

Itis difficult to envision that this approach would be useful for oil and gas or locatable minerals. 

6 

2. 	 Acquisition in response to a federal project need. as in the case of a dam project. Criteria for this 

type of acquisition would generally include: 

a. 	 Where development of the federal project would preclude the mineral estate owner from 

exercising development rights; or 

b. 	 Where the exercise of the mineral e~tate owners right of development would materially 

interfere with the federal project. 

3. 	 Acquisition mandated by law. The best example of this would be where an a lluvial valley floor 

has precluded coal mining, triggering an exchange. 

Livestock Management 

Acquire non-federal holdings in key allotments which will enhance manageability and investment 

opportunity in improvement and maintenance category allotments. 

Timber Management 

Focus acquisition priority on areas: 

1. 	 Which exceed 30 cu. ftlacre in growth of commercial timber unless the areas will enhance the 

harvest of adjacent lands. In this case. the standard may be lowered to 20 cu. ft/ acre in annual 

growth. 

2. 	 Contiguous to, or which facilitate access to public forest land. 

3. 	 Containing 80 acres or more of commercial timber. If less than 80 acres, the tract(s) must be 

logical logging unit(s) or facilitate commercial management of adjacent public forest land. 

4. 	 Containing enough h arvestable volume for a feasible commercial logging unit after physical. 

biological or other land use constraints are considered. 

Recreation 

Acquire lands with the following significant public values: 

1. 	 National Values 

a. 	 Congressionally designated areas/ rivers/ trails 

b. 	 Congressionally designated study areas/ rivers/ trails 

2. 	 State Values 

a. 	 Select lands that enhance state recreation trails and waterways (see State Comprehensive 

Outdoor Recreation Plan; SCORP Vol. :2, 1978, p. 149) or those with interstate, state, a nd 

multi·county use significance 

b. Other statewide and multi-county values 

:3 . Local values for extensive use. such as hunting, fishing. ORV and snowmobile use. Higher 

priority will be given to acquisition of these values where such extensive use will compliment and 

enhance these uses on public lands. 

4. 	 Acquire access through easement to the above significant values as needed to facilitate public 

use if surface acquisition is undesirable or not possible. 

WildNness 

Acquire in-holdings within the boundaries of Congressionally designated wilderness areas under 

BLM administration. Priorities are: 

l . 	 State in-holdings to be acquired through exchange only 

Private in-holdings to be acquired by mutual agreement involving-exchange, purchase, or gift 

In the acquisition of access to designated wilderness areas highest priority will be: 

1. 	 Wh ere no access exists 

2. 	 Where it is needed for proper r:~anagement as identified m wilderness management plans 

Cultural Resources 

Any cultural site to be acquired should meet the following evaluation standards of MSO Manual 

Supplement 8111.24: 

7 


0 
I. 	 High Research Value 

2. 	 Moderate Scarcity 

3. 	 Possess some other unique values such as association with an important his toric person or high 

aesthetic values, or 

4. 	 Contribute significantly to interpretive potential of cultural resources already in public owner 

ship. 

Stron~ consideration should be given to manageability. There are only a limited number of potential 

uses to which a cultural resource can be put (see IM 78-339). The principal use is probably research. 

Any site acquired for this purpose should be protectable and accessible. The second most important 

use may be some form of visitor or recreation use. Acquired sites in this case should be in areas also 

important to the Recreation Program unless they can stand on their own. 

The major deciding factor for site acquisition after applying the basic criteria should be the potential 

for actively managing the site. Sites should not be acquired on scattered or isolated parcels unless 

they are of overwhelming cultural importance. 

Wildlife Habitat Management 

In general, areas with important wildlife habitat which are large enough and suitable for public 

hunting, fishing and trapping and a reas suitable for cooperative ma nagement under the Sikes Act. 

High priority areas for retention and acquisition will be lands with significant wildlife values as 

defined below. These areas may be of any size. 

1. 	 Threa tened and Endangered Species (approved recovery plans will also govern actions on 

these areas) 

a. 	 Blach.[ooted Ferret. Occupied habitat or areas identified through planning for future 

fe rret populations. 

b. 	 Grizzly Bear. Lands containing grizzly population centers (Management Situation 1 and 

2 Lands*). 

c. 	 Whooping Crane. Suitable or potential habitat. 

d. 	 Bald Eagle. Historical nest sites· with remaining potential, present nest sites, or docu· 

mented roosting or wintering areas. 

e. 	 Grey Wolf. Occupied h abitat. 

f. 	 Peregrine Falcon. Verified nest areas and suitable sites for reestablishment. 

2. 	 Fish£>ries. ** Access to or larger areas adjacent to Class 1. 2 or 3 streams** and lake and pond 

fi s h eries. Stream areas with restoration potential to become Class 1, 2 or 3 streams. Sites to 

develop additional fisheries especially near population centers. Sites supporting spawning or 

nursery a reas which may be temporal in nature but important to downstream fisheries. Land 

that would enable us to acquire needed instream flow reservations. 

3. 	 Big Game. Important habitat areas s uch as crucial winter and associated spring/ fall transi· 

tion a reas. kidding/ fawning/ calving/ lambing areas. crucial wallow complexes, mineral licks. 

and secu rity areas. 

4. 	 Upland Game Birds. Migratory Birds and Waterfowl. Crucial breeding. nesting, resting, roost· 

i~g. feeding and wintering habitat areas or complexes. These will vary in size, for example. a 

h1ghly productive one acre wetland or 100 acres of nesting cover for pheasants. 

<> . Raptors. Existing and potential nesting areas for sensitive s pecies or significant nesting 

complexes for nonsensitive species. 

6. 	 Nongame. Crucial habitat complexes. 

*From Guidelines for Management Ir.·:olving Grizzly Bears in Yellowstone Area, USFS. NPS 1979. 

"'*Class _of streams defined by Mont..ma Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, 1980. Stream 

Evaluatwn Map State of Montana. 

8 

MAP ANALYSIS 

Table I summarizes the acreage identified for retention by district a n d by state. Montana districts 

range from 91 percent retention in Lewistown to ~5 percent in Miles City. The state average is 8~ 

percent. Retention percentages in North and South Dakota are 65 and 68 percent respectively. but 

because of smaller total acreages in those states. the three-state average is 87 percent. 

TABLE I 


POTENTIAL LAND ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY 


BLM ACREAGE (X 1000) 


Other Lands 

Outside 

In Retention Percent of Retention Percent 

Zones Total Zone Total Total 

Montana* 7.122 88% 987 12'To 8.109 

South Dakota 177 68'1.· 85 82'':· 262 

North Dakota 44 651

li> 24 35% 6~ 

Three State 7,343 87'~, 1,096 13% R.439 

*Break-down of Montana by District Office: 

Butte DO 1.259 88% 175 12'li• 1.434 

Lewistown DO 3.119 91'/t• 315 9'!\· 3.-la4 

Miles City D01 2.744 85% 497 15% 3. ~41 

Montana Total 7.122 987 8.109 

1 Miles City DO total does not include South Dakota Resource Area. 

Retention Zones 

These zon es predominantly contain public lands that meet the retention criteria. 


All BLM iands in nationall y designated areas will be retained: including the Upper Missouri 


?\ a ti ona! Wild and Scenic River. all wilderness study areas. Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail. 


Pryor Mountai n Wild Horse Ra nge. Square Butte Outstanding Natural Area and all designated 


National Register Hist orical a nd Cultural Sites. 


Other Lands 

These lands generally are scattered tracts that are difficult to manage due to their small size. very 

limited legal access. a nd distance from the office administering t hem. In many cases. the resource 

values of these lands are low. 

Although these lands are open to consideration for all types ofland adjustment acti ons. many parcels 

of land where significant resource values are found will be retained under BLM management. Also, 

some parcels may be encumbered in a vari ety of ways that require public retention. Examples are 

\vithdruwals, recreation and public purpose leases. or mining claims. The Dillon Resource Area has 

several strips of land withdrawn for stock driveways that lie in the open zone. Land within a 

muni cipal watershed would be retai ned. Also. tracts wou ld be retained to be consistent with state and 

local land use plans or other agency's pol ici,~s. Enhancement of national historic trails such as the 

Continental Divide Trail may req uire that isolated tracts be retained. 

The Montana Map 

The BLM ownership information on tl.i s map was taken from a base prepared several years ago and 

is no longer completely accurate; however, the retention zone boundaries were developed using 

current larger scale work ma ps. 

9 

In Montana the retention zones encompass large. generally compact areas of public land which 

provide for the most efficient management and the fewest access problems. Smaller units were 

delineated where resource values are high. This includes areas along rivers or where the lands n•n(•ct 

public priorities such as wilderness study areas. In eastern Montana some areas of rather limited 

surface ownership are classified for retention because of a significant Federal mineral estate. 

The zones. as delineated. are generally con::;istent with existing pl a ns and plans in progress. How· 

ever. in the Dillon Resource Area <southwest Montana) the land use plan completed in Hl79 did not 

identify zones, but instead identified specific tracts for acquisition and disposal. A programmatic 

environmental assessment was completed for these disposal tracts in October 1983. The adjustment 

zones as defined in this document are not entirely consistent with the terms ofthe Dillon MFP. in that 

considerations of any additional land sale proposals not covered in the programmatic environmental 

assessment in 1983 would require plan amendments. 

A substantial block ofBLM-adminstered land in the Big Snowy Mountains a djacent to the Lewis and 

Clark National Forest is not included in a retention zone. This apparent inconsistency results from a 

decision in the Billings Resource Management Plan to transfer this land to the U.S. ForestService at 

some future date. · 

South Dakota Map 

The South Dakota Resource Area. under the Miles City District. covers the entire state. The lands 

administered by BLM in South Dakota total approximately 262.000 acres. A single map showing the 

BLM lands in South Dakota was n ot available, therefore, the retention zones were delineated from 

large scale working maps. The BLM ownership within the retention zones was then drafted using 

current information. BLM ownership outside the retention zone is not shown. 

A total of l 77,000 acres or 68 percent ofthe BLM lands in South Dakota are contained in the retention 

zones. These are in fou r relatively compact clusters in the northwest quarter ofthe State. These zones 

were defined to correspond to the larger concentrations of public lands. A number of the tracts 

contain ed in the eastern-most zone along the Oahe Reservoir also reflect high recreation values. 

A total of85,000 acres or 32 percent ofthe lands administered by BLM in this resource area lie outside 

the retention zones. These are scattered tracts mostly in the western part ofthe state and intermingled 

with state lands. other federal lands and tribal lands. 

North Dakota Map 

The Dickinson District contains all of the BLM administered lands in North Dakota, a total of 

approximately 68.000 acres. :V1ost BLM lands are in the western half ofthe state a nd there are on!~· 

two areas ofsignificant con centration . These lie along the Little Missouri River in Dunn County and 

western Bowman County in the southwest corner of the statP. As in South Dakota. a single current 

map ofBLM administration in ]\;orth Da kota was not available. Retention zones were identified from 

larger scale maps and within those zones the current land holdings are shown. 

The retention zones contain approximately 44.-tOO acres or 65 percent of the total surface acreaj!e 

BLM administers in North Dakota. About 40.600 acres ofthe BLM lands within these zones are in two 

counties. Dunn a nd Bowman: and there are minor :..tcreages in Williams, McHenry, Divide, Burleigh 

and McLean counties. totalling 3.800 acres. 

Generall~·. la nds within the retention zone will he retained in federal ownership or exchanged for 

~ther lands .,.,·ithin these zones. T hese land~ rna\' also serve as core areas for acquiring adjacent lands 

m exchange for BLM lands categorizecl for disposal outside the retention zones. 

There are ronny valuable resources on BLM lands in Bowman a nd Dunn Counties, and a variety of 

uses occur. including grazing. dispersed recreation. hunting, fishing. and oil and gas development. 

Lands located within the retention zc.r:-.·s in other counties may also contain many resources or may 

be wetlands orriparian lands with roo:··· li mited use::;, such as providing wildlife habitat, recreation or 

water storage. 

The area outside the retention zones contains approximately 23,600 acres or 35 percent of the BLM 

~rface in Korth Dakota. Of this. 6.000 acres are located in Bowman County, and the remaining 

1 • .600 are scattered among 31 counties across the State. Generally, the tracts ofland within this zone 

10 

RECREATION PROGRAM GUIDANCE 


REVISIONS 


are available for disposal, except for wetlands. which have public value for water retention and 

wildlife habitats. Lands that fall within this area are available for disposal through exchange or 

transfer to another public agency or through sale. Preference will be given to exchanging lands in thi::; 

area for lands within the retention zone. 


It is also recognized that limited acquisition outside the retention zones may be justified on th e basis 


of one or more of the acquisition criteria listed in this document. 


The primary objectives ofadjusting BLM land pattern are to: improve manageme~t effici~ncy: make 


the public lands in North Dakota more accessible and usable ~y t~e general pubhc: and. m general. 


enhance recreation opportunities and natural resource protecuon m the State. 


LAND ADJUSTMENT IMP ACTS 

About 1.1 million acres of BLM administered land is found outside the designated retention an·a~. 

Less than half of this acreage may actually be affected by land adjustment~ because of a variety of 

constraints. Ifa detailed examination of any tract finds values that fulfill the retention criteria it will 

normallv be retained. Opportunities for publicly beneficial exchanges or transfers may not be found 

for man;, tracts of otherwise disposable land. 

Resource Impacts 

Effects on the Bureau':; resource programs are expected to be significantly positive. Under terms of 

the land adjustment criteria the lands important to BLM resource management programs will he 

retained. Lands of lesser ,.<due will generally be exchanged for lands which will make a greater 

contribution to public resource management objectives. 

SomP adverse ('ffects ma~: occur to lands whi ch pass out ofBureau control beca u~ e the Bureau c·annot 

j.!uarante~:> the future stewardship of the new owner. However. it is BLM policr to avoid disposal 

action s where the intended future u~t· i::; harmful to the resource base or to community interests. 

Generally the lands coming into feder<J.I ownership and control will be important for public use. 

Management and Access 

By consolidating its land holdings the BL!'vl can increase its management efficiency through economics ofscale. This could be the result of working with fewer livestock operators. decreased travel costs to 

manage isolated tracts and decreased paperwork associated with casefiles and other management 

problems. 

Consolidation would facilitate such manageme nt projects as land. water shed or vegetativ<:' treatments or wildlife habitat programs. Transfers of some public land tracts could make management 

more efficient and produce more public benefits under management of another agency or organiza· 

tion. 

Access to puhlic land:-; should he enhanced h.\· the BLM acquiring key tracts or easements that would 

assure the public leg-al access to blocks of publi<· lands. Improved access will generally increase 

recreational use in areas where a checkerboard ownership pattern now restricts public use. 

Social and Economic E f fects 

The BLM is required by law to establish throuf.!h standard appraisal procedure the fair market value 

of lands to be exchanged or sold. 

In some cases a private landowner who ndjoins n piece of public land and wishes to add it to his 

agricultural operation may feel that :'u:-h a valuation greatly exceeds the return that can reasonably 

be expected from the agricultural us,· of the land. This can result because the appraisal considers 

comparable sales on the open market .1d the potential highest and best use in economic terms, such 

as rural subdivision. 

Therefore. they fear loss ofagricultural usp ofthe public land to individuals who will pay fair market 

value because they intend to convert the land to another use such as homesites. 

11 
Similarly, the holder of a grazing lease on a tract identified by BLM for disposal will be offered the 

opportunity to acquire it through exchange or purchase. The ability of the lessee to participate can 

vary widely and there is a potential for adverse impacts to some operations through loss ofthe leased 

area or through additional financial burdens resulting from its acquisition. 

County governments will experience some effect on Payments in Lieu ofTaxes (PTLT) and payments 

from grazing and mineral receipts if public lands in their counties are exchanged for lands in another 

county. When public lands are transferred to private own ership the tax base in the affected county 

will thereby be. increased and the PILT and other payments decreased. 

The net fiscal effects on local governments depend upon the type of land adjustment. They depend 

· upon whether the land adjustments are with private landowners, state governments. local govern· 

ments or other federal agencies. They would also depend upon whether exchanges are largely within 

or between counties and h ow the tax return on lands passing into private ownership compares with 

the level ofPILTpayments and grazing a nd mineral fees returned for these lands. Tax exempt lands 

acquired from state or local governments through exchanges would be excluded from PILT. 

Public attitudes regarding specific land adjustments may also vary widely depending upon the type 

of!and transfer, the reasons for the transfer and individual perceptions ofwho may gain or lose from 

the transfer. 

12 

RECREATION 


The Bureau has demonstrat<>d a limited capabilit;.' to ohtain funds to sustain any kind of consistPnt 


rPcreation d('v(:'lopment pro;,.!rnm~ . 

Howevpr. we shou\d take adv;m tag-t' ofl'Xisting situations and t·a pahiIities to pro,·id,• fnr l"tlt u n· puhi j,· 


needs. We are in a better position. in terms ofskills and land pattern. than an;.· other Fech'ral age_nc;.· tll 


acquire recreation opportunities through purchas(' or exchanges. We have tht> capabilit;.· to usl:' thl' 


scattered tracts of public land as a trading base to acquire art>as or easements for access. This i~ 

particularly true in locations where there is no single Federal reserve and where there are limited 


public use areas. whether State or Federal. Throu!!h acquisition the public will he provided use ofsuch 


areas (described below) or they can be held for future public management options. 


The RMP should identifv access needs to recreation resources of national or state value. We would 


then he in a position to" ·acquire such values when opportunities for purchase or exchange present 


themselves. Parameters of such a program are listed below. hut generally. the objectiYe is to pro,·id~· 

both legal and physical access to strategic locations. For example. for river floating the strategic 


location could he-on<> a<'cess point per four hours of float or at highway crossings: for historic 


battlefields-one prominent vil-'wpoint: or for National trails- on<> access point p<>r 10-15 miies or at 


State highway crossing. Location and number of access points will depend on the significance of tht:' 


value and the anticipated demand. Hoth ofthese should be determined through the planning system 


with public involvemE'nt. 


New. fully developed destination type area~ will not be provided by the Bureau in the tri-state area. 


unless there is a significant issue identified that suggests Bureau development. Generally. this type ol 


facility will be recog-nized as being pro\'ided h~· other Federal or the State agencies. 


The following are the parameters of the suggested recreation program. These are outside parameters 


and a general (not absolute) hierarchy from most important to lowest priority. 


Opportunities he;.·ond those listed can b(• identifit·d anrl discussed in the RMPs. hut should he looked 


on as re<.:reation resources to manage on a custodial basis until some other agenc;.·. group or individual 


can he found to take over mnnagement. Such manngement <'an be by lease, cooperative agrt>ement. or 


tr<1nsfers . 


Kinds of Ownership Actions We Wili Take 

1. 	 Rl·tention of public use areas and acees~ routt'S (trail or motorized) to public lands involving the 

opportunities described below. 

Acquisition of .strategic-nil~- loc<ltt·cl l;tnds for public ust.• of recreation opportunities desc-rilwd 

h<·low. These can be through exc·hange. purchase. contributions or easements. 

A('quisition of nccess to opportunitit's or strat<>gically located lands for public use ofrecrention 

opportunitie~ descriiwd iwlow. 

GP rwrall;.·. w<• will not assi~t otlwr 1-\·ckra i ;lgt•nc·il';-; in hlockin;.! up or eliminating in-holdings for 

rt-'('rl'ation purpost>~ unles:- puiliic support and intl'rPst is ).!t•rwrated during the planning effort. 

Kinds of Opportunities on Whic-h W1.• Wiii Con<.:l.~ntratt' Our Efforts 

1. 	 Existin).! national!;.• recognizt·d rl';-;ourT''" !('ong-rt-ssionall;.· designated): 


:\. l:ppt•r Missouri Vvi lci and Sn·ni.- l{iq·r 


B. 	 Ll'\\'is and Clark :\ational Historic Trail 

Cppt>r Mis;-;ouri Wild and :-'c·Pnic ]{iVl'r :-;<·gment 


Yl•ilowstonl· Hi\·,·r Sl'i!m,·n; 


l ; pper :\·1is~our i 1\i vl'r ;m·; t 


Low(•r Mi:-;souri Riv1·r st:!!ment 


Land based trnil. T iwt·t· .Forks to Park Cit;.· 


Marias River area 


Blackfoot Hivc>r 


C. 	 Continental Divide :\ati<•; .. ;-;cPnic· Trail 

D. 	 .l'\ational Wilderness arl'a:-. under BLM managemt·nt 

E. 	 National Conservation. !'\atura l Histo ric.: or otherspec:ial type areas (Pryor Mtn. Wild Horse 

Range). 
'J 	 Potential national values (designated hy Con gress for study\: 

A. 	 Nez Perce Trail 

B. 	 Yellowstone Ri ver 

C. 	 North Country Trail 

:~ . Statewide recognized values defined in the Statt•wide Co mprch ensiw Outdoor Recreation Plan 

CSCORP ) as a Federal role or identified for cooperative manag-ement. 

A. 	 Recreation trails. waterways or rivers/ s treams with free flowing va lue (see SCORP Vol. 2. 

1978. p. 149). 

B. 	 Other recognized r ecreation sites/ areas, cultural. natural or scenic values under BLM 

management: ·Garnet. Fort Meade. and Square Butte. 

4. 	 Loca l recreation areas (see FLPMA. Sec. 206a) for extensive use such as hunting, fishing, and 

snowmobile use. 

Kinds and Levels of Development We Will Consider 

1. 	 Limited development/ uncontrolled use. Development will be limited to identification through 

signs and maps of public use areas a nd access routes. Heavy r eliance will be put on map 

handouts. 

2. 	 Primitive facilities where use exceeds natura l carryin g capacity. Development probably limited 

to parking, privy, a nd water access ramp on sites 10 acres or less. 

3. 	 Access development: Low standard (e.g.. foot trails. ORV trails, or primitive roads). 

4. 	 Low level developm<>nt site with camp unit. loop road. privies. water and other support facilities 

as necessary. Development will not exceed :W units on sites of 50 acres or less. 

Off-Road Vehicle D e signations 

Formal rlcsigna tions will bP made for a reas whert· problems h a ve been identifi ed. Pl a ns are to identify 

areas in which ORV use is restricwd or closed. All other an•ns will be considered open a nd receive 

for m;d dPs ign ation onl.'· when considt•rpd nec<•ssar~· b~· the District Manager. 

Ear h ani vity sp<·cialist shall ha,·e the responsibility for considPring ORV designation needs to 

protC'ct his own particular r(-'source \' <llues h.\' using tht· followi n;.! minimum s et of planning criteria: 

l. Damage caust>d by OR\' ust· to soi ls. wat<.•rshl'd and ve~ ti on shall be minimized. 

:2 . Harassm ent of wildlife or significa nt disruption of habitat shall be minimized. 

:~ . Conflicts between ORV use and other existing or proposed uses for the same or neighboring 

publi(' or priv:.lt£> lands shall be minimizt>d; e.g., wilderness. 

14 
Appendix H

Drought Policy

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS H-1

APPENDIX H

DROUGHT POLICY

Bureau of Land Management

POLICY FOR ADMINISTERING PUBLIC LAND GRAZING

IN

MONTANA, NORTH AND SOUTH DAKOTA

DURING PERIODS OF DROUGHT

H.1 INTRODUCTION

Livestock grazing is but one of the activities that BLM manages on the public 

lands. Drought stresses many resources and resource uses including recreation, 

soils, timber, vegetation, watersheds, and wildlife as well as livestock forage. 

However, only livestock and human activities can be readily controlled or 

restricted from access to public lands. The other resources are either immobile 

or not readily controlled. This policy deals with livestock use and implements 

provisions of current laws and regulations. Other uses that may require special 

consideration during severe drought may be addressed in separate policy 

statements or actions.

Vegetation cover is one part of productive rangelands because it strongly affects 

soil moisture. When drought reduces the total forage produced and the normal 

residual vegetation (standing and down plant material) is used by livestock, 

insects, and other grazing animals, soil moisture and temperature are affected. 

Soil temperatures are lowered by the residual cover during warm periods and 

are raised by the residual cover during cold periods. Moisture intake and 

penetration into soils is keyed to the amount and type of residual cover found 

on a soil/ecological site. In fact, with little or no residual cover on rangelands, 

moisture events will likely produce little effective penetration into the soil. 

Residual cover provides protection for soils, vegetation, wildlife, watersheds, 

and for the many other resources dependent upon good vegetation and 

livestock management.
H. Drought Policy

H-2 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

H.2 AUTHORITY

This document implements provisions of:

• Taylor Grazing Act of June 28, 1934, as amended;

• Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended;

• Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978;

• Regulations in 43 code of Federal Regulations, Group 4100(43 CFR 

4100).

H.3 POLICY

This policy is meant to supplement the national drought policy as set forth by 

Washington Office Instruction Memorandum 2013-094.

It is the policy and objective of the BLM to: manage the public lands and 

authorize livestock grazing under the principles of multiple use and sustained 

yield; provide for the orderly administration of grazing by domestic livestock on 

the public lands; and provide for productive and healthy soil and vegetation 

resources as well as other environmental values.

Accomplishment of these objectives becomes more difficult during periods of 

range depletion caused by drought. Normal grazing schedules and livestock 

management practices may have to be modified. Additional coordination, 

consultation, and data exchange between livestock operators and Bureau 

personnel will be required, over and above the level normally practiced. 

Appropriate local, state and Federal agencies and the interested public will have 

to be involved at times and consistently kept informed.

The principal thrust of the policy and procedures in this document, and other 

regulatory and procedural requirements not repeated here, will be for the 

livestock operator and BLM to jointly develop strategies for livestock use on 

public land during and following drought. Strategies selected should be those 

that best protect rangeland resources while minimizing impacts on the operator 

to the extent possible. To that end, every degree of flexibility provided by the 

laws and implementing regulations will be available to authorized officers of the 

Bureau.

Voluntary adjustments in livestock use of public lands should be sought at the 

earliest date it becomes apparent that "normal” grazing schedules cannot be 

followed, or, if followed, would result in long-term resource degradation. The 

earlier an agreement can be reached or a decision made that "normal” grazing 

schedules cannot be followed, the more opportunities livestock operators will 

have to consider alternatives to minimize impacts on his or her operation. 

Waiting until the last minute before scheduled turnout to make a determination 

or decision will reduce the options available to both the operator and the 

Bureau.
H. Drought Policy

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS H-3

An interdisciplinary approach (within the confines of scarce skills availability) to 

identify natural resources and other applicable public values vulnerable to 

drought will be used to prioritize allotments for attention. Second, efforts to 

manage public rangeland under drought conditions will be directed next to 

allotments with resource concerns—typically "I” category allotments. Specific 

allotments in the "M” and "C” categories can also be considered high priority 

when resource values or conditions so require. Regardless of the category 

assigned to an allotment, operators should be aware of the procedures and 

flexibilities available for dealing with drought conditions.

BLM fully expects that the vast majority of livestock operators will recognize the 

need and voluntarily make adjustments in livestock use of public lands the longer 

a drought persists. These adjustments will be recognized during the application 

process and grazing bills will be adjusted accordingly. Adjustments in grazing 

use may include but are not limited to reducing livestock numbers, shortening 

the season of use, altering pasture move dates, changing pasture rotations, 

authorizing water hauling (after documenting NEPA compliance), closing 

allotments to grazing use, or allowing use in vacant allotments.

• Regulatory mechanisms to voluntarily implement grazing use 

changes include approval of applications for voluntary non-use (43 

CFR 4130.2(g)), or approving applications for changes within the 

terms and conditions of permits and leases (43 CFR 4130.4(b)), or 

some combination. 

• Line officers also have the option to implement needed changes 

through a formal agreement between the BLM and grazing operator 

(which is recommended to be implemented by decision) that 

specifies the drought-related grazing adjustments (43 CFR 4110.3-

3(a)), or by temporarily suspending or otherwise modifying use via a 

decision that may be put into immediate effect, if necessary (43 CFR 

4110.3-2(a) and 3-3(b)).[2] 

• If using an agreement or decision, indicate within it the intended 

duration of the drought-related adjustments and include supporting 

rationale for the indicated timeframe. 

• Regulation 43 CFR 4130.6-2 provides the mechanism for the BLM 

to authorize use in vacant allotments. Do not modify permits and 

leases (43 CFR 4130.3-3) to make drought responsive short-term 

grazing use adjustments.

Offices are required to screen any proposed drought mitigation strategies and 

actions to determine if they trigger the requirement for National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) compliance documentation and if so, whether existing 

documentation is adequate or whether additional analysis is needed. Addressing 

drought management in Resource Management Plans or Allotment Management 
H. Drought Policy

H-4 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Plans, or preparing programmatic drought action plans, provides pro-active 

opportunities to address potential conditions and contingencies.

In those situations where agreement cannot be reached, authorized officers of 

the Bureau have the final responsibility and accountability for ensuring that 

public lands are not permanently damaged by improper use. If issuance of a 

decision concerning livestock use becomes necessary, the procedure specified in 

43 CFR 4160 will be followed. It should be further understood that final 

decisions can be modified or rescinded, if the conditions that existed when the 

decision was issued no longer exist. If significant amounts of precipitation occur 

during the growing season, producing significant changes in the amount of 

moisture available to plants, this may cause decisions to be reconsidered. The 

consultation, cooperation, and coordination process will be used to obtain 

livestock operator and stakeholder involvement in such cases.

H.4 PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES

The following guidelines and procedures are intended to provide the data, 

flexibility and direction for public land managers and livestock operators to 

develop strategies and make decisions during drought conditions. Consultation 

and coordination with livestock operators and other interested parties will be 

carried out during all procedural steps.

H.4.1 Winter Assessment (Late-October - February)

Analysis

1. Review the past season's monitoring results. Analyze plant growth, 

actual use, insect infestation occurrences, utilization, use pattern 

maps, residual cover, and especially the use of "rest” pastures. 

Review the past season’s land health assessments in areas of 

concern.

2. Analyze precipitation records and distribution patterns from the 

National Weather Service, the Montana Drought and Water 

Information website, the North Dakota Drought website, the South 

Dakota Drought website, local cooperators, BLM, and other 

agencies. Tabulate moisture departures from normal levels and 

timing of precipitation in relation to past years' growing season.

3. Determine whether currently available data is sufficient to inform 

and support drought responsive actions.

4. In identified priority or "I” allotments where there is concern 

because there is limited residual cover, effective precipitation well 

below normal, rest pastures already used, abnormally high utilization 

or use patterns, etc., field offices may opt to measure soil moisture 

in representative areas for additional data. Where available, use 

RAWS/OMNI sites, existing soil moisture stations, NRCS SCAN 

soil climate monitoring sites, etc. Additional soil moisture samples 
H. Drought Policy

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS H-5

are to be taken at the rooting depth of major forage species in 

representative areas using techniques found in agency 

manuals/handbooks, the professional literature and extension 

publications.

Action

1. Where it is apparent resource degradation might occur if drought 

continues, begin to notify operators through letters and news 

releases that the coming year's livestock grazing could be affected.

2. Set up range user meetings in affected communities to discuss 

available information and possible actions to prevent range resource 

damage.

3. Encourage operators to make needed changes in their grazing 

schedules, including applying for non-use. If non-use is taken, but 

activated later should conditions change, BLM will waive the $10 

service fee in accordance with 43 CFR 4130.8.3. Authorized officers 

may issue refund or credit of grazing fees under 43 CFR 4130.8-

2(b).

4. Meet with individual operators when available information indicates 

a particular allotment is affected by severe drought condition. 

Attempt to reach agreement on alternative grazing strategies if 

conditions do not change.

H.4.2 Late Winter and Spring Assessment (February - April)

Analysis

1. Review precipitation and soil moisture data for winter and early 

spring.

2. Review the effects of winter grazing use; snow pack influence for 

stock water, soil temperatures, etc3. Continue soil moisture measurements or monitoring where 

problems are apparent or in areas of concern. Measurements at 

rooting depth to measure available water for plants will be 

especially important during this period.

4. Assess availability of livestock water, in consultation with 

permittees.

5. Assess the availability of water for wildlife.

Action

1. If drought conditions are continuing, or becoming more severe, 

follow up winter letters and news releases with updates and 

attachments to grazing applications. Conduct meetings with 

Cooperative State Grazing Districts and Resource Advisory 
H. Drought Policy

H-6 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Councils. Meetings are encouraged with other concerned individuals 

and agencies as a part of the grazing management strategy.

2. Contact remaining operators who have not voluntarily made 

needed changes. Where you believe you have enough information 

to indicate an allotment is in severe drought condition, meet with 

the operator to review and explain the information you have and 

attempt to reach agreement on a grazing strategy. If an agreement 

cannot be reached and, especially if the allotment has a relatively 

early turnout date, issue a proposed decision. The extent of use 

adjustment contained in this decision (delayed turnout, reduction in 

numbers or duration, total exclusion, etc.) will depend on your 

assessment of all the factors involved. These include past grazing 

use, range condition, residual cover, precipitation, soil moisture and 

the land use objectives for the allotment.

3. If soil moisture is very dry and tending to blow away (Quick 

Assessment), or below the average soil moisture between field 

capacity and wilting point (Volumetric Measurement), delay turnout 

until key forage plants have grown to the 3-4 leaf stage 

(approximately one-half their normal height--for most of our native 

grass species about 6 inches). (Manske 2003, Manske 2011, Fraser 

2003))

H.4.3 Continuing Assessment (throughout grazing season)

Analysis

1. Continue to closely monitor precipitation in "I” allotments and 

areas of concern. Attention is directed to determining effective (soil 

moisture) growing season precipitation.

2. Closely monitor utilization of key plant species and key areas. 

Remember to consider management objectives when selecting key 

species and areas.

3. Continue to monitor soil moisture in "I” allotments and areas of 

concern.

4. Monitor factors other than livestock grazing, such as insect 

infestations, congregations of wildlife, availability of livestock water, 

etc.

5. Monitor forage, habitat and water needs for wildlife. Consult with 

state wildlife agencies as needed.

Action

1. If soil moisture drops below the average soil moisture between field 

capacity and wilting point (Volumetric Measurement) and utilization 

has reached objective levels or a maximum of 30 percent utilization 

has occurred, livestock are to be removed.
H. Drought Policy

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS H-7

2. If soil moisture remains unacceptable (completely dry and blows 

away (Quick Assessment)) or below wilting point soil moisture 

levels (Volumetric Measurement) during most of the spring and 

early summer with little or no growth in primary forage species for 

livestock (i.e., range readiness has not been reached), advise affected 

permittees that fall and winter ranges may not be available for use 

during the current year. Also advise that production in subsequent 

years may be affected if plant basal areas and density have been 

severely reduced.

3. For those permittees in "I”, allotments with AMPs having available 

standing forage in rest pastures or fall or winter use pastures, advise 

the permittees that livestock must be removed from public lands 

when consumption of standing forage has reached objective levels 

or a maximum of 50 percent.

4. Adjust monitoring plans to collect data concerning residual cover, 

plant death, loss of basal area, density, and yield for analysis and use 

in later years.

5. Utilize interdisciplinary teams to ensure wildlife forage and water 

requirements are considered when determining adjustments.

H.4.4 Other Considerations

1. The use of salt, mineral, and certain mineral supplements as 

necessary to overcome natural shortages of minerals in rangeland 

forage may be authorized as necessary to provide for proper range 

management(4130.3-2(c)).

2. Maintenance feeding on public lands is not authorized except under 

very unusual short-term conditions and by permit only. 

Maintenance feeding during drought conditions is specifically 

excluded.

3. Applications for a maintenance feeding permit due to poor forage 

conditions associated with drought should be denied and livestock 

removed or not allowed.

4. Review RMP guidance on wildlife habitat objectives.

H.4.5 Definitions

Available water: That portion of water in a soil that plants can extract from the 

soil—generally measured per unit volume of soil; the amount of water in a soil 

between field capacity and permanent wilting point.
H. Drought Policy

H-8 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Basal area (range): The area of ground surface covered by the stem or stems of a 

range plant, usually measured 1 inch above the soil in contrast to the full spread 

of the foliage.

Density: (1) The number of individual plants per unit area; (2) Refers to the 

relative closeness of plants to one another.

Field Capacity: The maximum amount of water held in a soil, measured a few 

days after it has been thoroughly soaked and allowed to drain freely.

Flexibility: The ability to alter the grazing management plan to meet changing 

conditions.

Flushing: Feeding female animals a concentrated feed shortly before and during 

the breeding period for the purpose of stimulating ovulation.

Growing season: In temperate climates, that portion of the year when 

temperature and moisture are usually most favorable for plant growth.

Key species: (1) Forage species whose use serves as our indicator to the use of 

associated species; (2) Those species which must, because of their importance, 

be considered in the management program.

Maintenance feeding: Supplying feed to range animals when available forage is too 

limited to meet their minimum daily requirement (examples are cubes, pellets, 

baled or loose hay).

Permanent Wilting Point (PWP): The soil water content at which water is no 

longer available to plants, causing them to wilt because they cannot extract 

enough water to meet their requirements.

Phenology: The study of periodic biological phenomenon such as flowering, 

seeding, etc., especially as related to climate.

Range readiness: The defined stage of plant growth at which grazing may begin 

under a specific management plan without causing permanent damage to 

vegetation or soil.

Supplemental feed: A feed which supplements the forage available from the public 

lands and is provided to improve livestock nutrition and good animal husbandry 

and rangeland management practices. An example is salt or mineral block. 

Creep feeders to supplement feed for calves and supplemental feeding to "flush” 

cattle and sheep for breeding may be authorized on public lands when 

compatible with the resource management objectives.
H. Drought Policy

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS H-9

H.4.6 Soil Moisture Monitoring Methods Appendix

Quick Assessment

Soil moisture readings taken from 3 rooting depths of key forage species (e.g., 

4-6 inches, 10-12 inches, 16 inches up to 3 feet) will indicate whether various 

key forage species have adequate moisture for growth. Squeeze the soil in your 

hand. Does it form a ball? If so, you probably have adequate soil moisture for 

growth. If it doesn’t form a ball, but your hand feels cool, you probably have 

some soil moisture left. If the soil is completely dry and blows away, there is 

likely not enough moisture to sustain plant growth. (Howery 1999).

% 

Available 

water 

remaining

Coarse 

(Sand - Loamy 

Sand)

Light 

(Sandy Loam)

Medium 

(Loam, Silt 

Loam, Silty Clay 

Loam, Clay 

Loam, Sandy Clay 

Loam)

Heavy 

(Sandy Clay, Silty 

Clay, Clay)

0 

(PWP or 

drier)

Dry, loose, single 

grained, flows through 

fingers

Dry, loose, flows 

through fingers

Powdery, dry, 

sometimes slightly 

crusted but easily 

breaks down into 

powdery condition

Hard, baked, 

cracked, sometimes 

has loose crumbs on 

surface

< 50

Still appears to be dry; 

will not form a ball 

with pressure

Still appears to be 

dry; will not form 

a ball

Somewhat crumbly 

but will hold 

together from 

pressure

Somewhat pliable, 

will ball under 

pressure

50-75

Still appears to be dry; 

will not form a ball 

with pressure

Tends to ball 

under pressure 

but seldom will 

hold together

Forms a ball, 

somewhat plastic, 

will sometimes slick 

slightly with 

pressure

Forms a ball, will 

ribbon out between 

thumb and 

forefinger

(Table adapted from Manitoba 2013)

Volumetric Measurement

The soil moisture content may be expressed by weight as the ratio of the mass 

of water present to the dry weight of the soil sample, or by volume as ratio of 

volume of water to the total volume of the soil sample. To determine any of 

these ratios for a particular soil sample, the water mass must be determined by 

drying the soil to constant weight and measuring the soil sample mass after and 

before drying. The water mass (or weight) is the difference between the weights 

of the wet and oven dry samples. The criterion for a dry soil sample is the soil 

sample that has been dried to constant weight in an oven at temperature 

between 100 – 110oC (105oC is typical). Normally drying is conducted on 

samples for at least 24 hours. A precision balance scale is needed (±0.001 g.) 

Volumetric soil moisture can then be determined.
H. Drought Policy

H-10 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Gravimetric soil moisture (W%) = wt. (wet soil) – wt. (oven dry soil) x 100% 

 wt. (oven dry soil) 

Volumetric soil moisture (θ%) = gravimetric soil moisture x bulk density 

{Note: Bulk densities for specific soils can be obtained from the Web 

Soil Survey.}

Soil moisture measurements can then be compared with water content-15 bar 

and water content 1/3 bar data for a specific soil from the Web Soil Survey 

(http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/). Water content, 15 bar, is the amount 

of soil water retained at a tension of 15 bars, expressed as a volumetric 

percentage of the whole soil material. Water retained at 15 bars is significant in 

the determination of soil water-retention difference, which is used as the initial 

estimation of available water capacity for some soils. Water retained at 15 bars 

is an estimation of the wilting point. Water content, one-third bar, is the 

amount of soil water retained at a tension of 1/3 bar, expressed as a volumetric 

percentage of the whole soil. Water retained at 1/3 bar is significant in the 

determination of soil water-retention difference, which is used as the initial 

estimation of available water capacity for some soils. Water retained at 1/3 bar 

is the value commonly used to estimate the content of water at field capacity 

for most soils.

As soil moisture levels approach the wilting point of a soil, the less water 

available for plants. Plant growth becomes marginal and the plant is stressed. If 

the plant is further stressed by removal or damage to the top growth, it will 

begin to lose vigor, roots and thus its ability to grow. It is not unusual to reach 

this moisture level during late summer in much of Montana, Dakotas, and other 

semi-arid areas.

Other Soil Moisture Considerations

When monitoring soil moisture the following information should be kept in 

mind:

1. Soil moisture is measured at the depth of plant roots or to a root 

limiting layer. It will vary by plant(s) and soil type.

2. Soluble salts, gravel and heavy clay will decrease plant available 

water capacity.

3. Organic matter, good soil structure will increase plant available 

water capacity (The capacity increases about 1 percent for each 1 

percent of organic matter).

4. Soils with water restricting layers like naturally compact subsoil, 

shallow bedrock or stratification can increase plant available water 

capacity of the overlying soil layers.

5. Soils that are deep, medium textured and uniform can have 

decreased plant available water but allow for deeper rooting.
H. Drought Policy

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS H-11

H.4.7 References

Fraser, D. A. 2003. Using range readiness criteria. Forest Practices Branch,

British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria, B.C. Rangeland Health 

Brochure 5.

Howery, Larry. 1999. Rangeland Management Before, During, and After 

Drought, AZ1136 University of Arizona Cooperative Extension, 6p. 

ag.arizona.edu/pubs/natresources/az1136.pdf.

Manitoba Agriculture Food and Rural Initiatives Soil Management Guide, table 3-

2, website accessed April 2013, http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/

soilwater/soilmgmt/fsm01s03.html

Manske, L.L. 2003. Biologically Effective Management of Grazinglands, NDSU 

Dickinson Research Extension Center, Rangeland Research Extension 

Program 4005. 268p.

Manske, L.L. 2011. Biologically Effective Grazing Management Reduces the 

Detrimental Effects from Drought Conditions on Grasslands--2nd 

Edition. NDSU Dickinson Research Extension Center. Range Science 

Report. 7p.
H. Drought Policy

H-12 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix I

GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat 

Assessment

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS I-1

APPENDIX I

GRSG WILDFIRE AND INVASIVE SPECIES 

HABITAT ASSESSMENT

The following process is a suggestion for a consistent approach in conducting an 

assessment of the GRSG habitat and wildfire threat at the local planning area 

level. Variations to this approach may be made based on ID 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 (GRSG) 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 

protect, enhance, and restore GRSG habitat. The stepdown assessments will 

serve as a bridge between RMPs and project level planning, and will position 

planning efforts to conduct project-scale NEPA following RMP Records of 

Decision.

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.
I. GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat Assessment

I-2 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

STEP 1: CHARACTERIZATION OF GREATER SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT

The purpose of this step is to broadly establish context of the planning area and 

sage-grouse habitat.

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., PPH, PGH, and/or 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? 
I. GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat Assessment

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS I-3

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?

4. What are the criteria for defining priority fuels management 

areas (example would be the intersection of high burn 

probability, PPH, 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 PPH, lek 

locations, and high burn probability. 

6. How can fire management be coordinated across 

jurisdictional boundaries to reduce risk or to improve 

GRSG habitat?
I. GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat Assessment

I-4 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

Issue #3: Restoration

• In narrative format, develop management questions such as:

1. Are there opportunities for restoration treatments to 

protect, 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 ESR plans. 

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 even-aged 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 finescale information such as plant associations, habitat types, or 

ecological systems. Note: this information should be available in 

the RMP. 
I. GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat Assessment

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS I-5

• What has been the impact of fire exclusion (e.g., increased conifer 

encroachment, decadent shrub communities, etc)? 

• 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, increasing 

invasives, etc)?

• 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

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?
I. GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat Assessment

I-6 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

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 info.

• 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.

• Include a priority or implementation schedule for proposed 

treatments. 
I. GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat Assessment

September 2013 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS I-7

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 info.

• 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 info.

• Identify locations where post-fire restoration treatments should be 

focused.

– Include tables, maps or appropriate info.

• Spatially identify invasive species occurrence 
I. GRSG Wildfire and Invasive Species Habitat Assessment

I-8 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS September 2013

• 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.

• 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 5 years?