HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Introduction 23

Chapter 2

Alternatives

Introduction

Chapter 2 details five alternatives for managing the HiLine District to meet the purpose and need, the vision and 

management goals, and to address the issues discussed in Chapter 1. Each alternative represents a reasonable set of 

objectives and actions to guide future management of the planning area. This chapter is presented in three sections:

 Current Management and Alternatives (including Decisions Common to All Alternatives)

 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail

 Comparison of Alternatives

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) complied with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) implementing regulations in developing alternatives, including seeking public 

input and analyzing a reasonable range of alternatives. Where necessary to meet the planning criteria, to address issues 

and comments from the public and cooperating agencies, or to provide a reasonable range of alternatives, the alternatives

include management options for the planning area that would modify or amend decisions made in the West HiLine and 

Judith-Valley-Phillips Resource Management Plans (RMPs). Some decisions from the West HiLine and Judith-ValleyPhillips RMPs remain acceptable and reasonable; in these instances, there is limited need to develop alternative 

management prescriptions. In some cases, management actions are the same across all alternatives or may reflect only a 

decision to implement or not implement an action.

Public input received during the scoping process was considered to ensure that all the issues and concerns would be 

addressed, as appropriate, in developing the alternatives. Many comments addressed management of oil and gas 

development and other resources including travel planning, designating special management areas, and hunting and 

angling areas of interest. The scoping and public comment processes are summarized in Chapter 5.

Many of the decisions from the existing RMPs have been implemented. In some cases, implementation of these 

decisions established valid existing rights or other obligations that are important considerations in preparing the HiLine 

RMP. For example, many of the oil and gas resources in the planning area are leased. The presence of these valid 

existing rights influences, and sometimes limits, management choices. Specific to the oil and gas program, the 

alternatives address the availability and allocation of lands for future oil and gas leasing, potential lease stipulations, and 

additional mitigation to be considered and applied during the Application for Permit to Drill (APD) process.

The guidance found in the Decisions Common to All Alternatives sections has been carried forward from existing laws, 

regulations, policy, and previous planning efforts, primarily the West HiLine RMP (BLM 1988, 1992b) and the JudithValley-Phillips RMP (BLM 1994a).

All of the alternatives presented herein have been analyzed by a BLM interdisciplinary team. The alternative which 

contains the most desired combination of potential planning decisions, and meets the multiple use and sustained yield 

mandates of Section 103(c) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1702(c)), is identified 

in this Draft RMP and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as the preferred alternative. Following public review and 

comment on the Draft RMP/EIS, and any subsequent revisions, the HiLine District Manager will recommend a preferred 

alternative to the State Director in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. The State Director must approve the selection of the 

preferred alternative along with the other alternatives under consideration.

Upon completion of this process, the Decisions Common to All Alternatives, combined with the preferred alternative 

selected by the State Director (either the current management alternative or any of the other alternatives, or a 

combination thereof) will form the management plan for the HiLine District.
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

24 Implementation and Monitoring

Implementation and Monitoring

The implementation and monitoring process for the planning area involves four major steps: planning; implementing; 

monitoring; evaluating and adjusting as necessary through planning. Planning involves a great amount of time and 

resources to identify issues and management opportunities to address those issues. During the planning process, the 

scope of the issue is identified and management goals, objectives and actions are defined to address the issues. Once the 

planning process is completed, decisions are implemented, monitored, and evaluated over a period of time to determine 

if goals are being met and if management actions are achieving the desired objective or standard. Results of monitoring 

are documented and communicated to appropriate parties, and management objectives and actions are modified, if 

necessary, based on results.

The BLM will review monitoring results on a periodic basis, and any 

management objectives or actions that may need to be changed or adjusted 

will be open to public review and comment before decisions are made 

through an environmental review process. Appendix A provides more 

information on implementation and monitoring. Appendix R provides 

specific guidance for monitoring sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. 

Through implementation an adaptive management approach may also be used 

for specific activities in the planning area, if appropriate, consistent with 

Secretarial Order 3270 (Adaptive Management). Adaptive management 

would require activity level planning, environmental review, and public 

involvement.

All proposed actions in the future must conform to the HiLine RMP and 

Record of Decision when completed (43 CFR 1601.0-5(b)). Proposed actions 

on or affecting BLM land must also be reviewed for National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) compliance. Proposed actions fall into one of five 

categories: (1) actions that are exempt from NEPA; (2) actions that are 

categorically excluded; (3) actions that are covered by an existing NEPA 

environmental document; (4) actions that require preparation of an 

environmental assessment (EA) to determine if an environmental impact 

statement (EIS) is needed; or (5) actions that require preparation of an EIS. 

The NEPA procedural, documentation, and public involvement requirements 

are different for each category. However, all proposed actions must be in 

conformance with the approved resource management plan. For additional 

information, please refer to BLM Handbook H-1790-1 available at most BLM 

offices or on the BLM website at: 

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ak/aktest/planning/planning_ge

neral.Par.2116.File.dat/Handbook.NEPA.H-1790-1.2k8.01.30[1].pdf

Current Management and Alternatives

The following sections provide a detailed description of the five alternatives for the planning area. In order to improve 

the readability of this document and to enable the reader to easily locate referenced tables/sections, the resource

discussions are organized alphabetically. The resource sections are noted in the document footers, along with the chapter 

and page numbers. Each resource section includes Decisions Common to All Alternatives along with the description by 

alternative if applicable. Not all resource sections have a range of alternatives because management of the resource 

would be the same for each alternative.

Adaptive Management

Adaptive management [is a decision 

process that] promotes flexible 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 adjust polices or operations as 

part of an iterative learning process. 

Adaptive management also recognized 

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. Its 

true measure is in how well it helps 

meeting environmental, social, and 

economic goals, increases scientific 

knowledge, and reduces tensions 

among stakeholders.

Source: Williams, B.K., R.C. Szaro, 

and C.D. Shapiro. 2007. Adaptive 

Management: The U.S. Department of 

the Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive 

Management Working Group, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Washington, 

DC. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Air Resources 25

Air Quality Standards

Primary standards are designed to 

protect human health, including 

sensitive populations, such as people 

with asthma and emphysema, children, 

and senior citizens. Primary standards 

were designed for the immediate 

protection of public health, with an 

adequate margin of safety, regardless of 

the cost.

Secondary standards are designed to 

protect public welfare, including soils, 

water, crops, vegetation, buildings, 

property, animals, wildlife, weather, 

visibility, and other economic, 

aesthetic, and ecological values, as well 

as personal comfort and well-being. 

Secondary standards were established 

to protect the public from known or 

anticipated effects of air pollution.

Air Resources

Goals

Minimize the impact of management actions on air quality.

Implement management actions to improve air quality as practicable.

Objectives

Comply with national and state air quality standards and protect existing air quality and air quality related values 

(AQRVs).

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

The BLM will not authorize management actions that would exceed applicable Montana and Federal Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (MAAQS, NAAQS).

Actions authorized on BLM land and federal minerals will comply with the 

Clean Air Act requirements, including the State of Montana Air Quality 

Implementation Plan, through the use of best management practices (BMPs) 

(Appendix C) and the Air Resource Management Plan (Appendix B).

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

requirements and implementation plans, the BLM will evaluate effects to air 

quality at the activity planning level, and prepare detailed monitoring and 

mitigation prescriptions for proposals that could degrade air quality.

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

Monitoring Unit and the appropriate airshed zone coordinator to ensure that 

prescribed fires comply with smoke management rules and regulations. The 

BLM will use timing and atmospheric dispersal to control particulate 

emissions and record and review data on fire prescriptions and mitigation 

measures (location, size, and date of burns).

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

approval under provisions of Notice to Lessee – 4A (NTL-4A). The Montana 

Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Air Quality Protection 

Division, monitors this activity for compliance. The use of green or flareless 

well completions as a BMP for oil and gas operations will be encouraged.

Cultural Resources

Goal

Protect, preserve and interpret the cultural resources within the planning area and 

ensure they are available for appropriate uses by present and future generations.

Objectives

Manage important archaeological and historical sites, or areas where concentrations of cultural resources occur, for their 

use based on the nature of the cultural resource and relative preservation value.
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

26 Cultural Resources

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

resource uses.

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

programs in accordance with the BLM Heritage Education Program.

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

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

BLM must evaluate all proposed actions, initiated or authorized by the BLM, to determine potential effects to historic 

properties. This evaluation process occurs under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The 

BLM must determine, based on inventory and evaluation data, whether the proposed action could impact important 

cultural resources and, if necessary, take steps to avoid or mitigate possible impacts.

The BLM will mitigate impacts to cultural resources from authorized uses through project abandonment, redesign, and if 

necessary, data recovery investigations in accordance with the national Programmatic Agreement among the BLM, 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers

(BLM 2012); and the State Protocol Agreement between the BLM Montana State Director and the Montana State 

Historic Preservation Office (BLM 1998a).

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

requirement for on-the-ground inventory prior to proposed projects that include surface-disturbing activities; avoidance 

or modification of the proposed project; and if effective modification cannot be reached, excavation for archaeological 

information retrieval and/or consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office and the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation. Further, consultation with knowledgeable tribal elders is used to identify important cultural 

properties which might otherwise be missed by a standard archaeological inventory.

To consider potential effects to historic properties where a federal action is occurring, the BLM will comply with Section 

106 of the NHPA. Commonly, a Class III survey (inventory) is required prior to surface disturbance to identify 

significant cultural properties.

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

of traditional religions. The activities of concern are those that might degrade the visual or aesthetic nature of an area, or 

cause the loss of plant species or other resources important to traditional uses. The BLM is required to consult with 

traditional religious practitioners on policies and procedures to ensure they are considered when implementing agency 

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

Potential effects to the Little Rocky Mountains and Sweet Grass Hills Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) will be 

avoided, if possible, or mitigated (Figure 2.1). Specific management for the TCPs is addressed under the alternatives 

section below.

Class III - Intensive Field Survey

A Class III – Intensive field survey is a continuous, intensive survey of an entire target area, aimed at locating and recording all 

archaeological properties that have surface indications, by walking close-interval parallel transects until the area has been 

thoroughly examined. Class III methods vary geographically, conforming to the prevailing standards for the region involved. 

The survey describes the distribution of properties in an area; determines the number, location and condition of properties; 

determines the types of properties actually present within the area; permits classification of individual properties; and records the 

physical extent of specific properties.

Because Class III survey is designed to produce a total inventory of the cultural properties observable within the target area, once 

it has been completed no further survey work should be needed in the target area as long as the current standards are met. Areas 

with a high probability of containing buried cultural materials or known cultural materials may require additional work of 

professional monitoring and/or data recovery excavations. Areas that require additional work are analyzed on a case-by-case 

basis, depending on the proposed action and the types of cultural resources present in the project area.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Cultural Resources 27

Figure 2.1

Traditional Cultural Properties
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

28 Cultural Resources

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

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

resources across the planning area.

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

other processes.

The Big Bend of the Milk River, Kevin Rim, and Sweet Grass Hills Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), 

along with the potential Little Rocky Mountains ACEC, contain diverse cultural resources and historic sites of 

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

National Register of Historic Places

Cultural sites with characteristics that make them eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) require 

additional attention beyond recordation. The NRHP sites will be categorized for use allocations based on their nature 

and relative preservation value, and appropriately managed.

Pursuant to Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the BLM will identify other cultural resources in the 

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

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

specific management will be prescribed.

Use Allocation Categories

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

sites, graves, ceremonial sites and spiritual sites. Prehistoric cultural sites consist of habitation/camp sites such as stone 

circle sites, bison kill sites, cairns, lithic scatters, quarries, animal processing sites, etc. Historic sites range from early 

railroads, homestead sites, early farming and ranching infrastructure, town sites, building foundations, and dumps, to 

sites associated with early mining.

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

bridge to protection and utilization decisions. Use categories establish what needs to be protected, and when or how use 

should be authorized. All cultural resources have uses, but not all should be used in the same way (BLM 8110 Manual, 

2004).

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

identified below:

 Scientific Use: This category applies to any cultural property determined to be available for consideration as 

the subject of scientific or historical study at the present time, using currently available research techniques. 

Study includes methods that would result in the property’s physical alteration or destruction. This category 

applies almost entirely to prehistoric and historic archaeological properties, where the method of use is 

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

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

the kinds of data the property is thought to contain and the data’s importance for pursuing specified research 

topics. Properties in this category need not be conserved in the face of a research or data recovery (mitigation) 

proposal that would make adequate and appropriate use of the property’s research importance. Scientific Use

properties include:

- Beaucoup Site (24PH188/189). This site complex is important because it contains a bison kill site, 

extensive drive lines, stone circle sites and unusual ceremonial features. The site is part of the Big Bend of 

the Milk River ACEC.

- Fantasy Complex (24PH1206). This site is a kill site complex indicating use over several time periods.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Cultural Resources 29

- Kevin Rim (Toole County). This site complex consists of extensive prehistoric stone feature sites and drive 

lines with potential bison kill sites located on a unique geological bluff.

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

Evidence shows that the site was much larger at one time before early homesteading and farming.

- Lonesome Lake Complex (Chouteau County). This site is important because it contains over 1,000 stone 

circles along with other stone features and prehistoric sites.

 Public Use: This category may be applied to any cultural property found to be appropriate for use as an 

interpretive exhibit in place, or for related educational and recreational uses by members of the general public. 

The category may also be applied to buildings suitable for continued use or adaptive use, for example as staff 

housing or administrative facilities at a visitor contact or interpretive site. Public Use properties include:

- Henry Smith (24PH794). This site complex is important because it contains a bison kill site, extensive 

drive lines, stone circle features and unique stone effigies. The site is part of the Big Bend of the Milk 

River ACEC.

- Little Rocky Mountains Ranger Station (24PH2151). The Little Rocky Mountains Ranger Station was built 

in 1908 by the Forest Service as a Fire Lookout in the Little Rocky Mountains. It is the only station of its 

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

 Conservation for Future Use: This category is reserved for any unusual cultural property which, because of 

scarcity, a research potential that surpasses the current state of the art, singular historic importance, cultural 

importance, architectural interest, or comparable reasons, is not currently available for consideration as the 

subject of scientific or historical study that would result in its physical alteration. A cultural property included 

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

resource uses that would threaten the maintenance of its present condition or setting, as pertinent, and will 

remain in this use category until specified provisions are met in the future. Conservation for Future Use

properties include:

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

- Lookout Cave (24PH402). This cave is unique as it has yielded a wealth of information from excavations. 

The cave is also unique for its petroglyph images.

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

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

experimental study, to be conducted by the BLM or others concerned with the techniques of managing cultural 

properties, which would result in the property’s alteration, possibly including loss of integrity and destruction of 

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

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

Experimental study should aim toward understanding the kinds and rates of natural or human-caused 

deterioration, testing the effectiveness of protection measures, or developing new research or interpretation 

methods and similar kinds of practical management information. It should not be applied to cultural properties 

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

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

 Traditional Use: This category is to be applied to any cultural resource known to be perceived by a specified 

social and/or cultural group as important in maintaining the cultural identity, heritage, or well-being of the 

group. Cultural properties assigned to this category are to be managed in ways that recognize the importance 

ascribed to them and seek to accommodate their continuing traditional use. Traditional Use properties include:
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

30 Cultural Resources

- Little Rocky Mountains TCP (24PH3197/24BL1341). This area was determined eligible for the National 

Register of Historic Places as a Traditional Cultural Property based on significance derived from the role 

the property plays in a community’s historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices.

- Sweet Grass Hills TCP (24TL771/24LT171). The Sweet Grass Hills was determined eligible for the 

National Register of Historic Places as a Traditional Cultural Property based on significance derived from 

the role the property plays in a community’s historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices.

- Medicine Rock (24PH1008). This is a large petroglyph boulder located on the prairie. The boulder is an 

erratic left by the retreating glaciers several thousand years ago. Native Americans often leave offerings at 

this site.

 Discharged from Management: This category is assigned to cultural properties that have no remaining 

identifiable use. Most often these are prehistoric and historic archaeological properties, such as small surface 

scatters of artifacts or debris, whose limited research potential is effectively exhausted as soon as they have 

been documented. Also, more complex archaeological properties that have had their salient information 

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

properties destroyed by any natural event or human activity. Properties discharged from management remain in 

the inventory, but they are removed from further management attention and do not constrain other land uses. 

Particular classes of unrecorded cultural properties may be named and described in advance as dischargeable 

upon documentation, but specific cultural properties must be inspected in the field and recorded before they 

may be discharged from management. No Discharged from Management properties have been identified at this 

time.

Alternative A (Current Management)

Little Rocky Mountains Traditional Cultural Property

Oil and gas leasing would be subject to existing requirements under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act, and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, E.O. 13007.

Sweet Grass Hills Traditional Cultural Property

The area would be open to oil and gas leasing with a No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulation.

The area is currently withdrawn from locatable mineral entry under the Mining Law until 2017. The BLM would review 

the withdrawal prior to expiration.

Alternative B

Little Rocky Mountains Traditional Cultural Property

The area would be open to oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation (38,102 acres).

The area would be an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way (30,648 acres).

The area would be closed to solid mineral leasing (e.g., coal) (37,403 acres).

The BLM would recommend a 20-year withdrawal from locatable mineral entry under the Mining Law to protect the 

TCP (37,387 acres).

Sweet Grass Hills Traditional Cultural Property

The area would be open to oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation (21,275 acres).
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Cultural Resources 31

The area would be an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way (7,718 acres).

The area would be closed to solid mineral leasing (e.g., coal) (19,665 acres).

The area is currently withdrawn from locatable mineral entry under the Mining Law until 2017. The BLM would 

recommend a 20-year extension of the current withdrawal to protect the TCP (19,671 acres).

Alternative C

Little Rocky Mountains Traditional Cultural Property

The area would be open to oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation (38,102 acres).

The area would be an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way (30,648 acres).

The area would be closed to solid mineral leasing (e.g., coal) (37,403 acres).

Sweet Grass Hills Traditional Cultural Property

The area would be open to oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation (21,275 acres).

The area would be an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way (7,718 acres).

The area would be closed to solid mineral leasing (e.g., coal) (19,665 acres). 

The area is currently withdrawn from locatable mineral entry under the Mining Law until 2017. The BLM would 

recommend a 20-year extension of the current withdrawal to protect the TCP (19,671 acres).

Alternative D

Little Rocky Mountains Traditional Cultural Property

The area would be open to oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation (38,102 acres).

The area would be an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way (30,648 acres).

The area would be closed to solid mineral leasing (e.g., coal) (37,403 acres).

The area would be closed to solid mineral material sales (e.g., sand and gravel) (37,403 acres).

Sweet Grass Hills Traditional Cultural Property

The area would be open to oil and gas leasing with an NSO stipulation (21,275 acres).

The area would be an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way (7,718 acres).

The area would be closed to solid mineral leasing (e.g., coal) (19,665 acres).

The area is currently withdrawn from locatable mineral entry under the Mining Law until 2017. The BLM would not 

recommend an extension of the current withdrawal.

The area would be closed to solid mineral material sales (e.g., sand and gravel) (19,665 acres).
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

32 Fire Management and Ecology

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

Little Rocky Mountains Traditional Cultural Property 

A portion of the TCP would be closed to oil and gas leasing (32,166 acres). The remaining area (5,936 acres) would be 

open to leasing with an NSO stipulation.

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

traditional uses and viewsheds.

The area would be an avoidance area for rights-of-way (30,648 acres).

The area would be an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way (30,648 acres).

A portion of the TCP would be closed to solid mineral leasing (e.g., coal) (32,058 acres). The remaining area would be 

open.

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

maintenance of the existing road system (32,058 acres).

Sweet Grass Hills Traditional Cultural Property

The area would be closed to oil and gas leasing (21,275 acres).

The area would be an avoidance area for rights-of-way (7,718 acres).

The area would be an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way (7,718 acres).

The area would be closed to solid mineral leasing (e.g., coal) (19,665 acres).

The area is currently withdrawn from locatable mineral entry under the Mining Law until 2017. The BLM would 

recommend a 20-year extension of the current withdrawal to protect the TCP (19,671 acres).

The area would be closed to solid mineral material sales (e.g., sand and gravel) (19,665 acres).

Fire Management and Ecology

Goal

Manage fire and fuels to protect life and property and to protect or enhance 

resource values.

Objectives

Provide guidance to develop strategies to manage wildfires with an emphasis on firefighter and public safety.

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

Integrate fire and fuels management across landscape, agency, federal, and international boundaries.

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

The BLM’s 2008 Interim Fire Planning Manual Guidance (M-9211) and Fire Planning Handbook (Interim Guidance) 

(H-9211-1); and Chapter 09 of the Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations (NIFC 2010), and the 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Fire Management and Ecology 33

Fire Management Categories

Category A: Fire is not desired at all. 

(No lands in the planning area are 

assigned to this category.)

Category B: Unplanned fire is likely to 

cause negative effects.

Category C: Fire is desired to manage 

ecosystems, but current conditions 

create constraints on use.

Category D: Fire is desired; no 

constraints on its use. (No lands in the 

planning area are assigned to this 

category.)

BLM’s Updated Policy for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (IM No. 2009-112) summarize 

national fire policy, regulations, guidance documents, and BLM fire planning policy. The key points of this policy and 

guidance are:

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

 Fire management programs and activities are economically viable, based upon values to be protected, costs, and 

land and resource management objectives.

 Federal, state, tribal, local, interagency, and international coordination and cooperation are essential.

 Federal agencies and local communities collaborate, particularly when Community Wildfire Protection Plans 

are prepared.

 The role of wildland fire as an essential ecological process and natural change agent will be incorporated into 

the planning process.

 Fire Management Plans (FMPs), programs, and activities support land and resource management plans and their 

implementation.

 Fire regime condition class methodology will be utilized for project planning, prioritization, and monitoring.

The BLM prioritizes fire management activities by risk to life and property, commensurate with fire management costs. 

Mechanical, prescribed fire and other appropriate treatments will be used to restore and maintain fire regimes, land 

health, and to reduce hazardous fuels accumulations.

The BLM uses Fire Management Units (FMUs), fire management categories, 

and the Fire Management Plan (FMP) (BLM 2004a) to summarize guidance 

for fire and fuels management actions on BLM lands (FMPs are updated 

annually). The planning area includes seven FMUs: Sweet Grass Hills, 

Havre Prairie Potholes, Malta Prairie Potholes, Bears Paw, Little Rockies, 

Malta Breaks, and Sun Prairie (Table 2.1 and Map 2.1, which is located at the 

end of Chapter 2). The BLM assigns a fire management category to each 

FMU; the categories range from Category A where fire (including prescribed 

fire) is not desired at all, to Category D where fire is desired and no 

constraints are placed on its use. All FMUs in the planning area are assigned 

to either Category B or C. The BLM periodically assesses FMUs and the 

FMP to determine whether they reflect appropriate and suitable strategies to 

protect high value areas; or where appropriate, to enhance resource conditions 

and achieve desired vegetation conditions.

Appendix D, Fire and Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation (ES&R), 

provides full definitions of the fire management categories.

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

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

regime/condition class (FRCC) methodology and other land health assessments will be used by the BLM to monitor 

vegetation treatment effects and other changes to landscape health and fire behavior. This information will be used to 

provide feedback for FMU strategies and management possibilities. With social and political constraints considered, 

new fire management strategies could be developed including use of wildfire for resource benefit in Category C areas.

Initial action by the BLM and cooperators on BLM wildfires is suppression, including direct and indirect tactics. If

monitoring indicates the strategy could be revised in Category C areas to include use of wildfire for resource benefit, 

changes would be developed and implemented through coordination with state, local, tribal, and other federal agencies. 

The FMP would be updated, and operations plans would be developed as necessary. To coordinate fire management 

actions across government and ownership boundaries, the BLM will use existing or new cooperative agreements and 
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

34 Fire Management and Ecology

memoranda of understanding (MOUs). Currently, these include initial attack exchanges with Blaine, Hill, Phillips, and 

Valley Counties.

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

such as restrictions and/or closures; and maintains a current Fire Restriction and Closure Plan as an appendix to the Fire 

Management Plan. The BLM will develop and maintain a Wildland Fire Prevention, Mitigation, and Education Plan 

(BLM 2010a); and coordinate with counties to develop, update, or implement Community Wildfire Protection Plans.

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

assessments, including fire regime condition class assessments. In conjunction with forestry, wildlife, riparian, and 

range management priorities, mechanical and prescribed fire treatments may be used in all of the FMUs. The highest 

wildland urban interface (WUI) priority fuels treatment areas include the Zortman and Landusky Communities at Risk 

and areas identified by Community Wildfire Protection Plans and the Tribal Forest Protection Act.

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

Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). This includes the Burnt Lodge and Bitter Creek WSAs. Fire management-related 

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

unnecessary impairment of a WSA’s suitability for preservation as wilderness. The use of ground-disturbing equipment 

during wildfire suppression and rehabilitation requires authorization, and should be avoided to protect wilderness 

characteristics. The use of motorized vehicles and mechanical equipment during mop-up should be minimized, and fire 

camps should be located outside WSAs. Suppression methods, prescribed fire implementation, and emergency 

stabilization/rehabilitation (ES&R) projects may include the use of power tools, aircraft, motorboats, and motorized 

firefighting equipment, and may require authorization prior to use.

The BLM will protect sensitive status species habitat (such as sage-grouse) during suppression and prescribed fire 

activities as described in the Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations and the current fire 

management plan. Fire management-related activities, including prescribed fire, should preserve or enhance the habitat 

quality for sage-grouse and other sensitive status species, especially in priority habitat areas, and would be subject to 

mitigation measures and conservation actions for greater sage-grouse habitat (Appendix M). Where applicable, the BLM 

will use best management practices to design fuels treatment objectives to protect existing sagebrush ecosystems, modify 

fire behavior, restore native plants, and create landscape patterns which benefit sage-grouse habitat (WO IM No. 2011-

138). The use of heavy equipment during wildfire suppression and rehabilitation is allowable in sage-grouse habitat 

although cross-country travel should be limited through these areas. Wildfire suppression facilities shall be located to 

the extent possible in areas that minimize disturbance to high quality sage-grouse habitat.

The BLM will implement ES&R in a cost-effective manner to minimize negative effects of fire on soil, vegetation, and 

water resources (Appendix D).

Prior to approval of vegetation treatment activities, an interdisciplinary environmental review would be required. For 

other BLM resources, site inventories or assessments will provide guidance for project planning so that activities will 

meet the objectives of those programs. Livestock grazing could be considered as a vegetation management tool to 

reduce hazardous fuel loads. The BLM will design post fuels management projects to ensure long-term persistence of 

seeded or pre-treatment native plants. Post-treatment land uses, such as livestock grazing rest periods, will be 

determined at the activity level.

The Montana DEQ has the primary responsibility for attaining and maintaining air quality standards through 

coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Prescribed fire projects must comply with state and 

federal air quality regulations, and the BLM must obtain burn permits from the Montana DEQ. The BLM is a member 

of the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group which manages smoke impacts to the region by monitoring and scheduling 

interagency burn activities. The entire planning area is within Montana/Idaho Airshed 9, a geographic area which has 

excellent smoke dispersal and is rarely denied activity by the Montana/Idaho State Airshed Group. At the project level, 

the BLM manages smoke impacts to sensitive areas such as towns, WSAs and wilderness areas by constraining wind 

direction and/or smoke dispersal height in the burn plan prescription. In addition, the BLM coordinates and obtains burn 

permits as necessary from county and local agencies and tribal partners.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Fire Management and Ecology 35

Alternative A (Current Management)

Most of the FMUs are managed as Category B (Table 2.1 and Map 2.1), where unplanned fire is likely to cause negative 

effects, but prescribed fire treatments may be used to reduce fuels, improve land health, and restore fire regimes. 

Suppression of unplanned ignitions (wildfire) is required in Category B areas. Prevention and education activities are 

emphasized in this category as well as fuels reduction treatments. 

The Malta Breaks FMU is managed as Category C (Table 2.1 and Map 2.1), where fire is desired to manage ecosystems; 

but ecological, social, or political conditions create constraints on use of wildfire for resource benefit. Suppression may 

be required in Category C areas. The emphasis in this category is to reduce hazardous fuels accumulations and to restore 

or maintain land health and fire regimes. Prevention and education activities target recreation areas and Wildland Urban 

Interface (WUI) areas.

Table 2.1

Fire Management Units and Categories by Alternative

Fire Management Unit BLM Acres

Fire Management Category

Alternative A

(Current 

Management)

Alternatives 

B, C and D

Alternative E

(Preferred 

Alternative)

Bears Paw 123,055 B B B

Havre Prairie Potholes 247,834 B B B

Little Rockies 32,216 B C B

Malta Breaks 193,046 C C C

Malta Prairie Potholes 854,221 B C C

Sun Prairie 962,899 B C B

Sweet Grass Hills 24,204 B B B

Alternatives B, C, and D

The Bears Paw, Havre Prairie Potholes, and Sweet Grass Hills FMUs would be managed as Category B (Table 2.1 and 

Map W.0), where unplanned fire is likely to cause negative effects but prescribed fire treatments may be used to reduce 

fuels, improve land health, and restore fire regimes. Prevention and education activities are emphasized in this category 

as well as fuels reduction treatments.

The Little Rockies, Malta Breaks, Malta Prairie Potholes, and Sun Prairie FMUs would be managed as Category C 

(Table 2.1 and Map W.0), where fire is desired to manage ecosystems but ecological, social, or political conditions 

create constraints on the use of wildfire for resource benefit. Suppression may be required in Category C areas. The 

emphasis in this category is to reduce hazardous fuels accumulations and to restore or maintain land health and fire 

regimes. Prevention and education activities target recreation areas and Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas.

Wildfires would be suppressed in both Category B and C areas. If the conditions described above change in Category C 

areas, suppression strategies would be reevaluated to include use of wildfire for resource benefit. Changes would be 

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

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

The Bears Paw, Havre Prairie Potholes, Little Rockies, Sun Prairie, and Sweet Grass Hills FMUs would be managed as 

Category B (Table 2.1 and Map 2.1), where unplanned fire is likely to cause negative effects but prescribed fire 

treatments may be used to reduce fuels, improve land health, and restore fire regimes. Prevention and education 

activities are emphasized in this category as well as fuels reduction treatments.
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

36 Fish

The Malta Breaks and Malta Prairie Potholes FMUs would be managed as Category C (Table 2.1 and Map 2.1), where 

fire is desired to manage ecosystems but ecological, social, or political conditions create constraints on the use of 

wildfire for resource benefit. Suppression may be required in Category C areas. The emphasis in this category is to 

reduce hazardous fuels accumulations and to restore or maintain land health and fire regimes. Prevention and education 

activities target recreation areas and Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas.

Wildfires would be suppressed in both Category B and C areas. If the conditions described above change in Category C 

areas, suppression strategies would be reevaluated to include use of wildfire for resource benefit. Changes would be 

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

Fish

Goals

Ensure habitat for aquatic species is of sufficient quantity and quality to 

enhance biological diversity and sustain ecological, economic and social values.

Ensure proposed land uses initiated or authorized by the BLM maintain or 

improve aquatic habitats.

Promote public awareness, appreciation, and understanding of fisheries conservation, management, and ecology.

Objectives

The necessary habitat, biological processes, and disturbance regimes would be present to maintain, enhance, or restore 

priority fisheries populations. Land use would maintain habitat quality and large, intact reaches of aquatic habitat. 

Use individual species management strategies and/or known habitat associations to design aquatic habitat for as many 

aquatic species as possible.

Manage priority fish habitats using multi-scale assessments to identify current conditions, risks and opportunities.

Identify restoration activities to provide improved aquatic and riparian habitat.

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

Management activities would be designed and implemented consistent with current adopted strategies including 

Montana’s Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy (MFWP 2005) and currently accepted science.

Most management actions would be directed at maintaining habitat and the processes that provide habitat diversity in the 

planning area. Where species-specific management can improve individual special status species habitats or populations, 

those actions would be considered as long as they are also compatible with long-term persistence of other habitats and 

species.

The BLM will cooperate with state and federal agencies to establish programs that are consistent with ecologically sound 

and sustainable practices, conserve and enhance high quality aquatic habitat, protect native aquatic species, and enhance 

game fishing opportunities.

If species which occur on BLM lands in the planning area are added to the Threatened and Endangered list in the future, 

management actions would be developed to conserve, enhance and protect the species in accordance with the 

Endangered Species Act.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Fish 37

The BLM will continue to manage aquatic habitats in the planning area according to existing federal and state laws, 

regulations, and BLM policies including BMPs and Montana Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) guidelines. Habitat 

management includes maintaining water quality and quantity, and riparian and wetland habitat conditions.

The BLM will protect aquatic resources occurring on BLM land through implementation of responsible and appropriate 

land management activities. The BLM will continue to implement, review, and update as necessary the Prairie Pothole

Waterfowl and Fisheries Habitat Management Plan (HMP) of North Central Montana (BLM 1978) and the Whitewater 

Lake Waterfowl Habitat Development Project HMP (BLM 1970a). The BLM management approach includes the 

development of activity plans showing how site-specific actions accomplish goals and objectives. Some examples of 

activity plans include allotment management plans, recreation plans, habitat management plans, cultural resource 

management plans, oil and gas plans of development, and use authorizations. These plans will include the 

implementation of appropriate BMPs for activities directed by or permitted by the BLM to support the integrity of 

ecological processes, protect identified beneficial water uses, and meet state water quality standards.

The BLM will provide maintenance to all aquatic habitat improvement/fisheries projects as needed to ensure proper 

function.

Alternative A (Current Management)

All high value fisheries would be evaluated to determine the need for fencing to promote riparian vegetation 

establishment.

An aquatic resource survey and monitoring plan would be developed to identify areas for special management to protect 

and/or improve aquatic habitats.

The BLM would encourage increased opportunities for recreational fishing (i.e., access, reservoir development, habitat 

improvement).

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Preferred Alternative)

Any new reservoirs would be analyzed for fish habitat potential. Priority consideration would be given to reservoirs near 

communities and access routes. The BLM would maintain and/or improve new and existing designated fishing 

reservoirs through fencing, aeration, and fish habitat improvement projects. All fishing reservoirs would be maintained 

as fisheries as long as the BLM and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) determine that they are viable fisheries 

opportunities. Fish stocking would be coordinated with MFWP.

The BLM would develop an aquatic resource survey and monitoring plan to identify areas for management to protect 

and/or improve aquatic habitats. Fish-bearing stream reaches would be surveyed/monitored as conditions warrant. 

Fishing reservoirs would be surveyed/monitored as needed for fish populations, riparian condition, emergent vegetation, 

reservoir condition, water quality, water depth, signage and condition of access. This inventory and monitoring would 

be crucial to sustaining a viable fishing reservoir.

The BLM would reduce effects of the transportation system on fisheries resources. To the extent possible, roads would 

be located, designed and maintained to reduce sedimentation, identify and remove unnatural barriers, eliminate fish 

passage barriers (when desired), and maintain or restore riparian vegetation. Culverts and other stream crossings would 

be analyzed for fish passage and would be made passable as opportunities arise.

The BLM would encourage increased opportunities for fisheries (i.e., access, reservoir development, habitat 

improvement). This would include coordination with MFWP (e.g., signage and pond levels), public schools and/or the 

general public on the development of fisheries opportunities through activities such as the development of a yearly 

fishing access and pond fishing guide for public use, public fishing days, and aquatic educational programs (e.g., uses of 

the fish resource other than for recreational fishing). 
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

38 Fluid Minerals

Fluid Minerals

Goal

Ensure dependable and environmentally responsible production of leasable 

minerals by identifying lands appropriate for lease and development.

Objective

Provide opportunities for responsible development of oil and gas.

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

The BLM planning process determines availability of federal minerals for oil and gas leasing. Federal oil and gas 

resources administered by the BLM are categorized into one of four groups:

 lands open to leasing with only standard lease terms;

 lands open to leasing subject to moderate constraints, such as a seasonal Timing Limitation Stipulation (TLS) or 

Controlled Surface Use (CSU);

 lands open to leasing subject to major constraints, such as No Surface Occupancy (NSO); and

 lands closed to leasing.

In areas with only standard lease terms, the BLM’s 200 meter/60-day rule provides that conditions of approval are 

deemed consistent with lease rights provided that they do not require relocation of proposed operations by more than 200 

meters, mandate that operations be sited off the leasehold, or prohibit new surface-disturbing activities for a period of 

more than 60 days in an lease year (43 CFR 3101.1-2).

In areas with a timing limitation stipulation (TLS), surface use is prohibited during specific time periods to protect 

identified resource values. This stipulation does not apply to the operation and maintenance of production facilities 

unless the findings of analysis demonstrate the continued need for such mitigation and that less stringent, project-specific 

mitigation measures would be insufficient.

In areas with a controlled surface use (CSU) stipulation, use and occupancy is allowed (unless restricted by another 

stipulation), but identified resource values require special operational constraints that may modify the lease rights. CSU 

is used for operating guidance, not as a substitute for no surface occupancy or timing limitation stipulation.

In areas with a no surface occupancy (NSO) stipulation, use or occupancy of the land surface for fluid mineral 

exploration or development is prohibited to protect identified resource values.

In areas closed to leasing, federal minerals are not available for future oil and gas leasing. Existing oil and gas leases 

will continue according to the respective stipulations until they expire. Where oil or gas is being drained from lands 

otherwise unavailable for leasing, the BLM may issue new leases with an NSO stipulation (43 CFR 3100.0-3(d)) with 

appropriate exception, waiver, and modification criteria.

In some areas, additional planning and analysis may be necessary prior to new oil and gas leasing because of changing 

circumstances, updated policies, and new information. A Master Leasing Plan (MLP) is a mechanism for completing the 

additional planning, analysis, and decisionmaking that may be necessary for areas that meet specific criteria (Washington 

Office Instruction Memorandum (WO IM) No. 2010-117). Four areas were considered for an MLP but none of the areas 

met all the specific criteria (Appendix E.1). A master development plan, the Bowdoin Natural Gas Development Project, 

Phillips and Valley Counties, Montana Environmental Assessment, was completed in December 2008 (BLM 2008a).

An oil and gas lease grants the lessee the right to explore for, extract, remove, and dispose of the oil and gas deposits that 

may be found on the leased lands. The lessee may exercise the rights conveyed by the lease, subject to lease terms and 

any lease stipulations, and permit approval requirements. Oil and gas operations are described in detail in Appendix E.1.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Fluid Minerals 39

Subsequent Well Operations

A proposal for further well operations 

must be approved by the authorized 

officer prior to commencing operations 

to redrill, deepen, perform casing 

repairs, plug-back, alter casing, perform 

nonroutine fracturing jobs, recomplete 

in a different interval, perform water 

shut off, commingling production 

between intervals and/or conversion to 

injection. 

Unless additional surface disturbance is 

involved and if the operations conform 

to the standard of prudent operating 

practice, prior approval is not required 

for routine fracturing or acidizing jobs, 

or recompletion in the same interval.

No prior approval or a subsequent 

report is required for well cleanout 

work, routine well maintenance, or 

bottom hole pressure surveys.

The BLM Montana State Office issues all federal oil and gas leases for the planning area, including those involving split

estate ownership. Competitive lease auctions are held where the public can nominate any federal lands with unleased 

federal minerals and/or any split estate lands overlying unleased federal minerals. For those parcels determined as 

appropriate for oil and gas leasing, but where other resource concerns or conflicts exist, stipulations based on the 

approved resource management plan are placed on the parcels. Prior to the lease auction, parcels with stipulations are 

posted for a 45-day review period in accordance with current regulations and policy.

The existing oil and gas leases (803,656 acres) will continue according to the respective stipulations until they expire. 

As these leases expire, the areas will come under the management guidelines of the approved resource management plan. 

New surface use stipulations (including TLS, CSU, and NSO) cannot be applied to existing oil and gas leases or other 

existing valid use authorizations such as rights-of-way. Site-specific actions such as APDs and rights-of-way in areas 

with existing oil and gas leases will be allowed, subject to surface use stipulations and best management practices 

(Appendix E.2).

Stipulations may be changed by application of waivers, exceptions, or modifications. Waivers are a permanent 

exception from a lease stipulation. This occurs when the resource does not require the stipulation. Exceptions are 

granted on a case-by-case basis. Each time the lessee applies for an exception, the resource objective of the stipulation 

must be met. Modifications are fundamental changes to the provisions of a lease stipulation either temporarily or for the 

term of the lease. The decision whether to grant waivers, exceptions, or modifications generally occurs during the APD 

approval process. If the authorized officer determines the change to be substantial, the change would be subject to a 30-

day public review period.

Additional information can be provided to the lessee in the form of Onshore Orders (1, 2, 3, 5, and 7) and Notice to 

Lessees 3A and 4A. The Onshore Orders and Notices provide information about applicable laws and regulations, and 

the requirements for additional information to be supplied by the lessee.

After lease issuance, the lessee may conduct lease operations with an 

approved permit. Proposed drilling and associated activities must be 

approved before beginning operations. The operator must file an APD or 

Sundry Notice that must be approved according to lease stipulations, Onshore 

Oil and Gas Orders, and appropriate regulations. Subsequent well operations 

are set forth in 43 CFR 3162.3-2.

New information may lead to changes in existing resource inventories. New 

areas and resource locations, or areas and resource locations that are no 

longer valid, may be identified. These usually cover small areas requiring the 

same protection or mitigation as stated in this plan. Identification of new 

areas or removal of old areas that no longer have those resource values would 

result in the use of the same lease stipulation identified in this plan. These 

areas would be added to the existing data inventory through plan 

maintenance. In cases where the changes constitute a change in resource 

allocation outside the scope of this plan, a plan amendment will be required.

On Bureau of Reclamation lands (131,364 acres), in addition to the resourcespecific stipulations under each alternative, stipulations and conditions are 

provided in accordance with that agency’s planning guidance (Appendix 

E.3).

Regulations at part 43 CFR 3100.0-3(d), the Secretary’s general authority to prevent the waste and dissipation of public 

property, and the Attorney General’s Opinion of April 2, 1941 (Vol. 40 Op. Atty. Gen 41) allow the BLM to lease lands 

that are otherwise unavailable for leasing if oil and gas is being drained from such lands. Unavailable lands will be 

leased only if a state or fee well is proposed or completed within the same spacing unit, or if the lands are within a 

producing unit. These lands would be leased with a no surface occupancy and no subsurface occupancy stipulation with 

no waiver, modification, or exception provisions. This would only be a paper transaction with no physical impacts on 

the unavailable lands. No exploration or development (drilling or production) within the unavailable lands would occur. 
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

40 Fluid Minerals

After issuance of a lease, the lease would be committed to a communitization agreement and the United States would 

then receive revenue in proportion to its acreage interest.

The Creedman Coulee National Wildlife Refuge includes two areas of private surface/federal minerals (640 acres) that 

are under an easement with the private surface owners. Both areas are currently leased to protect from drainage.

All lands would be open to geophysical exploration, subject to appropriate resource surveys, surface protection 

measures, adequate bonding, and adherence to State of Montana standards (ARM, 36.22.5) for geophysical operations.

Alternative A (Current Management)

Approximately 282,062 acres (8%) of federal minerals would be open to leasing subject to major constraints (NSO), 

2,649,241 acres (76%) would be open to leasing subject to minor constraints (TLS and CSU), and 457,849 acres (13%) 

would be open to leasing subject to standard lease terms only (Table 2.2 and Map 2.2, which is located at the end of 

Chapter 2). The federal minerals available for leasing would be subject to the stipulations which are summarized in 

Table 2.3. The complete stipulations (Form 3109-1 – Standard Stipulations) are located in Appendix E.4.

Approximately 102,298 acres (3%) of federal minerals would be closed to leasing (Table 2.2 and Map 2.2). This 

includes the Bitter Creek WSA, Burnt Lodge WSA, and the Little Rocky Mountains.

Table 2.2

Areas Open and Closed to Oil and Gas Leasing (Acres)

Alternative A

(Current 

Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred 

Alternative)

Open – NSO 282,062 258,560 1,291,160 357,456 1,711,378

Leased

Unleased

28,954

253,108

78,469

180,091

338,636

952,524

33,504

323,952

182,060

1,529,318

Open –

TLS/CSU

2,649,241 3,291 1,681,990 2,461,652 1,460,097

Leased

Unleased

578,195

2,071,046

1,544

1,747

341,765

1,340,226

545,301

1,916,351

561,866

898,230

Open – Standard 

Terms Only 457,849 55,962 299,713 597,668 167,274

Leased

Unleased

196,508

261,341

15,978

39,983

123,255

176,458

224,851

372,817

57,306

109,967

Closed 102,298 3,173,637 218,586 74,674 152,702

Leased

Unleased

0

102,298

707,665

2,465,972

0

218,586

0

74,674

2,424

150,278

Alternative B

Approximately 258,560 acres (7%) of federal minerals would be open to leasing subject to major constraints (NSO); 

3,291 acres (<1%) would be open to leasing subject to minor constraints (TLS and CSU); and 55,962 acres (2%) would 

be open to leasing subject to standard lease terms only (Table 2.2 and Map 2.2). The federal minerals available for 

leasing would be subject to the stipulations which are summarized in Table 2.3. The complete stipulations, including the 

objectives, exceptions, modifications, and waivers, are located in Appendix E.4.

Approximately 3,173,637 acres (91%) of federal minerals would be closed to leasing (Table 2.2 and Map 2.2). This 

includes the Bitter Creek WSA, Burnt Lodge WSA, a parcel adjacent to the Bear Paw Battlefield, Azure Cave ACEC, 

areas with important wildlife habitat, and areas with wilderness characteristics.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Fluid Minerals 41

Alternative C

Approximately 1,291,160 acres (37%) of federal minerals would be open to leasing subject to major constraints (NSO); 

1,681,990 acres (48%) would be open to leasing subject to minor constraints (TLS and CSU); and 299,713 acres (9%) 

would be open to leasing subject to standard lease terms only (Table 2.2 and Map 2.3, which is located at the end of 

Chapter 2). The federal minerals available for leasing would be subject to the stipulations which are summarized in 

Table 2.3. The complete stipulations, including the objectives, exceptions, modifications, and waivers, are located in 

Appendix E.4.

Approximately 218,586 acres (6%) of federal minerals would be closed to leasing (Table 2.2 and Map 2.3). This 

includes the Bitter Creek WSA, Burnt Lodge WSA, a parcel adjacent to the Bear Paw Battlefield, Azure Cave ACEC, 

and areas with wilderness characteristics.

Alternative D

Approximately 357,456 acres (10%) of federal minerals would be open to leasing subject to major constraints (NSO); 

2,461,652 acres (71%) would be open to leasing subject to minor constraints (TLS and CSU); and 597,668 acres (17%) 

would be open to leasing subject to standard lease terms only (Table 2.2 and Map 2.3). The federal minerals available 

for leasing would be subject to the stipulations which are summarized in Table 2.3. The complete stipulations, including 

the objectives, exceptions, modifications, and waivers, are located in Appendix E.4.

Approximately 74,674 acres (2%) of federal minerals would be closed to leasing (Table 2.2 and Map 2.3). This includes 

the Bitter Creek WSA, Burnt Lodge WSA, and Azure Cave ACEC.

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

Approximately 1,711,378 acres (49%) of federal minerals would be open to leasing subject to major constraints (NSO); 

1,460,097 acres (42%) would be open to leasing subject to minor constraints (TLS and CSU); and 167,274 acres (5%) 

would be open to leasing subject to standard lease terms only (Table 2.2 and Map 2.4, which is located at the end of 

Chapter 2). The federal minerals available for leasing would be subject to the stipulations which are summarized in 

Table 2.3. The complete stipulations, including the objectives, exceptions, modifications, and waivers, are located in

Appendix E.4.

Approximately 152,702 acres (4%) of federal minerals would be closed to leasing (Table 2.2 and Map 2.4). This 

includes the Bitter Creek WSA, Burnt Lodge WSA, Sweet Grass Hills TCP, a portion of the Little Rocky Mountains 

TCP, and the Azure Cave ACEC.

Stevens Compressor in Southern Blaine County BLM Photo
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

42 Fluid Minerals

Table 2.3

Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations by Alternative

Stipulation

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Please note: This is a summary only. The complete stipulations, including the objectives, exceptions, modifications, and waivers, are located in Appendix E.4

Cultural Resources

NRHP Eligible 

Properties/Districts

NSO on a case-by-case 

basis.

NSO NSO

Little Rocky 

Mountains TCP

Higher elevations of the 

Little Rocky Mountains 

(above 3,600 feet) would 

be closed to leasing. The 

remaining area would be 

open with NSO 

stipulation.

Sweet Grass Hills 

TCP

NSO within the Sweet 

Grass Hills ACEC and 

standard lease terms only 

(200 meters and 60 days) 

in the remaining area.

Closed to leasing.

Cultural Resource 

Survey

(NTL-MSO-1-85)

Cultural resource survey required.

Cultural Resources 

Tribal Consultation 

Consultation may be required under NHPA (Washington Office IM No. 2005-003).

Little Rocky Mountains 

Watershed

Closed to leasing. Appropriate resource stipulations.

National Park Service 

Bear Paw Battlefield

Standard lease terms only. Closed to leasing for the parcel adjacent to the Bear Paw 

Battlefield identified as T30N R19E, Sec. 12, SWNE.

NSO for the parcel adjacent to the Bear Paw Battlefield 

identified as T30N R19E, Sec. 12, SWNE.

Paleontological 

Resources 

NSO in critical 

paleontological sites

(3 acres).

NSO in designated paleontological sites.

Paleontological Notice

(LN 14-12)

A paleontological 

inventory may be required.

Prior to any surface-disturbing activity in areas known to have a high potential (Class 4 and 5) for containing 

significant paleontological resources, the lessee shall be required to conduct a paleontological inventory. 

Recreation Sites NSO - 300 feet from 

developed and 

undeveloped recreation 

sites/trails.

NSO within 1/4 mile of 

recreation sites.

NSO within and 500 feet 

from recreation sites.

NSO within 300 feet of 

recreation sites.

NSO within and 500 feet 

from recreation sites.

National Historic Trails NSO - 300 feet from 

developed and 

NSO within 1/4 mile of 

National Historic Trails.

NSO within and 500 feet 

from National Historic 

NSO within 300 feet of 

National Historic Trails.

NSO within 1/4 mile of 

National Historic Trails.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Fluid Minerals 43

Table 2.3

Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations by Alternative

Stipulation

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Please note: This is a summary only. The complete stipulations, including the objectives, exceptions, modifications, and waivers, are located in Appendix E.4

undeveloped recreation 

trails.

Trails.

Residential Structures NSO - 300 feet from 

occupied buildings.

NSO within 1/4 mile of 

incorporated city limits or 

residential structures.

NSO within 500 feet of 

incorporated city limits or 

residential structures.

NSO within 300 feet of 

residential structures.

NSO within and 500 feet 

of incorporated city limits 

or residential structures.

Soils CSU - On slopes over 

30%, or 20% on extremely 

erodible or slumping soils.

NSO on sensitive soils, 

badlands, rock outcrop, or 

slopes susceptible to mass 

failure. 

CSU – Prior to any surface 

disturbance on sensitive 

soils a reclamation plan 

must be approved by the 

authorized officer. The 

plan must demonstrate that 

no other practicable 

alternatives exist for 

relocating the activity. 

NSO on badlands, rock 

outcrop, and slopes 

susceptible to mass failure.

Standard lease terms only 

(200 meters and 60 days).

CSU – Prior to any surface 

disturbance on sensitive 

soils a reclamation plan 

must be approved by the 

authorized officer. The 

plan must demonstrate that 

no other practicable 

alternatives exist for 

relocating the activity. 

NSO on badlands, rock 

outcrop, and slopes 

susceptible to mass failure. 

Special Designations

Azure Cave ACEC Closed to leasing.

Big Bend of the Milk 

River ACEC

NSO

Bitter Creek ACEC If the Bitter Creek WSA is released by Congress, the area would remain closed to leasing until an ACEC management plan is completed that would 

address oil and gas leasing.

Frenchman ACEC NA* NSO (39,700 acres). NSO (57,784 acres). NSO (39,700 acres).

Grassland Bird/Greater 

Sage-Grouse Priority 

Areas ACEC

NA* Closed to leasing. NA*

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Protection Priority Area 

ACEC

NA* Closed to leasing. NA*

Kevin Rim ACEC NSO within 3 miles of 

identified active raptor 

nests and NSO for cultural 

resources on a case-byNSO
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

44 Fluid Minerals

Table 2.3

Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations by Alternative

Stipulation

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Please note: This is a summary only. The complete stipulations, including the objectives, exceptions, modifications, and waivers, are located in Appendix E.4

case basis.

Little Rocky Mountains 

ACEC

NA* NSO NA*

Malta Geological ACEC NA* CSU – Prior to any surface-disturbing activity the lessee shall be required to conduct a paleontological inventory.

Mountain Plover ACEC TLS - April 1 to July 31. NSO Closed to leasing.

Prairie Dog Towns 

within the 7km Complex 

ACEC

NSO - 1/4 mile from 

identified essential habitat 

of state and federal 

sensitive species.

NA*

Sweet Grass Hills

ACEC

NSO Closed to leasing.

Woody Island ACEC NA* NSO (15,804 acres). NSO (24,083 acres).

Zortman/Landusky Mine 

Reclamation ACEC

NA* NSO NA* Closed to leasing.

Wilderness Study Areas 

(Bitter Creek and Burnt 

Lodge WSAs)

Closed to leasing.

Water, Riparian, 

Wetland, and 

Floodplains

CSU - 500 feet from lakes, 

reservoirs, ponds and 

intermittent ephemeral or 

small perennial streams or, 

when necessary, within the 

25 year floodplains; or 

1,000 feet from larger 

perennial streams, rivers, 

and domestic water 

supplies or, when 

necessary, within the 100-

year floodplains.

NSO within and 1/4 mile 

from lentic or lotic riparian 

areas.

NSO within and 500 feet 

from lentic or lotic riparian 

areas.

CSU within and 300 feet 

from lentic or lotic riparian 

areas.

NSO within perennial or 

intermittent streams (as 

indicated by obligate 

wetland species or hydric 

soils); lakes, ponds, and 

reservoirs; floodplains; 

wetlands; and riparian 

areas. 

CSU – Surface occupancy 

and use would be 

controlled within 300 feet 

of riparian and/or wetland 

areas. Surface-disturbing 

activities would require a 

plan with design features 

that demonstrate how all 

Dibbler and Whitewater NSO within the Dibbler 

and Whitewater 

waterbodies.

CSU - 500 feet from the 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Fluid Minerals 45

Table 2.3

Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations by Alternative

Stipulation

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Please note: This is a summary only. The complete stipulations, including the objectives, exceptions, modifications, and waivers, are located in Appendix E.4

Dibbler and Whitewater 

waterbodies.

actions would maintain 

and/or improve the 

functionality of 

riparian/wetland areas. 

Lonesome Lake NSO within riparian areas, 

waterbodies, and 

ephemeral wetlands.

Wilderness Characteristics

Eastern Breaks and 

Badlands

NA** Closed to leasing. Closed to leasing. NA** NSO

Island Mountain Range NA** Closed to leasing. Closed to leasing. NA** NA**

Prairie Grasslands NA** Closed to leasing. NSO NA** NA**

Sagebrush Grasslands NA** Closed to leasing. Closed to leasing. NA** NA**

Western Breaks and 

Badlands

NA** Closed to leasing. NA** NA** NA**

Wildlife

Bald Eagle NSO - 1/4 mile from 

identified essential habitat 

of state and federal 

sensitive species.

Closed to leasing within 

1/2 mile of bald eagle nest 

sites and winter roost sites 

active within the last 

7 years.

NSO within 1/4 mile of 

bald eagle nest sites active 

within the last 7 years.

TLS – Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited

within 1/2 mile of bald 

eagle nest sites active 

within the last 7 years,

from January 1 through 

August 31. 

NSO within 1/2 mile of 

bald eagle nest sites active 

within the preceding 5 

breeding seasons. 

Bighorn Sheep Lambing Standard lease terms only 

(200 meters and 60 days).

Closed to leasing. NSO TLS - Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited 

within bighorn sheep 

lambing areas from May 1 

through June 30.

NSO

Bighorn Sheep Range Standard lease terms only 

(200 meters and 60 days).

Closed to leasing. CSU - Surface-disturbing 

or disruptive activities 

within bighorn sheep range 

would require a plan to 

avoid or minimize habitat 

loss from direct and 

indirect impacts. The plan 

would be approved by the 

authorized officer.

Standard lease terms only 

(200 meters and 60 days).

CSU - Prior to surfacedisturbing or disruptive 

activities a plan to 

maintain bighorn sheep 

habitat would be prepared

by the proponent and 

implemented upon 

approval by the authorized 

officer.
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

46 Fluid Minerals

Table 2.3

Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations by Alternative

Stipulation

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Please note: This is a summary only. The complete stipulations, including the objectives, exceptions, modifications, and waivers, are located in Appendix E.4

Black-footed Ferret NSO - 1/4 mile from 

identified essential habitat 

of state and federal 

sensitive species.

Closed to leasing within 

1/2 mile of black-footed 

ferret habitat.

NSO within 1/4 mile of 

black-footed ferret habitat.

NSO within black-footed 

ferret habitat.

NSO within 1/4 mile of 

black-footed ferret habitat.

Black-tailed Prairie 

Dog

NSO - 1/4 mile from 

identified essential habitat 

of state and federal 

sensitive species.

Closed to leasing within 

1/2 mile of black-tailed 

prairie dog habitat.

NSO within 1/4 mile of 

black-tailed prairie dog 

habitat. 

NSO within black-tailed 

prairie dog habitat.

NSO within 1/4 mile of 

black-tailed prairie dog 

habitat.

Colonial Waterbirds 

(Surface Occupancy)

NSO within 1/4 mile of a 

waterbird nesting colony.

Closed to leasing within 

1/2 mile of a waterbird 

nesting colony.

NSO within 1/2 mile of a 

waterbird nesting colony.

NSO within 1/4 mile of a 

waterbird nesting colony.

NSO within 1/4 mile of a

waterbird nesting colony.

Colonial Waterbirds 

(Timing Limits)

Standard lease terms only 

(200 meters and 60 days).

TLS - Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1 

mile of a waterbird nesting colony from April 1 through

July 15.

TLS - Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited 

within 1/2 mile of a 

waterbird nesting colony 

from April 1 through

July 15.

TLS - Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited 

within 1/2 mile of a 

waterbird nesting colony 

from April 1 through 

July 15.

Crucial Elk Winter 

Range (South Valley 

County)

NSO Closed to leasing. NSO - Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited in 

crucial winter range.

CSU - Surface-disturbing 

or disruptive activities 

within crucial winter range 

would require a plan to 

maintain functionality of 

habitat and avoid or 

minimize habitat loss. 

This plan would limit the 

number of disturbed areas 

(well pads) within crucial 

winter range to less than 2 

well disturbances per 640 

acres of crucial winter 

range. The plan would be 

approved by the authorized 

officer.

CSU - Prior to surfacedisturbing or disruptive 

activities a plan to 

maintain functionality of 

crucial winter range for 

big game and/or greater 

sage-grouse will be 

prepared by the proponent 

and implemented upon 

approval by the authorized 

officer. Within crucial 

winter range surfacedisturbing or disruptive 

activities would be 

restricted or prohibited 

within 0.6 miles from any 

existing surface-disturbing 

or disruptive activity. 

Crucial Winter Range 

(antelope, elk, mule 

deer)

TLS - December 1 to 

May 15.

Elk Calving Grounds TLS - May 1 to June 30. Closed to leasing. Standard lease terms only (200 meters and 60 days).
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Fluid Minerals 47

Table 2.3

Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations by Alternative

Stipulation

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Please note: This is a summary only. The complete stipulations, including the objectives, exceptions, modifications, and waivers, are located in Appendix E.4

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7 Consultation

The BLM may recommend modifications to or disapprove a proposed activity that would contribute to a need to list plants, animals, or their habitats 

determined to be threatened, endangered, or other special status species, or that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed or listed 

species or its habitat (Washington Office IM No. 2002-174).

Grassland Bird/Greater 

Sage-Grouse Priority 

Areas

Appropriate resource 

stipulations.

Closed to leasing. CSU - Prior to surfacedisturbing or disruptive 

activities a plan to 

maintain functionality of 

grassland bird/greater 

sage-grouse habitat will be 

prepared by the proponent 

and implemented upon 

approval by the authorized 

officer. Within the priority 

areas surface-disturbing or 

disruptive activities will be 

restricted or prohibited 

within 0.6 miles from any 

existing surface-disturbing 

or disruptive activity.

Appropriate resource 

stipulations.

NSO within priority areas.

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Leks (General Habitat)

NSO - 1/4 mile from 

identified essential habitat 

of state and federal 

sensitive species.

Closed to leasing within 2 

miles of a sage-grouse lek.

NSO within 1 mile of a 

sage-grouse lek.

NSO within 0.6 miles of a 

sage-grouse lek.

NSO within 1 mile of a 

sage-grouse lek.

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Leks (Lonesome Lake)

TLS - Surface occupancy 

and use prohibited within 

1/4 mile of grouse leks 

March 15 to June 15.

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Nesting Habitat

(General Habitat)

TLS - Avoid nesting areas 

March 1 to June 15.

Closed to leasing. CSU - Surface-disturbing 

or disruptive activities 

would require specific 

actions to prevent or 

minimize disturbance to 

sage-grouse or their habitat

outside of the greater sagegrouse protection priority 

area. 

TLS - Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited 

within 1 mile of leks from 

March 1 through June 15.

CSU - Surface-disturbing 

or disruptive activities may 

be restricted or prohibited. 

Prior to such activities a

plan to maintain 

functionality of greater 

sage-grouse habitat will be 

prepared by the proponent 

and implemented upon 

approval by the authorized 
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

48 Fluid Minerals

Table 2.3

Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations by Alternative

Stipulation

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Please note: This is a summary only. The complete stipulations, including the objectives, exceptions, modifications, and waivers, are located in Appendix E.4

officer. 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Protection Priority Area

Appropriate resource 

stipulations.

Closed to leasing. CSU - Prior to surfacedisturbing or disruptive 

activities a plan to 

maintain functionality of 

greater sage-grouse habitat 

will be prepared by the 

proponent and 

implemented upon 

approval by the authorized 

officer. Within the 

protection priority area 

surface-disturbing or 

disruptive activities will be 

restricted or prohibited 

within 0.6 miles from any 

existing surface-disturbing 

or disruptive activity.

Appropriate resource 

stipulations.

NSO within the protection 

priority area.

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Winter Range

TLS - December 1 to 

May 15.

Closed to leasing. TLS – Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited 

within winter range from 

December 1 through 

May 15.

TLS - Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 

winter range from December 1 through March 31.

Interior Least Tern NSO - 1/4 mile from 

identified essential habitat 

of state and federal 

sensitive species.

Closed to leasing within 

1/2 mile of interior least 

tern occupied habitat.

NSO within 1/2 mile of 

interior least tern occupied 

habitat.

NSO within 1/4 mile of interior least tern occupied 

habitat.

Mountain Plover 

(Surface Occupancy)

NSO - 1/4 mile from 

identified essential habitat 

of state and federal 

sensitive species.

Closed to leasing within 

1/4 mile of mountain 

plover habitat.

NSO within mountain plover habitat.

Mountain Plover 

(Timing Limit)

Standard lease terms only 

(200 meters and 60 days).

TLS - Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited 

within 1/2 mile of 

mountain plover habitat 

from April 1 through

July 15.

TLS - Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited 

within 1/4 mile of 

mountain plover habitat 

from April 1 through

July 15.

Standard lease terms only 

(200 meters and 60 days).

TLS - Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited 

within 1/4 mile of 

mountain plover habitat 

from April 1 through

July 15.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Fluid Minerals 49

Table 2.3

Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations by Alternative

Stipulation

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Please note: This is a summary only. The complete stipulations, including the objectives, exceptions, modifications, and waivers, are located in Appendix E.4

Pallid Sturgeon The BLM may recommend modifications to or disapprove a proposed activity that would contribute to a need to list plants, animals, or their habitats 

determined to be threatened, endangered, or other special status species, or that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed or listed 

species or its habitat.

CSU - Prior to surfacedisturbing or disruptive 

activities occurring in or 

within 1/2 mile of river or 

stream shorelines 

identified as pallid 

sturgeon habitat, a plan to 

maintain pallid sturgeon 

habitat would be prepared 

by the proponent and 

implemented upon 

approval by the authorized 

officer.

Peregrine Falcon NSO - 1/4 mile from 

identified essential habitat 

of state and federal 

sensitive species.

Closed to leasing within 

1/2 mile of peregrine 

falcon nests active within 

the past 7 years.

NSO within 1/4 mile of 

peregrine falcon nests 

active within the past 7 

years.

CSU – Surface-disturbing 

or disruptive activities 

within 1/4 mile of 

peregrine falcon nests 

active within the past 7 

years would require a plan 

to maintain the 

functionality of the nest, 

avoid or minimize habitat 

loss, and minimize 

disturbances to peregrine 

falcons.

NSO within 1 mile of 

peregrine falcon nests 

active within the preceding

7 breeding seasons.

Piping Plover NSO - 1/4 mile from 

identified essential habitat 

of state and federal 

sensitive species.

Closed to leasing within 

1/2 mile of piping plover 

habitat.

NSO within 1/4 mile of 

piping plover habitat.

TLS – Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited

within 1/4 mile of piping 

plover habitat from 

May 15 through July 31.

NSO within 1/4 mile of 

piping plover habitat.

Raptors NSO - 1/4 mile from 

identified essential habitat 

of state and federal 

sensitive species.

Closed to leasing within 

1/2 mile of raptor nests 

active within the past 7 

years.

NSO within 1/4 mile of 

raptor nests active within 

the past 7 years.

CSU – Surface-disturbing 

or disruptive activities

within 1/4 mile of raptor 

nests active within the past 

NSO within 1/4 mile of 

raptor nests active within 

the past 7 years.
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

50 Fluid Minerals

Table 2.3

Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations by Alternative

Stipulation

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Please note: This is a summary only. The complete stipulations, including the objectives, exceptions, modifications, and waivers, are located in Appendix E.4

Raptors - Ferruginous 

Hawk (Lonesome Lake) 

Surface occupancy and use 

is prohibited within 1/2 

mile of known ferruginous 

hawk nest sites which have 

been active within the past 

2 years.

7 years would require a 

plan to maintain the 

functionality of the nest, 

avoid or minimize habitat 

loss, and minimize 

disturbances to raptors.

Raptors - Peregrine 

Falcon

NSO - 1/4 mile from 

identified essential habitat 

of state and federal 

sensitive species.

Raptors - Special Status 

Species

NSO - 1/4 mile from 

identified essential habitat 

of state and federal 

sensitive species.

Raptors (Kevin Rim and 

Sweet Grass Hills)

NSO - 3 miles from 

identified active raptor 

nests.

Raptors (Surface 

Occupancy) 

Standard lease terms only 

(200 meters and 60 days).

Raptors (Timing Limits) NSO - 1/4 mile from 

identified essential habitat 

of state and federal 

sensitive species.

TLS - Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited from 

March 1 through 

September 1 within 1 mile 

of active raptor nest sites.

TLS - Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited from 

March 1 through July 31 

within 1/2 mile of active 

raptor nest sites.

TLS - Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited from 

March 1 through July 31 

within 1/4 mile of active 

raptor nest sites.

TLS - Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited from 

March 1 through July 31 

within 1/2 mile of active 

raptor nest sites.

Sharp-tailed Grouse 

(leks)

NSO - 500 feet from 

strutting grounds.

Closed to leasing within 

1/2 mile of sharp-tailed 

grouse leks.

NSO within 1/4 mile of 

sharp-tailed grouse leks.

CSU – Surface-disturbing 

or disruptive activities 

within 1/4 mile of sharptailed grouse leks would 

require a plan to maintain 

the functionality of the lek, 

avoid or minimize habitat 

loss, and minimize 

disturbances to sharptailed grouse. 

NSO within 1/4 mile of 

sharp-tailed grouse leks.

Sharp-tailed Grouse 

(nesting habitat)

TLS - March 1 to June 30 

within 500 feet of a sharpTLS - Surface occupancy and use is prohibited from 

TLS - Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited from 

TLS - Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited from 

TLS - Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited from 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Fluid Minerals 51

Table 2.3

Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations by Alternative

Stipulation

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Please note: This is a summary only. The complete stipulations, including the objectives, exceptions, modifications, and waivers, are located in Appendix E.4

tailed grouse nest. March 15 through June 30 

within 1 mile of sharptailed grouse leks. 

March 15 through June 30 

within 1/2 mile of sharptailed grouse leks.

March 15 through June 30 

within 1/4 mile of sharptailed grouse leks.

March 15 through June 30 

within 1/2 mile of sharptailed grouse leks.

Special Status Species NSO - 1/4 mile from 

identified essential habitat 

of state and federal 

sensitive species.

NSO within 1/4 mile of essential habitat of special status species unless other speciesspecific stipulations apply.CSU - BLM may 

recommend modifications 

to exploration and 

development proposals to 

further its conservation 

and management objective 

to avoid activities that 

would contribute to a need 

to list such a species or 

their habitat.

Sprague’s Pipit Standard lease terms only 

(200 meters and 60 days).

Closed to leasing within 

Sprague’s pipit habitat.

Standard lease terms only (200 meters and 60 days). TLS – Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited from 

April 15 through July 15 in 

Sprague’s pipit habitat.

Swift Fox (Lonesome 

Lake)

CSU - 1/2 mile from swift 

fox dens.

Standard lease terms only (200 meters and 60 days).

Winter Range (antelope, 

elk, mule deer)

TLS - December 1 to 

May 15.

Closed to leasing. TLS – Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited 

within winter range from 

December 1 through 

May 15.

TLS - Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited 

within winter range from 

December 1 through

March 31.

TLS - Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited 

within winter range from 

December 1 through

May 15. 

* The area would not be designated an ACEC under this alternative.

** The areas would not be managed for wilderness characteristics under this alternative.
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

52 Forests and Woodlands

Forest Product Sale Quantities

Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ): The

maximum volume of timber that may 

be sold on a sustained-yield basis from 

the area of suitable land covered by the 

resource management plan for a time 

period specified in the plan. This 

volume is usually expressed on an 

annual basis as the average annual 

allowable sale quantity.

Probable Sale Quantity (PSQ): A best 

assessment of the average amount of 

timber likely to be available for sale 

annually in a planning area.

Forests and Woodlands

Goal

Promote healthy forests that are biologically and structurally diverse, relatively 

fire tolerant, and dominated by not only vigorous conifer trees but also native 

grasses, forbs and shrubs, and hardwoods.

Objectives

Emphasize healthy forest conditions through treatments and management activities that would include the role of fire as 

a change agent necessary for the development of healthy forests and woodlands.

Provide for local economic opportunities through offerings of forest products while being responsive to developing 

markets dependent upon non-traditional forest byproducts (e.g., biomass).

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

All forest and woodland health treatments will be clearly defined through written silvicultural prescriptions based on the 

latest available science. At a minimum, prescriptions will require a current stand description, the desired future 

conditions to achieve a healthy forest ecosystem, and the recommended steps to achieve forest health. The BLM will 

consult with MFWP and seek concurrence regarding the anticipated benefits and/or impacts of any forest or woodland 

treatments that may impact wildlife habitat.

The BLM will look for opportunities to utilize all material that is treated through offerings of forest products including 

sawtimber and minor products such as Christmas trees, fuel wood and post and pole sales. Permits will be issued for 

minor products on a demand basis unless specifically prohibited. No sale of forest products will be made at less than the 

appraised market value. Sales of commercial wood products would be coordinated with adjacent landowners. 

Mitigation measures applied to all treatments will include Water Quality Best Management Practices for Montana 

Forests (Logan 2001). Post-treatment activities will consider the use of prescribed fire as a means to further reduce 

debris and provide site preparation for establishment or resprouting of native vegetation. 

The BLM will continue a collaborative effort to identify high priority treatment areas and implementation schedules, and 

will establish baseline data utilizing the Forest Vegetation Information System (FORVIS) or the current standard. Data 

would be used to establish acres of forest and woodlands that are outside the historical range of variance and would help 

prioritize land treatments. Isolated parcels will be treated on a case-by-case basis.

Alternative A (Current Management)

The BLM would offer forest products as opportunities arise. The annual sale 

of timber would not exceed the allowable sale quantity (ASQ) of 350 MBF 

per year (3.5 MMBF per decade).

The BLM would utilize commercial thinning as a silvicultural practice 

focusing on stands less than 90 years old.

The Burnt Lodge WSA, Bitter Creek WSA, and Sweet Grass Hills ACEC 

would not be available for the sale of commercial wood products.

Wildland fire managed for resource benefit would not be considered. All 

wildfire would be fully suppressed. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Lands and Realty 53

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Preferred Alternative)

The BLM would offer forest products as opportunities arise. The annual sale of timber would not exceed the probable 

sale quantity (PSQ) of 650 MBF per year along with 4,000 tons of biomass per year. Management of old growth stands 

would follow the Old-Growth Forest Types of the Northern Region (USFS 1992) for overall guidance and direction.

The Burnt Lodge and Bitter Creek WSAs would not be available for the sale of wood products. This includes personal 

use wood products (e.g., Christmas trees, firewood, post and poles). 

The BLM would allow for a full range of forest health treatments in the Sweet Grass Hills ACEC that may include the 

sale of wood products. Landscape-level projects that focus on forest health rather than product quantity allow for an 

array of silvicultural treatments that mimic ecological processes. The sale of wood products resulting from forest health 

treatments would be a secondary benefit and would not be a reason for undertaking the treatments. The ACEC would 

not be open for incidental personal use wood products.

As forest health treatments and/or natural disturbances take place that reduce the risk of dangerous and high severity fire 

events, management may adjust suppression strategies to become more cost effective. Additionally, as forest treatments 

occur that result in conditions approaching historical fire regimes, natural fire may be managed for the benefit of the 

forested resource.

Lands and Realty

Land Ownership Adjustment

Goal

Improve resource management efficiency and provide public benefits as 

opportunities arise.

Objectives

Retain lands with high resource values and adjust land ownership to improve land pattern and management efficiency, 

enhance public access and resource values, and/or meet public and community needs.

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

Section 102(a)(1) of FLPMA provides that “... the public lands be retained in Federal ownership, unless as a result of the 

land use planning procedure provided for in this Act, it is determined that disposal of a particular tract will serve the 

national interest....” Management of land ownership adjustments will be based on three categories of BLM land as 

described below.

 Category 1 (Retention): BLM lands in Category 1 are identified for retention and include lands with high 

resource values. These lands tend to be fairly well blocked in terms of land pattern. Included in this category 

are areas such as Wilderness Study Areas, National Historic Trails, and ACECs. Acquisition of lands or 

interests in lands will receive priority if located within and/or adjacent to BLM land in Category 1 provided the

lands meet one or more of the acquisition criteria found in Appendix F.1, Land Ownership Adjustment Criteria.

 Category 2 (Retention-Limited Disposal): BLM lands in Category 2 are generally identified for retention in 

public ownership. Category 2 includes BLM lands that are fairly well blocked as well as some smaller, isolated 

parcels as long as they are larger than a quarter-section or its equivalent or half-section or its equivalent. 

Limited disposal actions involving BLM lands within this category could occur.
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

54 Lands and Realty

BLM lands designated as Category 2 will not be available for sale. 

However, BLM lands within this category could be exchanged for 

lands or interests in lands located anywhere in Montana. In addition, 

parcels of BLM land within Category 2 may be identified for transfer 

under the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act. Such 

recreation or public purpose use could be considered on a case-bycase basis for such facilities as schools or other public administration, 

parks or recreation areas, or historic preservation. Also, BLM land 

within Category 2 could be considered for airport purposes under the 

Airport and Airway Improvement Act, for public agency 

jurisdictional transfer, or for State Indemnity Selections on a case-bycase basis.

BLM lands in Category 2 may contain significant resource values 

protected by law or policy, and any disposal action is contingent upon 

prior review and approval. If actions cannot be taken to adequately 

mitigate impacts from disposal of those lands, the parcels would be 

retained. Acquisition of lands or interests in lands located in or 

adjacent to Category 2 will be considered in accordance with the 

acquisition criteria found in Appendix F.1, Land Ownership Adjustment Criteria.

 Category 3 (Disposal): BLM lands in Category 3 are identified for disposal through any method, including 

sale. These lands generally are surrounded by private land with no legal access, or have been selected for 

disposal by the BLM due to management issues. BLM land parcels in this category are relatively smaller in 

size. These parcels usually comprise up to a half-section or its equivalent, or up to a quarter-section or its 

equivalent. 

BLM lands in Category 3 will be available for disposal through exchange for lands or interests in lands located 

anywhere within Montana. Those parcels which meet the sale criteria of section 203(a)(1) of FLPMA could be 

made available for sale. However, disposal of Category 3 lands by exchange will have priority over disposal by 

sale. In addition, parcels of BLM land within Category 3 may be identified for transfer under the R&PP Act. 

Such recreation or public purpose use could be considered on a case-by-case basis for such facilities as schools 

or other public administration, parks or recreation areas, or historic preservation. Also, BLM land within 

Category 3 could be considered for airport purposes under the Airport and Airway Improvement Act, for public 

agency jurisdictional transfer, or for State Indemnity Selections on a case-by-case basis. 

Some BLM lands in Category 3 may contain significant resource values protected by law or policy and any 

disposal action is contingent upon prior review and approval. If actions cannot be taken to adequately mitigate 

impacts from disposal of those lands, the parcels would be retained.

All land ownership adjustment proposals, whether land exchange, acquisition of land or interests in land, or disposal, 

will be subject to environmental review including all biological reports, cultural and paleontological inventories, and 

hazardous materials assessments, as well as water rights documentation and minerals appraisal, if the mineral estate is 

included in the proposal.

Exchange will be the preferred method of land ownership adjustment. In accordance with policy, all lands to be 

exchanged must be within Montana (43 CFR §2200.0(d) (2008)). If the BLM disposal parcels contain public access

routes, the access rights would be reserved to the United States in the conveyance.

Disposal will be considered on a case-by-case basis through sale (by competitive, modified competitive, or direct 

methods). Applications for R&PP, jurisdictional transfer to other federal agencies, Color-of-Title, Desert Land Entry, 

Indian Allotment, Carey Act Grant, State Grant, Railroad Grants, and Airport Grants would be considered and reviewed 

on a case-by-case basis.

Recreation and Public Purposes 

(R&PP) Act

The Act authorizes the sale or lease of 

BLM lands for recreational or public 

purposes to State and local 

governments and to qualified nonprofit 

organizations. Examples of typical uses 

under the Act are historic monument 

sites, campgrounds, schools, fire 

houses, law enforcement facilities, 

municipal facilities, landfills, hospitals, 

parks, and fairgrounds.

Department of the Interior regulations 

for the R&PP Act are found in Title 43 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (43 

CFR), Parts 2740 (Sales) and 2912 

(Leases).
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Lands and Realty 55

Federal Land Transaction 

Facilitation Act (FLTFA) and 

Land and Water

Conservation Fund (LWCF)

FLTFA: FLTFA monies accrue from 

disposal of BLM lands by sale. 20% of 

the fund covers administrative costs and 

the remaining 80% is designated for 

acquisition. Of that 80%, BLM gets 

60%, Forest Service 20%, National 

Park Service 10%, and Fish and 

Wildlife Service 10%. FLTFA requires 

that 80% remain in state (i.e., of the 

80% designated for acquisition, 80% 

must be spent in-state).

LWCF: LWCF monies come from the 

Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas 

leasing royalties, GSA surplus property 

sales, and federal motorboat fuel tax, 

and are used for the purchase of land 

which meets the established criteria. 

Congress annually appropriates the 

funds between competing proposals 

submitted from the BLM, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Forest Service, and 

National Park Service.

Acquisition will primarily be accomplished through purchase of land or 

interests in land (conservation easements) from willing landowners using the 

Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA) account if available, the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), or other funding sources. 

Acquisition of land may also be accomplished through donations to the BLM 

by nonfederal landowners. The BLM may acquire conservation easements to 

preserve open space, enhance public access, and protect important resource 

values.

Land acquired adjacent to special management areas such as Wilderness 

Study Areas or ACECs will be subject to the management guidance for that 

area. Acquired land, or interests in land, will be subject to the management 

guidance for the adjoining area.

Alternative A (Current Management)

Land ownership adjustments would be considered on a case-by-case basis, 

primarily based on identified disposal parcels and on current acquisition, 

disposal and retention criteria.

Approximately 90,000 acres were previously identified for disposal in the 

planning area (Table 2.4) (BLM 1988 and BLM 1994a). Disposals may be 

made through exchange or the sale of specifically identified parcels if they 

meet sale criteria found in section 203(a) of FLPMA. Lands on the disposal 

list or that meet the disposal criteria would be available for State Indemnity 

Selections, airport leases, and R&PP Act conveyances on a case-by-case 

basis.

During any purchase or exchange action, the BLM would attempt to maintain the respective county tax base and allow 

no overall net gain in BLM land over the life of this plan. The BLM would monitor land tenure adjustments to identify 

potential problems in achieving this objective. BLM land may be sold to facilitate a purchase or exchange action or 

maintain the respective county tax base.

Table 2.4

BLM Land by Land Adjustment Category (Acres)

Category

Alternative A

(Current

Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred

Alternative)

1 – Retention NA 609,678 484,127 332,283 296,881

2 – Retention/

Limited Disposal 90,114

1,813,668 1,939,218 2,074,881 2,126,465

3 – Disposal 14,129 14,129 30,310 14,129

Alternatives B and C

All lands within special management areas (WSAs, ACECs, etc.) and areas managed for wilderness characteristics

would be designated as Category 1 (retention) lands. Table 2.4 shows by alternative the BLM lands designated as 

Category 1.

BLM land designated as Category 3 (disposal) is shown by alternative in Table 2.4 and Appendix F.2 provides the legal 

description of the disposal parcels. Maps F.1 through F.8 in Appendix F.2 show the disposal parcels for Alternative E, 

the Preferred Alternative. The remaining BLM land would be designated as Category 2.
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

56 Lands and Realty

Lands or interests in lands brought forward by willing landowners would be considered for acquisition provided they 

meet one or more of the acquisition criteria listed in Appendix F.1, Land Ownership Adjustment Criteria. The offered 

lands surrounded by or adjacent to BLM lands in Category 1 would be considered acquisition priorities over lands 

surrounded by or adjacent to BLM lands in Category 2. Newly acquired lands that meet retention criteria (Category 1)

would be designated as retention lands; all other acquired lands would be designated as Category 2. No lands meeting 

Category 3 criteria would be considered for acquisition.

The need to protect newly acquired lands would be considered as part of the environmental review prior to acquisition 

and, if withdrawn, the lands would be managed under the terms and conditions of the withdrawal.

Federal minerals underlying nonfederal surface would generally be retained in federal ownership. However, an 

exchange of this type of mineral estate may be considered on a case-by-case basis if found to be in the public interest. 

The sale of this type of mineral interest under section 209(b) of FLPMA could be considered only if the requirements of 

this same section were met. Conversely, the acquisition of patented mining claims would also be addressed on a caseby-case basis.

Land tenure adjustments would follow BLM guidance and policies for acquisitions and disposals. It is not the intention

of the BLM to have a net gain in federal ownership, but rather to provide exceptional national public lands that are 

accessible to the public.

Alternative D

All lands within special management areas (WSAs, ACECs, etc.) would be designated as Category 1 (retention) lands. 

Table 2.4 shows the BLM lands designated as Category 1 by alternative.

BLM land designated as Category 3 (disposal) is shown in Table 2.4 by alternative and Appendix F.2 provides the legal 

description of the disposal parcels. Maps F.1 through F.8 in Appendix F.2 show the disposal parcels for Alternative E, 

the Preferred Alternative. The remaining BLM land would be designated as Category 2.

Lands or interests in lands brought forward by willing landowners would be considered for acquisition provided they 

meet one or more of the acquisition criteria listed in Appendix F.1, Land Ownership Adjustment Criteria. The offered 

lands surrounded by or adjacent to BLM lands in Category 1 would be considered acquisition priorities over lands 

surrounded by or adjacent to BLM lands in Category 2. Newly acquired lands that meet retention criteria (Category 1) 

would be designated as retention lands; all other acquired lands would be designated as Category 2. No lands meeting 

Category 3 criteria would be considered for acquisition.

The need to protect newly acquired lands would be considered as part of the environmental review prior to acquisition 

and, if withdrawn, the lands would be managed under the terms and conditions of the withdrawal.

Federal minerals underlying nonfederal surface would generally be retained in federal ownership. However, an 

exchange of this type of mineral estate may be considered on a case-by-case basis if found to be in the public interest. 

The sale of this type of mineral interest under section 209(b) of FLPMA could be considered only if the requirements of 

this same section were met. Conversely, the acquisition of patented mining claims would also be addressed on a caseby-case basis.

Land tenure adjustments would follow BLM guidance and policies for acquisitions and disposals. It is not the intention 

of the BLM to have a net gain in federal ownership, but rather to provide exceptional national public lands that are 

accessible to the public.

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

All lands within special management areas (WSAs, ACECs, etc.) would be designated as Category 1 (retention) lands. 

Table 2.4 shows by alternative the BLM lands designated as Category 1.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Lands and Realty 57

Lands with wilderness characteristics would be identified for retention or very 

limited disposal (Category 2). The BLM land is these areas would not be 

disposed of other than by exchange and only when necessary to further protect 

or enhance the wilderness characteristics.

BLM land designated as Category 3 (disposal) is shown by alternative in 

Table 2.4 and Appendix F.2 provides the legal description of the disposal 

parcels. Maps F.1 through F.8 in Appendix F.2 show the disposal parcels for 

Alternative E, the Preferred Alternative. The remaining BLM land would be 

designated as Category 2.

Lands or interests in lands brought forward by willing landowners would be 

considered for acquisition provided they meet one or more of the acquisition 

criteria listed in Appendix F.1, Land Ownership Adjustment Criteria. The 

offered lands surrounded by or adjacent to BLM lands in Category 1 would be 

considered acquisition priorities over lands surrounded by or adjacent to BLM 

lands in Category 2. Newly acquired lands that meet retention criteria 

(Category 1) would be designated as retention lands; all other acquired lands 

would be designated as Category 2. No lands meeting Category 3 criteria 

would be considered for acquisition.

The need to protect newly acquired lands would be considered as part of the environmental review prior to acquisition 

and, if withdrawn, the lands would be managed under the terms and conditions of the withdrawal.

Federal minerals underlying nonfederal surface would generally be retained in federal ownership. However, an 

exchange of this type of mineral estate may be considered on a case-by-case basis if found to be in the public interest. 

The sale of this type of mineral interest under section 209(b) of FLPMA could be considered only if the requirements of 

this same section were met. Conversely, the acquisition of patented mining claims would also be addressed on a caseby-case basis.

Land tenure adjustments would follow BLM guidance and policies for acquisitions and disposals. It is not the intention 

of the BLM to have a net gain in federal ownership, but rather to provide exceptional national public lands that are 

accessible to the public.

Access

Goal

Address public and administrative access needs across nonfederal lands.

Objective

Acquire or retain access to BLM land in cooperation with private landowners; state, local and tribal governments; and 

other federal agencies in order to improve efficiency of multiple use management and to facilitate public enjoyment of 

these lands.

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

All available methods will be used to acquire the legal rights for public and administrative access across nonfederal land 

to BLM land. Easement acquisition through donation or purchase will be the preferred method of acquiring legal access. 

Reciprocal rights, exchanges, fee purchases, and reserving public access in disposal actions are other appropriate 

methods of securing access. As a last resort, the Secretary of the Interior may exercise the power of eminent domain only 

if necessary to secure access to BLM lands, and then only if the lands so acquired are confined to as narrow a corridor as 

is necessary to serve such purpose (43 U.S.C. 1715). 

Perpetual Exclusive Easement

A perpetual exclusive easement is a 

perpetual right acquired by the United 

States to use land of another for a 

particular purpose, such right being 

acquired exclusively by the United 

States and excluding others from 

enjoying the same privilege unless 

specifically authorized by the United 

States. An exclusive road easement 

grants control to the United States and 

may allow it to authorize third party use 

and set road use rules. (BLM 

Handbook H-2100-1)

When obtaining a road easement, the 

BLM’s preferred option is to gain an 

exclusive easement in order to obtain 

the right for the general public to use 

and access the road.
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

58 Lands and Realty

The BLM will acquire on behalf of the United States and its assigns permanent, exclusive, unrestrictive, and assignable 

rights of access. This allows the BLM to maintain the road or trail and control commercial uses for road maintenance 

purposes. Any proposed commercial uses will require that a right-of-way application be submitted and approved prior to 

use. A standard 60-foot-wide easement will be acquired unless road design or resource management necessitates a 

different width.

The BLM will promote the concept of Respected Access is Open Access through educational opportunities and signage.

Alternative A (Current Management)

Legal public or administrative access would be obtained from willing landowners on a case-by-case basis as the need or 

opportunity arises. Access acquisition efforts would be concentrated on areas with important resource values, larger 

blocks of BLM land, areas with high public demand for access, and in areas with substantial BLM improvements. 

Easement acquisition would be focused in areas with completed route analyses. 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Preferred Alternative)

Legal public or administrative access would be pursued from willing landowners on a case-by-case basis as the need or 

opportunity arises. Acquisition efforts would be focused on Category 1 and 2 lands where no legal public access exists 

or where additional access is necessary to meet management objectives.

Facilities

Goal

Provide and manage adequate administrative and other facilities based on 

public and agency needs.

Objective

Ensure facilities are maintained to meet public health and safety requirements.

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

Recreation sites, administrative sites, buildings and communication towers will be maintained within Bureau standards 

to reduce deferred maintenance costs and meet public health and safety requirements. Comprehensive condition 

assessments will be conducted for all maintained facilities and maintenance actions would be implemented if necessary. 

These activities will be coordinated with other federal, state, and local government agencies, private landowners and the 

general public as needed. 

Existing and new facilities will be managed through FAMS. Directional and informative signs would be installed based 

on public need and available funding. All signs will conform to BLM policy.

Rights-of-Way, Leases and Permits

Goals

Consider all requests for rights-of-way, land use permits, and leases.

Designate transportation and utility corridors, as well as avoidance and/or exclusion 

areas.

Objective

Address the needs of industry, utilities, the public, or government entities for land use authorizations while minimizing 

adverse impacts to other resource values.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Lands and Realty 59

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

Requests for land use authorizations (rights-of-way, leases or permits) will be analyzed and mitigation measures applied 

on a case-by-case basis through the environmental review process. Terms and conditions for rights-of-way, corridors, 

and development areas (oil and gas) will incorporate applicable BMPs, current professional practice, and recent scientific 

findings. All rights-of-way would comply with Streamside Management Zone restrictions and guidelines where 

applicable. In accordance with current policy, land use authorizations will not be issued for uses which involve the 

disposal or storage of materials which could contaminate the land (e.g., hazardous waste disposal sites, landfills, rifle 

ranges, etc.).

Nonfederal landowners who are surrounded by BLM land will be allowed a degree of access that will provide for the 

reasonable use and enjoyment of the nonfederal land (BLM Manual 2801).

Applications for rights-of-way from holders of valid, existing mining claims in the Sweet Grass Hills would be 

considered on a case-by-case basis with appropriate mitigation.

New right-of-way facilities will be located within or adjacent to existing rights-of-way, or corridors, to the extent 

practical, in order to minimize adverse environmental impacts and the proliferation of separate rights-of-way. New 

rights-of-way would include appropriate BMPs and mitigation (Appendix C and Appendix M). The latest version of 

Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines (APLIC 2006) and the BMPs established by the BLM Wind 

Energy Development Programmatic EIS and Record of Decision (BLM 2006c) would be implemented in the 

construction and operation of right-of-way facilities.

Communication Sites

New communication site users will be grouped into suitable existing sites to reduce impacts and expedite application 

processing. Communication site management plans will be completed prior to authorizing communication site uses in 

new areas. The following communication sites are designated: Mount Royal (Sweet Grass Hills), Sheep Coulee, Kevin 

Rim, Harlem, Antoine Butte, Saco Hills, Larb Hills, Loring, Whitewater, and Rose Hill. In the Little Rocky Mountains, 

communication sites will be located only on Antoine Butte. In the Sweet Grass Hills, communication sites will not be 

allowed on West and Middle Buttes. The use of alternative energy sources will be considered where electric power is 

not available.

Revised Statute 2477

Revised Statute (R.S.) 2477, which provided that “[t]he right of way for the construction of highways over public lands, 

not reserved for public uses, is hereby granted,” was repealed on October 21, 1976, by the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act. FLPMA did not terminate valid rights-of-way established under R.S. 2477 prior to its repeal. 

Current guidance is contained in WO IM No. 2006-159: Non-Binding Determinations of R.S. 2477 Right-of-Way 

Claims. Briefly, this guidance states that the BLM does not have the authority to make binding determinations on the 

validity of R.S. 2477 right-of-way claims. The BLM may, however, make informal, non-binding determinations for its 

own land use planning and management purposes. A non-binding determination that the right-of-way exists is required 

before completing consultation with states or counties on any proposed improvements to a claimed R.S. 2477 right-ofway (i.e., any work beyond routine maintenance). It may also be appropriate before taking action to close or otherwise 

restrict the use of a claimed R.S. 2477 right-of-way. 

Alternative A (Current Management)

Corridors

The Northern Border Corridor, designated in 1979 (44 FR 175, pp. 52341-52342), would be retained as a transportation 

and utility corridor with a width of 4 1/2 miles. This corridor would include 63,371 acres of BLM land (Table 2.5 and 

Map W.1, which is available at http://blm.gov/8qkd).
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

60 Lands and Realty

Table 2.5

Corridors by Alternative (Width and Acres)

Alternative A

(Current 

Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred 

Alternative)

Northern Border 

Corridor

4 1/2 miles

63,371 acres

1 mile

9,119 acres

2 miles

25,688 acres NA NA

State Secondary 

Highway 24 NA NA NA NA 1 mile761 acres

State Secondary 

Highway 325 NA 1 mile12 acres

2 miles

179 acres NA 1 mile12 acres

State Secondary 

Highway 537 NA 1 mile3,048 acres

2 miles

6,686 acres NA NA

U.S. Highway 2 NA 1 mile

5,091 acres

2 miles

12,238 acres NA 1 mile5,091 acres

U.S. Highway 87 NA NA NA NA 1 mile

287 acres

U.S. Highway 191 NA 1 mile

13,808 acres

2 miles

31,339 acres NA 1 mile13,733 acres

Exclusion Areas

The Bitter Creek and Burnt Lodge WSAs would be exclusion areas (74,420 acres) (Table 2.6). If these WSAs are not 

designated by Congress as wilderness areas, Bitter Creek and Burnt Lodge would become avoidance areas.

Avoidance Areas

The BLM would designate two avoidance areas for the issuance of rights-of-way (11,976 acres) (Table 2.6). In these 

areas, efforts would be made to reroute a proposal. A right-of-way may be allowed if no reasonable alternative is found; 

however, special mitigation measures may be required to protect sensitive 

resource values. Rights-of-way may also be allowed if they support or 

promote other management objectives for the area.

Riparian and wetland areas would be avoidance areas in the western (West 

HiLine RMP) portion of the planning area.

Alternative B

Corridors

Five utility and transportation corridors would be designated: Northern 

Border Corridor; U.S. Highway Nos. 2 and 191; and State Secondary 

Highway Nos. 325 and 537 (Table 2.5 and Map W.1, which is available at 

http://blm.gov/8qkd). The corridors would be available for all uses (e.g., 

powerlines, pipelines). The corridor width would be restricted to one mile, or 

one-half mile from the centerline. These corridors would include 31,078 acres 

of BLM land.

The Northern Border Corridor would not include the Bitter Creek WSA. 

Within the WSA, management would be subject to the guidance that protects 

the resource values for which the WSA was designated.

Applicants for new utility and transportation rights-of-way would be 

encouraged to locate their facilities within one of these corridors.

Corridors, Exclusion Areas and

Avoidance Areas

Designated right-of-way corridor: a 

parcel of land with specific boundaries 

identified by law, Secretarial order, the 

land-use planning process, or other 

management decision, as being a 

preferred location for existing and 

future rights-of-way and facilities. The 

corridor may be suitable to 

accommodate more than one type of 

right-of-way use or facility or one or 

more right-of-way uses or facilities 

which are similar, identical, or 

compatible (43 CFR 2801.5(b)(9)).

Exclusion Areas: Areas which are not 

available for location of rights-of-way 

under any conditions (BLM Land Use 

Planning Handbook, Appendix C).

Avoidance Areas: Areas to be avoided 

but may be available for location of 

rights-of-way with special stipulations 

(BLM Land Use Planning Handbook, 

Appendix C).
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Lands and Realty 61

Table 2.6

Rights-of-Way Exclusion and Avoidance Areas by Alternative (Acres)*

Alternative A

(Current 

Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred 

Alternative)

Exclusion Areas

Bitter Creek WSA 60,693 60,693 60,693 60,693 60,693

Burnt Lodge WSA 13,727 13,727 13,727 13,727 13,727

Grassland Bird/Greater SageGrouse Priority Areas ACEC NA** 461,220 NA** NA** NA**

Greater Sage-Grouse Protection 

Priority Area ACEC NA** 930,265 NA** NA** NA**

Wilderness Characteristics Areas NA 0 51,055 0 0

Avoidance Areas

Azure Cave ACEC 0 141 141 141 141

Big Bend of the Milk River ACEC 0 1,972 1,972 1,972 1,972

Bitter Creek ACEC 0 60,693 60,693 60,693 60,693

Crucial Winter Range (antelope, elk, 

mule deer, greater sage-grouse) 0 8,383 62,577 0 66,034

Recreation Sites NA 936 59,572 25,155 61,803

Frenchman ACEC NA** NA** 42,020 63,482 42,020

Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse

Priority Areas NA** 0 298,772 NA** 298,772

Greater Sage-Grouse Protection 

Priority Area NA** 0 930,265 NA** 930,265

Kevin Rim ACEC 4,557 4,557 4,557 4,557 4,557

Little Rocky Mountains ACEC NA** NA** NA** 27,177 NA**

Little Rocky Mountains TCP 0 0 0 0 30,648

Malta Geological ACEC NA** 6,153 6,153 6,153 6,153

Mountain Plover ACEC 0 24,762 24,762 24,762 24,762

National Historic Trails 0 20,141 9,005 4,365 8,970

Sweet Grass Hills ACEC 7,419 7,419 7,419 7,419 7,419

Sweet Grass Hills TCP 0 0 0 0 7,718

VRM Class I NA 90,032 74,506 74,506 74,506

VRM Class II 0 977,396 0 0 0

Wilderness Characteristics NA 386,428 177,340 0 10,714

Winter Range (antelope, elk, mule 

deer, greater sage-grouse) 0 583,341 0 0 0

Woody Island ACEC NA** NA** 22,411 22,411 32,869

Zortman/Landusky Mine 

Reclamation ACEC NA** 3,609 3,609 NA** 2,682

* Acreage totals may overlap (e.g., Greater Sage-Grouse Protection Priority Areas and winter range).

** The area would not be designated an ACEC or managed as a priority area under this alternative.
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

62 Lands and Realty

Exclusion Areas

The Bitter Creek WSA, Burnt Lodge WSA, Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Areas ACEC, and Greater 

Sage-Grouse Protection Priority Area ACEC would be exclusion areas (1,465,906 acres) (Table 2.6), subject to the 

existing Northern Border Pipeline right-of-way within the Bitter Creek WSA. If the WSAs are not designated by 

Congress as wilderness areas, Bitter Creek and Burnt Lodge would remain exclusion areas.

Avoidance Areas

The BLM would designate 15 avoidance areas (2,175,998 acres) for the issuance of rights-of-way (Table 2.6). In these 

areas, efforts would be made to reroute a proposal. A right-of-way may be allowed if no reasonable alternative is found; 

however, special mitigation measures may be required to protect sensitive resource values. Rights-of-way may also be 

allowed if they support or promote other management objectives for the area.

During site-specific planning, riparian areas with unique values (i.e.; where water quality habitat for special status 

species is an issue) would be treated as avoidance areas for rights-of-way (installation of infrastructure that require 

surface disturbance and/or permanent surface occupancy).

Alternative C

Corridors

Five utility and transportation corridors would be designated: Northern Border Corridor; U.S. Highway 191; U.S. 

Highway 2; and State Secondary Highway Nos. 325 and 537 (Table 2.5 and Map W.2, which is available at 

http://blm.gov/8qkd). The corridors would be available for all uses (e.g., powerlines, pipelines). The corridor width 

would be restricted to two miles, or one mile from the centerline. These corridors would include 76,130 acres of BLM 

land.

Within the Bitter Creek WSA, management of the Northern Border Corridor would be subject to guidance that protects 

the resource values for which the WSA was designated. Within the Frenchman ACEC, management of the Northern 

Border Corridor would be subject to guidance that protects the resource values of the area.

Applicants for new utility and transportation rights-of-way would be encouraged to locate their facilities within one of 

these corridors.

Exclusion Areas

The Bitter Creek WSA, Burnt Lodge WSA, and three areas with wilderness characteristics would be exclusion areas 

(125,475 acres) (Table 2.6), subject to the existing Northern Border Pipeline right-of-way within the Bitter Creek WSA. 

If the WSAs are not designated by Congress as wilderness areas, Bitter Creek and Burnt Lodge would become avoidance 

areas.

Avoidance Areas

The BLM would designate 17 avoidance areas for the issuance of rights-of-way (1,796,664 acres) (Table 2.6). In these 

areas, efforts would be made to reroute a proposal. A right-of-way may be allowed if no reasonable alternative is found; 

however, special mitigation measures may be required to protect sensitive resource values. Rights-of-way may also be 

allowed if they support or promote other management objectives for the area.

During site-specific planning, riparian areas with unique values (i.e.; where water quality habitat for special status 

species is an issue) would be treated as avoidance areas for rights-of-way (installation of infrastructure that require 

surface disturbance and/or permanent surface occupancy).
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Lands and Realty 63

Alternative D

Corridors

The BLM would not designate corridors.

Exclusion Areas

The Bitter Creek and Burnt Lodge WSAs would be exclusion areas (74,420 acres) (Table 2.6). If the Bitter Creek WSA 

is not designated by Congress as wilderness, the area would remain an exclusion area. If the Burnt Lodge WSA is not 

designated by Congress as wilderness, the area would become an avoidance area.

Avoidance Areas

The BLM would designate 13 avoidance areas for the issuance of rights-of-way (322,792 acres) (Table 2.6). In these 

areas, efforts would be made to reroute a proposal. A right-of-way may be allowed if no reasonable alternative is found; 

however, special mitigation measures may be required to protect sensitive resource values. Rights-of-way may also be 

allowed if they support or promote other management objectives for the area.

During site-specific planning, riparian areas with unique values (i.e.; where water quality habitat for special status 

species is an issue) would be treated as avoidance areas for rights-of-way (installation of infrastructure that require 

surface disturbance and/or permanent surface occupancy).

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

Corridors

Five utility and transportation corridors would be designated: U.S. Highway 2, U.S. Highway 87; U.S. Highway 191; 

and State Secondary Highway Nos. 24 and 325 (Table 2.5 and Map 2.5, which is located at the end of Chapter 2). The 

corridor for U.S. Highway 191 would exclude the Big Bend of the Milk River ACEC. The corridors would be available 

for all uses (e.g., powerlines, pipelines). The corridor width would be restricted to one mile, or one-half mile from the 

centerline. These corridors would include 19,884 acres of BLM land. Applicants for new utility and transportation 

rights-of-way would be encouraged to locate their facility within one of these corridors.

Within the Bitter Creek WSA, management of the Northern Border Pipeline right-of-way would be subject to guidance 

that protects the resource values for which the WSA was designated. Within the Frenchman ACEC, management of the 

Northern Border Pipeline right-of-way would be subject to guidance that protects the resource values of the area.

Exclusion Areas

The Bitter Creek and Burnt Lodge WSAs would be exclusion areas (74,420 acres) (Table 2.6 and Map 2.5). If the Bitter 

Creek WSA is not designated by Congress as wilderness, the area would remain an exclusion area. If the Burnt Lodge 

WSA is not designated by Congress as wilderness, the area would become an avoidance area.

Avoidance Areas

The BLM would designate 19 avoidance areas for the issuance of rights-of-way (1,672,698 acres) (Table 2.6 and Map 

2.5). In these areas, efforts would be made to reroute a proposal. A right-of-way may be allowed if no reasonable 

alternative is found; however, special mitigation measures may be required to protect sensitive resource values. Rightsof-way may also be allowed if they support or promote other management objectives for the area.

During site-specific planning, riparian areas with unique values (i.e.; where water quality habitat for special status 

species is an issue) would be treated as avoidance areas for rights-of-way (installation of infrastructure that requires

surface disturbance and/or permanent surface occupancy). 
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

64 Lands and Realty

Unauthorized Use

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

The HiLine District attempts to reduce trespass through prevention, detection, and resolution. The priority for resolving 

trespass in an area is accorded to newly discovered ongoing uses, developments, or occupancies where resource damage 

is occurring and/or where there is a significant loss of revenue to the United States. In such cases, resolution is needed to 

halt and prevent further environmental degradation or revenue loss. Historic trespass cases where little or no resources 

damage is occurring are resolved as workloads permit.

Withdrawals

Goal

Protect significant resources or significant government investment.

Objective

Utilize withdrawal actions with the least restrictive measures and of the minimum size necessary to accomplish the 

required purpose.

Decisions Common to All Alternatives 

New withdrawals will be pursued where other agency actions are inadequate to protect critical resource values or federal 

investments. Examples of such resource values include cultural or historic sites, crucial habitat for threatened and 

endangered species, or scenic values. Federal investments that may need the protection of a withdrawal could include 

administrative sites or extensively developed recreation areas. New withdrawals would include only the minimum area 

required to meet the purpose of the withdrawal.

New withdrawal proposals that result in a transfer of jurisdiction to another federal agency will be considered on a caseby-case basis. Other agency requests for new withdrawals, or modification, extension, or revocation of existing 

withdrawals will be considered.

Existing withdrawals will be reviewed prior to their expiration to determine if a need exists to extend and/or modify the 

withdrawal. Should the review indicate that the purpose for which the lands were withdrawn is no longer valid, the 

withdrawal would be allowed to expire. If the purpose remains valid for a portion of the withdrawn lands, the 

withdrawal would be modified and extended.

Existing and new proposed mineral withdrawals are addressed under the Solid Minerals – Locatables section in 

Chapter 2.

If lands are returned to BLM management through the withdrawal process, they will be managed consistent with 

adjacent public lands.

Unauthorized Use, Occupancy, and Development

Unauthorized Use – Activities that do not appreciably alter the physical character of BLM land or vegetative resources. Some 

examples of unauthorized use include the abandonment of property or trash, enclosures, and use of existing roads, primitive roads

and trails for purposes which require a use fee or right-of-way.

Unauthorized Occupancy – Activities which result in full or part-time human occupancy or use. An example would be the 

construction, placement, occupancy, or assertion of ownership of a facility or structure (cabin, house, natural shelter, trailer, etc.) 

on BLM land.

Unauthorized Development – An activity that physically alters the character of BLM land or vegetative resources. Examples 

include cultivation of the land and road or trail construction/realignment.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Livestock Grazing 65

Livestock Grazing

Goal

Provide opportunities on the public rangelands for a sustainable level of livestock 

grazing consistent with multiple use and sustained yield.

Objective

Manage livestock grazing to provide a sustained flow of local economic benefits and protect resource values.

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

Livestock will continue to be allocated approximately 386,600 animal unit months (AUMs) of forage each year from 

BLM land in the planning area (Appendix G). Approximately 2,390,000 acres will be open to livestock grazing and 

47,000 acres will be closed to livestock grazing except as needed for resource management.

Actions consistent with achieving or maintaining the Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock 

Grazing Management for Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota (BLM 1997a and Appendix H) will continue to be 

incorporated into livestock grazing permits and leases and will apply to all livestock grazing activities. Under the 

grazing regulations if Standards are not met the authorized officer will take appropriate action as soon as practical but 

not later than the start of the next grazing season upon determining that grazing management needs to be modified to 

ensure progress toward conformance with the guidelines (43 CFR 4180.2(c)(3)). A no grazing alternative will be 

considered in all environmental assessments prepared as part of the grazing permit renewal process (IM No. MT-2012-

042).

Flexibility is authorized in grazing permits to allow for livestock management needs and fluctuating climatic conditions. 

Flexibility afforded to livestock management practices includes adjustment of on/off dates and livestock numbers, but 

management must be within the overall terms of the grazing permit, the permitted season of use and the established 

carrying capacity of the allotment. Any deviations from the terms and conditions of the grazing permit should be applied 

for beforehand and would require environmental review.

All allotments have been assigned to a management category depending on the resources and problems contained in the 

allotment. The three categories of Improve (I), Maintain (M) and Custodial (C) reflect resource conditions, resource 

potential and economic considerations for each allotment. The terms improve, maintain and custodial relate to resource 

objectives for the allotment (i.e., whether conditions need to be improved or maintained, or if custodial management is 

appropriate because of relatively limited resources and resource problems). The BLM’s allotment categorization system 

will continue to determine priorities for processing grazing authorizations, implementing grazing activity plans, spending 

range improvement funds and monitoring. Allotments will be subject to recategorization based on changes in resource 

conditions as determined through monitoring and land health evaluations consistent with BLM policy. Future changes in 

allotment categories will be documented through plan maintenance.

Developed recreation sites will not be allocated for livestock grazing.

Existing Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) will continue to be implemented including associated range 

improvement projects. AMPs will be updated and revised in response to monitoring and/or permit transfers. New 

AMPs will be developed and implemented to direct site-specific management of livestock grazing after completion of 

rangeland health assessments.

Livestock grazing will be managed through monitoring of AMPs or similar grazing plans and supervision of grazing use

as provided under the grazing regulations. Adjustments to livestock management practices or livestock numbers 

including increases or decreases would be made based on results of monitoring studies, rangeland health assessments, 

allotment evaluations, and through an environmental review process. Where opportunities occur, cooperative efforts to 

utilize permittee/lessee monitoring and integrated ranch planning will be emphasized.
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

66 Livestock Grazing

If monitoring data demonstrate that livestock use on an allotment in a priority greater sage-grouse area is adversely 

affecting greater sage-grouse or their habitat, the terms and conditions of grazing permits may be modified (43 CFR 

4130.3, 4130.3-1, 4130.3-2), or changes in active use (43 CFR 4110.3-3) could be considered in order to meet the 

standards for rangeland health as described in 43 CFR 4180 and the Lewistown Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management or to otherwise manage, maintain, or improve sage-grouse habitat.

Appropriate indicators and measurements specific to habitat for greater sage-grouse, or any other wildlife species of 

concern, would be evaluated as part of standards and guidelines assessment (43 CFR 4180) and any necessary and 

appropriate habitat objectives specific to meeting the wildlife health standard for the site would be identified and 

incorporated into AMPs or the terms and conditions (43 CFR 4130.3, 4130.3-1, 4130.3-2) of livestock grazing permits.

Alternative A (Current Management)

Most unallocated parcels would remain available for livestock grazing. The Little Rocky Mountains and Whitewater 

Lake areas would remain closed to livestock grazing. The Cree Crossing Allotment No. 05302 adjacent to the Milk 

River would remain closed to livestock grazing for recreation values. The Dry Gulch Allotment No. 05602 and Montana 

Gulch Allotment No. 05603 would continue to be authorized under a temporary grazing permit following the procedure 

in 43 CFR 4130.6-2.

Grazing allocations on newly acquired land would be based on management needs and objectives for the acquisition. 

The allocation may range from zero to full capacity and would be monitored after completion of an activity plan to adjust 

grazing as needed to meet objectives.

Yearling factors would be considered through individual AMPs.

Alternative B

Most unpermitted parcels would remain available for livestock grazing. The Little Rocky Mountains Allotment No. 

05630 and the Whitewater Lake Allotment No. 05068 would remain closed to livestock grazing except as needed for 

resource management. The Cree Crossing Allotment No. 05302 adjacent to the Milk River would remain closed to 

livestock grazing for recreation values. The 15 Mile Trailing Allotment No. 06237 would be closed to livestock grazing 

except as needed for livestock trailing purposes.

Allotments within the Greater Sage-Grouse Protection Priority Area ACEC 

and the Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Areas ACEC would be 

high priority for reassessment of land health standards and processing grazing 

permit renewals as detailed in Appendix M, Mitigation Measures and 

Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat. 

If a permittee submits a relinquishment of grazing privileges for an allotment 

within these ACECs, retirement of grazing privileges would be considered in 

a site-specific environmental analysis that addresses the potential impacts 

(both positive and negative) to greater sage-grouse. If the analysis does not

support closing the allotment to grazing for the benefit of sage-grouse, the 

allotment would remain available for livestock grazing and would be 

designated as a reserve common allotment.

In cases where the use would differ from that authorized in the previous 

grazing permit/lease, other factors have developed to change the management 

circumstances, or land health standards are not being met because of livestock 

grazing, a new site-specific interdisciplinary environmental analysis would be 

undertaken prior to transferring or renewing a grazing permit/lease.

Newly acquired lands would be evaluated to determine if they should be designated as reserve common allotments, 

allocated for grazing, or designated as unavailable for livestock grazing in consideration of the management needs and 

objectives for the acquisition, with the exception of lands covered under 43 CFR 4110.1-1 (e.g., where lands have been 

Grazing Relinquishment versus

Retirement of Grazing Privileges

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 a 

livestock forage allocation on public 

land as well as their permission to use 

this forage. Relinquishments do not 

require the consent or approval of the 

BLM. The BLM’s receipt of a 

relinquishment is not a decision to close 

areas to livestock grazing.

Retirement: Ending livestock grazing 

on a specific area of land. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Livestock Grazing 67

acquired through purchase or exchange, and an agreement provides that the BLM would honor existing grazing permits 

or leases). 

Allotments where grazing preference is relinquished or cancelled that are outside of priority sage-grouse habitat would 

remain available for livestock grazing and would be designated as reserve common allotments.

An activity plan would be developed that identifies how the reserve common allotment would be managed to maintain 

rangeland health and the procedures for selecting an applicant for using the allotment.

Yearling factors would not be considered.

Alternative C

Most unpermitted parcels would remain available for livestock grazing. The Little Rocky Mountains Allotment No. 

05630 and Whitewater Lake Allotment No. 05068 would remain closed to livestock grazing except as needed for 

resource management. The Cree Crossing Allotment No. 05302 adjacent to the Milk River would remain closed to 

livestock grazing for recreation values. The 15 Mile Trailing Allotment No. 06237 would be closed to livestock grazing 

except as needed for livestock trailing purposes.

Allotments within the Greater Sage-Grouse Protection Priority Area and the Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse 

Priority Areas would be high priority for reassessment of land health standards and processing grazing permit renewals 

as detailed in Appendix M, Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat.

In cases where the use would substantially differ from that authorized in the previous grazing permit/lease, other factors 

have developed to change the management circumstances, or land health standards are not being met because of 

livestock grazing, a site-specific interdisciplinary environmental review would be undertaken.

Newly acquired lands would be evaluated to determine if they should be designated as reserve common allotments, 

allocated for grazing, or designated as unavailable for livestock grazing in consideration of the management needs and 

objectives for the acquisition, with the exception of lands covered under 43 CFR 4110.1-1 (e.g., where lands have been 

acquired through purchase or exchange, and an agreement provides that the BLM would honor existing grazing permits 

or leases). 

Allotments where grazing preference is relinquished or cancelled would remain available for livestock grazing and 

would be evaluated in a site-specific NEPA document to determine if they should be designated as reserve common 

allotments or reassigned.

An activity plan would be developed that identifies how the reserve common allotment would be managed to maintain 

rangeland health and the procedures for selecting an applicant to use the allotment.

Yearling factors would be considered according to the framework laid out in Appendix I.

Alternative D

Most unpermitted parcels would remain available for livestock grazing. The Little Rocky Mountains Allotment No. 

05630 and Whitewater Lake Allotment No. 05068 would remain closed to livestock grazing except as needed for 

resource management. The Cree Crossing Allotment No. 05302 adjacent to the Milk River would remain closed to 

livestock grazing for recreation values. The 15 Mile Trailing Allotment No. 06237 would be closed to livestock grazing 

except as needed for livestock trailing purposes.

In cases where the use would substantially differ from that authorized in the previous grazing permit/lease, other factors 

have developed to change the management circumstances, or land health standards are not being met because of 

livestock grazing, a site-specific interdisciplinary environmental review would be undertaken.

All newly acquired lands would be allocated for grazing.
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

68 Livestock Grazing

Allotments where grazing preference is relinquished or cancelled during the life of the plan would be made available for 

qualified applicants.

Yearling factors would be considered according to the framework laid out in Appendix I.

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

Most unpermitted parcels would remain available for livestock grazing. The Little Rocky Mountains Allotment No. 

05630 and Whitewater Lake Allotment No. 05068 would remain closed to livestock grazing except as needed for 

resource management. The Cree Crossing Allotment No. 05302 adjacent to the Milk River would remain closed to 

livestock grazing for recreation values. The 15 Mile Trailing Allotment No. 06237 would be closed to livestock grazing 

except as needed for livestock trailing purposes.

Allotments within the Greater Sage-Grouse Protection Priority Area and the Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse 

Priority Areas would be high priority for reassessment of land health standards and processing grazing permit renewals 

as detailed in Appendix M, Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat. 

Allotments within priority habitat areas for sage-grouse where grazing preference is relinquished or cancelled would be 

evaluated in a site-specific NEPA document to determine if they should be closed to grazing, designated as reserve 

common allotments, or reassigned.

In cases where the use would substantially differ from that authorized in the previous grazing permit/lease, other factors 

have developed to change the management circumstances, or land health standards are not being met because of 

livestock grazing, a site-specific interdisciplinary environmental review would be undertaken.

Newly acquired lands would be evaluated to determine if they should be designated as reserve common allotments, 

allocated for grazing, or designated as unavailable for livestock grazing in consideration of the management needs and

objectives for the acquisition, with the exception of lands covered under 43 CFR 4110.1-1 (e.g., where lands have been 

acquired through purchase or exchange, and an agreement provides that the BLM would honor existing grazing permits 

or leases).

Allotments outside of priority sage-grouse habitat where grazing preference is relinquished or cancelled would remain in 

active use as defined under 43 CFR 4100.0-5 and available for livestock grazing. These specific allotments could be 

evaluated to determine if they should be designated as reserve common allotments to provide livestock forage to 

permittees whose allotment(s) undergo rest or improvements, and might be used when drought, fire, flood, or other 

unplanned needs make normal allotments unusable. If a reserve common allotment is designated, an activity plan would 

be developed that identifies how the allotment would be managed to maintain rangeland health and the procedures for 

selecting an applicant to use the allotment.

Yearling factors would be considered according to the framework laid out in Appendix I.

Cattle grazing on BLM land BLM Photo
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Noxious and Invasive Species 69

Noxious Weeds and Other Invasive Non-Native Species

Goal

Prevent the introduction and spread of noxious weeds and invasive species 

through cooperative Integrated Pest Management practices.

Objectives

Reduce the rate of spread for widely established invasive species, and prevent the establishment or spread of new 

invasive species.

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

Montana state and county-designated noxious weeds will be managed according to the principles of integrated pest 

management found in Partners Against Weeds: An Action Plan for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM 1996c), 

Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement (BLM 2007b); Montana Weed Management Plan (MWMP 2008); County Weed Control Act (MDA 

2003); Noxious Weed Management Plan, Lewistown District (BLM 1992c); or the most current noxious weed 

management plan(s) developed within the planning area. These plans outline the principles of integrated pest 

management which would continue to be followed. The basic principles of integrated pest management include:

 education and awareness for staff, cooperators, and the public;

 prevention, early detection and rapid response for all noxious weed species;

 inventory of public and cooperator lands for noxious weeds;

 control of noxious weeds by various methods that include cultural, physical, biological, and chemical controls 

or other land practices; and 

 monitoring of treatment areas.

The State of Montana currently has 34 designated noxious weeds, of which 20 are found in the planning area. An 

invasive plant attains a noxious status by legislation only. This designation usually places the burden to control, contain, 

or inhibit reproduction of a listed species on the owner of an infested parcel. It also prohibits the sale and distribution of 

listed species. Montana law allows for the petition and review of invasive plants for inclusion on its Noxious Weed List, 

making the list a dynamic document. Montana State Noxious Weeds are divided into five priorities based on the 

distribution and abundance of a given species across the state. This priority system helps determine the management 

strategy for a given species on the list.

 Priority 1A - These weeds are not present in Montana. Management criteria will require eradication if 

detected; education and prevention.

 Priority 1B - These weeds have limited presence in Montana. Management criteria will require eradication or

containment and education.

 Priority 2A - These weeds are common in isolated areas of Montana. Management criteria will require 

eradication or containment where less abundant.

 Priority 2B - These weeds are abundant in Montana and widespread in many counties. Management criteria 

will require eradication or containment where less abundant.

 Priority 3 – Regulated Plants. These plants have the potential to have significant negative impacts. These

plants may not be intentionally spread or sold other than as a contaminant in agricultural products.

In addition, under the County Noxious Weed Control Act and Administrative Rules of Montana, each county is allowed 

to designate plant species as noxious within that county. The BLM also maintains a list of exotic invasive species for the 

land it administers (Table 3.33 in Chapter 3).
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

70 Noxious and Invasive Species

The BLM will continue cooperative agreements with county and state entities. Management efforts will be coordinated 

with other federal, state, and county agencies, weed management areas, and private landowners and organizations. 

Development of cooperative weed management areas where all the landowners are cooperatively working to contain or 

eradicate noxious weeds within designated areas will be encouraged.

Treatment methods include chemical, cultural, physical, and biological. Invasive species such as cheatgrass will be 

evaluated in site-specific projects associated with the watershed analysis. Perennial vegetation will be reestablished in a 

timely manner to rehabilitate disturbance areas. Native species will be used for rehabilitation and reclamation unless 

site-specific evaluations indicate that nonnative species are needed to ensure success or rapid vegetative reestablishment.

Weed seed free forage will be used on BLM land. Forage subject to this rule includes hay, grains, cubes, pelletized 

feeds, straw, and mulch (BLM 1997b). Reclamation/stabilization and maintenance materials used will be from weed 

seed free sources to the extent practicable.

Other resource programs would assist in invasive species management through project planning and program 

implementation. This would include integrating prevention measures in program activities to reduce the spread of 

invasive species, and supplying resources to mitigate and manage invasive species issues with on-the-ground project 

implementation. In general, mitigation measures are established to reduce the potential for introduction of invasive 

species and to minimize any adverse effect their presence may cause. These measures are found in stipulations, 

conditions of approval, standard operating procedures, etc. that require clean equipment, seed and forage for use in 

projects, and place the burden on the consumer for control of invasive species in some instances. Standard operating 

procedures and mitigation measures for integrated weed management treatments have also been developed to mitigate 

non-target effects of different procedures. These measures are outlined in the Record of Decision for Vegetation 

Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

(BLM 2007c).

Grasshopper/Mormon cricket outbreaks are managed as outlined in a BLM Memorandum of Understanding (MOU WO220-2009-06) in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection ServicePlant Protection and Quarantine (APHIS-PPQ 09-8011-087-MU) (BLM 2003b).

The State of Montana has developed a management plan to address invasive species (animals, plants, and pathogens) 

associated with waterbodies. The BLM will coordinate with MFWP to address prevention of and potential infestations 

of Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) and follow actions outlined in the Montana Aquatic Nuisance Species Management 

Plan (MANS 2002). Aquatic Nuisance Species are categorized into the following classes to help implement proper 

management and prevention for each species:

 Priority Class 1 - These species are not known to be present in Montana, but have a high potential to invade 

and there are limited or no known management strategies for these species. Appropriate management for this 

class includes prevention of introductions and eradication of populations.

 Priority Class 2 - These species are present and established in Montana and have the potential to spread, and 

there are limited or no known management strategies for these species. These species can be managed through 

actions that involve mitigation of impact, control of population size, and prevention of dispersal to other 

waterbodies.

 Priority Class 3 - These species are not known to be established in Montana and have a high potential for 

invasion, and appropriate management techniques are available. Appropriate management for this class 

includes prevention of introductions and eradication of pioneering populations.

 Priority Class 4 - These species are present and have the potential to spread in Montana, but there are 

management strategies available for these species. These species can be managed through actions that involve 

mitigation of impact, control of population size, and prevention of dispersal to other waterbodies.

Pest management including the use of pesticides in the interest of public health and safety and other resource 

management objectives is conducted on a case-by-case basis consistent with required NEPA analysis. Examples include 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

OHV Use and Travel and Transportation Management 71

Area Designations

Open: An area where all types of vehicle use is permitted at all times, anywhere in the area subject to the operating regulations 

and vehicle standards set forth in 43 CFR 8341 and 8342.

Limited: An area restricted at certain times, in certain areas, and/or to certain vehicular use. These restrictions may be of any 

type, but can generally be accommodated within the following type of categories: Numbers of vehicles; types of vehicles; time or 

season of vehicle use; permitted or licensed use only; use on existing roads, primitive roads and trails; use on designated roads, 

primitive roads and trails; and other restrictions.

Closed: An area where motorized vehicle use off road is prohibited. Use of off-road vehicles in closed areas may be allowed for 

certain reasons; however, such use shall be made only with the approval of the authorized officer.

flea control to prevent plague transmission in support of black-footed ferret recovery, ground squirrel and prairie dog 

management, mosquito control to minimize West Nile virus transmission, and pheromone traps for pine bark beetle 

management.

Off-Highway Vehicle Use and 

Travel and Transportation Management 

Goals

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

private landowners, plan and manage motorized and nonmotorized travel to provide 

recreational experiences while maintaining or protecting resource values.

Create travel networks that are logical and sustainable, as well as meet the 

increasingly diverse transportation, access and recreational needs of the public, 

while maintaining or protecting resource values in coordination with other federal 

agencies, state and local governments, and private landowners and using an 

interdisciplinary approach.

Objectives

Designate all lands managed by the BLM within the HiLine District as “open” or “limited to existing roads, primitive 

roads, and trails” or “closed” to OHV use, and identify Travel Management Areas to frame transportation issues and help 

delineate travel networks that address specific uses and resource concerns. These travel management areas will be 

prioritized as high, medium, and low for completion of travel management planning after the Record of Decision for this 

RMP.

Identify areas for motorized and nonmotorized travel to provide opportunities for a variety of recreation experiences with 

minimal resource impacts and conflicts of use.

Ensure adequate implementation of road management guidelines for road planning, design and maintenance.

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

Completion of comprehensive travel management plans will involve moving from an interim designation of “limited to 

existing roads, primitive roads and trails,” to a designation of “limited to designated roads, primitive roads and trails”

and establishing objectives for each route.

Route objectives and regulations at 43 CFR 8340 through 43 CFR 8342.3 will be applied in identifying route-specific 

management, such as maintenance intensities (Table 2.7), where activity-level plan decisions are made for specific travel 

routes.
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

72 OHV Use and Travel and Transportation Management

Table 2.7

BLM Road Maintenance Intensities

Maintenance Description Maintenance Objectives

Level 0 – Existing routes that will 

no longer be maintained or declared 

as routes. Routes identified as Level 

0 are identified for removal from the 

Transportation System entirely.

 No planned annual maintenance.

 Meet identified environmental needs.

 No preventive maintenance or planned annual maintenance activities.

Level 1 – Routes where minimal 

(low intensity) maintenance is 

required to protect adjacent lands 

and resource values. These roads 

may be impassable for extended 

periods of time or only accessible 

with high-clearance four-wheeldrive vehicles.

 Low (Minimal) maintenance intensity.

 Emphasis is given to maintaining drainage and runoff patterns as needed to 

protect adjacent lands. Grading, brushing, or slide removal is not performed 

unless route bed drainage is being adversely affected, causing erosion.

 Meet identified resource management objectives.

 Perform maintenance as necessary to protect adjacent lands and resource 

values.

 No preventive maintenance.

 Planned maintenance activities limited to environmental and resource 

protection.

 Route surface and other physical features are not maintained for regular 

traffic.

Level 2 – Reserved for Possible 

Future Use

Level 3 – Routes requiring moderate 

maintenance because of low-volume 

use (e.g., seasonally or year-round 

for commercial, recreational, or 

administrative access). 

Maintenance intensities may not 

provide year-round access but are

intended to generally provide 

resources appropriate for keeping 

the route in use for the majority of 

the year.

 Medium (Moderate) maintenance intensity.

 Drainage structures will be maintained as needed. Surface maintenance will 

be conducted to provide a reasonable level of riding comfort at prudent 

speeds for the route conditions and intended use. Brushing is conducted as 

needed to improve sight distance when appropriate for management uses. 

Landslides adversely affecting drainage receive high priority for removal; 

otherwise, they will be removed on a scheduled basis.

 Meet identified environmental needs.

 Generally maintained for year-round traffic.

 Perform annual maintenance necessary to protect adjacent lands and 

resource values.

 Perform preventive maintenance as required to generally keep the route in 

acceptable condition.

 Planned maintenance activities should include environmental and resource 

protection efforts, annual route surface.

 Route surface and other physical features are maintained for regular traffic.

Level 4 - Reserved for Possible 

Future Use

Level 5 – Route for high 

(Maximum) maintenance because of 

year-round needs, high-volume 

traffic, or significant use. Also may 

include route identified through 

management objectives as requiring 

high intensities of maintenance or to 

be maintained open year-round and 

are generally accessible with twowheel-drive, low clearance vehicles.

 High (Maximum) maintenance intensity.

 The entire route will be maintained at least annually. Problems will be 

repaired as discovered. These routes may be closed or have limited access 

because of weather conditions but are generally intended for year-round use.

 Meet identified environmental needs.

 Generally maintained for year-round traffic.

 Perform annual maintenance necessary to protect adjacent lands and 

resource values.

 Perform preventive maintenance as required to generally keep the route in 

acceptable condition.

 Planned maintenance activities should include environmental and resource 

protection efforts, annual route surface.

 Route surface and other physical features are maintained for regular traffic.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

OHV Use and Travel and Transportation Management 73

The BLM will coordinate with MFWP in the block management program as appropriate. Motorized travel adjacent to 

block management areas could conform to seasonal limitations, as determined by the authorized officer on a case-bycase basis through environmental review and public involvement.

Motorized wheeled cross-country travel for lessees and permittees is limited to the administration of a federal lease or 

permit (OHV ROD, 2003). Any authorized or permitted activity, such as a grazing permit or special recreation permit 

(SRP), that involves motorized access to public lands must describe how access will be managed, both on and off the 

existing or designated route system, as part of the permit or authorization. Area-specific limitations or needs will be 

addressed in more detail during subsequent travel management planning and incorporated into the associated 

permits/leases.

Roads, primitive roads and trails will be maintained in accordance with the following: BLM policy; the assigned 

maintenance intensity (Table 2.7); consideration of resource issues; mitigation and BMPs (Appendix C and Appendix 

M); and available funding. All roads will be maintained in accordance with standards and guidelines in BLM Manuals

9113, 9114, 9115 and associated handbooks. Roads would be inspected on an established schedule in accordance with 

the Bureau’s Condition Assessment guidance.

New permanent roads, primitive roads and trails will be constructed subject to environmental review and approved 

engineering standards, following criteria described in this section. Consideration will be given to use demands, location, 

safety, and resource constraints when determining the level of road necessary (BLM Manuals 9113, 9114, 9115 and 

associated handbooks). If an existing road, primitive road or trail is substantially contributing to resource impacts, the 

road will be considered for redesign, re-routing, decommissioning or closure to minimize the adverse impacts. Existing 

BLM roads, primitive roads, and trails will be managed through the Facility Asset Management System (FAMS) and 

Ground Transportation Linear Feature (GTLF) geospatial database (BLM Manual 1626).

The BLM will pursue opportunities to conduct restoration of roads, primitive roads and trails not designated during 

travel management planning, with priority given to areas with special management concerns. This includes primitive 

routes that have not been designated as “primitive routes” within WSAs and those that have been closed within areas that 

are being managed to protect or enhance wilderness characteristics or special status species such as the greater sagegrouse. Restoration activities will be done in accordance with guidelines described in Appendix J, Reclamation. 

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

special status species or issues are a concern (e.g., mitigation for greater sage-grouse).

Off-Highway Vehicle Use

OHV use will be managed consistent with the definitions and prescriptions identified in the Record of Decision for the 

Off-Highway Vehicle EIS and Proposed Plan Amendment for Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota (BLM 2003c), 

unless stated otherwise in the alternatives section. In the interim, until travel management planning has been completed, 

all motorized wheeled travel is restricted to existing roads, primitive roads and trails; however, several exceptions apply:

 any military, fire, search and rescue, or law enforcement vehicle for emergency operations; 

 official BLM administrative business (prescribed fire, noxious weed control, range management, etc.);

 other government agency business (surveying, animal damage control, etc.);

 administration of a federal lease or permit (e.g., a livestock permittee maintaining a fence, an oil or gas 

company performing routine maintenance on a well, etc.);

 for dispersed camping within 300 feet of an existing open road. Site selection must be completed by 

nonmotorized means, and accessed by the most direct route causing the least damage.

Motorized travel in the Bitter Creek WSA (60,701 acres) and Burnt Lodge WSA (13,727 acres) will continue to be 

limited to identified primitive routes under all alternatives.

BLM regulations (43 CFR 8341.2 and 8364.1) allow for area or road closures where off-highway vehicles are causing or 

will cause considerable adverse impacts on soil, vegetation, wildlife, threatened or endangered species, wildlife habitat, 

cultural resources, other authorized uses, public safety, or other resources. The authorized officer can immediately close 

the area or road affected until the impacts are eliminated and measures are implemented to prevent future recurrence.
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

74 OHV Use and Travel and Transportation Management

Elements of a Comprehensive

Travel and Transportation

Management Plan

 Identify existing roads, primitive 

roads, trails, and related structures.

 Indicate changes in the status of 

existing routes and areas.

 Address needed improvements, 

signing, trailheads, and staging areas.

 Identify maintenance intensities and 

legal access needs.

 Address all modes of transportation 

and primary use.

 Identify desired future conditions.

 Use an interdisciplinary approach to 

identify the resource effects.

 Seek active public involvement 

throughout the planning process.

 Produce a map depicting the final 

decisions. 

 Address the strategy informing/

educating the public.

 Develop a sign plan.

 Develop a monitoring plan.

Travel Management Areas

Travel management areas are an optional planning tool to frame transportation issues and help delineate motorized and 

nonmotorized travel networks that address specific uses and resource concerns. These areas are identified and prioritized 

as high, moderate and low in this RMP, but site-specific route designations will be made during subsequent travel 

management planning in accordance with BLM Handbook H-8342-1. For the high priority areas, this planning will be 

done within five years of the Record of Decision while planning for areas prioritized as moderate to low will be 

completed within the life of this RMP. 

Before any site-specific travel management planning occurs, the following 

baseline information and actions should be completed:

 Road condition assessments will be completed for each area prior to 

travel management planning;

 Legal access needs for easements to BLM lands and rights-of-way to 

private lands will be identified; and

 Baseline road inventory maps will be printed and made available to 

the general public for their review utilizing open houses, the Internet, 

and other means of communication.

Travel Management Planning Criteria

Through analysis and activity-level planning, the BLM will collaborate with 

affected and interested parties to evaluate the designated road and trail 

network. 

The network will be evaluated for active OHV management suitability and for 

envisioning potential changes in the existing system or the addition of new 

trails that would help meet land use plan objectives. In conducting such 

evaluations, the following factors would be considered:

 measures needed to avoid on-site and off-site effects on current and 

future land uses and important natural resources, including issues 

such as noise and air pollution, erodible soils, stream sedimentation, 

nonpoint source water pollution, listed and sensitive species habitats, 

historic and archeological sites, wildlife, special management areas, grazing operations, public safety, needs of 

nonmotorized recreationists, and recognition of property rights for adjacent landowners;

 trails suitable for different categories of OHVs including dirt bikes, ATVs, and 4-wheel drive touring vehicles, 

or nonmotorized means of travel such as mountain biking and hiking as well as opportunities for joint trail use;

 need for parking, trailheads, informational and directional signs, mapping and profiling, and development of 

brochures or other materials for public dissemination; and 

 opportunities to connect existing or planned trail networks.

Travel Management Criteria for Making Road and Trail Selections

Existing and/or new individual roads, primitive roads and trails will be chosen with the transportation network goals in 

mind rather than just using all of the inherited roads, primitive roads and trails. Most existing roads, primitive roads and 

trails on BLM land were created by use over time, rather than planned and constructed for specific activities or needs. 

Instead of simply using this process as a way of deciding which individual roads, primitive and trails should be closed or 

left open, the BLM will consider a broader range of possibilities for management of individual roads, primitive roads and 

trails, including reroutes, reconstruction or new construction, and closures. These management considerations can be 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

OHV Use and Travel and Transportation Management 75

used to develop a high-quality travel system. A well-designed travel system can direct use away from sensitive areas and 

still provide high-quality recreational activities and access for commercial and recreational needs.

An interdisciplinary team and cooperating agencies will be used for special expertise in identifying the resources, land 

ownership, public demand, access needs, conflicts of use and benefits of various routes. This process will include public 

involvement.

The BLM will emphasize management of the transportation system to reduce impacts to natural resources from 

authorized roads, primitive roads and trails (Appendix C and Appendix M). The BLM will also consider through travel 

management planning closing and restoring unauthorized user created roads, primitive roads and trails to prevent 

resource damage.

Resource considerations will be assessed in determining designation criteria. All designations will be based on the 

protection of resources, safety of all users, and the minimization of conflicts among various uses (43 CFR 8342.1). The 

following elements to be considered during route selection fall within the designation criteria:

 administrative access for the BLM and BLM-authorized activities

 areas of critical environmental concern

 at-risk watersheds

 cultural resources

 current maintenance agreements

 desired future condition

 elimination of route redundancy

 energy development

 erodible soils

 forest resources

 low bearing strength soils (saline)

 paleontological resources

 potential for adverse or positive economic effects

 prescriptions for land use allocations including special recreation management areas

 public health and safety; emergency services

 recreation opportunities, experiences, settings, benefits

 riparian resources, assessment of proper functioning condition

 rights-of-way, easements and inholdings

 Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management

 user preferences and conflicts of use

 vegetation

- at-risk vegetative sites

- relic vegetation

 visual resources

 watershed resources

 wilderness characteristics

 wilderness study areas 

 wildlife resources

 greater sage-grouse habitat

 raptor nesting locations

 sensitive species habitats

 winter range

The BLM will pursue opportunities to conduct restoration of roads, primitive roads and trails not designated during 

travel management planning, with priority given to areas with special management concerns (see Transportation and 

Facilities Management for more information).
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

76 OHV Use and Travel and Transportation Management

Schedule

Travel management areas are prioritized into high, moderate and low categories. The high category areas will normally 

have travel management planning completed within five years of the signing of the Record of Decision as funding and 

staffing allow. The moderate and low category areas will have travel management plans completed within the life of the 

RMP. Prioritization of travel management areas will be an ongoing process and priorities for travel planning can change 

through implementation and monitoring based on resource needs, special status species including greater sage-grouse, 

funding, and staffing. 

Alternative A (Current Management)

OHV Area Designations

The Fresno OHV area north of Havre (84 acres) and the OHV area north of Glasgow (40 acres) would remain designated 

open to OHV use off roads, primitive roads and trails.

The Sweet Grass Hills ACEC (7,429 acres) would be closed to OHV use.

The remaining BLM land (2,429,930 acres) would be designated as limited. In these areas travel would be on existing 

roads, primitive roads, and trails. See Table 2.8 and Map 2.6, which is located at the end of Chapter 2.

No motorized game retrieval off road would be allowed in limited or closed areas. Through subsequent site-specific 

planning, options for big game retrieval could be considered (BLM 2003c).

Table 2.8

OHV Area Designations by Alternative (Acres)

Alternative A

(Current

Management)

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred

Alternative)

Open 124 0 0 305 165

Limited 2,429,930 2,429,971 2,429,930 2,437,169 2,429,889

Closed 7,419 7,504 7,544 0 7,419

Travel Management Areas

Fifteen travel management planning areas (see Map 2.7, which is located at the end of Chapter 2) would be prioritized as 

follows:

High:

 An area northwest of Glasgow (80 acres)

(includes the 40 acre Glasgow OHV area 

plus additional BLM lands in the vicinity)

 Little Rocky Mountains (27,449 acres)

Moderate:

 Bears Paw to Breaks area (89,369 acres)

 Kevin Rim area (16,325 acres)

 Missouri Breaks area (402,349 acres)

 Northwest Blaine County (170,631 acres)

 Sweet Grass Hills area (7,879 acres)

 Vimy area (8,182 acres)

Low:

 Lonesome Lake area (121 acres)

 Lower Marias River area (12,014 acres)

 Northeast Bears Paw Breaks area (4,351

acres)

 Upper Marias River area (8,908 acres)

 Wayne Creek area (29,792 acres)

 Woody Island area (53,436 acres)

 Remaining BLM lands (1,606,688 acres)
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

OHV Use and Travel and Transportation Management 77

Alternative B

OHV Area Designations

No areas would be designated as open to off-road travel (Table 2.8).

The Fresno OHV area (84 acres) and Sweet Grass Hills ACEC (7,419 acres) would be closed to OHV use (Map W.3, 

which is available at http://blm.gov/8qkd).

The remaining BLM land (2,429,971 acres) would be designated as limited. In these areas travel would be on existing 

roads, primitive roads, and trails (Map W.3, which is available at http://blm.gov/8qkd).

The use of motorized vehicles, including OHVs, to retrieve game off-road would not be allowed and would not be 

considered during subsequent site-specific travel management planning. Individual permits authorizing off-road game 

retrieval for persons with disabilities will not be issued, regardless of possession of a Montana Disabled Hunting 

License.

Over-snow vehicle use in the planning area (including snowmobiles) would be allowed, except in the Grassland 

Bird/Greater Sage Grouse Priority Areas ACEC, the Greater Sage-Grouse Protection Priority Area ACEC, and crucial 

winter range areas.

Travel Management Areas

Site-specific travel planning within the Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Areas ACEC and Greater SageGrouse Protection Priority Area ACEC would be completed within a five (5) year period after the ROD is signed. 

Seven travel management areas would be prioritized into the following categories for travel management planning (Map 

W.4, which is available at http://blm.gov/8qkd):

High:

 Grassland Bird/Greater Sage Grouse Priority 

Areas ACEC and Frenchman (490,477

acres)

 Greater Sage-Grouse Protection Priority 

Area ACEC (997,338 acres)

 Little Rocky Mountains (27,688 acres)

Moderate:

 Marias River area (19,032 acres)

 North Missouri Breaks (101,523 acres)

 Prairie Grasslands area (149,681 acres)

Low:

 Remaining BLM lands (651,735 acres)

Alternative C

OHV Area Designations

No areas would be designated as open to off-road travel (Table 2.8).

The Fresno OHV area (84 acres), the Glasgow OHV area (40 acres) and the Sweet Grass Hills ACEC (7,419 acres) 

would be closed to OHV use (Map W.3, which is available at http://blm.gov/8qkd).

The remaining BLM lands (2,429,930 acres) would be designated as limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails

(Map W.3, which is available at http://blm.gov/8qkd).

Motorized game retrieval off road would be allowed during the big game hunting season on BLM lands east of Highway 

191 and south of the Dry Fork Road in Phillips County; and south of the Willow Creek Road and south of the 

Stonehouse Road in South Valley County except in the Burnt Lodge WSA. Figure 2.2 shows the location of the 387,118 

acre game retrieval area. Motorized game retrieval off road would be allowed between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

78 OHV Use and Travel and Transportation Management

p.m. to retrieve a big game animal that is in possession, in a minimum timeframe utilizing the most direct route and 

avoiding resource damage.

Travel Management Areas

Seven travel management areas would be prioritized into the following categories for travel management planning (Map 

W.4, which is available at http://blm.gov/8qkd): 

High:

 Frenchman/Rock Creek area (190,174 acres)

 Little Rocky Mountains (27,688 acres)

 Marias River area (19,032 acres)

Moderate:

 North Missouri Breaks (101,523 acres)

 South Phillips County (575,917 acres)

 South Valley County (584,820 acres)

Low:

 Remaining BLM lands (938,321 acres)

Alternative D

OHV Area Designations

The Fresno OHV area (84 acres) and Glasgow OHV area (40 acres) would 

remain designated open, and the Thirty Mile area (181 acres) would be 

designated open to OHV use off roads, primitive roads and trails (Table 2.8 

and Map W.3, which is available at http://blm.gov/8qkd).

The BLM would continue to evaluate moderately sized open acres during 

travel management planning. 

The remaining BLM land (2,437,169 acres) would be designated as limited. 

In these areas travel would be on existing roads, primitive roads, and trails.

Motorized game retrieval off road would be allowed during the big game hunting season on all BLM lands in the 

planning area except in the following areas (Figure 2.2):

 Big Bend of the Milk River ACEC (1,972 acres)

 Bitter Creek WSA (60,701 acres) and Burnt Lodge WSA (13,727 acres)

 Frenchman ACEC (63,482 acres)

 Kevin Rim ACEC (4,557 acres)

 Malta Geological ACEC (6,153 acres)

Game retrieval would be allowed between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. to retrieve a big game animal that is in 

possession, in a minimum timeframe utilizing the most direct route while minimizing resource damage.

Travel Management Areas

Seven travel management areas would be prioritized into the following categories for travel management planning (Map 

W.4, which is available at http://blm.gov/8qkd): 

High:

 Frenchman/Rock Creek area (190,174 acres)

 Little Rocky Mountains (27,688 acres)

 Marias River area (19,032 acres)

Moderate:

 North Missouri Breaks (101,523 acres)

 South Phillips County (575,917 acres)

 South Valley County (584,820 acres)

Low:

 Remaining BLM lands (938,321 acres)

Thirty Mile OHV Area

The proposed Thirty Mile OHV area 

(181 acres) is located 1.75 miles north 

of U.S. Highway 2 on the Thirty Mile 

Creek Road, about 3 miles from 

Harlem, Montana. The location is on 

the east side of the road. This area is 

shown on Map W.3 on the HiLine RMP 

web site at http://blm.gov/8qkd.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

OHV Use and Travel and Transportation Management 79

Figure 2.2

Off-Road Game Retrieval Areas

Alternatives C and D
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

80 OHV Use and Travel and Transportation Management

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

OHV Area Designations

The Glasgow OHV area (40 acres) would remain designated open to OHV use off roads, primitive roads and trails. 

The Fresno OHV area (125 acres) would remain designated open to OHV use off roads, primitive roads and trails. The 

boundary of the OHV area would be increased from 84 acres to 125 acres to more closely follow topography of the area 

and incorporate the existing system of trails. Through travel management planning the BLM would address the need for 

seasonal restrictions, and/or the need to fence the boundary of the OHV area to address resource values and conflicts of 

use on surrounding lands. A paleontological inventory would be conducted to determine appropriate access points, fence 

placement, and need for parking areas.

The Sweet Grass Hills ACEC (7,419 acres) would be closed to OHV use (Map 2.6).

The remaining BLM land (2,429,889 acres) would be designated as limited. In these areas travel would be on existing 

roads, primitive roads, and trails. See Table 2.8.

Cross-country over-snow vehicle use in the planning area (including snowmobiles) would be allowed, except in crucial 

winter range areas (110,040 acres, see the Wildlife section of Chapter 3, Figure 3.13). Over-snow vehicles would be 

subject to the following management guidelines: avoid locations where wind or topographic conditions may have 

reduced snow depth and created situations where damage to vegetation or soils could occur, or where the majority of 

vegetation is taller than the protective snow cover. Sensitive areas could be closed to motorized snow vehicle travel if 

resource damage is found to be occurring in these areas.

The use of motorized vehicles, including OHVs, to retrieve game off road would not be allowed, regardless of individual 

possession of a Montana Disabled Hunting License, in limited or closed areas unless designated through travel 

management planning. Options for off-road game retrieval could include designating the types of vehicles that may be 

used, times of day, limited motorized off-road travel or motorized travel on closed roads and would apply to all 

individuals with a legally taken game animal.

Travel Management Areas

Site-specific travel planning within the Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Areas and Greater Sage-Grouse 

Protection Priority Area would be completed within a five (5) year period after the ROD is signed. 

Nine travel management areas (Map 2.7) would be prioritized into the following categories for travel management 

planning: 

High:

 Grassland Bird/Greater Sage Grouse Priority 

Areas and Frenchman (415,875 acres)

 Greater Sage-Grouse Protection Priority 

Area and Eastern Breaks and Badlands

(997,338 acres)

 Little Rocky Mountains (27,688 acres)

Moderate:

 Fresno area (885 acres; includes the 125 

acre OHV area plus additional BLM lands in 

the vicinity)

 Marias River area (19,032 acres)

 North Missouri Breaks (101,523 acres)

Low:

 Remaining BLM lands (875,133 acres)
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Paleontological Resources 81

Paleontological Resources

Goal

Manage, preserve, and protect paleontological resource values for present 

and future generations.

Objectives

Ensure that proposed land uses initiated or authorized by the BLM avoid inadvertent damage to significant 

paleontological resources.

Promote the stewardship, conservation, and appreciation of paleontological resources through appropriate educational 

and public outreach programs.

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

The BLM will identify and prioritize high probability paleontological 

locations for paleontological inventories and information attained will guide 

management decisions in those areas. Through this process the BLM will:

 maintain a database of paleontological sites and localities;

 require permits for individuals or institutions conducting 

paleontological investigations for vertebrate fossils;

 coordinate with other state and federal agencies’ permitting 

processes to eliminate confusion among permittees when working in 

multiple jurisdictions;

 ensure that significant fossils remain in federal ownership;

 establish a long-term monitoring program at known paleontological 

locales to assess potential adverse impacts and develop mitigation as 

appropriate; and

 coordinate with law enforcement to provide monitoring and 

protection against looting and vandalism of paleontological 

resources.

Paleontological assessments will be completed for all projects proposed on 

federal lands. These assessments will determine the need for further 

paleontological inventories. The inventories would evaluate the effects of the 

project on paleontological resources and would recommend appropriate 

mitigation measures to protect these resources. The BLM will avoid impacts 

to significant paleontological remains through project redesign, project 

abandonment, and/or mitigation of adverse impacts through scientific 

recovery and analysis.

The BLM will develop a resource awareness program designed to enhance the public appreciation of paleontological 

resource values. This includes coordination with permitted universities and museums in furthering the paleontological 

research potential across the HiLine and identifying and conserving areas of paleontological interest for future use. 

When practical, public use areas would be developed in the form of invertebrate collection areas or interpretation kiosks. 

Paleontological research and education opportunities will be pursued for high priority areas.

Significant Paleontological Resources

Any paleontological resource that is 

considered to be of scientific interest, 

including most vertebrate fossil remains 

and traces, and certain rare or unusual 

invertebrate and plant fossils. A 

significant paleontological resource is 

considered to be scientifically important 

because it is a rare or previously 

unknown species, it is of high quality 

and well-preserved, it preserves a 

previously unknown anatomical or 

other characteristic, provides new 

information about the history of life on 

earth, or has identified educational or 

recreational value. Paleontological 

resources that may be considered to not 

have paleontological significance 

include those that lack provenience or 

context, lack physical integrity because 

of decay or natural erosion, or that are 

overly redundant or are otherwise not 

useful for research.

Vertebrate fossil remains and traces 

include bone, scales, scutes, skin 

impressions, burrows, tracks, tail drag 

marks, vertebrate coprolites (feces), 

gastroliths (stomach stones), or other 

physical evidence of past vertebrate life 

or activities.
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

82 Public Safety

Lands within the planning area exhibiting the highest site density and/or high Potential Fossil Yield Classification 

(PFYC), as reported by Hanna (2007), will be used to establish priorities for paleontological inventory. 

Preliminarily, the priority inventory locations are northcentral Phillips County, northern Hill County, and eastern Liberty 

County. These locations may change or be modified with the addition of new information. These inventories will 

provide additional information about BLM-managed paleontological resources and will assist the BLM in allocating 

resources (time, money, staffing, etc.) and managing/protecting significant paleontological resources. Monitoring and 

completion of site assessments for known paleontological sites will occur routinely and site stabilization will be 

completed as deemed necessary.

The collection of petrified wood and invertebrate fossils for personal use will be allowed as limited by the regulations 

(43 CFR 3620 and 8365) in areas not specifically closed.

Public Safety

Goals

Reclaim abandoned mine land (AML) sites on BLM land to improve water 

quality, plant communities, and diverse fish and wildlife habitat.

Provide and manage adequate hazard class dams based on public safety and 

agency need.

Mitigate threats and reduce risks to the public and environment from hazardous 

materials.

Abandoned Mine Lands

Objective

Assess the level of risk at AML sites and prioritize for reclamation based on standardized risk assessment.

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

The closure of dangerous inactive and abandoned mine sites will be designed to reduce the risks to human health and 

safety, restore the environment, and protect geological and cultural resources. Reclamation will be implemented at the 

highest risk sites first. Where deemed appropriate, the BLM will restore severely impacted soils and watersheds as close 

as possible to pre-disturbed conditions that support productive plant communities and ensure properly functioning 

watersheds.

Restoration and reclamation activities and repositories will be monitored to determine effectiveness of reclamation 

practices.

Potential Fossil Yield Classification

Occurrences of paleontological resources are closely tied to the geologic units that contain them. The probability for finding 

paleontological resources can be broadly predicted from the geologic units present at or near the surface. Therefore, geologic 

mapping can be used for assessing the potential for the occurrence of paleontological resources.

Using the Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) system, geologic units are classified based on the relative abundance of 

vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils and their sensitivity to adverse impacts, with a higher 

class number indicating a higher potential. The five classes range from Class 1 – Very Low to Class 5 – Very High.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Public Safety 83

Hazard Class Dams

Objective

Ensure hazard class dams are maintained to meet public health and safety requirements.

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

Construction and maintenance priorities for hazard class dams will be in conformance with applicable laws and 

regulations, and BLM policy. Condition assessments and Emergency Action Planning will be performed as required by 

the latest version of the 9177 (Dam Safety) manual section and associated handbooks. The results of the condition 

assessments will be reviewed to determine the need for reconstruction, maintenance or disposal.

Hazardous Materials

Objective

Ensure the protection of BLM lands and facilities from hazardous materials to meet public and BLM employee health and 

safety requirements.

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

The BLM will comply with all federal environmental and safety laws and regulations governing storage, handling, and 

use of hazardous materials and governing disposal of hazardous waste. The BLM will also comply with state hazardous 

materials laws and regulations as required. 

Disposal of hazardous materials on public lands will generally not be permitted. When the use or storage of hazardous 

materials is authorized (i.e., in mining operations, pesticide application or other types of commercial activities) special 

stipulations will be applied to comply with appropriate laws, regulations, and policies. In the event of hazardous materials 

incidents on public land, standard operating procedures will be used to respond. Cleanups and reclamation will be 

conducted in accordance with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan and the NEPA or 

Removal Site Evaluation (RSE) / Engineering Evaluation Cost Analysis (EECA) decision.

The BLM will promote and support the appropriate use and recycling of hazardous materials in public facilities and on 

public land to prevent or minimize the generation and disposal of hazardous wastes.

Environmental site assessments will be conducted for land acquisitions, land disposals, and for rights-of-way if 

applicable. Land uses will be authorized and managed to reduce the occurrence and severity of hazardous materials 

incidences on public land.

The BLM will assess level of risk at hazard sites and conduct remediation at highest priority sites that are the greatest 

risks to the public and environment.

Bears Paw Mountain in Chouteau County Photo by Craig Miller
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

84 Recreation

Recreation

Goal

Provide a diverse array of recreational opportunities and visitor experiences while 

maintaining healthy BLM land resources.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

Objectives

Establish, manage, and maintain quality recreation sites and facilities to meet a broad range of public needs subject to 

resource constraints.

Manage commercial, competitive, or special events with special recreation permits that eliminate or minimize impacts on 

resources and conflicts with other users.

Manage recreation opportunities and visitor experiences to provide a sustained flow of local economic benefits and 

protect non-market economic values.

Manage recreation settings and opportunities by their specific recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) class description 

for desired recreation opportunities, experience levels, facility developments, and other resource uses.

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

The BLM recognizes that natural resource-based recreation is a significant economic contributor in most communities 

adjacent to BLM land. Priorities for Recreation and Visitor Services (BLM 2003d) states, “Our multiple-use mission is 

to serve the diverse outdoor recreation demands of visitors while helping to maintain the sustainable conditions needed 

to conserve their lands and their recreation choices.” The three primary goals for the HiLine District based on the 

national recreation program are:

 Improve access to appropriate recreation opportunities on BLM-managed or partnered lands and waters;

 Ensure a quality experience and enjoyment of natural resources on BLM-managed or partnered lands and 

waters; and

 Provide for and receive fair value in recreation.

A majority of BLM lands have recreational opportunities that can be appropriately provided for in conjunction with the 

other resource demands sanctioned by the BLM’s multiple-use mission. With this in mind, along with the goals 

described above, the HiLine District will manage its recreation opportunities and visitor experiences under the 

management actions described below.

BLM lands provide multiple opportunities for all publics, including those with disabilities. The BLM seeks to make 

these opportunities available through the use of universal design principles in the planning, construction, and renovation 

of facilities and in the provision of accessible programs and services to the public. The BLM’s mandate of multiple-use 

management and its role as provider of a wide variety of dispersed recreation opportunities in vast open spaces present 

unique challenges in implementing recreation programs and activities accessible to persons with disabilities. The BLM 

will consider the proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas (Access Board 2009) for camping 

facilities, picnic facilities, viewing areas, and outdoor recreation access routes and trails.

The recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) is a means of classifying and managing recreational opportunities based on 

physical, social, and managerial settings. Recreation opportunities in the HiLine District have been broken down into the 

following seven ROS classes based on a combination of the activities, settings and experiences available to the public: 

primitive, semi-primitive nonmotorized, semi-primitive motorized, roaded natural, roaded modified, rural and urban 

(Table 2.9). These classifications can be broken down further or expressed in more detail as more data are gathered 

through development of supplemental plans such as travel management plans.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Recreation 85

While the BLM will manage to support these different recreation settings and opportunities, ROS classifications will not 

ultimately restrict or authorize future management actions, but will (1) provide guidance on what types of actions and 

mitigation measures are appropriate on BLM land when comprehensively examined along with other resource 

allocations; and (2) disclose to the public the potential impacts to recreational conditions during the environmental 

review process for future proposed actions.

The BLM will manage for a variety of quality recreational opportunities and visitor experiences (i.e. hunting, fishing, 

sightseeing, off-highway vehicle use, horseback riding, mountain biking, hiking, rafting, rock hounding, etc.) consistent 

with other resource management objectives.

Comparable, cost effective and value based fee systems will be established for services and facilities provided to public 

users in accordance with BLM directives and the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act.

Table 2.9

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Classes

ROS Class Class Description

Primitive

Opportunity for isolation from man-made sights, sounds, and management controls in an 

unmodified natural environment. Only facilities essential for resource protection are 

available. A high degree of challenge and risk are present. Visitors use outdoor skills and 

have minimal contact with other users or groups. Motorized use is prohibited.

Semi-Primitive 

Nonmotorized

Some opportunity for isolation from man-made sights, sounds, and management controls in 

a predominantly unmodified environment. Opportunity to have a high degree of 

interaction with the natural environment, to have moderate challenge and risk and to use 

outdoor skills. Concentration of visitors is low, but evidence of users is often present. Onsite managerial controls are subtle. Facilities are provided for resource protection and the 

safety of users. Motorized use is prohibited.

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized

Some opportunity for isolation from man-made sights, sounds, and management controls in 

a predominantly unmodified environment. Opportunity to have a high degree of 

interaction with the natural environment, to have moderate challenge and risk and to use 

outdoor skills. Concentration of visitors is low, but evidence of users is often present. Onsite managerial controls are subtle. Facilities are provided for resource protection and the 

safety of users. Motorized use is permitted.

Roaded Natural

Mostly equal opportunities to affiliate with other groups or be isolated from sights and 

sounds of man. The landscape is generally natural with modifications moderately evident. 

Concentration of users is low to moderate, but facilities for group activities may be present. 

Challenge and risk opportunities are generally not important in this class. Opportunities 

for both motorized and nonmotorized activities are present. Construction standards and 

facility design incorporate conventional motorized uses.

Roaded Modified

Similar to the Roaded Natural setting, except this area has been or could be heavily 

modified by roads from activities including oil and gas development and/or off-road 

vehicle use. This class still offers opportunity to have a high degree of interaction with the 

natural environment and to have moderate challenge and risk and to use outdoor skills.

Rural

Area is characterized by a substantially modified natural environment. Opportunities to 

affiliate with others are prevalent. The convenience of recreation sites and opportunities 

are more important than a natural landscape or setting. Sights and sounds of man are 

readily evident, and the concentration of users is often moderate to high. Developed sites, 

roads, and trails are designed for moderate to high uses.

Urban

Area is characterized by a substantially urbanized environment, although the background 

may have natural appealing elements. High levels of human activity and concentrated 

development including recreation opportunities are prevalent. Developed sites, roads and 

other recreation opportunities are designed for high use.
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

86 Recreation

Recreation users will be limited to 14-day camping stays at developed campgrounds. No variances to the 14-day 

camping limit will be allowed. Personal property of recreational users cannot be left unattended in developed 

campgrounds for more than 24 hours. Developed campgrounds are those that provide a majority of the following 

amenities: tent or trailer spaces, picnic tables, drinking water, access roads, refuse containers, toilet facilities, fee 

collection, reasonable visitor protection and campfire rings.

Recreation users will also be limited to 16-day camping stays on undeveloped lands (dispersed camping) (75 FR 30850-

30852), or as determined by any supplementary rules published in the Federal Register. This does not apply to locations 

that contain structures or capital improvements (such as boat launch sites, picnic areas, and interpretive centers) and that 

are used primarily by the public for recreational purposes such as developed campgrounds, designated recreation areas, 

and special recreation management areas. The BLM regulates the use and occupancy at such developed locations in 

accordance with 43 CFR 8365.2–3. 

The BLM will establish and maintain information kiosks with brochures, interpretive and educational information, site 

maps and regulations, and important contacts.

Periodic accessibility, safety, and condition assessments will be conducted in accordance with Bureau policy at 

developed recreation sites and prioritized available funds to resolve deferred and corrective maintenance needs.

The “Leave No Trace” and “Tread Lightly” practices will be promoted to enhance the sustainability of resource-based 

activities.

The BLM will work cooperatively with other agencies (e.g., Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks) to identify and sign 

BLM lands to provide more recreational opportunities in areas with limited public access and/or confusing ownership 

boundaries. Signs must be placed according to current boundary marking standards (BLM Manual 9130).

Alternative A (Current Management)

A ROS inventory for the planning area was completed in 2008 and was based on professional determinations of the 

physical (remoteness, naturalness, and facilities), social (contacts, group size, and evidence of use) and administrative 

(mechanized use, management controls, and visitor services) attributes of BLM land. The ROS inventory represents the 

existing recreational settings and opportunities currently available on BLM land (Table 2.10 and Map 2.8, which is 

located at the end of Chapter 2). The planning area does not include any lands in the primitive and urban ROS classes.

The BLM would not allocate permits or specific use areas for outfitters and guides. All BLM land is available at the 

discretion of the Field Manager as long as permittees maintain a special use permit and meet the BLM regulation 

requirements.

Recreation emphasis would be to develop and maintain opportunities for dispersed recreational activities such as 

hunting, scenic and wildlife viewing, and driving for pleasure. 

The BLM would not construct undeveloped or developed recreation sites based strictly on local use, unless these sites 

can be realized through partnerships with other government entities, local service organizations, etc. 

Table 2.10

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Classes by Alternative (Acres)

Alternative A

(Current 

Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred 

Alternative)

Semi-Primitive Nonmotorized 7,481 7,566 136,276 0 7,481

Semi-Primitive Motorized 91,872 474,217 187,503 91,872 102,586

Roaded Natural 2,336,762 1,916,104 2,060,410 2,095,626 2,111,311

Roaded Modified 125 38,353 52,051 248,742 214,861

Rural 1,234 1,234 1,234 1,234 1,234
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Recreation 87

Alternative B

The BLM would modify the existing ROS classifications to accommodate the other proposed resource allocations under 

Alternative B. Table 2.10 and Map W.5 shows the acreages and ROS classes the BLM would manage under Alternative 

B. Map W.5 is available on the Internet at http://blm.gov/8qkd.

The BLM would issue special recreation permits (SRPs) as appropriate for commercial, competitive, and special events 

subject to guidelines in BLM Handbook 2930, resource capabilities, social conflict concerns, professional qualifications, 

public safety, and public needs. New permits would not be authorized that directly conflict with permitted uses and 

existing permits would be given preference. Through plan implementation, changes in demand for permits and resulting 

impacts would be monitored and thresholds identified that could lead to limits in the number of permits to minimize 

impacts to the resources, public safety, and overall visitor satisfaction.

Recreation sites and facilities would be maintained and managed to promote resource value protection, public safety and 

health, quality facilities, visitor experiences, management efficiency, and value-based returns. Expansion of existing 

sites and development of new sites would take into consideration public demand, resource constraints, and management 

capabilities through an environmental review process. Priority would be given to new sites that have partnership funding 

strategies and are consistent with established management guidelines.

The BLM would work cooperatively with other agencies (e.g., MFWP) to identify and sign BLM lands to provide more 

recreational opportunities in areas with limited public access and/or confusing ownership boundaries. Signs must be 

placed according to current boundary marking standards (BLM Manual 9130).

Alternatives C, D, and E (Preferred Alternative)

The BLM would modify the existing ROS classifications to accommodate the other proposed resource allocations under 

the range of alternatives. Table 2.10 and Map 2.8 shows the acreages and ROS classes the BLM would manage under 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative). Alternatives C and D are shown on Map W.5, which is available at 

http://blm.gov/8qkd.

The BLM would issue SRPs as appropriate for commercial, competitive, and special events subject to guidelines in BLM 

Handbook 2930, resource capabilities, social conflict concerns, professional qualifications, public safety, and public 

needs. For example, applications for SRPs in greater sage-grouse priority habitat areas would be denied if approval of 

the permit would adversely impact sage-grouse or sage-grouse habitat. New permits would not be authorized that 

directly conflict with other permitted uses and existing permits would be given preference. Through plan 

implementation, changes in demand for permits and resulting impacts would be monitored and thresholds identified that 

could lead to limits in the number of permits to minimize impacts to the resources, public safety, and overall visitor 

satisfaction. All SRP applications and renewals would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and site-specific analysis 

would be done for each proposed operating area.

Recreation sites and facilities would be maintained and managed to promote resource value protection, public safety and 

health, quality facilities, visitor experiences, management efficiency, and value-based returns. Expansion of existing 

sites and development of new sites would take into consideration public demand, resource constraints, and management 

capabilities through an environmental review process. Priority would be given to new sites that have partnership funding 

strategies and are consistent with established management guidelines.

The BLM would work cooperatively with other agencies (e.g., MFWP) to identify and sign BLM lands to provide more 

recreational opportunities in areas with limited public access and/or confusing ownership boundaries. Signs must be 

placed according to current boundary marking standards (BLM Manual 9130).

Recreation Management Areas

Objectives

Establish a three-tier system of lands managed for recreation where special recreation management areas (SRMAs) that 

would be given management priority to provide quality recreation opportunities and visitor experiences and extensive 
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

88 Recreation

recreation management areas (ERMAs) would also require specific management consideration but commensurate with 

the management of other resources and resource uses. All remaining lands will be managed as public lands not 

designated as recreation management areas (LND), which would generally be managed only to address basic recreation 

and visitor services and resource stewardship needs such as visitor safety and use, and user conflicts.

Provide for primarily undeveloped, dispersed recreational opportunities while 

maintaining the prescribed recreation settings (ROS classes), protecting 

resources, ensuring public health and safety, and working toward resolving 

conflicts of use.

Incorporate outcomes-focused recreation management principles per WO IM 

No. 2011-004 (BLM 2011). Outcomes-focused management varies from the 

traditional “activity-based” recreation management approach, which primarily 

focused on specific activities and the associated facilities needed to support 

such uses. Outcomes-focused recreation focuses management on primary 

activities within recreation management zones. These primary activities 

provide the public with certain types of experiences on BLM lands. 

Providing these experiences then produces a variety of personal, community, 

economic, and environmental benefits.

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

Where the nature of the resource attracts concentrated or intensive 

recreational use, BLM lands may be managed as a SRMA. These are areas 

where the BLM focuses specific management, funding, and planning to 

provide for the best possible recreation experience while protecting, 

sustaining, and enhancing the environmental resources of these areas.

Within each SRMA, the BLM may also allocate recreation management 

zones (RMZs). An RMZ represents BLM lands with a distinctive recreation 

setting (activities, experiences, and benefits) within each SRMA. The BLM 

would focus management, funding, and planning within RMZs to implement 

and maintain proposed ROS classes, recreation management objectives, and 

management actions.

Where the nature of the resource attracts concentrated recreational use but is 

not the specific focus of management, the area will be managed as an ERMA. 

Other resources and resource uses are considered in the management of these 

areas and some recreation activities may be restricted or constrained to 

achieve interdisciplinary objectives.

BLM lands outside of SRMAs and ERMAs are managed as LNDs. Recreation management within LNDs would be 

limited to custodial actions, which are primarily reactive in order to manage dispersed activities, visitor health and safety, 

and user and resource conflicts. LNDs are generally managed directly through RMP decisions and do not require 

additional activity-level planning.

The majority of lands within the planning area will be managed as an LND for dispersed recreational experiences 

associated with hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, pleasure driving, camping and picnicking. The BLM will manage this 

area in a custodial manner to ensure quality of experience and enjoyment of natural and cultural resources. 

The existing recreation facilities (fishing reservoirs and watchable wildlife areas) within the LND will be maintained in a 

custodial manner and enhanced only as needed to meet recreational demands that are associated with resource protection, 

and public health and safety requirements. New recreation facilities could be considered but should be a lower priority 

for implementation than those proposed for SRMAs and ERMAs and should resolve specific conflicts of use. 

Recreation Management Areas

Special Recreation Management Area 

(SRMA): An administrative unit where 

the existing or proposed recreation 

opportunities and recreation setting 

characteristics are recognized for their 

unique value, importance and/or 

distinctiveness, especially as compared 

to other areas used for recreation. 

These areas are managed to protect and 

enhance a targeted set of activities, 

experiences, benefits, and desired 

recreation setting characteristics.

Extensive Recreation Management 

Area (ERMA): An administrative unit 

that requires specific management 

consideration in order to address 

recreation use, demand or recreation 

and visitor services program 

investments. These areas are managed 

to support and sustain the principal 

recreation activities and the associated 

qualities and conditions of the ERMA.

Public Lands Not Designated as 

Recreation Management Areas 

(LND): All lands not designated as a 

SRMA or ERMA. These lands are 

managed to meet basic recreation and 

visitor services and resource 

stewardship needs. Recreation is not 

emphasized; however, recreation 

activities may occur as long as they are 

not in conflict with the primary uses of 

these lands.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Recreation 89

The Bitter Creek Watchable Wildlife Area will continue to be managed under BLM Manual 6330-Management of BLM 

Wilderness Study Areas until such time as Congress decides whether or not to designate the area as Wilderness. If 

released by Congress, the Bitter Creek WSA would be managed as an ACEC and a management plan would be 

developed to provide semi-primitive, motorized recreation opportunities. Until the management plan is developed, 

management of the area would continue to be guided by BLM Manual 6330 as an ERMA.

Alternative A (Current Management)

The BLM would retain the five SRMAs and three ERMAs (Table 2.11 and Map 2.9, which is located at the end of 

Chapter 2). These recreation management areas do not utilize the new three-tier recreation outcomes-focused

management approach of community, destination or undeveloped market strategies.

Table 2.11

Recreation Management Areas

Alternative A (Current Management)

(Acres)

Management Area SRMA ERMA

Havre 275,538

Little Rocky Mountains 27,688

North Missouri Breaks 109,891

Phillips 425,845

South Phillips 575,924

South Valley 584,901

Sweet Grass Hills 9,337

Valley 428,351

Total Lands Designated 1,307,741 1,129,734

Alternative B

The BLM would manage the entire planning area as an LND (Table 2.12 and Map W.6, which is available at 

http://blm.gov/8qkd).

Alternative C

The BLM would manage one SRMA (Little Rocky Mountains) and nine ERMAs (BR-12 Watchable Wildlife Area, 

Cottonwood Riparian Protection Area, Faraasen Park Recreation Area, Fresno OHV Area, Glasgow OHV Area, Marias 

River, Paulo Fishing Reservoir, South Phillips Recreation Complex, and Troika Fishing Reservoir) (Table 2.12 and Map 

2.9). The remainder of the planning area would be managed as an LND.

The BLM would not allocate recreation management zones within the Little Rocky Mountains SRMA.

Objectives and management actions for the individual SRMAs and ERMAs are identified in Appendix S.

Alternative D

The BLM would manage twelve SRMAs (BR-12 Watchable Wildlife Area, Cottonwood Riparian Protection Area, 

Faraasen Park Recreation Area, Fresno OHV Area, Glasgow OHV Area, Little Rocky Mountains, Marias River, Paulo 

Fishing Reservoir, South Phillips Recreation Complex, Sweet Grass Hills ACEC, Thirty Mile OHV Area, and Troika 

Fishing Reservoir) and two ERMAs (Timber Creek Ridge and Wards Dam Watchable Wildlife Area) (Table 2.12 and 

Map W.6, which is available at http://blm.gov/8qkd). The remainder of the planning area would be managed as LND.

Objectives and management actions for the individual SRMAs and ERMAs are identified in Appendix S.
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

90 Recreation

Table 2.12

Recreation Management Areas (RMAs)

Alternatives B, C, D, and E

(Acres)

RMA

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

SRMA ERMA SRMA ERMA SRMA ERMA SRMA ERMA

BR-12 Watchable 

Wildlife Area 246 246 363

Cottonwood 

Riparian 

Protection Area

42 42 42

Faraasen Park 

Recreation Area 10 10 10

Fresno

OHV 84 84 125

Glasgow

OHV 40 40 40

Little Rocky 

Mountains 27,688 27,688 27,688

Marias

River 19,032 19,032 19,032

Paulo Fishing 

Reservoir 74 74 74

South Phillips 

Recreation 

Complex 

42,217 42,217 42,217

Sweet Grass Hills 

ACEC 7,419 7,419

Thirty Mile OHV 

Area 181

Timber Creek 

Ridge 67 67

Troika Fishing 

Reservoir 56 56 56

Wards Dam 

Watchable 

Wildlife Area

177

Total Lands 

Designated 0 0 27,688 61,800 97,088 244 27,728 69,405

Lands Not 

Designated (LND) 2,437,474 2,347,986 2,340,142 2,340,341

The BLM would allocate three recreation management zones (RMZs) within the Little Rocky Mountains SRMA, as 

described below.

The primary recreation management strategy for the Little Rocky Mountains SRMA (Map 2.9) would be to target the 

demonstrated community tourism market. Residents of local communities are the primary visitors of the area who come 

to hike, camp, fish, hunt, and ride horses and OHVs. These recreation opportunities would be sustained and enhanced 

through the implementation of identified recreation management objectives and the maintenance of prescribed ROS 

classes. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Recreation 91

Zortman Recreation Management Zone (1,108 acres)

 Recreation Setting: Provides full service facility-based camping 

in a ponderosa pine rural setting near the small rural community 

of Zortman. 

 Primary Activities: Overnight developed camping, day use 

picnicking, wildlife viewing, recreational gold panning, hiking, 

horseback riding, and OHV and ATV use. 

 Recreation Management Objective: Maintain and enhance the 

facilities at the Camp Creek Campground (Figure 2.3), Horse 

Corral Campground, and Buffington Day Use Picnic Area as 

needed to meet recreational demands and comply with public 

health and safety requirements. Specific areas within this zone 

could be set aside for recreational gold panning through 

coordination and/or partnership with the local community.

Landusky Recreation Management Zone (107 acres)

 Recreation Setting: Provides small facility-based camping in a ponderosa pine rural setting near the very small

rural community of Landusky.

 Primary Activities: Overnight developed camping, wildlife viewing, hiking, and OHV and ATV use.

 Recreation Management Objective: Maintain and enhance the facilities at the Montana Gulch Campground 

(Figure 2.3) as needed to meet recreational demands and comply with public health and safety requirements.

Little Rockies Recreation Management Zone (26,473 acres)

 Recreation Setting: Provides an excellent back country experience for dispersed camping, wildlife viewing, 

hiking, horseback riding, and OHV and ATV use opportunities in a ponderosa pine roaded natural setting.

 Primary Activities: Dispersed camping, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, fishing, OHV and ATV use.

 Recreation Management Objective: Provide for dispersed back country experiences for both nonmotorized and 

motorized recreational activities. Emphasize the “Leave No Trace” and “Tread Lightly” programs to aid in 

minimizing the conflicts of use between motorized and nonmotorized BLM land users.

In addition to the three RMZs for the Little Rocky Mountains SRMA, the BLM would allocate three RMZs within the 

Marias River SRMA.

The primary recreation management strategy for the Marias River SRMA would be to target the demonstrated 

community tourism market. Residents of local communities are the primary visitors of the area who come to float, fish, 

camp and picnic on or along the Marias River. These recreation opportunities would be sustained and enhanced through 

the implementation of identified recreation management objectives and the maintenance of prescribed ROS classes.

Upper Marias River Recreation Management Zone (6,573 acres)

• Recreation Setting: Provides for floating, fishing and camping opportunities in an undeveloped semi-primitive 

motorized setting on and along the Marias River.

• Primary Activities: Raft, canoe and kayak floating, fishing, dispersed camping and day use picnicking.

• Recreation Management Objective: Ensure that the area continues to provide undeveloped water-based 

recreation opportunities.

Gold Panning

Gold panning is considered a casual use 

under the mining regulations (43 CFR 3809), 

which is described in detail in the Solid

Minerals – Locatable section.

The BLM does have unpatented mining 

claims in the planning area. The mining 

claim provides the right of the claimant to 

search for and develop minerals. The 

recreational panner should not go onto 

another person’s claim for panning without 

the claimant’s permission.
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

92 Recreation

Middle Marias River Recreation Management Zone (1,850 acres)

• Recreation Setting: Provides for floating, fishing, camping and picnicking opportunities with some developed 

recreational facilities in a roaded natural setting on and along the Marias River.

• Primary Activities: Raft, canoe, and kayak floating, fishing, swimming, camping and day use picnicking.

• Recreation Management Objective: Maintain and enhance the recreation facilities at the Pugsley Bridge and 

Moffat Bridge boat launch and take out areas as needed to meet recreational demands and comply with public 

health and safety requirements.

Lower Marias River Recreation Management Zone (10,608 acres)

• Recreation Setting: Provides for floating, fishing, and dispersed camping opportunities in an undeveloped 

isolated rugged canyon and semi-primitive setting with very little motorized access along the Marias River.

• Primary Activities: Raft, canoe, and kayak floating, fishing and dispersed camping.

 Recreation Management Objective: Ensure that the area continues to provide undeveloped water-based 

recreation opportunities.

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

The BLM would manage two SRMAs (Glasgow OHV and Little Rocky Mountains) and ten ERMAs (BR-12, 

Cottonwood Riparian Area, Faraasen Park, Fresno OHV, Marias River, Paulo Fishing Reservoir, South Phillips 

Recreation Complex, Sweet Grass Hills ACEC, Timber Creek Ridge, and Troika Fishing Reservoir) (Table 2.12 and 

Map 2.9). The remainder of the planning area would be managed as an LND.

The BLM would allocate three RMZs within the Little Rocky Mountains SRMA, as described in Alternative D.

Due to its limited size (40 acres) and uniformity in recreational opportunities throughout, the Glasgow OHV SRMA 

would not be divided into management zones.

Objectives and management actions for the individual SRMAs and ERMAs are identified in Appendix S.

Glasgow OHV Area Photo by Kathy Tribby
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Recreation 93

Figure 2.3

Montana Gulch and Camp Creek Campgrounds
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

94 Recreation

Recreation Sites

Alternative A (Current Management)

The BLM would continue to manage the existing recreation sites and facilities (72 sites) that are shown in Table 2.13

and displayed on Map 2.10, which is located at the end of Chapter 2.

Table 2.13

BLM-Managed Recreation Sites and Facilities

Recreation Site Name

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternatives B, C, D and

E (Preferred Alternative)

Blaine County

Anita Fishing Reservoir  

BR-12 Watchable Wildlife Reservoir  

Bus Fishing Reservoir 

Don Fishing Reservoir  

Floyd Flynn Fishing Reservoir  

FR Fishing Reservoir  

North Faber Fishing Reservoir  

Reser Fishing Reservoir  

Ridge Fishing Reservoir 

Salmo Fishing Reservoir  

South Cassidy Fishing Reservoir (BR-19)  

Thirty Mile OHV 

(Alternative D only)

Glacier County

Sullivan Bridge Boat Take Out Area  

Hill County

Fresno OHV  

Gauging Station Boat Take Out Area  

Liberty County

Moffat Bridge Boat Take Out Area  

Pugsley Bridge Recreation Area  

Phillips County

Batosh Fishing Reservoir  

Bell Ridge Fishing Reservoir 

Bison Bone Fishing Reservoir 

Bresaylor Fishing Reservoir 

Buddy Fishing Reservoir 

Buffington Day Use Picnic Area  

Camp Creek Campground/Watchable Wildlife Area  

Compton Fishing Reservoir 

Cottonwood Riparian Protection Area  

Current Fishing Reservoir  

Dogtown Fishing Reservoir 

Douchette Fishing Reservoir (PR-132) 

Flake Fishing Reservoir 

Karsten Coulee Fishing Reservoir  

King Fishing Reservoir  
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Recreation 95

Table 2.13

BLM-Managed Recreation Sites and Facilities

Recreation Site Name

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternatives B, C, D and

E (Preferred Alternative)

Lark Fishing Reservoir  

Loader Fishing Reservoir 

Montana Gulch Campground  

Paleface Fishing Reservoir  

Plutz Fishing Reservoir  

PR-109A Fishing Reservoir 

PR-16 Fishing Reservoir 

PR-18 Fishing Reservoir  

PR-20 Fishing Reservoir  

PR-22 Fishing Reservoir 

PR-54 Fishing Reservoir  

Rebate Fishing Reservoir  

Rotator Cup Fishing Reservoir 

Sagebrush Fishing Reservoir  

Sentinel Fishing Reservoir  

Shallow Fishing Reservoir  

Shoulder Blade Fishing Reservoir 

Spanky Fishing Reservoir 

Taint Fishing Reservoir  

Thunder Cloud Fishing Reservoir  

Wapiti Fishing Reservoir 

Wedding Fishing Reservoir 

Whiteface Fishing Reservoir  

Wrangler Fishing Reservoir  

Valley County

Atlas Fishing Reservoir  

Big Fishing Reservoir  

Bitter Creek WSA/Watchable Wildlife Area  

Faraasen Park Recreation Area  

Gay Fishing Reservoir 

Glasgow OHV  

Helen Fishing Reservoir  

Hose Fishing Reservoir  

Langen Fishing Reservoir  

Lunch Fishing Reservoir 

Paulo Fishing Reservoir  

Shoot Fishing Reservoir 

Snow Fishing Reservoir 

Timber Creek Ridge 

(Alternatives D and E only)

Triple Crossing Fishing Reservoir 

Troika Fishing Reservoir  

Valley Fishing Reservoir  

Wards Dam Watchable Wildlife Area  
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

96 Renewable Energy Resources

Alternatives B and C

The BLM would manage 48 recreation sites and facilities (Table 2.13 and Map 2.10). Some of the existing fishing 

reservoir recreation sites (24 sites) would not be managed due to poor habitat and/or insufficient water capacity. Those 

reservoirs that lack water during dry periods would be considered for fish stocking in good water years.

Recreation sites and facilities would be maintained and managed to promote resource value protection, public safety and 

health, quality facilities, visitor experiences, management efficiency, and value-based returns. New sites could be 

developed commensurate with public demand, resource constraints, and management capabilities. Priority would be 

given to new sites that have partnership funding strategies and are consistent with established management guidelines.

Alternative D

The BLM would manage 50 recreation sites and facilities (Table 2.13 and Map 2.10). Some of the existing fishing 

reservoir recreation sites (24 sites) would not be managed due to poor habitat and/or insufficient water capacity. Those 

reservoirs that lack water during dry periods would be considered for fish stocking in good water years. In addition to 

the 48 sites under Alternatives B and C, Timber Creek Ridge and Thirty Mile OHV would also be managed as recreation 

sites. 

Recreation sites and facilities would be maintained and managed to promote resource value protection, public safety and 

health, quality facilities, visitor experiences, management efficiency, and value-based returns. New sites could be 

developed commensurate with public demand, resource constraints, and management capabilities. Priority would be 

given to new sites that have partnership funding strategies and are consistent with established management guidelines.

Alternative E

The BLM would manage 49 recreation sites and facilities (Table 2.13 and Map 2.10). Some of the existing fishing 

reservoir recreation sites (24 sites) would not be managed due to poor habitat and/or insufficient water capacity. Those 

reservoirs that lack water during dry periods would be considered for fish stocking in good water years. In addition to 

the 48 sites under Alternatives B and C, Timber Creek Ridge would also be managed as a recreation site. 

Recreation sites and facilities would be maintained and managed to promote resource value protection, public safety and 

health, quality facilities, visitor experiences, management efficiency, and value-based returns. New sites could be 

developed commensurate with public demand, resource constraints, and management capabilities. Priority would be 

given to new sites that have partnership funding strategies and are consistent with established management guidelines.

Renewable Energy Resources

Goal

Provide opportunities for the development of renewable energy from resources such 

as biomass, geothermal, solar and wind, while minimizing adverse impacts to other 

resource values.

Objective

Work with local communities, state and local government, and other federal agencies in building a clean energy future 

by providing sites for environmentally sound development of renewable energy on BLM land.

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

Although no areas are specifically designated for renewable energy development, opportunities for development will be 

provided to the extent consistent with other goals, objectives, and requirements of this plan.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Renewable Energy Resources 97

Solar Insolation

Insolation is a measure of solar 

radiation energy received on a given 

surface area in a given time. It is 

commonly expressed as average 

irradiance in watts per square meter 

(W/m2) or kilowatt-hours per square 

meter per day (kWh/m2/day).

Biomass

Woody biomass is defined as the trees 

and woody plants, including limbs, 

tops, needles, leaves, and other woody 

parts grown in a forest, woodland, or 

rangeland environment, that are the 

byproducts of forest management.

Renewable energy projects on BLM land may include biomass, geothermal, solar, and wind projects, and the siting of 

transmission facilities needed to deliver the produced power to the consumer.

Solar and wind energy exploration and development authorization would be subject to the same laws, regulations, and 

guidelines as other commercial rights-of-way. Terms and conditions for authorizations including site testing, monitoring 

and development will incorporate applicable BMPs, current professional practice, and recent scientific findings.

Biomass

The BLM will explore opportunities to provide a reliable and sustainable 

supply of woody biomass that may be made available from BLM land in the 

planning area. Biomass can be used to produce bio-energy and/or bio-based 

products such as plastics, ethanol, and diesel. Biomass can also be used to 

produce the full range of wood products including lumber, composites, paper 

and pulp, furniture, housing components, and round wood.

Geothermal

BLM lands in the planning area will be available for geothermal leasing, unless located within the Burnt Lodge or Bitter 

Creek WSAs or in instances where it is determined that issuing the lease would cause unnecessary or undue degradation 

to BLM lands or resources. No Known Geothermal Resource Areas (KGRAs) are located in the planning area. (A 

region identified by the U.S. Geological Survey as containing geothermal resources. New leasing regulations no longer 

use KGRAs as a basis for the leasing process.)

Stipulations for oil and gas leases will be applied to geothermal leases; however, the stipulations may need to be 

modified through further environmental review since geothermal exploration and production activity is different than oil 

and gas.

Geothermal projects will be designed and developed in accordance with the Geothermal Leasing in the Western United 

States Programmatic EIS (BLM and USFS 2008). A site-specific environmental analysis will be prepared for any 

proposed exploration or development of geothermal resources. The analysis will address the application of stipulations 

and develop any additional mitigation measures over and above the lease stipulations required.

Solar

Opportunities for solar development will be provided consistent with the other 

goals, objectives, and requirements of this plan. Applications for solar energy 

projects will be processed and authorized as rights-of-way under Title V of 

FLPMA. Utility-scale concentrating solar power or photovoltaic electric 

generating facilities must comply with the BLM’s planning, environmental, 

and right-of-way application requirements as established by BLM guidance 

(WO IM No. 2011-003) or additional Bureau guidance and/or policy.

Solar energy on BLM land is currently being studied in a six-state area in the 

southwest (Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah). 

The BLM and U.S. Department of Energy released a Draft Programmatic EIS for the six-state area in December 2010

(BLM and DOE 2010). The study includes BLM lands with solar insolation levels greater than 6.5 kWh/m2/day and 

slopes of less than 5%. Solar insolation levels in the planning area range from about 4.13 kWh/m2/day to 5.02 

kWh/m2/day. Due to the unlikelihood of commercial solar development in the planning area, allocations for solar 

development are not addressed further in this planning document.
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

98 Renewable Energy Resources

Wind

BLM land that is designated as an exclusion area (e.g., WSAs) will not be available for wind energy rights-of-way. As a 

result, these areas will be closed to commercial wind energy development. This includes wind energy site monitoring 

and testing. 

The use of wind turbines at the Zortman/Landusky mine reclamation area to lower the cost of electricity needed to 

operate the pumps and water treatment plants was approved under the Final Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis 

(EE/CA) for Water Management at the Zortman and Landusky Mines (BLM 2006d), and is not discussed or analyzed 

further in this document.

Wind energy projects will be designed and developed in accordance with the Wind Energy Development on BLMAdministered Lands in the Western United States Final Programmatic EIS (BLM 2005) and BLM wind energy

development policy (WO IM No. 2009-043) and subsequent policy and guidance issued by BLM. Implementation of 

any proposed management action would ensure that potential adverse impacts to natural and cultural resources would be 

minimal to negligible through the use of BMPs (Appendix C). Areas available for wind energy development will 

include mitigation for surface-disturbing and disruptive activities consistent with the stipulations outlined in the Fluid 

Minerals section of Chapter 2 and Appendix E. This mitigation may restrict wind energy development in some areas.

Prior to authorizing any wind energy projects, a site-specific environmental review will be conducted to determine 

project feasibility, and to address and mitigate impacts. This environmental review will include the appropriate level of 

public involvement. 

Alternative A (Current Management)

About 92% of the planning area (2,248,336 acres) would be open to wind energy rights-of-way with minor constraints

(standard terms/conditions and BMPs) (Table 2.14). Mitigation measures would be applied on a case-by-case basis 

during project level planning if an evaluation of the project area indicates the presence of important resources. 

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

mitigated to an acceptable level. 

About 8% of the planning area would be exclusion areas for wind energy rights-of-way (189,138 acres) (Table 2.14). 

This includes the Bitter Creek and Burnt Lodge WSAs, large reservoirs and waterfowl complexes, developed recreation 

sites, and National Historic Trails. The exclusion areas are shown in Table 2.15 and Map 2.11, which is located at the 

end of Chapter 2. 

Alternative B

Less than 1% of the planning area (6,637 acres) would be open to wind energy rights-of-way with minor constraints 

(standard terms/conditions and BMPs), and about 10% of the planning area (239,014 acres) would be avoidance areas 

(Table 2.14). Avoidance areas include mitigation for cultural and paleontological resources, visual resources, soils, 

riparian areas, and wildlife consistent with the stipulations outlined in the Fluid Minerals section of Chapter 2 for 

surface-disturbing and disruptive activities. Mitigation measures would be applied on a case-by-case basis during project 

level planning if an evaluation of the project area indicates the presence of important resources. Exceptions may be 

granted by the authorized officer if an environmental review demonstrates that effects could be mitigated to an 

acceptable level.

About 90% of the planning area (2,191,823 acres) would be exclusion areas for wind energy rights-of-way (Table 2.14). 

This includes the Bitter Creek and Burnt Lodge WSAs, Little Rocky Mountains and Sweet Grass Hills TCPs, VRM 

Class I and II areas, ACECs, large reservoirs and waterfowl complexes, most wildlife habitat, developed recreation sites, 

National Historic Trails, and lands with wilderness characteristics. The exclusion areas are shown in Table 2.15 and 

Map W.7, which is available at http://blm.gov/8qkd.
Renewable Energy Resources 99

HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Table 2.14

Open, Avoidance, and Exclusion Areas for Commercial Wind Energy Development by Alternative

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Acres

% of

Planning Area Acres

% of

Planning Area Acres

% of

Planning Area Acres

% of

Planning Area Acres

% of

Planning Area 

Open Areas 2,248,336 92% 6,637 <1% 106,182 4% 231,961 10% 33,119 1%

Avoidance Areas 0 0% 239,014 10% 821,335 34% 1,912,095 78% 885,661 36%

Exclusion Areas 189,138 8% 2,191,823 90% 1,509,958 62% 293,418 12% 1,518,695 62%

Table 2.15

Specific Exclusion Areas for Commercial Wind Energy Development by Alternative*

Specific Area Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E(Preferred Alternative)

Cultural Resources

Little Rocky Mountains 

TCP Exclusion Area (30,648 acres).

Sweet Grass Hills TCP Exclusion Area (7,718 acres).

Recreation and Visual Resource Management

Developed Recreation 

Sites

Exclusion Area within 1 

mile (70,345 acres).

Exclusion Area within 2 

mile (147,375 acres).

Exclusion Area within 1 

mile (47,876 acres).

Exclusion Area within 1/2 

mile (15,299 acres).

Exclusion Area within 1 

mile (47,576 acres).

VRM Class I Areas Exclusion Area (90,032 

acres).

Exclusion Area (74,506 acres).

VRM Class II Areas Exclusion Area (977,396

acres).

Special Designations

Azure Cave ACEC Exclusion Area (141 acres).

Big Bend of the Milk 

River ACEC Exclusion Area (1,972 acres).

Bitter Creek ACEC and 

WSA Exclusion Area (60,693 acres).

Frenchman ACEC NA**

Exclusion Area (42,020 

acres).

Exclusion Area (63,482 

acres).

Exclusion Area (42,020 

acres).

Grassland Bird/Greater 

Sage-Grouse Priority 

Areas ACEC

NA** Exclusion Area (461,220 

acres). NA** NA** NA**

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Protection Priority Area 

ACEC

NA** Exclusion Area (930,265 

acres). NA** NA** NA**

Kevin Rim ACEC Exclusion Area (4,557 acres).

Little Rocky Mountains 

ACEC NA** Exclusion Area (27,177 acres). NA**
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

100 Renewable Energy Resources

Table 2.15

Specific Exclusion Areas for Commercial Wind Energy Development by Alternative*

Specific Area Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E(Preferred Alternative)

Malta Geological 

ACEC NA** Exclusion Area (6,153 acres).

Mountain Plover ACEC Exclusion Area (24,762 acres).

Sweet Grass Hills 

ACEC Exclusion Area (7,419 acres).

Woody Island ACEC NA** Exclusion Area (22,411 acres). Exclusion Area (32,869 

acres).

Zortman/Landusky Mine 

Reclamation ACEC NA** Exclusion Area (3,609 acres). NA** Exclusion Area (2,682acres).

National Historic Trails Exclusion Area within 1 

mile (9,004 acres).

Exclusion Area within 2 

miles (20,141 acres).

Exclusion Area within 1 

mile (9,005 acres).

Exclusion Area within 1/2 

mile (4,365 acres).

Exclusion Area within 1 

mile (8,970 acres).

Burnt Lodge WSA Exclusion Area (13,727 acres)

Wilderness Characteristics

Eastern Breaks and 

Badlands NA*** Exclusion Area (10,714 acres) NA*** Exclusion Area (10,714 acres)

Prairie Grasslands NA*** Exclusion Area (139,654 

acres)

Exclusion Area (92,599

acres) NA*** NA***

Sagebrush Grasslands NA*** Exclusion Area (203,715

acres)

Exclusion Area (131,854 

acres) NA*** NA***

Island Mountain Range NA*** Exclusion Area (4,118 acres) NA*** NA***

Western Breaks and 

Badlands NA*** Exclusion Area (28,262 acres) NA*** NA*** NA***

Wildlife

Crucial Winter Range 

(mule deer)

Exclusion Area (8,383 

acres).

Exclusion Area (62,577 

acres)

Exclusion Area (66,034 

acres).

Grassland Bird/Greater 

Sage-Grouse Priority 

Areas

NA** Exclusion Area (Same 

acres as ACEC).

Exclusion Area (298,772 

acres). NA** Exclusion Area (298,772 acres).

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Protection Priority Area NA** Exclusion Area (Same acres as ACEC).

Exclusion Area (930,265 

acres). NA** Exclusion Area (930,265 acres).

Large Reservoirs and 

Waterfowl Complexes

Exclusion Area within 2 miles of large reservoirs and waterfowl complexes; Fort Peck Lake, Nelson, Tiber, Fresno, Whitewater, Dibbler, and 

Bowdoin (42,900 acres).

Winter Range (antelope, 

elk, mule deer, greater 

sage-grouse)

Exclusion Area (583,341

acres).

* Acreage totals may overlap (e.g., greater sage-grouse protection priority areas and winter range).

** The area would not be designated an ACEC or managed as a priority area under this alternative.

*** The BLM would manage other multiple uses as a priority over protecting wilderness characteristics.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Renewable Energy Resources 101

Alternative C

About 4% of the planning area (106,182 acres) would be open to wind energy rights-of-way with minor constraints 

(standard terms/conditions and BMPs) and 34% of the planning area (821,335 acres) would be avoidance areas (Table 

2.14). Avoidance areas include mitigation for cultural and paleontological resources, visual resources, soils, riparian 

areas, and wildlife consistent with the stipulations outlined in the Fluid Minerals section of Chapter 2 for surfacedisturbing and disruptive activities. Mitigation measures would be applied on a case-by-case basis during project level 

planning if an evaluation of the project area indicates the presence of important resources. Exceptions may be granted by 

the authorized officer if an environmental review demonstrates that effects could be mitigated to an acceptable level.

About 62% of the planning area would be exclusion areas for wind energy rights-of-way (1,509,958 acres) (Table 2.14). 

This includes the Bitter Creek and Burnt Lodge WSAs, Little Rocky Mountains and Sweet Grass Hills TCPs, VRM 

Class I areas, ACECs, large reservoirs and waterfowl complexes, some wildlife habitat, developed recreation sites, and 

National Historic Trails. The exclusion areas are shown in Table 2.15 and Map W.7, which is available at 

http://blm.gov/8qkd. 

Alternative D

About 10% of the planning area (231,961 acres) would be open to wind energy rights-of-way with minor constraints 

(standard terms/conditions and BMPs) and 78% of the planning area (1,912,095 acres) would be avoidance areas (Table 

2.14). Avoidance areas include mitigation for cultural and paleontological resources, visual resources, soils, riparian 

areas, and wildlife consistent with the stipulations outlined in the Fluid Minerals section of Chapter 2 for surfacedisturbing and disruptive activities. Mitigation measures would be applied on a case-by-case basis during project level 

planning if an evaluation of the project area indicates the presence of important resources. Exceptions may be granted by 

the authorized officer if an environmental review demonstrates that effects could be mitigated to an acceptable level.

About 12% of the planning area (293,418 acres) would be exclusion areas for wind energy rights-of-way (Table 2.14). 

This includes the Bitter Creek and Burnt Lodge WSAs, Little Rocky Mountains and Sweet Grass Hills TCPs, VRM 

Class I areas, ACECs, large reservoirs and waterfowl complexes, developed recreation sites, and National Historic 

Trails. The exclusion areas are shown in Table 2.15 and Map W.7, which is available at http://blm.gov/8qkd.

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

About 1% of the planning area (33,119 acres) would be open to wind energy rights-of-way with minor constraints 

(standard terms/conditions and BMPs) and 36% of the planning area (885,661 acres) would be avoidance areas (Table 

2.14). Avoidance areas include mitigation for cultural resources, paleontological resources, visual resources, soils, 

riparian areas, and wildlife consistent with the stipulations outlined in the Fluid Minerals section of Chapter 2 for 

surface-disturbing and disruptive activities. Mitigation measures would be applied on a case-by-case basis during project 

level planning if an evaluation of the project area indicates the presence of important resources. 

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

mitigated to an acceptable level.

About 62% of the planning area would be exclusion areas for wind energy rights-of-way (1,518,695 acres) (Table 2.14). 

This includes the Bitter Creek and Burnt Lodge WSAs, Little Rocky Mountains and Sweet Grass Hills TCPs, ACECs, 

large reservoirs and waterfowl complexes, some wildlife habitat, developed recreation sites, and National Historic Trails. 

The exclusion areas are shown in Table 2.15 and Map 2.11. 
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

102 Soil Resources

Soil Resources

Goal

Maintain, improve or restore soil quality, and prevent or minimize erosion and 

compaction while supporting multiple use management.

Objectives

Incorporate soil protection consistent with soil resource capabilities in management actions and objectives for other 

resources/uses.

Achieve and maintain Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management.

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

The BLM will evaluate the effects of a proposed surface-disturbing activity to the soil resource using USDA Natural

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey data/interpretations and/or through an onsite investigation; and will 

apply mitigation measures/BMPs if necessary, relocate the activity to a more suitable soil type, or deny the authorization. 

Authorized surface-disturbing activities will include plans for reclamation. Site-specific reclamation actions should 

reflect the complexity of the project, environmental concerns, and the reclamation potential of the site (Appendix J). 

Authorization could be denied in areas where erosion cannot be effectively controlled/mitigated and reclamation to BLM 

program-specific standards would likely be unsuccessful.

If a surface-disturbing activity is proposed on a prime farmland, special attention will be required during construction 

and reclamation to ensure there would be no unnecessary and irreversible conversion of prime farmland to 

nonagricultural uses (30 U.S.C. 1260, P.L. 95-87, Section 510(d)(1)).

The BLM will use soil survey data/interpretations to predict soil behavior, limitation, or suitability for a given activity or 

action. Soil interpretations are developed by the cooperators in the National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS) and 

maintained by the NRCS. Soil data and interpretations are ever evolving; therefore, as new or updated soil data and 

interpretations become available they would supersede prior data and interpretations. Soil interpretations do not preclude 

activities or actions, but rather provide a reasonable guide to the risk, limitations, and probable outcome of a particular 

use or practice. The information is not site-specific and does not eliminate the need for onsite investigation of the soil. 

An example of a criteria-based interpretation that may be used is the Potential Erosion Hazard (Road/Trail).

Solid Minerals

Leasable

Goal

Provide opportunities for exploration and development of solid leasable minerals 

consistent with other resource goals.

Objective

Provide for solid minerals leasing in accordance with existing laws and regulations (43 CFR 3400 and 3500).
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Solid Minerals 103

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

The BLM will consider proposals for developing leasable minerals (coal, sulfur, and solid and semi-solid bituminous 

rock) on a case-by-case basis. Site-specific environmental review will be required to lease these minerals. No areas 

have been identified with economic reserves to support future leasing analysis.

Area wide terms, conditions or other special considerations needed to protect other resources or values would be 

implemented through coal screen criteria during the leasing stage (43 CFR 3461).

For solid mineral leasing other than coal and oil shale, prospecting permits will be available for all land not closed to 

mineral leasing in conformance with 43 CFR 3500. Permits will be issued after appropriate environmental review to 

assess effects and develop mitigation measures. Terms and conditions will be applied to non-energy leasable projects to 

meet land health standards for uplands, riparian areas and wetlands, water quality, air quality, and native plant and 

animal species (Appendix C and Appendix M). Discovery of a valuable mineral deposit, within the terms of the

prospecting permit, entitles the prospecting permit holder to a preference right lease for mineral development and mining

operations.

Alternative A (Current Management)

The BLM would protect sensitive areas by closing them to mineral leasing (76,477 acres) (Table 2.16 and Map 2.12, 

which is located at the end of Chapter 2). Sensitive areas include WSAs, and rare and intact important archaeological 

sites.

Alternative B

The BLM would protect sensitive areas by closing them to mineral leasing (1,667,506 acres) (Table 2.16). Sensitive 

areas include WSAs, rare and intact important archaeological sites, essential breeding and nesting areas for raptors, a 

critical bat hibernaculum, significant paleontological areas, priority habitat for grassland birds, and protection priority 

areas for greater sage-grouse.

Alternative C

The BLM would protect sensitive areas by closing them to mineral leasing (1,534,100 acres) (Table 2.16). Sensitive 

areas include WSAs, rare and intact important archaeological sites, essential breeding and nesting areas for raptors, a 

critical bat hibernaculum, significant paleontological areas, priority habitat for grassland birds, and protection priority 

habitat for greater sage-grouse.

Alternative D

The BLM would protect sensitive areas by closing them to mineral leasing (243,635 acres) (Table 2.16). Sensitive areas 

include WSAs, rare and intact important archaeological sites, essential breeding and nesting areas for raptors, a critical 

bat hibernaculum, significant paleontological areas, and priority habitat for grassland birds.

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

The BLM would protect sensitive areas by closing them to mineral leasing (1,571,333 acres) (Table 2.16 and Map 2.12). 

Sensitive areas include WSAs, rare and intact important archaeological sites, essential breeding and nesting areas for 

raptors, a critical bat hibernaculum, significant paleontological areas, priority habitat for grassland birds, and protection

priority habitat for greater sage-grouse.
104 Solid Minerals

Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

Table 2.16

Areas Closed to Solid Mineral Leasing by Alternative

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Cultural Resources

Little Rocky Mountains 

TCP

Open. Closed (37,403 acres). Higher elevations of the 

Little Rocky Mountains

(above 3,600 feet) would be 

closed to leasing (32,058 

acres). The remaining area 

would be open.

Sweet Grass Hills TCP Open. Closed (19,665 acres).

Special Designations

Azure Cave ACEC Open. Closed (included within the Little Rocky Mountains TCP) (143 acres).

Big Bend of the Milk 

River ACEC

Closed (1,972 acres).

Frenchman ACEC NA* Closed (39,692 acres). Closed (57,589 acres). Closed (39,692 acres).

Grassland Bird/Greater 

Sage-Grouse Priority 

Areas ACEC

NA** Closed (471,945 acres). NA** NA** NA**

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Protection Priority Area 

ACEC

NA** Closed (1,023,068 acres). NA** NA** NA**

Kevin Rim ACEC Open. Closed (4,567 acres).

Little Rocky Mountains 

ACEC

NA* Closed (26,958 acres). NA*

Malta Geological ACEC NA* Closed (6,153 acres).

Mountain Plover ACEC Open. Closed (24,723 acres).

Sweet Grass Hills ACEC Open. Closed (included within the Sweet Grass Hills TCP) (6,226 acres).

Woody Island ACEC NA* Closed (16,049 acres) Closed (24,345 acres).

Zortman/Landusky Mine 

Reclamation ACEC

NA* Closed (3,492 acres). NA* Closed (2,568 acres).

Bitter Creek WSA Closed (60,733 acres).

Burnt Lodge WSA Closed (13,773 acres).

Wildlife

Grassland Bird/Greater 

Sage-Grouse Priority 

Areas

Open. Closed (Same acres as 

ACEC). 

Closed (317,197 acres). Open. Closed (317,197 acres).

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Protection Priority Area

Open. Closed (Same acres as 

ACEC). 

Closed (1,023,068 acres). Open. Closed (1,023,068 acres).

Zortman Cemetery Open. Closed (3 acres).

* The area would not be designated an ACEC under this alternative.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Solid Minerals 105

Locatable

Goal

Provide land use opportunities contributing to economic benefits while protecting or 

minimizing adverse impacts to other resources.

Objective

Provide for locatable mineral entry in accordance with existing laws and regulations (43 CFR 3700 and 3800).

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

Administration of locatable minerals (gold, copper, lead, zinc, silver, bentonite and diamond/kimberlite) on BLM lands 

will continue as required by law and regulation by taking the following steps: 

• Review and process notices to ensure the proposed actions do not 

create unnecessary or undue degradation of the environment. 

• Review and process plans of operation to ensure the proposed 

actions do not create unnecessary or undue degradation of the 

environment (43 CFR 3809). 

• Conduct at a minimum, annual compliance inspections on each 

active notice and plan of operation. 

• Allow casual use where work is done by hand and no explosives are 

used. Refer inquiries to appropriate agencies for further guidance on 

other permit requirements. Casual use does not require a permit or 

prior authorization. However, if necessary, the BLM could monitor 

casual use to prevent unnecessary and undue degradation.

The BLM will coordinate with the Montana DEQ during the review, 

approval, inspection and reclamation of mining operations. Requirements of 

all state and federal laws will be met in the management of mining 

operations. 

Terms and conditions (Appendix P) will be applied to mining activities 

(within the constraints of the mining law) to meet land health standards for 

uplands, riparian areas and wetlands, water quality, air quality, and native 

plant and animal species (Appendix M). 

In areas withdrawn from mineral entry, plans of operations will not be 

approved unless the Department of the Interior has determined that the 

mining claims covered by the plan of operations are valid under the Surface 

Management Regulations at 43 CFR 3809.100.

Alternative A (Current Management)

The BLM would protect sensitive areas by continuing four mineral 

withdrawals (19,914 acres) and recommending two new withdrawals (1,991 acres) (Table 2.17 and Map 2.13, which is 

located at the end of Chapter 2). Sensitive areas include a critical bat hibernaculum, developed recreation sites, and rare 

and intact important archaeological sites.

The BLM would continue the withdrawal for Azure Cave to protect a critical bat hibernaculum and the withdrawal for 

the Sweet Grass Hills TCP. The purpose of the withdrawal for the Sweet Grass Hills is to preserve areas of traditional 

Casual Use

Casual use means activities ordinarily 

resulting in no or negligible disturbance 

of the public lands or resources. For 

example –

(1) Casual use generally includes the 

collection of geochemical, rock, soil, or 

mineral specimens using hand tools, 

hand panning; or non-motorized 

sluicing. It may also include use of 

small portable suction dredges. It also 

generally includes use of batteryoperated devices for sensing the 

presence of minerals, and hand and 

battery-operated drywashers. Operators 

may use motorized vehicles for casual 

use activities provided the use is 

consistent with the regulations 

governing such use, off-road vehicle 

use designations contained in BLM land 

use plans, and the terms of temporary 

closures ordered by the BLM.

(2) Casual use does not include use of 

mechanized earth-moving equipment, 

truck-mounted drilling equipment, 

motorized vehicles in areas when 

designated as closed to off-road 

vehicles, chemicals, or explosives. It 

also does not include occupancy or 

operations in areas where the 

cumulative effects of the activities 

result in more than negligible 

disturbance. (43 CFR 3809.5)
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

106 Solid Minerals

importance to Native Americans, aquifers in the area that provide potable water to local residents, high value habitat for 

peregrine falcons, and seasonally important elk and deer habitat. The BLM would review the withdrawal prior to 

expiration (2017).

The BLM would continue the withdrawals for the Camp Creek Campground and Montana Gulch Campground.

The BLM would recommend revoking the withdrawals for the Landusky Town Site, Landusky Recreation Site, and 

Zortman Town Site. The withdrawal for the Zortman/Landusky mine reclamation project would be allowed to expire.

The following new withdrawals would be proposed to segregate the areas from locatable mineral entry:

 A withdrawal of 20 acres to protect the Zortman Cemetery.

 A withdrawal of 1,972 acres in Phillips County (Big Bend of the Milk River ACEC) to protect rare and intact 

archaeological sites. 

Alternative B

The BLM would protect sensitive areas by continuing four mineral withdrawals (20,058 acres) and recommending nine 

new withdrawals (1,674,298 acres) (Table 2.17). Sensitive areas include a critical bat hibernaculum, rare and intact 

important archaeological sites, developed recreation sites, essential breeding habitat for mountain plovers and nesting 

areas for raptors, significant paleontological areas, priority habitat for grassland birds, and protection priority habitat for 

greater sage-grouse.

The BLM would continue the withdrawal for Azure Cave to protect a critical bat hibernaculum and recommend a 20-

year extension for the Sweet Grass Hills withdrawal. The purpose of the withdrawal for the Sweet Grass Hills is to 

preserve areas of traditional importance to Native Americans, aquifers in the area that provide potable water to local 

residents, high value habitat for peregrine falcons, and seasonally important elk and deer habitat.

The BLM would recommend that the withdrawals for the Camp Creek and Montana Gulch campgrounds be modified to 

include the entire recreation sites.

The BLM would recommend revoking the withdrawals for the Landusky Town Site, Landusky Recreation Site, and 

Zortman Town Site. 

The following new withdrawals would be proposed to segregate the areas from locatable mineral entry:

 A withdrawal of 20 acres to protect the Zortman Cemetery.

 A withdrawal of 3,505 acres at the Zortman/Landusky mine reclamation area (upon expiration of the existing 

withdrawal in 2015) to promote successful reclamation, protect associated infrastructure, and ensure public 

safety on BLM lands affected by prior mining activities. 

 A withdrawal of 37,387 acres in Phillips County (Little Rocky Mountains TCP) to preserve areas of traditional 

importance to Native Americans.

 A withdrawal of 24,672 acres in south Valley County (Mountain Plover ACEC) to protect essential breeding 

habitat for mountain plovers. 

 A withdrawal of 60,717 acres in north Valley County (Bitter Creek ACEC) to protect significant scenic, 

wildlife, and cultural values. 

 A withdrawal of 469,916 acres in north Valley County to protect priority habitat for grassland birds/greater 

sage-grouse (Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Areas ACEC). 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Solid Minerals 107

Table 2.17

Existing and Proposed Mineral Withdrawals by Alternative

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Existing Mineral Withdrawals

Azure Cave Recommend continuing the withdrawal (143 acres).

Camp Creek 

Campground

Recommend continuing 

the withdrawal (40 

acres).

Recommend modifying the withdrawal (169 acres).

Landusky Recreation 

Site

Recommend revoking the withdrawal (15 acres). Recommend revoking the 

withdrawal on a case-bycase basis for the 

potential sale or 

exchange of the BLM 

parcels (15 acres).

Landusky Town Site Recommend revoking the withdrawal (82 acres). Recommend revoking the 

withdrawal on a case-bycase basis for the 

potential sale or 

exchange of the BLM 

parcels (82 acres).

Montana Gulch 

Campground

Recommend continuing 

the withdrawal (60 

acres).

Recommend modifying the withdrawal (75 acres).

Sweet Grass Hills TCP Continue the withdrawal 

(19,671 acres). BLM 

would review the 

withdrawal prior to 

expiration.

Recommend continuing the withdrawal with a 20-

year extension (19,671 acres).

Allow the withdrawal to 

expire in 2017 (19,671

acres).

Recommend continuing 

the withdrawal with a 20-

year extension (19,671

acres).

Zortman Town Site Recommend revoking the withdrawal (108 acres). Recommend revoking the 

withdrawal on a case-bycase basis for the 

potential sale or 

exchange of the BLM 

parcels (108 acres).

Zortman/Landusky 

Mine Reclamation

Allow the withdrawal to 

expire (3,530 acres).

Propose a new 20-year withdrawal (3,505 acres)

upon expiration of the existing withdrawal in 2015.

Allow the withdrawal to 

expire (3,530 acres).

Through the withdrawal 

review process, 

determine the need for a 

smaller area (maximum 

2,605 acres).
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

108 Solid Minerals

Table 2.17

Existing and Proposed Mineral Withdrawals by Alternative

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Proposed Mineral Withdrawals

Big Bend of the Milk 

River ACEC

Recommend a 

withdrawal (1,972 acres).

Open.

Bitter Creek ACEC Open. Recommend a withdrawal (60,717 acres). Open.

Frenchman ACEC NA* Recommend a 

withdrawal (39,661 

acres).

Recommend a 

withdrawal (57,540 

acres).

Open.

Grassland 

Bird/Greater SageGrouse Priority Areas

ACEC

NA Recommend a 

withdrawal (469,916

acres).

NA NA NA

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Protection Priority 

Area ACEC

NA Recommend a 

withdrawal (1,067,376

acres).

NA NA NA

Grassland 

Bird/Greater SageGrouse Priority Areas

NA Recommend a 

withdrawal (Same acres 

as ACEC).

Recommend a 

withdrawal (316,830

acres).

NA Open.

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Protection Priority 

Area

NA Recommend a 

withdrawal (Same acres 

as ACEC).

Recommend a 

withdrawal (1,067,376 

acres).

NA Open.

Kevin Rim ACEC Open. Recommend a withdrawal (4,553 acres). Open.

Little Rocky Mountains 

ACEC

NA* Recommend a 

withdrawal for a portion 

of the area (15,000 

acres).

NA*

Little Rocky Mountains 

TCP

Open. Recommend a 

withdrawal (37,387 

acres).

Open.

Malta Geological 

ACEC

NA* Recommend a withdrawal (6,152 acres). Open.

Mountain Plover 

ACEC

Open. Recommend a withdrawal (24,672 acres).

Woody Island ACEC NA* Recommend a withdrawal (15,804 acres). Open.

Zortman Cemetery Recommend a withdrawal (20 acres).

* The area would not be designated an ACEC under this alternative.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Solid Minerals 109

 A withdrawal of 1,067,376 acres in southern Phillips and Valley Counties to protect greater sage-grouse 

protection priority habitat (Greater Sage-Grouse Protection Priority Area ACEC). 

 A withdrawal of 4,553 acres in Toole County (Kevin Rim ACEC) to protect rare and intact important 

archaeological sites and essential breeding and nesting habitat for raptors. 

 A withdrawal of 6,152 acres in north Phillips County (Malta Geological ACEC) to protect a nationally 

significant paleontological area. 

Alternative C

The BLM would protect sensitive areas by continuing four mineral withdrawals (20,058 acres) and recommending ten 

new withdrawals (1,539,290 acres) (Table 2.17). Sensitive areas include a critical bat hibernaculum, rare and intact 

important archaeological sites, developed recreation sites, essential breeding habitat for mountain plovers and nesting 

areas for raptors, significant paleontological areas, priority habitat for grassland birds, and protection priority habitat for 

greater sage-grouse.

The BLM would continue the withdrawal for Azure Cave to protect a critical bat hibernaculum and recommend a 20-

year extension for the Sweet Grass Hills withdrawal. The purpose of the withdrawal for the Sweet Grass Hills is to 

preserve areas of traditional importance to Native Americans, aquifers in the area that provide potable water to local 

residents, high value habitat for peregrine falcons, and seasonally important elk and deer habitat.

The withdrawals for the Camp Creek and Montana Gulch campgrounds would be modified to include the entire 

recreation sites.

The BLM would recommend revoking the withdrawals for the Landusky Town Site, Landusky Recreation Site, and 

Zortman Town Site. 

The following new withdrawals would be proposed to segregate the areas from locatable mineral entry:

 A withdrawal of 20 acres to protect the Zortman Cemetery.

 A withdrawal of 3,505 acres at the Zortman/Landusky mine reclamation area (upon expiration of the existing 

withdrawal in 2015) to promote successful reclamation, protect associated infrastructure, and ensure public 

safety on BLM lands affected by prior mining activities.

 A withdrawal of 24,672 acres in south Valley County (Mountain Plover ACEC) to protect essential breeding 

habitat for mountain plovers. 

 A withdrawal of 60,717 acres in north Valley County (Bitter Creek ACEC) to protect significant scenic, 

wildlife, and cultural values. 

 A withdrawal of 4,553 acres in Toole County (Kevin Rim ACEC) to protect rare and intact important 

archaeological sites and essential breeding and nesting habitat for raptors. 

 A withdrawal of 6,152 acres in north Phillips County (Malta Geological ACEC) to protect a nationally 

significant paleontological area. 

 A withdrawal of 15,804 acres in north Blaine County (Woody Island ACEC) to protect essential habitat for 

grassland birds. 

 A withdrawal of 39,661 acres in northeastern Phillips County (Frenchman ACEC) to protect essential habitat 

for grassland birds. 
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

110 Solid Minerals

 A withdrawal of 1,067,376 acres in southern Phillips and Valley Counties to protect greater sage-grouse 

protection priority habitat. 

 A withdrawal of 316,830 acres in north Valley County to protect priority habitat for grassland birds and greater 

sage-grouse. 

Alternative D

The BLM would protect sensitive areas by continuing three mineral withdrawals (387 acres) and recommending eight

new withdrawals (184,458 acres) (Table 2.17). Sensitive areas include a critical bat hibernaculum, developed recreation 

sites, rare and intact important archaeological sites, essential breeding habitat for mountain plovers and nesting areas for 

raptors, significant paleontological areas, and priority habitat for grassland birds.

The BLM would continue the withdrawal for Azure Cave and modify the withdrawals for the Camp Creek and Montana 

Gulch campgrounds to include the entire recreation sites. The withdrawals for the Sweet Grass Hills TCP and 

Zortman/Landusky mine reclamation would be allowed to expire.

The BLM would recommend revoking the withdrawals for the Landusky Town Site, Landusky Recreation Site, and 

Zortman Town Site. 

The following new withdrawals would be proposed to segregate the areas from locatable mineral entry:

 A withdrawal of 20 acres to protect the Zortman Cemetery.

 A withdrawal of 60,717 acres in north Valley County (Bitter Creek ACEC) to protect significant scenic, 

wildlife, and cultural values. 

 A withdrawal of 57,540 acres in northeastern Phillips County (Frenchman ACEC) to protect essential habitat 

for grassland birds.

 A withdrawal of 4,553 acres in Toole County (Kevin Rim ACEC) to protect rare and intact important 

archaeological sites and essential breeding and nesting habitat for raptors. 

 A withdrawal of 15,000 acres in south Phillips County (a portion of the Little Rocky Mountains ACEC) to 

protect Native American cultural and historic values. 

 A withdrawal of 6,152 acres in north Phillips County (Malta Geological ACEC) to protect a nationally 

significant paleontological area. 

 A withdrawal of 24,672 acres in south Valley County (Mountain Plover ACEC) to protect essential breeding 

habitat for mountain plovers. 

 A withdrawal of 15,804 acres in north Blaine County (Woody Island ACEC) to protect essential habitat for 

grassland birds. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

The BLM would protect sensitive areas by continuing four mineral withdrawals (20,058 acres) and recommending two 

new withdrawals (24,692 acres) (Table 2.17 and Map 2.13). Sensitive areas include a critical bat hibernaculum, 

developed recreation sites, rare and intact important archaeological sites, and essential breeding habitat for mountain 

plovers.

The BLM would continue the withdrawal for Azure Cave to protect a critical bat hibernaculum and recommend a 20-

year extension for the Sweet Grass Hills withdrawal. The purpose of the withdrawal for the Sweet Grass Hills is to 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Solid Minerals 111

preserve areas of traditional importance to Native Americans, aquifers in the area that provide potable water to local 

residents, high value habitat for peregrine falcons, and seasonally important elk and deer habitat.

Through the withdrawal review process, the BLM would consider the need for a new withdrawal or right-of-way to 

promote success for the Zortman/Landusky mine reclamation. The area for the withdrawal or right-of-way would be 

based on the need to maintain and protect the infrastructure associated with the reclamation activities, and would likely 

not exceed the boundary of the Zortman/Landusky Mine Reclamation ACEC.

The withdrawals for the Camp Creek and Montana Gulch campgrounds would be modified to include the entire 

recreation sites.

The BLM would recommend revoking the withdrawals for the Landusky Town Site, Landusky Recreation Site, and 

Zortman Town Site on a case-by-case basis for the potential sale or exchange of the BLM parcels within the withdrawal 

boundaries.

The following new withdrawals would be proposed to segregate the areas from locatable mineral entry:

 A withdrawal of 24,672 acres in south Valley County (Mountain Plover ACEC) to protect essential breeding 

habitat for mountain plovers. 

 A withdrawal of 20 acres to protect the Zortman Cemetery.

Salable (Mineral Material)

Goal

Provide for the extraction of mineral materials to meet public demand while 

minimizing adverse impacts to other resource values.

Objective

Provide for mineral material sales in accordance with existing laws and regulations (43 CFR 3600).

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

The BLM will issue sales contracts for mineral materials (sand, gravel, stone, limestone, and clay) where disposal is 

deemed to be in the public interest, while providing for reclamation of mined lands and preventing unnecessary or undue 

impact to other resources. All lands not withdrawn or discretionally closed are available for mineral material disposal. 

Mineral material permits are considered on a case-by-case basis and issued at the discretion of the authorized officer.

Free use permits may be issued to government agencies or subdivisions and to nonprofit organizations. Materials 

obtained by a free use permit may not be bartered or sold.

Mineral material sale contracts are valued according to the BLM statewide general appraisal schedule or through 

individual site-specific appraisals.

Common use areas or community pits will be designated if the level of localized activity warrants. New mineral material 

sites would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 

Mineral material sales will be processed on a case-by-case basis. Salable mineral sites will have an approved mining and 

reclamation plan and an environmental review prior to being opened. Where resource conflicts cannot be adequately 

mitigated, a permit would be denied. Operating stipulations to protect other resource values will be included in mineral 

material permits.
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

112 Solid Minerals

Table 2.18

Areas Closed to Mineral Material Disposal by Alternative

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Cultural Resources

Little Rocky Mountains

TCP

Open. Closed (37,403 acres). Higher elevations of the 

Little Rocky Mountains 

(above 3,600 feet) would 

be limited to those mineral 

material uses necessary for 

reclamation activities and 

maintenance of the existing 

road system (32,058 acres).

Sweet Grass Hills TCP Open. Closed (19,665 acres).

Special Designations

Azure Cave ACEC Open. Closed (143 acres).

Big Bend of the Milk River ACEC Open. Closed (1,972 acres).

Frenchman ACEC NA* Closed (39,692 acres). Closed (57,589 acres). Closed (39,692 acres).

Kevin Rim ACEC Open. Closed (4,567 acres).

Little Rocky Mountains ACEC NA* Closed (26,815 acres). NA*

Malta Geological ACEC NA* Closed (6,153 acres).

Mountain Plover ACEC Open. Closed (24,723 acres).

Sweet Grass Hills ACEC Open. Closed (6,226 acres).

Woody Island ACEC NA* Closed (16,049 acres). Closed (24,345 acres).

Zortman/Landusky Mine 

Reclamation ACEC NA* Closed (3,505 acres). NA* Open.

Grassland Bird/Greater SageGrouse Priority Areas ACECNA* Closed (317,197 acres). NA* NA* NA*

Greater Sage-Grouse Protection 

Priority Area ACEC

NA* Closed (1,023,068 acres). NA* NA* NA*

Burnt Lodge WSA Closed (13,773 acres).

Bitter Creek WSA Closed (60,733 acres).

Wildlife

Grassland Bird/Greater SageGrouse Priority AreasNA Closed (Same acres as 

ACEC).

Closed (317,197 acres). NA Open.

Greater Sage-Grouse Protection 

Priority Area NA Closed (Same acres as ACEC). Closed (1,023,068 acres). NA Open.

Zortman Cemetery Open. Closed (3 acres).

* The area would not be designated an ACEC under this alternative.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Special Designations 113

The collection of petrified wood and invertebrate fossils for personal use will be allowed as limited by the regulations 

(43 CFR 3620 and 8365) in areas not specifically closed.

Alternative A (Current Management)

The BLM would protect sensitive areas by closing them to mineral material sales (74,506 acres) (Table 2.18 and Map 

2.14, which is located at the end of Chapter 2). Sensitive areas include WSAs.

Alternative B

The BLM would protect sensitive areas by closing them to mineral material sales (1,579,309 acres) (Table 2.18). 

Sensitive areas include WSAs, a critical bat hibernaculum (Azure Cave ACEC), significant paleontological areas (Malta 

Geological ACEC), Grassland Birds/Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Areas ACEC, and Greater Sage-Grouse Protection 

Priority Area ACEC.

Alternative C

The BLM would protect sensitive areas by closing them to mineral material sales (1,480,302 acres) (Table 2.18). 

Sensitive areas include WSAs, a critical bat hibernaculum (Azure Cave ACEC), significant paleontological areas (Malta 

Geological ACEC), priority habitat for grassland birds, and protection priority habitat for greater sage-grouse.

Alternative D

The BLM would protect sensitive areas by closing them to mineral material sales (242,626 acres) (Table 2.18). Sensitive 

areas include WSAs, a critical bat hibernaculum (Azure Cave ACEC), rare and intact important archaeological sites (Big 

Bend of the Milk River ACEC, Little Rocky Mountains TCP and ACEC, and Sweet Grass Hills TCP and ACEC), 

essential breeding and nesting areas for raptors (Kevin Rim ACEC), and significant paleontological areas (Malta 

Geological ACEC).

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

The BLM would protect sensitive areas by closing them to mineral material sales (227,679 acres) (Table 2.18 and Map 

2.14). Sensitive areas include WSAs, a critical bat hibernaculum (Azure Cave ACEC), significant paleontological areas 

(Malta Geological ACEC), and essential breeding and nesting areas for raptors (Kevin Rim ACEC).

Special Designations

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Goal

Protect relevant and important values through ACEC designation and apply 

special management where standard or routine management is not adequate to 

protect the values from risks or threats of damage/degradation or to provide for 

public safety from natural hazards.

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) are BLM lands where special management attention is needed to 

protect important and relevant values. To be designated as an ACEC, a nominated area 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 is identified as a potential ACEC and considered for designation and management in the resource 

planning process. Designation is based on whether or not a potential ACEC requires special management attention. 

Seven existing ACECs were revisited and twelve new nominations were considered (Appendix K and Maps K.1 through 

K.19). Seven of the new nominations met the criteria of relevance and importance and are addressed as potential ACECs 
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

114 Special Designations

in the alternatives. A summary list of existing and potential ACECs is shown in the Special Designations section of 

Table 2.21, Summary Comparison of Alternatives, which follows Chapter 2.

Existing ACECs

Azure Cave ACEC

Objective

Protect the cave and critical bat hibernaculum while ensuring public safety.

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

The BLM will retain Azure Cave as an ACEC (141 acres) to protect cave resources and potentially the northernmost bat 

hibernaculum in the United States (Map 2.15, which is located at the end of Chapter 2). The cave will be managed to 

protect bats during crucial hibernation periods and allow specific use on a limited basis. Any cave access would need to 

consider appropriate time periods, white nose syndrome, and management activities to protect the bats.

The area will remain closed to oil and gas leasing and the BLM will continue the withdrawal from mineral entry and 

location.

Alternative A (Current Management)

The area would be an avoidance area for wind energy rights-of-way.

The area would be open to solid mineral leasing and mineral material sales.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Preferred Alternative)

The area would be an avoidance area for rights-of-way and an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way.

To protect the cave and critical bat hibernaculum the area would be closed to solid mineral leasing and mineral material 

sales.

Big Bend of the Milk River ACEC

Objective

Protect the diverse cultural resources and historic sites.

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

The BLM will retain the Big Bend of the Milk River ACEC (1,972 acres) to protect the diverse cultural resources and 

historic sites representing bison hunting and prehistoric ceremonial use of the Northwestern Plains (Map 2.15, which is 

located at the end of Chapter 2). Two National Register eligible sites are located within the Big Bend of the Milk River 

ACEC: Henry Smith and Beaucoup.

The Henry Smith site (1,000 acres) has been allocated for Public Use. The site will be inventoried for cultural resources, 

and mapping and/or collecting data will be completed as necessary.

The Beaucoup site (1,120 acres) has been allocated for Scientific Use. The site will be inventoried for cultural resources. 

All resources will be mapped, collected and excavated as necessary for relevant archaeological data.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Special Designations 115

The area will include an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing and the area will remain closed to solid mineral leasing.

Alternative A (Current Management)

The area would be an avoidance area for wind energy rights-of-way.

The BLM would recommend a withdrawal from mineral entry and location. The area would be open to solid mineral 

material sales.

Alternatives B and C

The area would be an avoidance area for rights-of-way and an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way.

The BLM would not recommend a withdrawal from mineral entry and location and the area would be open to solid 

mineral material sales.

Alternatives D and E (Preferred Alternative)

The area would be an avoidance area for rights-of-way and an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way.

The BLM would not recommend a withdrawal from mineral entry and location. The area would be closed to solid 

mineral material sales.

Bitter Creek ACEC

Objective

Protect the scenic diversity found within the Bitter Creek watershed.

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

The BLM will retain the Bitter Creek ACEC (60,701 acres) to protect the scenic diversity qualities found within the 

Bitter Creek watershed (Map 2.15, which is located at the end of Chapter 2). If the Bitter Creek WSA is released by 

Congress, an ACEC management plan would be completed consistent with the management direction as discussed in the 

alternatives below. Until an ACEC management plan is completed the area would be managed consistent with BLM 

Manual 6330-Management of BLM Wilderness Study Areas as appropriate.

The area will remain closed to oil and gas leasing until an ACEC management plan is completed that would address 

leasing (60,717 acres).

Alternative A (Current Management)

The Northern Border Corridor within the ACEC would be a designated right-of-way corridor with a width of 4 1/2 miles.

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

The area would be open to mineral entry and location.

The area would be closed to solid mineral material sales.

Alternative B

The area would be an avoidance area for rights-of-way. The Northern Border Corridor within the ACEC would be a 

designated right-of-way corridor with a width of 1 mile.
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

116 Special Designations

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

The BLM would recommend a withdrawal from solid mineral entry and location. 

The area would be closed to solid mineral material sales.

Alternative C

The area would be an avoidance area for rights-of-way. The Northern Border Corridor within the ACEC would be a 

designated right-of-way corridor with a width of 2 miles.

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

The BLM would recommend a withdrawal from solid mineral entry and location. 

The area would be closed to solid mineral material sales.

Alternative D

The area would be an avoidance area for rights-of-way and an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way. 

The BLM would recommend a withdrawal from mineral entry and location. 

The area would be closed to solid mineral material sales.

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

The area would be an avoidance area for rights-of-way.

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

The area would be open to solid mineral entry and location.

The area would be closed to solid mineral material sales.

Kevin Rim ACEC

Objectives

Protect the diverse archeological resources and significant raptor values.

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

The BLM will retain the ACEC (4,557 acres) to protect the diverse archeological resources and significant raptor habitat 

(Map 2.15, which is located at the end of Chapter 2).

The area includes an existing communication site. The ACEC will be an avoidance area for rights-of-way.

Alternative A (Current Management)

The area would include an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing within 3 miles of identified active raptor nests. The 

area would also include an NSO stipulation on a case-by-case basis for cultural resources.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Special Designations 117

The BLM would not authorize projects within 1/4 mile below the base of the Kevin Rim escarpment unless impacts to 

the cultural resources could be mitigated.

The BLM would encourage right-of-way locations off the west, rather than the east, side of Kevin Rim. Following a 

raptor inventory, the BLM would determine where right-of-way facilities (both transmission and distribution) could be 

located off the east side of the rim.

The area would be an avoidance area for wind energy rights-of-way.

The area would be open to solid mineral leasing, mineral entry and location, and mineral material sales.

Alternatives B and C

The area would include an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing.

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

The area would be closed to solid mineral leasing and the BLM would recommend a withdrawal from mineral entry and 

location. The area would be open to mineral material sales.

Alternative D

The area would include an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing.

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

The area would be closed to solid mineral leasing and mineral material sales. The BLM would recommend a withdrawal 

from mineral entry and location. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

The area would include an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing. 

New communication facilities should be located at the existing communication site, rather than a new location on Kevin 

Rim.

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

The area would be closed to solid mineral leasing and mineral material sales.

The area would be open to mineral entry and location.

Mountain Plover ACEC

Objective

Protect mountain plover habitat that is not associated with black-tailed prairie dogs.

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

The BLM will retain the ACEC (24,762 acres) to protect the mountain plover habitat (Map 2.15, which is located at the 

end of Chapter 2). The ACEC includes two habitat areas for the mountain plover. The primary habitat is the hardpan 

area on the valley bottoms (12,000 acres). The secondary habitat areas are on the gentle rises on either side of the 

valleys.
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

118 Special Designations

The following mitigation measures will be considered for any oil or gas well completed as a producer:

 Production facilities would be located off the primary habitat (hardpan areas) within the ACEC. Facilities 

include, for example, the treater and the storage tanks. The pump unit would not be included.

 Pipeline and road construction would not be allowed from April 1 to July 31 in the primary habitat.

 Special projects (e.g., workover rigs, pipeline maintenance) during the period April 1 to July 31 would require 

an inventory to determine if occupied nesting habitat occurs. The inventory would have to be completed by a 

qualified biologist using BLM-approved procedures. If occupied nests are within 1/4 mile of the proposed 

activity, mitigation could include the use of a temporary road or with travel in the early morning or late 

afternoon, but no travel from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. If no occupied nests are within 1/4 mile of the proposed 

activity, special mitigation measures would not apply.

The following mitigation measures will be considered during the Plan of Operations approval process for bentonite 

exploration and development. Mitigation measures will be applied to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation:

 Seasonal restrictions would be recommended on surface-disturbing activities from April 1 to July 31 on a caseby-case basis to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation. Proposed surface-disturbing activities during the 

period April 1 to July 31 would require an inventory to determine if occupied nesting habitat occurs. If 

occupied nests are within 1/4 mile of the proposed activity, the BLM would work with the operator to relocate 

the proposed activity or limit the size and duration of the disturbance. If no occupied nests are within 1/4 mile 

of the proposed activity, special mitigation measures would not apply.

 Alternative location of facilities would be off the primary habitat (hardpan areas) within the ACEC.

 Access route design for exploration and development would minimize surface disturbance to avoid occupied 

nesting habitat.

 Concurrent reclamation would be emphasized to keep disturbance to a minimum, thereby reducing habitat loss. 

Concurrent reclamation is the method of reclamation where topsoil removed from an area about to be mined is 

either directly and immediately reapplied to the adjacent mined area; or the topsoil is applied to the area it was 

removed from within a short time (1-2 months). Concurrent reclamation provides the greatest opportunity to 

return the native plant community to the site by preserving the seeds, roots and soil microorganisms. The 

topsoil material is only about 1-2 inches thick over shale in most places. Within this thin layer are all the 

ingredients to reestablish the native plant community. If concurrent reclamation is not used, reclamation 

should be within at least 2 years. The goal of reclamation would be to keep the vegetation short with bare 

ground.

 Reclamation would utilize native plant species. Preference would be given to plants that are low growing.

All right-of-way grants within the primary habitat will include the following stipulation:

 Construction activity and surface disturbance will be prohibited during the period from April 1 to July 31 for 

the protection of mountain plover nesting habitat. Any exceptions to this requirement must have prior written 

approval from the authorized officer, except for emergency actions. 

Other mitigation measures will be considered on a case-by-case basis with appropriate stipulations from BLM Manual 

Handbook H-2801 incorporated into the right-of-way grant.

The BLM will minimize any road construction within the ACEC. Portions of the Beaver Branch and Arrambide roads 

will be recommended for re-routing to reduce erosion and avoid mountain plover nesting habitat. Any BLM road 

maintenance during the time period April 1 to July 31 within the ACEC boundaries will be coordinated with a wildlife 

biologist.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Special Designations 119

Current management for livestock grazing will continue but any changes or revisions based on Standards for Rangeland 

Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management would address mountain plover habitat.

Alternative A (Current Management)

The area would be open to oil and gas leasing with a TLS stipulation from April 1 to July 31.

The area would be an avoidance area for wind energy rights-of-way.

Alternatives B and C

The area would include an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing.

The area would be an avoidance area for rights-of-way and an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way.

The BLM would recommend a withdrawal from solid mineral entry and location. The area would be closed to solid 

mineral leasing.

Alternative D

The area would include an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing.

The area would be an avoidance area for rights-of-way and an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way.

The BLM would recommend a withdrawal from mineral entry and location. The area would be closed to solid mineral 

leasing and mineral material sales.

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

The area would be closed to oil and gas leasing.

The area would be an avoidance area for rights-of-way and an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way.

The BLM would recommend a withdrawal from solid mineral entry and location. The area would be closed to solid 

mineral leasing and mineral material sales.

Prairie Dog Towns within the 7km Complex ACEC

Objective

Provide and protect habitat for prairie dog associated sensitive species.

Alternative A (Current Management)

The BLM would retain the Prairie Dog Towns within the 7km Complex ACEC (16,392 acres) to provide and protect 

habitat for prairie dog associated sensitive species (Map 2.15, which is located at the end of Chapter 2). In cooperation 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and MFWP, the BLM would maintain the existing prairie dog habitat 

and distribution on BLM land within the 7km Complex based on a 1988 survey.

The area would include an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing of 1/4 mile from identified essential habitat.
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

120 Special Designations

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Preferred Alternative)

The BLM would not retain the Prairie Dog Towns within the 7km Complex ACEC. Management of prairie dog habitat 

would be consistent with the Wildlife section of this chapter.

Sweet Grass Hills ACEC

Objective

Protect the diverse cultural and historic resource values.

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would retain the ACEC (7,419 acres) to protect the diverse archeological resources (Map 2.15, which is 

located at the end of Chapter 2). Management of the area would primarily focus on preserving areas of traditional 

spiritual importance to Native Americans, aquifers in the area that provide potable water to local residents, high value 

habitat for peregrine falcons, and seasonally important elk and mule deer habitat.

Alternative A (Current Management)

The area would include an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing. On existing leases, the BLM would work with 

operators to apply guidelines to any new activity which may threaten areas of traditional spiritual importance to Native 

Americans or aquifers that provide potable water.

The area would not be available for the sale of commercial wood products.

The area would be closed to OHV use. Off-road travel for administration of a federal lease or permit would be granted, 

unless specifically prohibited.

The area would be an avoidance area for wind energy rights-of-way.

The BLM would continue the withdrawal from solid mineral entry and location. Part of a Bureau of Reclamation 

withdrawal (532 acres) was recommended for termination in a withdrawal review effort (May 1993) since the 

withdrawal is no longer serving the purpose for which it was withdrawn. The remaining 40 acres was recommended for 

a 20-year term modification (May 1993) since it is serving the purpose for which it was withdrawn by providing for a 

current and future riprap quarry for Tiber Reservoir. However, under this alternative the 40 acres would be 

recommended for withdrawal termination since the continued use of the riprap quarry would be incompatible with the 

resource values being protected by the ACEC.

The area would be open to solid mineral leasing and mineral material sales.

Alternatives B and C

The area would include an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing. On existing leases, the BLM would work with 

operators to apply guidelines to any new activity which may threaten areas of traditional spiritual importance to Native 

Americans or aquifers that provide potable water.

The BLM would allow for a full range of forest health treatments in the Sweet Grass Hills ACEC that may include the 

sale of wood products. The ACEC would not be open for incidental personal use wood products.

The area would be an avoidance area for rights-of-way and an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way.

The area would be closed to OHV use. Off-road travel for administration of a federal lease or permit would be granted, 

unless specifically prohibited.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Special Designations 121

The BLM would recommend a 20-year extension to the withdrawal from mineral entry and location. Part of a Bureau of 

Reclamation withdrawal (532 acres) was recommended for termination in a withdrawal review effort (May 1993) since 

the withdrawal is no longer serving the purpose for which it was withdrawn. The remaining 40 acres was recommended 

for a 20-year term modification (May 1993) since it is serving the purpose for which it was withdrawn by providing for a 

current and future riprap quarry for Tiber Reservoir. However, under this alternative the 40 acres would be 

recommended for withdrawal termination since the continued use of the riprap quarry would be incompatible with the 

resource values being protected by the ACEC.

The area would be closed to solid mineral leasing but open to mineral material sales.

Alternative D

The area would include an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing. On existing leases, the BLM would work with 

operators to apply guidelines to any new activity which may threaten areas of traditional spiritual importance to Native 

Americans or aquifers that provide potable water.

The BLM would allow for a full range of forest health treatments in the Sweet Grass Hills ACEC that may include the 

sale of wood products. The ACEC would not be open for incidental personal use wood products.

The area would be an avoidance area for rights-of-way and an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way.

The area would be designated as limited for OHV use. Travel would be limited to existing roads, primitive roads and 

trails.

The BLM would not recommend an extension to the withdrawal from solid mineral entry and location. The withdrawal 

would be allowed to expire in 2017.

The area would be closed to solid mineral leasing and mineral material sales.

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

The area would be closed to oil and gas leasing.

The BLM would allow for a full range of forest health treatments in the Sweet Grass Hills ACEC that may include the 

sale of wood products. The ACEC would not be open for incidental personal use wood products.

The area would be an avoidance area for rights-of-way and an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way.

The area would be closed to OHV use. Off-road travel for administration of a federal lease or permit would be granted, 

unless specifically prohibited.

The BLM would recommend a 20-year extension to the withdrawal from solid mineral entry and location to preserve 

areas of traditional spiritual importance to Native Americans, aquifers in the area that provide potable water to local 

residents, high value habitat for reintroduction of peregrine falcons, and seasonally important elk and deer habitat.

Part of a Bureau of Reclamation withdrawal (532 acres) was recommended for termination in a withdrawal review effort 

(May 1993) since the withdrawal is no longer serving the purpose for which it was withdrawn. The remaining 40 acres 

was recommended for a 20-year term modification (May 1993) since it is serving the purpose for which it was 

withdrawn by providing for a current and future riprap quarry for Tiber Reservoir. However, under this alternative the 

40 acres would be recommended for withdrawal termination since the continued use of the riprap quarry would be 

incompatible with the resource values being protected by the ACEC.

The area would be closed to solid mineral leasing and mineral material sales.
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

122 Special Designations

Potential ACECs

Frenchman ACEC

Objectives

Maintain the unique landscape and scenic characteristics and protect the fragile watershed and wildlife species from 

fragmentation due to roads and other surface-disturbing activities.

Alternatives A (Current Management) and B

The area would not be designated an ACEC.

Alternative C

The area would be designated an ACEC (42,020 acres) to maintain the unique landscape and scenic characteristics and 

protect the fragile watershed and wildlife species from fragmentation.

The area would include an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing to protect the fragile watershed and crucial winter 

range. 

The area would be an avoidance area for rights-of-way and an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way.

The area would be closed to solid mineral leasing and mineral material sales. The BLM would recommend a withdrawal 

from mineral entry and location.

Alternative D

The area would be designated an ACEC (63,482 acres) to maintain the unique landscape and scenic characteristics and 

protect the fragile watershed and wildlife species from fragmentation.

The area would include an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing to protect the fragile watershed and crucial winter 

range. 

The area would be an avoidance area for rights-of-way and an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way.

The area would be closed to solid mineral leasing and mineral material sales. The BLM would recommend a withdrawal 

from mineral entry and location.

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

The area would be designated an ACEC (42,020 acres) to maintain the unique landscape and scenic characteristics and

protect the fragile watershed and wildlife species from fragmentation (Map 2.15, which is located at the end of 

Chapter 2).

The area would include an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing to protect the fragile watershed and crucial winter 

range.

The area would be an avoidance area for rights-of-way and an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way.

The area would be closed to solid mineral leasing and mineral material sales.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Special Designations 123

Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Areas ACEC 

Objectives

Create a public land sagebrush and native grassland reserve to provide high quality habitat for greater sage-grouse, 

Sprague’s pipit and other sagebrush and grassland-dependent species. Maintain these unique habitats and protect them 

from fragmentation due to anthropogenic disturbances. 

Alternatives A, C, D, and E (Preferred Alternative)

The areas would not be designated an ACEC.

Alternative B

The areas would be designated an ACEC (461,220 acres) to maintain the unique habitats and protect them from 

fragmentation.

The areas would be closed to oil and gas leasing.

The areas would be exclusion areas for all rights-of-way including wind energy.

The areas would be closed to solid mineral leasing and mineral material sales. The BLM would recommend a 

withdrawal from mineral entry and location.

Greater Sage-Grouse Protection Priority Area ACEC

Objectives

Create a public land sagebrush reserve to provide high quality habitat for greater sage-grouse and other sagebrushdependent species. Maintain this unique habitat and protect it from fragmentation due to anthropogenic disturbances. 

Alternatives A, C, D, and E (Preferred Alternative)

The area would not be designated an ACEC.

Alternative B

The area would be designated an ACEC (930,265 acres) to maintain this unique habitat and protect it from 

fragmentation.

The area would be closed to oil and gas leasing. 

The area would be an exclusion area for all rights-of-way including wind energy.

The area would be closed to solid mineral leasing and mineral material sales. The BLM would recommend a withdrawal 

from mineral entry and location.

Little Rocky Mountains ACEC

Objective

Protect prehistoric and historic archaeological resources and spiritual and traditional resources.
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

124 Special Designations

Alternatives A, B, C, and E (Preferred Alternative)

The area would not be designated an ACEC.

Alternative D

The area would be designated an ACEC (27,177 acres). 

The area would include an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing to protect prehistoric and historic archaeological 

resources in the area.

Management of the area could include limitations on some forest health treatments that may affect viewsheds for 

significant periods of time (20 years or longer).

The area would be an avoidance area for rights-of-way and an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way.

The area would be designated as limited for OHV use; through travel management planning some seasonal restrictions 

may be placed on roads, primitive roads and trails for certain periods to enhance or avoid cultural resource values.

The BLM would recommend a withdrawal from solid mineral entry and location for a portion of the area (15,000 acres). 

The withdrawal would be the area north and west of the Zortman/Landusky mine reclamation.

The area would be closed to solid mineral leasing and mineral material sales.

The area would be managed as a VRM Class II.

Malta Geological ACEC

Objective

Protect significant paleontological values for scientific study.

Alternative A (Current Management)

The area would not be designated an ACEC. Paleontological resources across the planning area would be protected as 

provided for in accordance with the BLM 8270 Guidance and Handbook.

Alternatives B, C, and D

The area would be designated an ACEC (6,153 acres) to protect the significant paleontological values (Map 2.15, which 

is located at the end of Chapter 2) through special management of the ACEC.

The area would include a CSU stipulation for oil and gas leasing.

The area would be an avoidance area for rights-of-way and an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way.

The area would be closed to solid mineral leasing and mineral material sales. The BLM would recommend a withdrawal 

from mineral entry and location.

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

The area would be designated an ACEC (6,153 acres) to preserve the significant paleontological values for scientific 

inquiry. Other uses would be constrained by measures needed to protect paleontological resources for scientific study. 

Personal collection of common fossils would not be allowed (Public Law 111-11, Section 6304(e)).
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Special Designations 125

The area would include a CSU stipulation for oil and gas leasing. 

The area would be an avoidance area for rights-of-way and an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way to preserve 

the shallow subsurface paleontological resources.

The area would be closed to solid mineral leasing and mineral material sales. The BLM would not recommend a 

withdrawal from mineral entry and location.

Woody Island ACEC

Objectives

Maintain the unique landscape and scenic characteristics, and protect the fragile watershed and wildlife species from 

fragmentation due to roads and other surface-disturbing activities.

Alternatives A (Current Management) and B

The area would not be designated an ACEC.

Alternatives C and D

The area would be designated an ACEC (22,411 acres) to maintain the unique landscape and scenic characteristics, and 

protect the fragile watershed and wildlife species from fragmentation.

The area would include an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing.

The area would be an avoidance area for rights-of-way and an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way.

The area would be closed to solid mineral leasing and mineral material sales. The BLM would recommend a withdrawal 

from mineral entry and location.

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

The area would be designated an ACEC (32,869 acres) to maintain the unique landscape and scenic characteristics, and 

protect the fragile watershed and wildlife species from fragmentation (Map 2.15).

The area would include an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing.

The area would be an avoidance area for rights-of-way and an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way.

The area would be closed to solid mineral leasing and mineral material sales. The BLM would not recommend a 

withdrawal from mineral entry and location.

Zortman/Landusky Mine Reclamation ACEC

Objectives

Promote successful reclamation and ensure public safety on public lands affected by prior surface and underground 

mining activities.

Alternative A (Current Management)

The area would not be designated an ACEC. The withdrawal in support of reclamation activities at the Zortman and 

Landusky mines would be allowed to expire.
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

126 Special Designations

Alternatives B and C

The area would be designated an ACEC (3,609 acres) to promote successful reclamation and ensure public safety on 

BLM lands affected by prior surface and underground mining activities.

The area would include an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing to protect the prehistoric and historic archaeological 

resources in the area.

The area would be an avoidance area for rights-of-way and an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way.

The area would be closed to solid mineral leasing and mineral material sales. The BLM would recommend a 20-year 

withdrawal from mineral entry and location.

Alternative D

The area would not be designated an ACEC. The withdrawal in support of reclamation activities at the Zortman and 

Landusky mines would be allowed to expire.

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

The area would be designated an ACEC (2,682 acres) to promote successful reclamation, protect associated 

infrastructure, and ensure public safety on BLM lands affected by prior mining activities (Map 2.15). 

The area, which is within the higher elevations of the Little Rocky Mountains TCP, would be closed to oil and gas 

leasing to protect the prehistoric and historic archaeological resources in the area.

The area would be an avoidance area for rights-of-way and an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way.

The area would be designated closed to off-road vehicles to maintain the reclamation and ensure public safety until such 

time as the reclamation efforts are completed (this includes travel off road and on roads used for reclamation activities). 

Travel for administrative purposes or for the administration of a federal lease or permit would be granted, unless 

specifically prohibited in the lease or permit. Travel on roads would also be allowed for access to private land. When 

the reclamation efforts are completed the area would be limited to designated roads as determined through the travel plan 

for the Little Rocky Mountains.

The area is within the existing withdrawal (3,530 acres) in support of the reclamation activities at the Zortman and 

Landusky mines, which expires in 2015. Through the withdrawal review process, the BLM would consider the need for 

a new withdrawal or right-of-way to promote successful reclamation. The area for the withdrawal or right-of-way would 

be based on the need to maintain and protect the infrastructure associated with the reclamation activities, but would not 

exceed the boundary of the ACEC.

The area would be open to solid mineral material sales associated with the need for reclamation materials and 

maintenance of the existing roads (5 to 6 miles).

Back Country Byways

Goal

Highlight and interpret scenic, historic archaeological or other interest values 

associated with the back country byways in partnership with communities, interest 

groups, and state and federal agencies.

Objective

Enhance visitor experiences through interpretation of any established back country byways.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Special Designations 127

Alternative A (Current Management)

The following routes would be considered for back country byway status: Frenchman Creek; Cottonwood Creek/Black 

Coulee; Dry Fork/Willow Creek; a North Phillips route through potholes and wetlands complexes; a north Valley access 

route from Opheim to Hinsdale; and TC Access Road.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E (Preferred Alternative)

No back country byways would be designated at this time. If a back country byway is identified in the future, the 

designation would be addressed through an activity plan.

National Historic Trails

Goal

Assist in cooperative efforts to manage current and future national historic trails to 

protect values for which they were designated.

Objectives

Protect and enhance National Historic Trail values based on trail characteristics.

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

A portion of the Marias River exploration trail of the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail crosses approximately 7 

miles of BLM land (Map 2.10). The BLM will manage this segment of the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail in a 

manner that is consistent with the purposes and provisions of Public Law 90-543 (the National Trails System Act) as 

amended by Public Law 95-265. The Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail Comprehensive Management Plan (NPS

1982) outlines management objectives, practices, and responsibilities, and emphasizes partnerships in trail 

administration. Scenic and cultural values will be protected on BLM land along this historic trail.

A portion of the Nez Perce National Historic Trail crosses approximately 3 miles of BLM land north of the Upper 

Missouri River Breaks National Monument and in the Bears Paw Mountains. The BLM will manage this segment of the 

Nez Perce National Historic Trail in a manner consistent with the purposes and provisions of Public Law 90-543, as 

amended by Public Law 99-445 and the comprehensive plan being prepared by the U.S. Forest Service.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Goal

Identify river segments eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers

System.

Objectives

Fulfill BLM’s obligations under Section 5(d) (1) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and complete eligibility and 

suitability determinations of planning area river segments.

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

The BLM identified and evaluated various river segments to determine their potential inclusion in the National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System per Section 5 (d) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Appendix L). The river study process is a 

three-step assessment of eligibility, tentative classification of rivers found to be eligible, and a determination of 
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

128 Special Designations

suitability. The BLM reviewed rivers/streams within the planning area and found a 1/2 mile segment of the Marias River 

at the confluence of the Missouri River to be eligible.

Alternative A (Current Management)

No segments would be recommended for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Alternatives B

The 1/2 mile segment of the Marias River at the confluence of the Missouri River would be recommended as suitable. 

This segment includes about 5 acres of BLM land located within the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument. 

This segment would be classified as recreational and managed consistent with the Upper Missouri River Breaks National 

Monument Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan (BLM 2008b).

Alternatives C, D, and E (Preferred Alternative)

The 1/2 mile segment of the Marias River at the confluence of the Missouri River would be recommended as nonsuitable

due to lack of BLM land ownership, the BLM land that is adjacent to the Marias River is included in the Upper Missouri 

River Breaks National Monument, and management of the area already provides protection for the values along this 

segment of the Marias River.

Wilderness Study Areas

Goal

Manage Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) so as not to impair their suitability for 

preservation as wilderness until such time as Congress either designates them as 

wilderness or releases them from further study.

Objectives

Protect and preserve the wilderness characteristics of the existing WSAs (naturalness, solitude, and outstanding 

opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation).

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

The Bitter Creek WSA (Figure 2.4) and Burnt Lodge WSA (Figure 2.5) will be managed according to the BLM Manual 

6330-Management of BLM Wilderness Study Areas until such time as Congress acts upon the recommendations. Only 

Congress can designate or release these lands.

The BLM will prepare a wilderness management plan for any areas designated as wilderness by Congress. The WSAs 

not designated as wilderness by Congress will subsequently be managed in accordance with guidance for adjacent BLM 

land unless otherwise specified in this RMP. If released by Congress, the Burnt Lodge WSA would be managed 

consistent with surrounding BLM land. If released by Congress, the Bitter Creek WSA would be managed as an ACEC 

and a management plan would be developed to provide semi-primitive, motorized recreation opportunities.

BLM Manual 6330-Management of BLM Wilderness Study Areas describes the policies under which the BLM will 

manage the WSAs under wilderness review until Congress either designates these lands as wilderness or releases them 

for other purposes. Section 603(c) of FLPMA tells the BLM how to manage lands under wilderness review, in these 

words: “During the period of review of such areas and until Congress has determined otherwise, the Secretary shall 

continue to manage such lands according to his authority under this Act and other applicable law in a manner so as not to 

impair the suitability of such areas for preservation as wilderness....”
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Special Designations 129

Figure 2.4

Bitter Creek Wilderness Study Area
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

130 Special Designations

Figure 2.5

Burnt Lodge Wilderness Study Area
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Vegetation – Rangeland 131

This language is referred to as the “nonimpairment” mandate. The BLM will review all proposals for uses and/or 

facilities within the WSAs to determine whether the proposal meets the nonimpairment standard. Uses and/or facilities 

found to be nonimpairing may be permitted on lands under wilderness review. Uses and/or facilities found to be 

impairing will be denied. The following criteria are referred to as the nonimpairment criteria.

Nonimpairment Criteria

The use, facility, or activity must be temporary. This means a temporary use that does not create surface disturbance or 

involve permanent placement of facilities may be allowed if such use can easily and immediately be terminated upon 

wilderness designation. “Temporary” means the use or facility may continue until the date of wilderness designation, at 

which time the use must cease and/or the facility must be removed. In the WSAs, “surface disturbance” is any new 

disruption of the soil or vegetation that would necessitate reclamation.

Decisions to allow or deny proposed actions based on the nonimpairment criteria will be included in appropriate decision 

documents.

When the use, activity, or facility is terminated, the wilderness values must not have been degraded so far as to 

significantly constrain the Congress’s prerogative regarding suitability of the area for preservation as wilderness.

The only permitted exceptions to the above rules are: 

 emergencies such as suppression activities associated with wildfire or search and rescue operations;

 reclamation activities designed to minimize impacts to wilderness values created by violations and emergencies; 

 uses and facilities that are considered grandfathered or valid existing rights under FLPMA;

 ensure public safety as remediation for human-caused hazards in the WSA;

 protect or enhance wilderness characteristics or values; and

 other legal requirements.

Any of these activities should be carried out in the least impairing manner practicable.

Some lands under wilderness review may contain minor facilities that were found in the wilderness inventory process to 

be substantially unnoticeable. For example, these may include primitive vehicle routes (“ways”) and livestock 

developments. BLM Manual 6330 does not require such facilities to be removed or discontinued. They may be used 

and maintained as before, as long as this does not cause new impacts that would impair the area’s wilderness suitability.

Vegetation – Rangeland

Goal

Manage the vegetative resource to maintain a diversity of ecological conditions on 

upland vegetation while providing for a variety of multiple uses that are 

economically and biologically feasible.

Objectives

Manage uplands to meet health standards and meet or exceed proper functioning condition within site or ecological

capability (Appendix H and Appendix M). Where appropriate, fire would be used as a management agent to 

achieve/maintain disturbance regimes supporting healthy functioning vegetation conditions.

Manage surface-disturbing activities in a manner to minimize degradation to rangelands and soil quality.
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

132 Vegetation – Rangeland

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

The BLM will ensure consistency with achieving or maintaining Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 

Livestock Grazing Management for Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota (BLM 1997a).

Any increase in vegetation allocation will be applied to watershed protection until soils are stabilized to a satisfactory 

condition as determined by an interdisciplinary team prior to increasing livestock or wildlife allocations.

The BLM will consult with MFWP and seek concurrence regarding the anticipated benefits and/or impacts of any 

vegetation treatments that may impact wildlife habitat including priority sage-grouse habitat.

Alternative A (Current Management)

A minimum rest period of two growing seasons would be required after any major disturbance to vegetation 

communities. More rest may be required depending on the situation. Major disturbances are defined as mechanical 

manipulation of rangeland (i.e.; seeding, chiseling, and wildfire or prescribed fire). Requirements for rest following fire 

(wild or prescribed) would depend on a variety of factors including the type of fuel, time of burn, accessibility of the 

burned area to livestock, and climatic factors post-burn. Specific timing and the type of rest is determined at the sitespecific environmental assessment phase for small disturbances.

Grass seed or hay may be sold from BLM land if an interdisciplinary environmental analysis finds it to be in the best 

interest of the public. Hay or seed cutting may be used as a land treatment to improve production of crested wheatgrass.

Range improvements (primarily reservoirs, fences and land treatments) would be built to support AMPs. Fences would 

be designed to allow easy passage of wildlife.

In the Prairie Potholes area, one water source per section would be the guideline for water development.

Alternate water developments, springs, wells, pipelines, etc. would be considered before constructing reservoirs greater 

than 5 acre feet in volume in soil subgroups 3 and 4 due to erosive soils and high siltation rates which shorten reservoir 

life. An interdisciplinary team would review the placement of water sources on soil subgroups 3 and 4 in areas that 

historically have not been grazed. Changes in grazing season or AUM reductions would be considered as alternatives to 

implementing grazing methods that would require water developments on these soils.

The BLM would use land treatments to meet watershed, grazing management and wildlife objectives. Land treatments 

would only be applied where grazing management alone would not accomplish the desired result. Clubmoss blue grama 

vegetation, dense clay and claypan ecological sites, dense big sagebrush stands, and dense pine-juniper stands are the 

soil/vegetation types considered for treatments. These would increase infiltration of water into the soil, improve 

ecological condition, improve wildlife habitat, and increase vegetation production.

Monitoring would be conducted on a priority watershed basis.

Increased production resulting from land treatments would be allocated toward accomplishing multiple use objectives. 

When all objectives of the AMP are accomplished, additional forage resulting from land treatments would normally be

allocated 75% to watershed and wildlife and 25% to livestock. If private wildlife funding is used to do the treatment, the 

additional allocation would be to wildlife. Conversely, where there is substantial contribution by the livestock permittee 

and no conflicts with wildlife objectives, up to 50% of the additional vegetation may be allocated to livestock.

Existing crested wheatgrass seedings would be managed where feasible as spring use pastures to defer native rangeland 

grazing, except where sagebrush invasion has resulted in important wildlife habitat. Crested wheatgrass seedings may be 

maintained for maximum livestock forage production with up to 70% of the production allocated to livestock when soils 

are stabilized to a satisfactory condition. Mechanical treatments and fertilization are management practices which 

renovate old crested wheatgrass stands to benefit associated native rangeland.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Vegetation – Rangeland 133

Crested wheatgrass seedings may be used to consolidate existing scattered stands of crested wheatgrass into a 

manageable unit. New seedings of crested wheatgrass or other species may be used where no other option is available to 

meet the resource objectives. Reseeding old crested wheatgrass stands to native species is not normally feasible due to 

the difficulty of eliminating the crested wheatgrass and the cost of native seeds.

The initiating party would be required to rehabilitate surface disturbances greater than one-quarter acre.

Native species in the site’s natural plant community would normally be seeded to revegetate all surface disturbances. 

Some reclamation may involve introduced species if these species are necessary to stabilize the site.

Alternative B

Objective

Manage priority sage‐grouse habitats so that discrete anthropogenic disturbances cover less than 3% of the total sage‐

grouse habitat regardless of ownership to protect priority sage‐grouse habitats from anthropogenic disturbances that will 

reduce distribution or abundance of sage‐grouse.

Management Actions

Site-specific sage-grouse habitat and management objectives would be developed for BLM land within the Greater SageGrouse Protection Priority Area ACEC and the Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Areas ACEC. These 

objectives would be incorporated into the respective allotment management plans (AMPs) or livestock grazing permits 

as appropriate.

Rest periods from livestock grazing of less than two growing seasons in vegetation treatment areas may be desirable in 

some circumstances, and would be determined through site-specific interdisciplinary planning, monitoring, and 

environmental review. For example, it may be desirable in some cases to use grazing to control weedy or invasive 

species immediately following a vegetation treatment.

Selling of grass seed or hay from BLM land would not be authorized.

Range improvements would be constructed to manage use of vegetation to support multiple use resource management. 

Water developments would be installed and/or maintained to facilitate control of livestock use of vegetation, support 

other uses, and protect resource values. In order to minimize surface disturbance, have reliable water of better quality 

and not alter normal surface flow of water, alternative water developments would be emphasized before constructing 

new pits and reservoirs.

The BLM would use land treatments to achieve and maintain fire regimes, and watershed, grazing management, and 

wildlife objectives. Within the Greater Sage-Grouse Protection Priority Area ACEC and the Grassland Bird/Greater 

Sage-Grouse Priority Areas ACEC, only treatments that conserve, enhance or restore greater sage-grouse and/or 

grassland bird habitat would be allowed. 

Rangeland health monitoring and assessments would be conducted within current staffing capabilities. The allotments 

within the Greater Sage-Grouse Protection Priority Area ACEC and the Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse Priority 

Areas ACEC would be high priority for reassessment of land health standards and processing grazing permits as detailed 

in Appendix M, Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat. Rangeland health 

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

Increased production resulting from land treatments would be allocated toward accomplishing multiple use objectives. 

Additional forage resulting from land treatments could be temporarily allocated 75% to watershed and wildlife, and 25% 

to livestock. Conversely, where there is substantial contribution by the livestock permittee and no conflicts with wildlife 

objectives, up to 50% of the additional vegetation may be temporarily allocated to livestock.
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

134 Vegetation – Rangeland

The BLM would evaluate crested wheatgrass seedings emphasizing conversion to native species on a case-by-case basis. 

Where native restoration of old crested wheatgrass seedings is considered, farming and herbicide use would be 

authorized for up to three years in order to help destroy the old crested wheatgrass seed bank and improve the success of 

the native seeding.

The initiating party would be required to reclaim surface disturbances greater than one-tenth acre. Range improvement 

pits and reservoirs would be excluded until abandonment.

All surface disturbances would be reseeded/revegetated with native plant species common to the site’s natural plant

community. Site-specific environmental analysis may warrant the use, on a case-by-case basis, of introduced species 

where difficult site stabilization or wildlife concerns prevail.

The best available vegetation treatment would be considered for managing cheatgrass and annual bromes, including but 

not limited to early spring grazing, mid-summer prescribed fire, and herbicide use.

Alternative C

Site-specific sage-grouse habitat and management objectives would be developed for BLM land within the Greater SageGrouse Protection Priority Area and the Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Areas. These objectives would be 

incorporated into the respective allotment management plans (AMPs) or livestock grazing permits as appropriate.

Rest periods from livestock grazing of less than two growing seasons in vegetation treatment areas may be desirable in 

some circumstances, and would be determined through site-specific interdisciplinary planning, monitoring, and 

environmental review. For example, it may be desirable in some cases to use grazing to control weedy or invasive 

species immediately following a vegetation treatment.

Selling of grass seed, hay, or other vegetative products may be authorized. Hay or seed cutting may be used as a land 

treatment to improve production of crested wheatgrass provided it is not in conflict with wildlife or wildlife habitat 

values.

Range improvements would be constructed to manage use of vegetation to support multiple use resource management.

Water developments would be installed and/or maintained to facilitate control of livestock use of vegetation, support 

other uses, and protect resource values. In order to minimize surface disturbance, have reliable water of better quality 

and not alter normal surface flow of water, alternative water developments would be emphasized before constructing 

new pits and reservoirs.

The BLM would use land treatments to achieve and maintain fire regimes, and watershed, grazing management, and 

wildlife objectives. Within the Greater Sage-Grouse Protection Priority Area and the Grassland Bird/Greater SageGrouse Priority Areas, only treatments that conserve, enhance or restore greater sage-grouse habitat would be allowed.

Rangeland health monitoring and assessments would be conducted within current staffing capabilities. The allotments 

within the Greater Sage-Grouse Protection Priority Area and the Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Areas 

would be high priority for reassessment of land health standards and processing grazing permits as detailed in Appendix 

M, Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat. Rangeland health monitoring plans 

would be developed and implemented at the field office level. 

Increased production resulting from land treatments would be allocated toward accomplishing multiple use objectives. 

Additional forage resulting from land treatments could be temporarily allocated 75% to watershed and wildlife, and 25% 

to livestock. Conversely, where there is substantial contribution by the livestock permittee and no conflicts with wildlife 

objectives, up to 50% of the additional vegetation may be temporarily allocated to livestock.

Existing crested wheatgrass seedings would be managed where feasible as spring use pastures to defer native rangeland 

grazing. Crested wheatgrass seedings would be maintained for maximum livestock forage production with up to 70% of 

the production allocated to livestock when soils are stabilized to a satisfactory condition. Mechanical treatments and 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Vegetation – Rangeland 135

fertilization are management practices which renovate old crested wheatgrass stands to benefit associated native 

rangeland. Additional crested wheatgrass seedings may be used to consolidate existing scattered stands of crested 

wheatgrass into manageable units. Where native restoration of old crested wheatgrass seedings is considered, farming 

and herbicide use could be authorized for up to three years in order to help destroy the old crested wheatgrass seed bank 

and improve the success of the native seeding.

The initiating party would be required to reclaim surface disturbances greater than one-tenth acre. Range improvement 

pits and reservoirs would be excluded until abandonment.

All surface disturbances would be reseeded/revegetated with native plant species common to the site’s natural plant 

community. Site-specific environmental analysis may warrant the use, on a case-by-case basis, of introduced species 

where difficult site stabilization or wildlife concerns prevail.

The best available vegetation treatment would be considered for managing cheatgrass and annual bromes, including but 

not limited to early spring grazing, mid-summer prescribed fire, and herbicide use.

Alternative D

Rest periods from livestock grazing of less than two growing seasons in vegetation treatment areas may be desirable in 

some circumstances, and would be determined through site-specific interdisciplinary planning, monitoring, and 

environmental review. For example, it may be desirable in some cases to use grazing to control weedy or invasive 

species immediately following a vegetation treatment.

Selling of grass seed, hay, or other vegetative products may be authorized. Hay or seed cutting may be used as a land 

treatment to improve production of crested wheatgrass provided it is not in conflict with wildlife or wildlife habitat 

values.

Range improvements would be constructed to manage use of vegetation to support multiple use resource management. 

In the Prairie Potholes area, one water source per section would be the guideline for water development.

Alternate water developments, springs, wells, pipelines, etc. would be considered before constructing reservoirs greater 

than 5 acre feet in highly erodible soils with high siltation rates which shorten reservoir life. An interdisciplinary team 

would review the placement if water sources are on soils that historically have not been grazed. Changes in grazing 

season or AUM reductions would be considered as alternatives to implementing grazing methods that would require 

water developments on these soils.

The BLM would use land treatments to achieve and maintain fire regimes, and watershed, grazing management, and 

wildlife objectives. 

Rangeland health monitoring and assessments would be conducted within current staffing capabilities, utilizing a priority 

allotment basis. Rangeland health monitoring plans would be developed and implemented at the field office level.

Increased production resulting from land treatments would be allocated toward accomplishing multiple use objectives. 

Additional forage resulting from land treatments could be temporarily allocated 75% to watershed and wildlife, and 25% 

to livestock. Conversely, where there is substantial contribution (at least 50% of total cost as direct or in-kind 

contribution) by the livestock permittee and no conflicts with wildlife objectives, up to 50% of the additional vegetation 

may be temporarily allocated to livestock.

Existing crested wheatgrass seedings would be managed where feasible as spring use pastures to defer native rangeland 

grazing. Crested wheatgrass seedings would be maintained for maximum livestock forage production with up to 70% of 

the production allocated to livestock when soils are stabilized to a satisfactory condition. Mechanical treatments and 

fertilization are management practices which renovate old crested wheatgrass stands to benefit associated native 

rangeland. Additional crested wheatgrass seedings may be used to consolidate existing scattered stands of crested 

wheatgrass into manageable units. Where native restoration of old crested wheatgrass seedings is considered, farming 
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

136 Vegetation – Rangeland

and herbicide use could be authorized for up to three years in order to help destroy the old crested wheatgrass seed bank 

and improve the success of the native seeding.

The initiating party would be required to reclaim surface disturbances greater than one-tenth acre. Range improvement 

pits and reservoirs would be excluded until abandonment.

All surface disturbances would be reseeded/revegetated with native plant species common to the site’s natural plant 

community. Site-specific environmental analysis may warrant the use, on a case-by-case basis, of introduced species 

where difficult site stabilization or wildlife concerns prevail.

The best available vegetation treatment would be considered for managing cheatgrass and annual bromes, including but 

not limited to early spring grazing, mid-summer prescribed fire, and herbicide use.

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

Site-specific sage-grouse habitat and management objectives would be developed for BLM land within the Greater SageGrouse Protection Priority Area and the Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Areas. These objectives would be 

incorporated into the respective allotment management plans (AMPs) or livestock grazing permits as appropriate.

Rest periods from livestock grazing of less than two growing seasons in vegetation treatment areas may be desirable in 

some circumstances, and would be determined through site-specific interdisciplinary planning, monitoring, and 

environmental review. For example, it may be desirable to use grazing to control weedy or invasive species immediately 

following a vegetation treatment.

Selling of grass seed, hay, or other vegetative products may be authorized. Hay or seed cutting may be used as a land 

treatment to improve production of crested wheatgrass provided it is not in conflict with wildlife or wildlife habitat 

values.

Range improvements would be constructed to manage use of vegetation to support multiple use resource management.

Water developments would be installed and/or maintained to facilitate control of livestock use of vegetation, support 

other uses, and protect resource values. In order to minimize surface disturbance, have reliable water of better quality 

and not alter normal surface flow of water, alternative water developments would be emphasized before constructing 

new pits and reservoirs. The BLM would manage water developments within greater sage-grouse habitat to reduce the 

spread of West Nile virus (Appendix M).

The BLM would use land treatments to achieve and maintain fire regimes, and watershed, grazing management, and 

wildlife objectives. Within the Greater Sage-Grouse Protection Priority Area and the Grassland Bird/Greater SageGrouse Priority Areas, treatments that conserve, enhance or restore greater sage-grouse habitat would be allowed as well 

as treatments that benefit other resources and do not adversely affect sage-grouse or their habitat.

Rangeland health monitoring and assessments would be conducted within current staffing capabilities. The allotments 

within the Greater Sage-Grouse Protection Priority Area and the Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Areas 

would be high priority for reassessment of land health standards and processing grazing permits as detailed in Appendix 

M, Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat. Rangeland health monitoring plans 

would be developed and implemented at the field office level. 

Increased production resulting from land treatments would be allocated toward accomplishing multiple use objectives. 

Additional forage resulting from land treatments could be temporarily allocated 75% to watershed and wildlife, and 25% 

to livestock. Conversely, where there is substantial contribution (at least 50% of the total cost as direct or in-kind 

contribution) by the livestock permittee and no conflicts with wildlife objectives, up to 50% of the additional vegetation 

may be temporarily allocated to livestock.

Existing crested wheatgrass seedings would be managed where feasible as spring use pastures to defer native rangeland 

grazing. Crested wheatgrass seedings would be maintained for maximum livestock forage production with up to 70% of 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Vegetation – Riparian and Wetland 137

the production allocated to livestock when soils are stabilized to a satisfactory condition. Mechanical treatments and 

fertilization are management practices which renovate old crested wheatgrass stands to benefit associated native 

rangeland. Additional crested wheatgrass seedings may be used to consolidate existing scattered stands of crested 

wheatgrass into manageable units. Where native restoration of old crested wheatgrass seedings is considered, farming 

and herbicide use could be authorized for up to three years in order to help destroy the old crested wheatgrass seed bank 

and improve the success of the native seeding.

The initiating party would be required to reclaim surface disturbances greater than one-tenth acre if necessary to protect 

other resources. Range improvement pits and reservoirs would be excluded until abandonment.

All surface disturbances would be reseeded/revegetated with native plant species common to the site’s natural plant 

community. Site-specific environmental analysis may warrant the use, on a case-by-case basis, of introduced species 

where difficult site stabilization or wildlife concerns prevail.

Native species needed for reclamation and restoration activities, including the restoration of sage-grouse habitats in the 

planning area, will be identified and prioritized. Seed that is not available commercially should be collected following 

the procedures outline in the Seeds of Success Protocol from local sources. Locally collected seed should be used to 

create sources of native plant materials through increase locally with willing farmers or through work with NRCS Plant 

Materials Programs or through both. Cleaning and storage of seed until sent for increase must be addressed so that 

viability is maintained.

The best available vegetation treatment would be considered for managing cheatgrass and annual bromes, including but 

not limited to early spring grazing, mid-summer prescribed fire, and herbicide use.

Vegetation – Riparian and Wetland

Goals

Manage activities to ensure healthy and proper functioning condition of riparian 

areas within site or ecological capability.

Objectives

Ensure consistency with achieving or maintaining the Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock 

Grazing Management for Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota (BLM 1997a) and, as a minimum, all riparian areas 

with natural capability would be in proper functioning condition (PFC).

Develop site-specific objectives and management strategies for riparian and wetland areas during the development and 

implementation of proposed actions and activity plans.

Maintain, restore, or improve riparian areas to achieve a healthy and productive ecological condition that provides 

benefits and values within site capability.

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

Wetland and riparian areas are unique and among the most productive and important ecosystems. Although comprising 

only a small percentage of the BLM lands, they affect most other resources and values. Given the high value of these 

areas for a variety of resources, all aspects of riparian and wetland area inventory, monitoring, and management will 

involve a multidisciplinary effort. 

Extensive inventories have been conducted across the planning area to locate, quantify, and broadly classify wetland and 

riparian areas. The proper functioning condition (PFC) methodology is utilized by the BLM to assess the physical 

functioning of riparian and wetland areas. The term PFC is used to describe both the assessment process and a defined, 

on-the-ground condition of a riparian or wetland area. The PFC assessment provides a consistent approach for assessing 
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

138 Vegetation – Riparian and Wetland

how well the physical processes are functioning in wetland and riparian areas through consideration of hydrology, 

vegetation, and soil/landform attributes. An implementation plan will be developed that contains an assessment and 

monitoring plan for riparian and wetland areas. User guides to assessing proper functioning condition and the supporting 

science for lotic areas (TR 1737-15) and lentic areas (TR 1737-16) will be adhered to by the BLM’s interdisciplinary 

identification and assessment teams. 

The BLM will enhance or restore riparian composition and structure beyond PFC in riparian areas where and when 

appropriate for other resource values. This may include, but is not limited to, establishing riparian pastures, stream 

corridor/ shoreline fencing, specialized grazing methods, winter grazing use, a different species of livestock, and 

rehabilitation protective measures.

The BLM will conserve riparian/wetland habitat by intensifying cooperative efforts among federal, state and private 

interests and will minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands.

Wetlands will be protected in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order (EO) No. 11990, Protection of 

Wetlands. Under the provisions of this EO, the BLM must minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands 

when acquiring, managing and disposing of federal lands and facilities.

Riparian protection will be provided by the Montana Streamside Management Zone Law (77-5-301 through 

77-5-307 MCA). Streamside Management Zones (SMZs) provide regulation for the protection of water quality. The 

SMZ encompasses a strip at least 50 feet wide on each side of a stream, lake, or other body of water, measured from the 

ordinary high water mark, and extends beyond the high water mark to include wetlands and areas that provide additional 

protection in zones with steep slopes or erodible soils. The SMZ provides the minimum regulatory standards for forest 

practices in riparian areas.

Ephemeral drainages and some mapped intermittent streams would not be covered by the SMZs under the definitions in 

the state regulations. These areas, however, would be covered by management stipulations commonly known as BMPs

(Appendix C).

Prescribed fire could be used as a management agent to support healthy functioning riparian conditions.

Alternative A (Current Management)

Riparian and wetland areas would be avoidance areas in the western (West HiLine RMP) portion of the planning area.

Range improvements (primarily reservoirs, fences and land treatments) would be built to support AMPs.

Saline seeps would be evaluated on an individual basis to assess the cause (i.e., natural or anthropogenic), understand the 

purview, and determine how the seeps should be managed. Exclosure of the seep, no action, or complete reclamation of 

the seep would ensue, depending on the outcome of the evaluation.

All existing and future riparian exclosures would be monitored and evaluated for future removal. At that time, AMPs 

would be revised to provide management prescriptions to maintain the riparian community condition.

Alternatives B and E (Preferred Alternative)

Riparian areas with unique values (i.e., where water quality habitat for special status species (Appendix M) is an issue) 

would be treated as avoidance areas for rights-of-way (installation of infrastructure that requires surface disturbance 

and/or permanent surface occupancy).

Grazing techniques and practices detailed in Appendix M, Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater 

Sage-Grouse Habitat would be implemented to reduce hot season (summer) grazing on riparian and meadow complexes 

within the Greater Sage-Grouse Protection Priority Area and the Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Areas. 

Alternate water facilities would be installed to relieve grazing impacts on riparian areas inside of priority sage-grouse 

habitat.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Vegetation – Special Status Plants 139

Saline seeps that occur as a result of surface-disturbing activities would be prioritized and reclaimed. Surface-disturbing 

activities with the potential for producing seep areas would be designed with mitigation measures to minimize 

development of saline seeps.

Riparian exclosures would be maintained, monitored, evaluated and/or modified for their intended purpose. If they no 

longer serve a resource management purpose they would be removed.

No pits would be placed in natural wetlands and in some cases pits may be filled in to improve wildlife habitat in natural 

wetlands (Appendix M). Wetlands that have been drained for water consolidation may be restored by plugging drainage 

ditches, and alternative water developments may be developed in these areas.

Alternatives C and D

Alternate water facilities would be installed to relieve grazing impacts on riparian areas.

Saline seeps that occur as a result of surface-disturbing activities would be prioritized and reclaimed. Surface-disturbing 

activities with the potential for producing seep areas would be designed with mitigation measures to minimize 

development of saline seeps.

Riparian exclosures would be maintained, monitored, evaluated and/or modified for their intended purpose. If they no 

longer serve a resource management purpose they would be removed.

Vegetation – Special Status Plants

Goal

Ensure that in meeting the BLM’s multiple use mandate, special status plants and 

plant communities are managed, conserved, and/or restored for future generations.

Objectives

Promote the conservation and recovery of BLM special status plant species and their habitats.

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

The BLM will manage for the conservation of BLM special status plants and their associated habitats and to ensure that 

actions authorized, funded, or carried out do not contribute to the need to list any species as threatened or endangered. 

Site-specific prescriptions may include avoidance of special status plant habitat for ROWs, seasonal timing restrictions 

for grazing (e.g., limited to no grazing during flowering to seed set for a particular species), no salt or water placement 

within 0.25 miles of a known special status plant species population, seed collection or transplanting of special status 

plant species for mitigation.

The BLM will inventory lands to determine which BLM special status plant species occur on public lands, the condition 

of the plant populations and their habitats, and how discretionary BLM actions affect those plant species and their 

habitats.

The BLM will cooperatively participate in recovery plans, management plans and conservation strategies for special 

status species plants and will work with federal, tribal, and state agencies as well as private landowners to improve 

habitat for special status plants.

Through activity plans for other resources (e.g., watershed plans, fire management plans, allotment management plans, 

etc.) the BLM will design site-specific management prescriptions and projects to benefit individual species habitats and 

communities. Special status plants will be monitored to assess their condition and trend.
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

140 Vegetation – Special Status Plants

Visual Resources

Goal

Manage scenic values in accordance with the objectives established for 

visual resource management classes.

Objectives

The visual resource management (VRM) classes are based on a process that considers scenic quality, sensitivity to 

changes in the landscape and distance zone. The four VRM classes are numbered I to IV; the lower the number, the 

more sensitive and scenic the area. Each class has a management objective which prescribes the level of acceptable 

change in the landscape. The objectives are guidelines to be used with the visual resource contrast rating system during 

new project-level planning. The management objectives will not preclude the maintenance of existing structures and 

range improvements.

The VRM class objectives are defined as follows:

Class I: The objective of this class is to preserve the existing character of the landscape. This class provides for natural 

ecological changes; however, it does not preclude very limited management activity. The level of change to the 

characteristic landscape should be very low and must not attract attention.

Class II: The objective of this class is to retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the 

characteristic landscape should be low. Management activities may be seen, but should not attract the attention of the 

casual observer. Any changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in the predominant 

natural features of the characteristic landscape.

Class III: The objective of this class is to partially retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to 

the characteristic landscape should be moderate. Management activities may attract attention, but should not dominate 

the view of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic elements found in the predominant natural features of 

the characteristic landscape.

Class IV: The objective of this class is to provide for management activities which require major modification of the 

existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape can be high. These management 

activities may dominate the view and be the major focus of viewer attention. However, every attempt should be made to 

minimize the impact of these activities through careful location, minimal disturbance, and repeating the basic elements of 

form, line, color, and texture in the natural characteristic landscape. 

The degree to which a management activity affects the visual quality depends on the visual contrast created between the 

project and the existing landscape. The contrast is measured by comparing elements of form, line, color, and texture to 

describe the visual contrast created by a project. The visual resource contrast rating system determines whether proposed 

activities meet VRM objectives. 

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

Visual resource design techniques and BMPs will be used to minimize short and long-term visual impacts. Contrast 

ratings will be completed for all proposed projects in Class I and II areas, and for proposed projects in Class III and IV 

areas that are high-impact projects or located in highly sensitive areas. 

The visual resource contrast rating system will be used during project level planning to determine whether or not 

proposed activities will meet VRM objectives. The contrast rating system provides a systematic means to evaluate 

proposed projects and determine whether these projects conform with the approved VRM objectives. The degree to 

which a management activity affects the visual quality depends on the visual contrast created between the project and the 

existing landscape. The contrast is measured by comparing elements of form, line, color, and texture to describe the 

visual contrast created by a project. Mitigation measures would then be identified to reduce visual contrasts, and 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Vegetation – Special Status Plants 141

rehabilitation plans to address landscape modifications would be prepared on a case-by-case basis. The analysis can then 

be used as a guide for resolving visual impacts. Once every attempt is made to reduce visual impacts, the project will be 

re-evaluated for conformance to the VRM Class objectives using the Contrast Rating process. If the project remains out 

of conformance, the authorized officer may deny the project proposal, attach additional mitigations to bring the proposal 

into compliance with the existing VRM Class, or pursue a land use plan amendment in order to adjust the VRM Class 

and objectives for the area. 

In VRM Class I, II, III and IV areas the BLM may prohibit surface-disturbing activities if such activities are not designed 

to meet the intent of the VRM Class objectives.

Alternative A (Current Management)

Under current management over 80% of the planning area would continue to be managed as a VRM Class IV area and 

no lands would be managed as VRM Class I (Table 2.19 and Map 2.16, which is located at the end of Chapter 2). 

The Bitter Creek WSA would be managed as a VRM Class II and IV area, while the Burnt Lodge WSA would be 

managed as a VRM Class II area. The following areas would also be managed as VRM Class II:

 an area south of the Willow Creek Road in Valley County and north of the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife 

Refuge;

 areas along the Milk River;

 Bears Paw area west of the Little Rocky Mountains and south of Highway 2;

 Frenchman area in north Phillips County;

 Little Rocky Mountains including the Azure Cave ACEC; and

 portions of the Sweet Grass Hills ACEC.

In all areas, surface-disturbing activities, semi-permanent and permanent facilities may require special designs (location, 

painting and camouflage) to blend with the natural surroundings and meet the intent of the VRM Class objectives.

Alternative B

The Burnt Lodge and Bitter Creek WSAs and adjacent lands, along with the Sweet Grass Hills and Kevin Rim ACECs 

and adjacent lands, would be managed as VRM Class I areas (90,032 acres) (Table 2.19 and Map W.8, which is 

available at http://blm.gov/8qkd). The following areas would be managed as VRM Class II (977,396 acres):

 an area south of the Dry Fork Road in Phillips County and the area south of the Willow Creek Road in Valley 

County and north of the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge;

 areas just north of the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument;

 Bears Paw area west of the Little Rocky Mountains and south of Highway 2;

 Frenchman area in north Phillips County;

 Little Rocky Mountains including the Azure Cave and Zortman/Landusky Mine Reclamation ACECs;

 Marias River area; Mountain Plover ACEC and surrounding area; and

 areas managed for wilderness characteristics.

Table 2.19

Visual Resource Management Class by Alternative (Acres)

VRM Class

Alternative A

(Current

Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred

Alternative)

I 0 90,032 74,506 74,506 74,506

II 417,334 977,396 914,197 127,439 841,087

III 58,213 498,298 521,322 584,113 521,868

IV 1,961,928 871,748 927,449 1,651,416 1,000,013
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

142 Vegetation – Special Status Plants

The remaining BLM lands would be managed as VRM Class III (498,298 acres) and VRM Class IV (871,748 acres).

Alternative C

The Burnt Lodge and Bitter Creek WSAs would be managed as VRM Class I areas (74,506 acres) (Table 2.19 and Map 

W.8, which is available at http://blm.gov/8qkd). The following areas would be managed as VRM Class II (914,197

acres):

 an area south of the Dry Fork Road in Phillips County and the area south of the Willow Creek Road in Valley 

County and north of the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge;

 areas just north of the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument;

 Frenchman area in north Phillips County;

 Marias River area;

 Mountain Plover ACEC and surrounding area; 

 Woody Island, Sweet Grass Hills, and Kevin Rim areas; and

 areas managed for wilderness characteristics.

The remaining BLM lands would be managed as VRM Class III (521,322 acres) and VRM Class IV (927,449 acres).

In VRM Class II areas the BLM would reduce the visual contrast on BLM land in the existing landscape by utilizing 

proper site selection, reducing soil and vegetative disturbance, choice of color, and over time, returning the disturbed 

areas to a seamless, natural landscape. 

Alternative D

The Burnt Lodge and Bitter Creek WSAs would be managed as VRM Class I areas (74,506 acres) (Table 2.19 and Map 

W.8, which is available at http://blm.gov/8qkd). The following areas would be managed as VRM Class II (127,439 

acres):

 Frenchman area in north Phillips County; and

 Woody Island and Little Rocky Mountains ACECs.

The remaining BLM lands would be managed as VRM Class III (584,113 acres) and VRM Class IV (1,651,416 acres).

In all areas, surface-disturbing activities, semi-permanent and permanent facilities may require special designs (location, 

painting and camouflage) to blend with the natural surroundings and meet the intent of the VRM Class objectives.

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

The Burnt Lodge and Bitter Creek WSAs would be managed as VRM Class I areas (74,506 acres) (Table 2.19 and Map 

2.16). The following areas would be managed as VRM Class II (841,087 acres):

 an area south of the Dry Fork Road in Phillips County and the area south of the Willow Creek Road in Valley 

County and north of the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge;

 areas just north of the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument;

 Bitter Creek area;

 Frenchman area including the Frenchman ACEC;

 Kevin Rim area;

 Marias River area;

 Sweet Grass Hills area; 

 Woody Island area; and

 areas managed for wilderness characteristics.

The remaining BLM lands would be managed as VRM Class III (521,868 acres) and VRM Class IV (1,000,013 acres).
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Water Resources 143

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)

Montana’s Clean Water Act provides 

guidance for surface water 

classification, water quality standards, 

and Total Maximum Daily Load 

(TMDL) development and 

implementation where water quality is 

impaired or threatened.

TMDL is the maximum pollutant load a 

specific water body can assimilate and 

still meet water quality standards. The 

goal of Montana's TMDL program is to 

produce Water Quality Restoration 

Plans that meet the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency's (EPA) TMDL 

criteria. 

The State of Montana’s Nonpoint 

Source Management Plan indicates that 

Water Quality Restoration Plans 

(WQRP) with TMDL components 

should be used as guidance for nonpoint 

source restoration.

In VRM Class II areas the BLM would reduce the visual contrast on BLM land in the existing landscape by utilizing 

proper site selection, reducing soil and vegetative disturbance, choice of color, and over time, returning the disturbed 

areas to a seamless, natural landscape.

Water Resources

Goal

Maintain, improve or restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of 

waters to protect beneficial uses.

Objectives

Ensure water quality and availability for authorized beneficial uses and proper watershed, wetland, riparian, and stream 

channel functions.

Prevent, minimize, and/or remediate contributions of non-point source pollution from BLM land to all receiving waters, 

including groundwater resources.

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

Surface and ground water quality will be maintained to state and federal water quality standards, including Standard for 

Rangeland Health #3 which requires that water quality meets Montana state standards. BMPs (Appendix C) will be used 

to prevent nonpoint source water pollution, and mitigation measures will be applied on a case-by-case basis. Permits 

pertaining to projects affecting water quality, wetlands, or streams will be obtained, and outside applicants will be 

required to provide copies of permits (e.g., 310, 404) prior to BLM authorization.

Projects will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to minimize impacts to water quality. All proposed reservoirs will be 

designed with a minimum 15-year life expectancy, and the BLM will evaluate other types of improvements to determine 

the need for alternate site water facilities (e.g., wells, springs). The BLM will continue to comply with Montana water 

laws, obtain water rights for all projects, and participate in the water 

adjudication process. 

The State of Montana identifies impaired and non-impaired waters in its 

303(d)/305(b) Integrated Report. This report lists all segments known to 

exceed state water quality standards, lists segments that do not fully 

support beneficial uses, and identifies the probable causes and sources of 

any water quality impairment. The State uses all available scientifically 

credible data including indicators such as dissolved oxygen concentration, 

pH, turbidity, temperature, fecal coliform, sulfates, nitrates, phosphorus, 

sodium, and sediment to make beneficial use determinations.

Through an existing memorandum of understanding with the Montana 

DEQ, the BLM will participate in the development, implementation, and 

monitoring of water quality restoration plans (WQRPs) and total maximum 

daily load (TMDL) in watershed planning areas in which the BLM is a 

significant land manager or water user.

The BLM will use reasonable land, soil, and water conservation practices 

to prevent harm to public health, recreation, safety, welfare, livestock, 

birds, fish, or other wildlife prior to the adoption of WQRPs and TMDLs.

The BLM will manage federal lands with reasonable land, soil, and water 

conservation practices in order to protect waterbodies that currently meet 
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

144 Water Resources

state water quality standards and improve water quality where beneficial uses are not fully supported. The BLM 

manages nonpoint source pollution by controlling the cause and source of pollutants through the use of pollution control 

measures such as BMPs and soil and water conservation practices. These measures are discussed in detail in the 

Montana Nonpoint Source Management Plan (MDEQ 2007). The BLM is responsible for monitoring progress and 

success once pollution control measures are implemented.

Disposal of produced water from any oil and gas fields will be in accordance with Onshore Order No. 7 and EPA 

guidelines.

Alternative A (Current Management)

The BLM would maintain some of the Willow Creek Basin watershed control structures in south Valley County for 

wildlife, riparian and access values. Other structures would be abandoned. Contour furrowing and grazing methods to 

improve ground cover and control erosion, runoff and sedimentation would be applied in the Willow Creek Basin and in 

other locations with similar soils.

New reservoirs would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis through the environmental review process.

Alternative B

Watershed control structures would be maintained on a case-by-case basis to meet Standards for Rangeland Health.

New reservoirs would not be built where water would inundate highly productive riparian areas and areas of important 

wildlife habitat, such as buffaloberry thickets.

Water supply sources (e.g., wells, springs, reservoirs, and stream and lake access) for BLM-authorized actions (e.g., 

grazing, wildlife, recreation, etc.) would comply with Montana water laws.

The BLM would encourage oil and gas operators to develop and implement methods that treat produced water and 

enable its beneficial use.

Alternative C

Watershed control structures would be maintained on a case-by-case basis to meet Standards for Rangeland Health.

Water supply sources (e.g., wells, springs, reservoirs, and stream and lake access) for BLM-authorized actions (e.g., 

grazing, wildlife, recreation, etc.) would comply with Montana water laws.

The BLM would avoid the discharge of produced water from point sources to BLM land, including stream channels and 

uplands, as a means of disposal. Any allowed discharge would be in compliance with DEQ requirements.

Alternative D

Watershed control structures would be maintained on a case-by-case basis to meet Standards for Rangeland Health.

Water supply sources (e.g., wells, springs, reservoirs, and stream and lake access) for BLM-authorized actions (e.g., 

grazing, wildlife, recreation, etc.) would comply with Montana water laws.

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

Watershed control structures would be maintained on a case-by-case basis to meet Standards for Rangeland Health or

public safety concerns.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Wilderness Characteristics 145

New reservoirs would be considered on a site-specific basis through activity planning and would consider livestock 

grazing practices, important wildlife habitat, alternate water sources, and the opportunity to replace or repair existing 

reservoirs.

Water supply sources (e.g., wells, springs, reservoirs, and stream and lake access) for BLM-authorized actions (e.g., 

grazing, wildlife, recreation, etc.) would comply with Montana water laws.

The BLM would avoid the discharge of produced water from point sources to BLM land, including stream channels and 

uplands, as a means of disposal. Any allowed discharge would be in compliance with DEQ requirements.

Wilderness Characteristics

Goal

Where practical, manage lands with wilderness characteristics for naturalness, 

solitude, and outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation.

Objective

Manage specific areas for their wilderness characteristics while providing for multiple uses throughout the planning area.

Alternative A (Current Management)

The BLM would continue to manage other multiple uses as a priority over protecting wilderness characteristics.

Alternative B

The BLM would manage all of the areas possessing wilderness characteristics to protect those characteristics as a 

priority over other multiple uses (26 areas and 386,428 acres) (Table 2.20 and Map W.9, which is available at 

http://blm.gov/8qkd).

The areas would be closed to oil and gas leasing (373,445 acres). The existing oil and gas leases (47,135 acres) would 

continue according to the respective stipulations until they expire. As these leases expire, the areas would no longer be 

available for oil and gas leasing.

The areas would be identified for retention and would not be available for sale or exchange (Category 1 lands under 

Land Ownership Adjustment).

The areas would be avoidance areas for rights-of-way and exclusion areas for wind energy rights-of-way. In avoidance 

areas, efforts would be made to reroute a proposal. A right-of-way may be allowed if no reasonable alternative is found; 

however, special mitigation measures may be required to protect sensitive resource values. Rights-of-way may also be 

allowed if they support or promote other management objectives for the areas. 

No changes to livestock grazing or grazing allocations would occur on any lands managed for wilderness characteristics, 

and all agreements and provisions for maintenance and upkeep of existing range improvements would continue to remain 

in effect including access to and maintenance of range improvements. New range improvements and land treatments 

could be allowed provided they meet with the objective of enhancing or restoring those wilderness characteristics being 

managed for and meet the intent of the visual quality objectives of the VRM class.

These areas would not be available for wind energy rights-of-way. As a result, these areas will be closed to commercial 

wind energy development, including wind energy site monitoring and testing. 

The Island Mountain Range (4,118 acres) would be closed to OHV use and would be a low priority for travel 

management planning. All the other areas would be limited for OHV use. Five areas (90,997 acres) within the Prairie 
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

146 Wilderness Characteristics

Grassland group would be a high priority for travel management planning. The other areas (291,348 acres) would be a 

moderate priority for travel management planning. In these areas travel would be limited to existing roads, primitive 

roads and trails until subsequent travel management plans designate a motorized and nonmotorized transportation 

network after completion of this RMP. High priority areas will normally have travel management planning completed 

within five years of the signing of the Record of Decision, as funding and staffing allow.

The Island Mountain Range (4,118 acres) would be managed as semi-primitive nonmotorized under the recreation 

opportunity spectrum (ROS): some opportunity for isolation from man-made sights, sounds, and management controls 

in a predominantly unmodified environment and motorized use is prohibited. The ROS class for the other areas (382,344 

acres) would be semi-primitive motorized: some opportunity for isolation from man-made sights, sounds, and 

management controls in a predominantly unmodified environment and motorized use is permitted.

Table 2.20

Proposed Management of Wilderness Characteristics in the HiLine District – Alternative Comparison

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Areas Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics As a Priority

Over Other Resource Values and Multiple Uses*

NA 26 areas 12 areas 0 2 areas

NA 386,428 acres 228,395 acres 0 10,714 acres

Acres Managed to Emphasize Other Resource Values and Multiple Uses 

While Applying Management Restrictions to Reduce Impacts to Wilderness Characteristics**

NA 0 75,327 acres** 0 290,865 acres

Acres Managed to Emphasize Other Resource Values and Multiple Uses 

As a Priority Over Protecting Wilderness Characteristics***

NA 0 82,706 acres 386,428 acres 84,849 acres 

* Management proposed under the Preferred Alternative for these two areas includes:

Fluid Minerals: NSO with no Waivers, Exceptions, or Modifications (WEMs).

Land Ownership Adjustment: Category 2 -Retention/Limited Disposal (exchange only - no sale).

Rights-of-Way: Avoidance Areas.

OHV Area Designations: Limited.

Renewable Energy – Wind: Exclusion.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: Semi-Primitive Motorized.

Visual Resource Management: VRM Class II.

** Management proposed for other resource drivers including the Sweet Grass Hills TCP, Frenchman ACEC, Grassland Bird/

Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Areas, and Greater Sage-Grouse Protection Priority Area is complementary to maintaining wilderness 

characteristics in these areas. Management proposed under the Preferred Alternative for these areas includes:

Fluid Minerals: Closed within the Sweet Grass Hills TCP; 

NSO with no WEMs within the Frenchman ACEC; and 

NSO with WEMs within the Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Areas.

Land Ownership Adjustment: Category 1 – Retention within the Sweet Grass Hills ACEC; 

Category 2 – Retention/Limited Disposal within all other areas.

Rights-of-Way: Avoidance Areas.

OHV Area Designations: Closed within the Sweet Grass Hills ACEC; 

Limited within all other geographic areas.

Renewable Energy – Wind: Exclusion

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: Semi-Primitive Nonmotorized within the Sweet Grass Hills ACEC; 

Semi-Primitive Motorized within the remainder of geographic area.

Visual Resource Management: VRM Class I within the Sweet Grass Hills ACEC; 

VRM Class II within the remainder of the geographic area.

*** In coordination with the interdisciplinary team and the BLM HiLine District Manager and Field Managers, it was determined 

that these areas either cannot be effectively managed to protect wilderness characteristics or the management or use of other

resources takes precedence over wilderness characteristics. However, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and 

all resource use programs in these areas would be subject to mitigation and minimization guidelines and Best Management Practices 

(BMPs) in Appendix C.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Wilderness Characteristics 147

The Island Mountain Range (4,118 acres) would be managed as VRM Class I and the other areas would be managed as 

VRM Class II (382,344 acres). In VRM Class I and II areas, the BLM may prohibit surface-disturbing activities if such 

activities are not designed to meet the intent of the visual quality objectives of the VRM class. In VRM Class I areas the 

objective is to preserve the existing character of the landscape. In VRM Class II areas the objective is to retain the 

existing character of the landscape.

Alternative C

The BLM would manage 12 areas (228,395 acres) to protect wilderness characteristics as a priority over other multiple 

uses (Table 2.20 and Map W.9, which is available at http://blm.gov/8qkd).

Eight of the areas would be closed to oil and gas leasing (143,795 acres) and the other areas (78,281 acres) would be 

open to leasing with a no surface occupancy (NSO) stipulation. The existing oil and gas leases (766 acres) would 

continue according to the respective stipulations until they expire. As these leases expire, they would no longer be 

available for oil and gas leasing.

The areas would be identified for retention and would not be available for sale or exchange (Category 1 lands under 

Land Ownership Adjustment).

Three of the areas (51,055 acres) would be exclusion areas for all rights-of-way. Exclusion areas are not available for 

location of rights-of-way under any condition. The other areas (177,340 acres) would be avoidance areas for rights-ofway. In avoidance areas, efforts would be made to reroute a proposal. A right-of-way may be allowed if no reasonable 

alternative is found; however, special mitigation measures may be required to protect sensitive resource values. Rightsof-way may also be allowed if they support or promote other management objectives for the areas.

No changes to livestock grazing or grazing allocations would occur on any lands managed for wilderness characteristics, 

and all agreements and provisions for maintenance and upkeep of existing range improvements would continue to remain 

in effect including access to and maintenance of range improvements. New range improvements and land treatments 

could be allowed provided they meet with the objective of enhancing or restoring those wilderness characteristics being 

managed for and meet the intent of the visual quality objectives of the VRM class.

The Island Mountain Range (4,118 acres) would be closed to OHV use and would be a low priority for travel 

management planning. All the other areas would be limited for OHV use. Four areas (92,599 acres) within the Prairie 

Grassland group would be a high priority for travel management planning. The other areas (142,568 acres) would be a 

moderate priority for travel management planning. In these areas travel would be limited to existing roads, primitive 

roads and trails until subsequent travel management plans designate a motorized and nonmotorized transportation 

network after completion of this RMP. High priority areas will normally have travel management planning completed 

within five years of the signing of the Record of Decision, as funding and staffing allow.

Seven of the areas (143,654 acres) would be managed as semi-primitive nonmotorized under the recreation opportunity 

spectrum (ROS): some opportunity for isolation from man-made sights, sounds, and management controls in a 

predominantly unmodified environment and motorized use is prohibited. The ROS class for the other areas (95,631

acres) would be semi-primitive motorized: some opportunity for isolation from man-made sights, sounds, and 

management controls in a predominantly unmodified environment and motorized use is permitted.

These areas would be exclusion areas for wind energy rights-of-way. As a result, these areas will be closed to 

commercial wind energy development, including wind energy site monitoring and testing.

All of the areas would be managed as VRM Class II. In VRM Class II areas, the BLM may prohibit surface-disturbing 

activities if such activities are not designed to meet the intent of the visual quality objectives of the VRM class. The 

objective is to retain the existing character of the landscape.

Alternative D

The BLM would manage other multiple uses as a priority over protecting wilderness characteristics.
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

148 Wilderness Characteristics

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

The BLM would manage 2 areas (Areas 49B and 53) in the Eastern Breaks and Badlands (10,714 acres) to protect 

wilderness characteristics as a priority over other multiple uses (Table 2.20 and Figure 2.6).

The areas would be open to oil and gas leasing with a no surface occupancy (NSO) stipulation (10,714 acres). 

The areas would be identified for retention or very limited disposal through exchange. The lands would not be available 

for sale (Category 2 lands under Land Ownership Adjustment). The BLM land would not be disposed of other than by 

exchange and only when necessary to further protect or enhance the wilderness characteristics.

The areas would be avoidance areas for rights-of-way. In avoidance areas, efforts would be made to reroute a proposal. 

A right-of-way may be allowed if no reasonable alternative is found; however, special mitigation measures may be 

required to protect sensitive resource values. Rights-of-way may also be allowed if they support or promote other 

management objectives for the areas. 

No changes to livestock grazing or grazing allocations would occur on any lands managed for wilderness characteristics, 

and all agreements and provisions for maintenance and upkeep of existing range improvements would continue to remain 

in effect including access to and maintenance of range improvements. New range improvements and land treatments 

could be allowed provided they meet with the objective of enhancing or restoring those wilderness characteristics being 

managed for and meet the intent of the visual quality objectives of the VRM class.

The areas would be limited for OHV use and a high priority for travel management planning. In these areas travel would 

be limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails until subsequent travel management plans designate a motorized 

and nonmotorized transportation network after completion of this RMP. 

The areas would be managed as semi-primitive motorized under the recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS): some 

opportunity for isolation from man-made sights, sounds, and management controls in a predominantly unmodified 

environment and motorized use is permitted. 

These areas would be exclusion areas for wind energy rights-of-way. As a result, these areas will be closed to 

commercial wind energy development, including wind energy site monitoring and testing.

The areas would be managed as VRM Class II (10,714 acres). In VRM Class II areas, the BLM may prohibit surfacedisturbing activities if such activities are not designed to meet the intent of the visual quality objectives of the VRM 

class. In VRM Class II areas the objective is to retain the existing character of the landscape.

Sage Creek Area in Valley County Photo by Kathy Tribby
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Wilderness Characteristics 149

Figure 2.6

Areas Managed for Wilderness Characteristics

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

150 Wildlife

Wildlife

Goals

Ensure habitat for native wildlife is of sufficient quantity and quality to enhance 

biological diversity and sustain ecological, economic and social values.

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

habitats, communities, and ecosystems to ensure self-sustaining persistence of 

special status species.

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

to wildlife habitat and populations of special status species.

Promote public awareness, appreciation, and understanding of wildlife 

conservation, management, and ecology.

Maintain and/or increase greater sage-grouse abundance and distribution by 

conserving, enhancing or restoring the sagebrush ecosystem upon which populations 

depend in cooperation with other conservation partners

Objectives

The necessary habitat, biological processes, and disturbance regimes would be present to maintain, enhance, or restore 

priority wildlife habitat and populations of special status species. Land use would maintain habitat quality and large 

intact blocks of habitat. Habitat quality and land use would allow wildlife species movements between large blocks of 

habitat and between seasonal habitats on a localized and landscape scale.

The BLM will maintain and enhance habitat for wildlife species. The emphasis for habitat maintenance and restoration 

will be placed on present and potential habitat for priority species such as sensitive, threatened and/or endangered 

species. The BLM would prioritize wildlife habitat improvement projects such as restoration of sagebrush communities 

through invasive species removal and native shrub reestablishment. Priority will be given to projects that improve 

habitat conditions in areas where there is the greatest expectation of an increase in wildlife populations or population 

viability resulting from the restoration enhancement work.

Bighorn Sheep Photo by Craig Miller
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Wildlife 151

Use individual species management strategies and/or known habitat associations to design habitat management strategies 

to promote management of as many species as possible.

Implement habitat improvement projects where necessary to restore wildlife habitat and/or to improve unsatisfactory or 

declining wildlife habitat.

Manage priority wildlife habitat, special status species habitat, and populations using multi-scale assessments to identify 

current conditions, risks, and opportunities.

Maintain, enhance, or restore habitat availability and condition for special status species, and minimize habitat loss. 

Protect priority greater sage-grouse habitats from anthropogenic disturbances that will reduce distribution or abundance 

of sage-grouse. 

Minimize fragmentation of large intact blocks of important wildlife habitat, particularly habitat areas for greater sagegrouse and grassland birds.

Decisions Common to All Alternatives

General Wildlife

The BLM will provide ecological conditions that support wildlife species (Appendix Q) over the long term and promote 

maintenance and recovery of federally listed species and BLM sensitive species (Appendix Q). The planning area 

provides for the range of habitat requirements for species by managing for the broad level ecosystem desired conditions. 

This strategy will involve a two-tiered approach:

 The structure, composition, and disturbance processes of ecosystems that maintain habitat are managed for 

attainable and sustainable desired conditions that meet a variety of management objectives. The historic range 

of variability of habitat conditions are used for comparison and guidance in order to manage for habitats that 

sustain a broad range of wildlife species found in the planning area. Changes in land use within the planning 

area as well as on adjacent lands often preclude the BLM from attaining these goals on all BLM lands. 

 Species with conservation concerns are evaluated in order to determine limiting habitats, population influences, 

and special habitat needs not provided through ecosystem-level management. Species identified may need 

additional protection as specified in conservation strategies for individual species or species groups. 

Incorporating design components found in the desired conditions and guidelines detailed in the RMP, species 

conservation strategies and recovery plans, or species assessments based on the best available science will 

maintain or enhance key habitat and habitat effectiveness in order to provide diversity components and maintain 

wildlife sustainability. Species and management actions identified for this level of management are mostly 

addressed in the Special Status Species section. 

New fences would follow BLM specifications to allow for wildlife passage, except for fences built specifically to keep 

wildlife out of an area. Fences would also be placed and marked, or modified, to reduce wildlife collisions or 

entanglements.

Powerlines and substations constructed on BLM land would comply with the most current raptor protection standards 

(currently Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art 2006 (APLIC 2006)). 

Existing powerlines that have been identified as having problems with collision or electrocution of wildlife and do not 

meet APLIC standards will be corrected and modified to prevent future wildlife collision threats or electrocution. 

Powerlines that are in good working order will be maintained and upgraded as deemed necessary.

Wildlife mortality at water tanks on BLM land will be minimized, primarily through the use of functional wildlife escape 

ramps. All new tanks will have effective escape ramps built in and existing tanks will have effective escape ramps 

installed.
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

152 Wildlife

Mitigation for migratory birds will be considered during activity level planning because the number of species, variety of 

habitats, and variation in seasonal movements limit the ability to provide effective mitigation for all species at the 

resource management planning level.

Management activities will consider current adopted strategies including Montana’s Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy (MFWP 2005) and currently accepted science. The BLM will continue to implement, review, and 

update as necessary the Prairie Pothole Waterfowl and Fisheries Habitat Management Plan (HMP) of North Central 

Montana (BLM 1978), Whitewater Lake Waterfowl Habitat Development Project HMP (BLM 1970a), and Milk River 

Hills Pronghorn Winter Range HMP (BLM 1970b).

Implementation and consistent and effective monitoring of outcomes for habitat and species will provide the impetus 

toward the desired conditions. Monitoring will provide necessary data to evaluate RMP management decisions and will 

help identify needs for changes in management practices. Monitoring to track changing conditions in key areas and for 

specific species (Appendix R) is an important step in accomplishing objectives and achieving desired conditions.

Coordination and partnerships with state and federal agencies, tribal governments, commercial interests, interested 

organizations and individuals will serve as an important way to achieve desired conditions throughout the planning area, 

particularly for wildlife species and populations that span administrative and legal boundaries. 

The BLM will work with local organizations, schools and other agencies to provide educational programs, information 

brochures, interpretive sites, etc. to promote public awareness, appreciation, and understanding of wildlife conservation, 

management, and ecology.

Special Status Species

The BLM will ensure habitat is provided for special status species (Tables 3.51 and 3.52 in Chapter 3). Proposed actions 

will not jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species, or cause its habitat to be adversely 

modified or destroyed.

Mitigation Measures and

Conservation Actions

For

Surface-Disturbing and Disruptive Activities

Mitigation measures and conservation actions are Best Management Practices (BMPs), operating procedures, or design features 

that have been developed to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for potentially significant adverse environmental

impacts associated with surface-disturbing or disruptive activities.

For the purposes of applying mitigation measures, surface-disturbing and disruptive activities are defined below.

Surface-Disturbing Activities: The physical disturbance or removal of land surface and vegetation. Some examples of surfacedisturbing activities include, but are not limited to, construction of roads, well pads, pipelines, powerlines, pits/reservoirs, 

facilities, recreation sites, and mining. Vegetation renovation treatments that involve soil penetration and/or substantial 

mechanical damage to plants (plowing, chiseling, chopping, etc.) are also surface-disturbing activities.

Disruptive Activities: Those resource uses and activities that are likely to alter the behavior of, displace, or cause excessive stress 

to wildlife populations occurring at a specific location and/or time. In this context, disruptive activity(ies) refers to those actions 

that alter behavior or cause the displacement of wildlife such that reproductive success is negatively affected, or the physiological 

ability to cope with environmental stress is compromised. This term does not apply to the physical disturbance of the land 

surface, vegetation, or features. Examples of disruptive activities may include fence construction, noise, vehicle traffic, or other 

human presence regardless of the activity. The term is used in conjunction with protecting wildlife during crucial life stages (e.g., 

breeding, nesting, birthing, etc.), although it could apply to any resource value. 

These definitions are not intended to prohibit all activities or authorized uses. For example, emergency activities (e.g., fire 

suppression, search and rescue), rangeland monitoring, routine maintenance associated with an approved authorization, dispersed 

recreational activities (e.g., hunting, hiking) and livestock grazing are not considered surface-disturbing or disruptive activities.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Wildlife 153

The BLM will continue cooperative participation in recovery plans, management plans and conservation strategies for 

special status species.

Fragmentation of large intact blocks of important wildlife habitat will be minimized, particularly protection priority areas 

for greater sage-grouse and priority habitat for grassland birds.

Alternative A (Current Management)

General Wildlife

New and replacement fences would follow BLM specifications to allow easy passage of wildlife such as pronghorn, 

deer, elk and bighorn sheep.

Bighorn Sheep: No changes in livestock class from cows to domestic sheep would be allowed in areas occupied by 

bighorn sheep in the West HiLine planning area. In the Judith-Valley-Phillips planning area domestic sheep grazing 

would not be allowed to overlap bighorn sheep habitat.

Migratory Birds: Migratory bird habitat would be managed on a case-by-case basis through the environmental review 

of other resource activities.

Waterfowl: In the West HiLine planning area all high value waterfowl and fisheries would be evaluated to determine 

the need for fencing to promote riparian vegetation establishment. In the Judith-Valley-Phillips planning area the BLM 

would implement livestock grazing formulas to improve waterfowl nesting cover on allotments with existing or potential 

water production.

Special Status Species

Black-tailed Prairie Dog: The BLM, in cooperation with the USFWS and MFWP, would maintain the existing prairie 

dog habitat and distribution on BLM land within the 7km Complex based on a 1988 survey. The BLM would also 

support cooperative agreements for prairie dog towns on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge (CMR), lands 

administered by Montana DNRC, and private land within the 7km Complex. The 7km Complex contains approximately 

26,000 acres of prairie dog towns (16,392 BLM acres, 5,800 CMR acres, 2,012 Montana DNRC acres, and 5,821 private 

acres). Management actions would be directed to cooperatively maintain this amount of prairie dog habitat. Prairie dogs 

on BLM land outside the 7km Complex are nonessential to black-footed ferret recovery and would be maintained at the 

existing level (1988 survey) or controlled based on values other than the ferret.

The BLM would monitor prairie dog towns for expansion, and all allotments within the 7km Complex with prairie dog 

towns would be categorized as “I” (Improved). The BLM would control prairie dog expansion on BLM lands within the 

7km Complex when the acreage exceeds the existing level (based on a 1988 survey). The BLM would maintain the 

prairie dog towns on BLM lands outside the 7km Complex at the existing level. The BLM may reduce or eradicate some 

small, isolated prairie dog towns.

Prairie dog reduction methods may include using EPA-registered toxicants or nontoxic methods for prairie dog control 

(i.e., barriers, water, vegetation enhancement, prairie dog sterilization, biological control, etc.).

When poisoning is scheduled on a prairie dog town which includes state and private land, a cooperative effort would be 

made to control the entire town. The cost of poisoning for state and private land would be the responsibility of the 

private landowner or the state land permittee.

The loss of prairie dog habitat on private land may be compensated for by developing additional habitat on BLM land in 

the vicinity of the habitat loss. Prairie dog expansion within the 7km Complex above the level recorded in the 1988 

survey would not be allowed on BLM land without AUM mitigation. Any loss of livestock forage due to prairie dog 

habitat increases on BLM lands above the 1988 level would be mitigated through land treatments (mechanical, fire, etc.).
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

154 Wildlife

The BLM would manage firearm discharge on BLM land before and after ferret reintroduction. The BLM would 

respond to requests for information, prepare maps, sign prairie dog towns, and manage the towns to provide for 

recreational shooting. Firearm discharge may temporarily be prohibited on prairie dog towns where black-footed ferret 

reintroduction is occurring. However, recreational shooting would be managed on these towns and towns subsequently 

occupied by the ferret, unless impacts from shooting are shown to be detrimental.

Greater Sage-Grouse: The national and Montana greater sage-grouse conservation strategies would be used as the 

basis to address sage-grouse needs during the watershed planning process and project level analysis.

Mountain Plover: The following management actions would apply to protect mountain plover habitat and maintain 

regional mountain plover populations:

 Mountain plover habitat would include an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing: surface occupancy and use 

would be prohibited within 1/4 mile of essential habitat (Appendix E.4).

 Activities for existing oil and gas leases would be managed according to BMPs (Appendix E.2).

Piping Plover: The following management actions would apply to protect piping plover habitat and maintain regional 

piping plover populations:

 Piping plover habitat would include an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing: surface occupancy and use 

would be prohibited within 1/4 mile of essential and critical habitat (Appendix E.4).

 Activities for existing oil and gas leases would be managed according to BMPs (Appendix E.2).

Sprague’s Pipit: The following management actions would apply to protect Sprague’s pipit habitat:

 Mitigation for oil and gas activities would occur as timing limits in the conditions of approval for APDs when 

proposed wells are located in appropriate habitat. The timing condition would avoid well development from 

April 15 through July 15.

Alternative B

General Wildlife

Fences identified as potential barriers to wildlife movement or representing significant hazards for wildlife on BLM land 

would be inventoried. Fences would be prioritized for replacement or modification based on wildlife resource values.

Bighorn Sheep: No new sheep or goat allotments would be allowed in bighorn sheep habitat. New sheep/goat 

allotments or conversion from cows to sheep/goats would not be allowed within 20 miles of occupied wild bighorn sheep 

habitat. Exact distances between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep would be based on habitat and movement potential.

Migratory Birds: The BLM would follow the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan (PPJV 2005) to 

analyze site-specific proposed actions and determine whether BLM lands are meeting rangeland health standards. The 

BLM would use the following management actions to integrate the goals of the PPJV into programmatic and sitespecific management decisions:

 Emphasize maintenance and restoration of habitats that sustain sensitive species; and

 Enhance or restore habitat composition and structure beyond PFC in riparian habitats, where and when 

appropriate, for migratory bird habitat.

Waterfowl: Upland and emergent vegetation in pastures surrounding reservoirs established or rebuilt for waterfowl 

values would be managed to provide adequate nesting and brood rearing cover for waterfowl.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Wildlife 155

Special Status Species

Objective

Manage priority sage‐grouse habitats so that discrete anthropogenic disturbances cover less than 3% of the total sage‐

grouse habitat regardless of ownership to protect priority sage‐grouse habitats from anthropogenic disturbances that will 

reduce distribution or abundance of sage‐grouse.

Management Actions

Mitigation of surface-disturbing or disruptive activities would be applied where needed to minimize impacts of human 

activities on important seasonal special status species habitats consistent with the wildlife stipulations outlined in the 

Fluid Minerals section of Chapter 2 and Appendix M, Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater SageGrouse Habitat. Mitigation measures would be applied on a case-by-case basis during activity level planning if an 

evaluation of the project area indicates the presence of important wildlife species. Exceptions may be granted by the 

authorized officer if an environmental review demonstrates that effects could be mitigated to an acceptable level, habitat 

for the species is not present in the area, or portions of the area could be occupied without affecting a particular species. 

Exceptions may also be granted where the short-term effects would be mitigated by the long-term benefits (e.g., 

prescribed fire or forest health treatments).

Black-tailed Prairie Dog: The BLM would adopt the MFWP Region 6 Prairie Dog Abundance and Distribution 

Objectives Plan (MFWP 2006a) and would commit to achieving prairie dog objectives outlined in the plan.

Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Areas: To minimize habitat fragmentation, four areas with BLM 

surface ownership would be managed as an ACEC to retain intact blocks of native vegetation. One of these areas is also 

a sage-grouse core area identified by MFWP. These four areas would include 461,220 acres of BLM surface (Map 2.17, 

which is located at the end of Chapter 2). The following management actions would apply to the four areas: 

 The areas would be closed to oil and gas leasing (471,989 acres of federal minerals). The area would not be 

available for geophysical exploration except to obtain exploratory information for areas outside of and adjacent 

to the Priority Areas. Existing leases would be allowed to expire and would not be renewed. 

 Exploration and development activities for existing oil and gas leases would be managed according to BMPs 

(Appendix E.2), or other mitigation measures, through conditions of approval in authorizing APDs or plans of 

development. Consistent with surface use rights granted, the existing lease may be subject to “restrictions 

deriving from specific, nondiscretionary statutes; and such reasonable measures as may be required by the 

authorized officer to minimize adverse impacts to other resource values, land uses or users not addressed in the 

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

Prairie Dog Abundance and Distribution Objectives

(MFWP 2006a)

Maintain abundance and distribution of black-tailed prairie dogs. Acreages of active prairie dog towns would range between

30,500 and 41,400 acres (36,000 acres plus or minus 15%) in the planning area for the next 20 years and would consist of:

 One Category 1 complex of 5000+ acres of active prairie dog towns spaced no more than 1.5 km (1 mile) apart. This complex 

will not be actively managed to exceed 10,000 acres;

 Six to eight Category 2 complexes of 1,000 or more acres of active prairie dog towns. Two or three of these complexes would 

follow the 1.5 km rule and the remainder would follow the 7km rule; and

 Category 3 prairie dog towns would be scattered throughout the historic prairie dog range in the planning area.
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

156 Wildlife

Overall consideration shall be given to minimizing the impact to 

sage-grouse through a project design that avoids, minimizes, 

reduces, rectifies, and/or adequately compensates for direct and 

indirect impacts to sage-grouse habitat or use and includes applicable 

and technically feasible conditions of approval (Appendix M). 

Selection and application of these measures shall be based on current 

science and research on the effects to important breeding, nesting, 

brood-rearing, and wintering areas.

 The areas would be exclusion areas for the issuance of rights-of-way 

except within designated corridors. The BLM would consider 

opportunities to remove, bury, or modify existing powerlines (e.g., 

burying, anti-perching devices or line location).

 Where leases or rights-of-way have some level of development (e.g., 

road, fence, well, etc.) that are no longer in use, the site would be 

reclaimed by removing the features and restoring the habitat. Upon 

project completion or right-of-way expiration, roads built and 

maintained for commercial use across BLM land would be 

reclaimed, unless based on site-specific analysis, the route provides 

specific benefits to the public and the continued public use does not 

contribute to resource conflicts.

 The areas would remain available for livestock grazing. Site-specific 

grassland bird and/or greater sage-grouse habitat and management 

objectives would be developed for BLM land and incorporated into 

the respective allotment management plans (AMPs) or livestock 

grazing permits as appropriate.

 Existing range improvements, including the location of supplements, would be evaluated and if necessary 

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

 The areas would be exclusion areas for wind energy rights-of-way.

 The areas would be recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry (469,916 acres) and closed to 

leasable (471,945 acres) and salable minerals (317,197 acres). The areas would not be available for other 

withdrawal proposals unless the land management is consistent with greater sage-grouse conservation measures.

 The areas would be limited to existing mineral material disposal permits, which could be renewed with limited 

expansion. 

General Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Areas: The BLM would use the national and Montana greater sage-grouse 

conservation strategies as standards in the planning area except for habitat standards, which would be derived from 

regional standards. 

Consideration would be given to incorporating site-specific greater sage-grouse habitat and management objectives as 

appropriate to the area into AMPs or livestock grazing permits.

Greater sage-grouse habitat suitability determinations would be based upon existing guidelines modified with data from 

recent habitat inventories and assessments in the planning area. Relevant range-wide research findings would also be 

included in habitat suitability determinations.

The BLM would emphasize restoration and rehabilitation of sagebrush in areas that are capable of, but no longer support 

sagebrush to contribute to the distribution and connectivity of habitat patches.

Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse

Priority Areas

Areas containing substantial and high 

quality grasslands that support large 

populations of a suite of special status 

grassland bird species. This suite of 

species includes the following species 

of concern: Sprague’s pipit, chestnutcollared longspur, McCown’s longspur, 

Baird’s sparrow, and long-billed 

curlew. Management actions would 

emphasize the conservation and 

enhancement of sustainable grassland 

bird habitats. Areas are delineated by 

using survey results, predictive models 

of species distributions, and land 

ownership patterns.

These areas also include core area for 

greater sage-grouse identified by 

MFWP. Sage-grouse core areas are 

habitats associated with 1) Montana’s 

highest densities of sage-grouse, based 

on male counts and/or 2) sage-grouse 

lek complexes and associated habitat 

important to sage-grouse distribution.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Wildlife 157

Greater Sage-Grouse

Protection Priority Area

An area with limited impacts containing 

substantial and high quality greater 

sage-grouse habitat that supports high 

density greater sage-grouse populations. 

Management actions would emphasize 

the conservation and enhancement of 

sustainable greater sage-grouse habitat. 

The area is delineated by using “key,” 

“core” and connectivity data/maps, land 

ownership patterns, and other resource 

information.

Greater sage-grouse habitats associated with silver sagebrush north of the Milk River would be enhanced to improve 

habitat conditions for nesting and brood rearing. Specific management actions would be derived from the results of 

ongoing research and best available science.

All new powerlines on BLM land within 1 mile of greater sage-grouse leks would be buried.

The BLM would coordinate with MFWP or other interested parties to highlight special status species information and 

BLM management of habitats for special status species. The BLM would also provide outreach materials for the general 

public.

Greater Sage-Grouse Protection Priority Area: To minimize wildlife habitat fragmentation, an area with BLM 

surface ownership greater than 50% would be managed as an ACEC to retain intact blocks of native vegetation where 

contiguous acreage of greater than 10,000 acres is present. This would include 930,265 acres of BLM surface 

(Map 2.17, which is located at the end of Chapter 2) on which the following management actions would apply: 

 The area would be closed to oil and gas leasing (1,028,661 acres of federal minerals). The area would not be 

available for geophysical exploration except to obtain exploratory information for areas outside of and adjacent 

to the protection priority area. Existing leases would be allowed to expire and would not be renewed.

 Exploration and development activities for existing oil and gas 

leases would be managed according to BMPs (Appendix E.2), or 

other mitigation measures, through conditions of approval in 

authorizing APDs or plans of development. Consistent with surface 

use rights granted, the existing lease may be subject to “restrictions 

deriving from specific, nondiscretionary statutes; and such 

reasonable measures as may be required by the authorized officer to 

minimize adverse impacts to other resource values, land uses or 

users not addressed in the lease stipulations at the time operations 

are proposed” (43 CFR 3101.1-2). Overall consideration shall be 

given to minimizing the impact to sage-grouse through a project 

design that avoids, minimizes, reduces, rectifies, and/or adequately 

compensates for direct and indirect impacts to sage-grouse habitat or 

use and includes applicable and technically feasible conditions of 

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

research on the effects to important breeding, nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering areas.

 The area would be an exclusion area for the issuance of rights-of-way except within designated corridors. 

Rights-of-way and similar facilities would be located adjacent to other facilities in a corridor where practical. 

The BLM would consider opportunities to remove, bury, or modify existing powerlines (e.g., burying, antiperching devices or line location).

 Where leases or rights-of-way have some level of development (e.g., road, fence, well, etc.) that are no longer 

in use the site would be reclaimed by removing the features and restoring the habitat. Upon project completion 

or right-of-way expiration, roads built and maintained for commercial use across BLM land would be 

reclaimed, unless based on site-specific analysis, the route provides specific benefits to the public and the 

continued public use does not contribute to resource conflicts.

 The area would remain available for livestock grazing. Site-specific greater sage-grouse habitat and 

management objectives would be developed for BLM land and incorporated into the respective allotment 

management plans (AMPs) or livestock grazing permits as appropriate.

 Existing range improvements, including the location of supplements, would be evaluated and if necessary 

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

 The area would be an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way.
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

158 Wildlife

 The area would be recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry (1,067,376 acres) and closed to 

leasable (1,023,068 acres) and salable minerals (1,023,068 acres). The area would not be available for other 

withdrawal proposals unless the land management is consistent with greater sage-grouse conservation measures.

 The area would be limited to existing mineral material disposal permits which could be renewed with limited 

expansion.

Mountain Plover: The following management actions would apply to protect mountain plover habitat and maintain 

regional mountain plover populations:

 Mountain plover habitat would be closed to oil and gas leasing. A timing stipulation would also apply: surface 

occupancy and use would be prohibited within 1/2 mile of mountain plover habitat from April 1 through 

July 15 (Appendix E.4).

 Activities for existing oil and gas leases would be managed according to BMPs (Appendix E.2). 

 Road maintenance in mountain plover habitat would not occur between April 1 and July 15 unless the road is 

surveyed prior to maintenance activities for plover presence and avoidance measures are implemented.

Piping Plover: The following management actions would apply to protect piping plover habitat and maintain regional 

piping plover populations:

 The area would be closed to oil and gas leasing within 1/2 mile of piping plover habitat.

 Road maintenance in piping plover habitat would not occur between April 1 and July 31 unless the road is 

surveyed prior to maintenance activities for plover presence and avoidance measures are implemented.

Sprague’s Pipit: The following management actions would apply to protect Sprague’s pipit habitat:

 Sprague’s pipits would be protected through management actions for the Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse 

Priority Areas ACEC.

 Mitigation for oil and gas activities would occur as timing limits in the conditions of approval for APDs when 

proposed wells are located in appropriate habitat. The timing condition would avoid well development from 

April 15 through July 15.

Alternative C

General Wildlife

Fences identified as potential barriers to wildlife movement or representing significant hazards for wildlife on BLM land 

would be inventoried. Fences would be prioritized for replacement or modification to maintain resource values 

including wildlife movements.

Bighorn Sheep: No new sheep or goat allotments would be allowed in bighorn sheep habitat. Allotments in current 

bighorn sheep range would be reclassified to eliminate sheep grazing. Allotments between current bighorn sheep range 

and current sheep allotments would be reviewed and reclassified based on habitat, movement potential, and current 

science and guidelines to minimize contact between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep.

Migratory Birds: The BLM would follow the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan (PPJV 2005) to 

analyze site-specific proposed actions and determine whether BLM lands are meeting rangeland health standards. The 

BLM would use the following management actions to integrate the goals of the PPJV into programmatic and sitespecific management decisions:
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Wildlife 159

 The BLM would emphasize maintenance and restoration of habitats that sustain sensitive species.

 The BLM would enhance or restore habitat composition and structure beyond PFC in riparian habitats, where 

and when appropriate, for migratory bird habitat.

Waterfowl: Upland and emergent vegetation in pastures surrounding reservoirs established or rebuilt for waterfowl 

values would be managed to provide adequate nesting and brood rearing cover for waterfowl.

Special Status Species

Mitigation of surface-disturbing or disruptive activities would be applied where needed to minimize impacts of human 

activities on important seasonal special status species habitats consistent with the wildlife stipulations outlined in the 

Fluid Minerals section of Chapter 2 and Appendix M. Mitigation measures would be applied on a case-by-case basis 

during activity level planning if an evaluation of the project area indicates the presence of important wildlife species. 

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

mitigated to an acceptable level, habitat for the species is not present 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 (e.g., prescribed fire or forest health treatments).

The BLM would coordinate with MFWP or other interested parties to highlight special status species information and 

BLM management of habitats for special status species. The BLM would also provide outreach materials for the general 

public.

Black-tailed Prairie Dog: The BLM would adopt the MFWP Region 6 Prairie Dog Abundance and Distribution 

Objectives Plan (MFWP 2006a) and would commit to achieving prairie dog objectives outlined in the plan.

Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Areas: To minimize habitat fragmentation, two areas with BLM 

surface ownership would be managed to retain intact blocks of native vegetation. One of these areas is also a sagegrouse core area identified by MFWP. These two areas would include 298,772 acres of BLM surface (Map 2.17). The 

following management actions would apply to the two areas: 

 The areas would include a controlled surface use stipulation for oil and gas leasing (318,143 acres): surfacedisturbing and disruptive activities may be restricted or prohibited within the priority areas (Appendix E.4). 

Prior to surface-disturbing or disruptive activities a plan to maintain functionality of grassland bird/greater sagegrouse habitat would be prepared by the proponent and implemented upon approval by the authorized officer. 

Within the priority areas surface-disturbing or disruptive activities would be restricted or prohibited within 6/10 

of a mile from any existing surface-disturbing or disruptive activity. The plan should address how short-term 

and long-term direct and indirect effects to important breeding (leks), nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering 

areas would be mitigated based on current science and research (Appendix E.5). The plan would also include a 

monitoring protocol (Appendix R).

 Exploration and development activities for existing oil and gas leases would be managed according to BMPs 

(Appendix E.2), or other mitigation measures, through conditions of approval in authorizing APDs or plans of 

development. Consistent with surface use rights granted, the existing lease may be subject to “restrictions 

deriving from specific, nondiscretionary statutes; and such reasonable measures as may be required by the 

authorized officer to minimize adverse impacts to other resource values, land uses or users not addressed in the 

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

Overall consideration shall be given to minimizing the impact to sage-grouse through a project design that 

avoids, minimizes, reduces, rectifies, and/or adequately compensates for direct and indirect impacts to sagegrouse habitat or use and includes applicable and technically feasible conditions of approval (Appendix M). 

Selection and application of these measures shall be based on current science and research on the effects to 

important breeding, nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering areas.
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

160 Wildlife

 The areas would be avoidance areas for the issuance of rights-of-way except within designated corridors. The 

BLM would consider opportunities to remove, bury, or modify existing powerlines (e.g., burying, anti-perching 

devices or line location).

 Where leases or rights-of-way have some level of development (e.g., road, fence, well, etc.) that are no longer 

in use, the site would be reclaimed by removing the features and restoring the habitat. Upon project completion 

or right-of-way expiration, roads built and maintained for commercial use across BLM land would be 

reclaimed, unless based on site-specific analysis, the route provides specific benefits to the public and the 

continued public use does not contribute to resource conflicts. 

 The areas would remain available for livestock grazing. Site-specific grassland bird and/or greater sage-grouse 

habitat and management objectives would be developed for BLM land and incorporated into the respective 

allotment management plans (AMPs) or livestock grazing permits as appropriate.

 Existing range improvements, including the location of supplements, would be evaluated and if necessary 

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

 The areas would be exclusion areas for wind energy rights-of-way.

 The areas would be recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry (316,830 acres) and closed to 

leasable (317,197 acres) and salable minerals (317,197 acres).

 The areas would be limited to existing mineral material disposal permits, which could be renewed with limited 

expansion.

General Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Areas: The BLM would use the national and Montana greater sage-grouse 

conservation strategies as standards in the planning area except for habitat standards, which would be derived from 

regional standards.

Consideration would be given to incorporating site-specific greater sage-grouse habitat and management objectives as 

appropriate to the area into AMPs or livestock grazing permits.

Greater sage-grouse habitat suitability determinations would be based upon existing guidelines modified with data from 

recent habitat inventories and assessments in the planning area. Relevant range-wide research findings would also be 

included in habitat suitability determinations.

The BLM would emphasize restoration and rehabilitation of sagebrush in areas that are capable of, but no longer support 

sagebrush to contribute to the distribution and connectivity of habitat patches.

Greater sage-grouse habitats associated with silver sagebrush north of the Milk River would be enhanced to improve 

habitat conditions for nesting and brood rearing. Specific management actions would be derived from the results of 

ongoing research and best available science.

All new powerlines on BLM lands within 1 mile of greater sage-grouse leks would be buried.

Fragmentation of large intact blocks of important wildlife habitat would be minimized, particularly in habitat protection 

areas for greater sage-grouse and grassland birds.

Greater Sage-Grouse Protection Priority Area: To minimize wildlife habitat fragmentation, an area with BLM 

surface ownership greater than 50% would be managed to retain intact blocks of native vegetation where contiguous 

acreage of greater than 10,000 acres is present. This would include 930,265 acres of BLM surface (Map 2.17). The 

following management actions would apply to the area: 

 The area would include a controlled surface use stipulation for oil and gas leasing (1,028,661 acres): surfacedisturbing and disruptive activities may be restricted or prohibited within the protection priority area

(Appendix E.4). Prior to surface-disturbing or disruptive activities a plan to maintain functionality of greater 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Wildlife 161

sage-grouse habitat would be prepared by the proponent and implemented upon approval by the authorized 

officer. Within the protection priority area surface-disturbing or disruptive activities would be restricted or 

prohibited within 6/10 of a mile from any existing surface-disturbing or disruptive activity. The plan should

address how short-term and long-term direct and indirect effects to important breeding (leks), nesting, broodrearing, and wintering areas would be mitigated based on current science and research (Appendix E.5). The 

plan would also include a monitoring protocol (Appendix R). 

 Exploration and development activities for existing oil and gas leases would be managed according to BMPs

(Appendix E.2), or other mitigation measures, through conditions of approval in authorizing APDs or plans of 

development. Consistent with surface use rights granted, the existing lease may be subject to “restrictions 

deriving from specific, nondiscretionary statutes; and such reasonable measures as may be required by the 

authorized officer to minimize adverse impacts to other resource values, land uses or users not addressed in the 

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

Overall consideration shall be given to minimizing the impact to sage-grouse through a project design that 

avoids, minimizes, reduces, rectifies, and/or adequately compensates for direct and indirect impacts to sagegrouse habitat or use and includes applicable and technically feasible conditions of approval (Appendix M). 

Selection and application of these measures shall be based on current science and research on the effects to 

important breeding, nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering areas.

 The area would be an avoidance area for the issuance of rights-of-way except within designated corridors. 

Rights-of-way and similar facilities would be located adjacent to other facilities in a corridor where practical. 

The BLM would consider opportunities to remove, bury, or modify existing powerlines (e.g., burying, antiperching devices or line location).

 Where leases or rights-of-way have some level of development (e.g., road, fence, well, etc.) that are no longer 

in use, the site would be reclaimed by removing the features and restoring the habitat. Upon project completion 

or right-of-way expiration, roads built and maintained for commercial use across BLM land would be 

reclaimed, unless based on site-specific analysis, the route provides specific benefits to the public and the 

continued public use does not contribute to resource conflicts.

 The area would remain available for livestock grazing. Site-specific greater sage-grouse habitat and 

management objectives would be developed for BLM land and incorporated into the respective allotment 

management plans (AMPs) or livestock grazing permits as appropriate.

 Existing range improvements, including the location of supplements, would be evaluated and if necessary 

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

 The area would be an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way.

 The area would be recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry (1,067,376 acres) and closed to 

leasable (1,023,068 acres) and salable minerals (1,023,068 acres).

 The area would be limited to existing mineral material disposal permits, which could be renewed with limited 

expansion. 

Mountain Plover: The following management actions would apply to protect mountain plover habitat and maintain 

regional mountain plover populations:

 Mountain plover habitat would include an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing: surface occupancy and use 

would be prohibited within mountain plover habitat (Appendix E.4).

 A timing stipulation would also apply: surface occupancy and use would be prohibited within 1/4 mile of 

mountain plover habitat from April 1 through July 15 (Appendix E.4).

 Activities for existing oil and gas leases would be managed according to BMPs (Appendix E.2).
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

162 Wildlife

 For surface-disturbing or disruptive activities other than oil and gas, mitigation would be applied where needed 

to minimize impacts of human activities on mountain plover habitat consistent with the oil and gas surface use 

restrictions. The BLM would avoid permanent above-ground structures that may provide perches for avian 

predators or deter plover from using preferred habitat. Mitigation measures would be applied on a case-by-case 

basis during activity level planning if an evaluation of the project area indicates the presence of mountain 

plovers. This would include surveys for mountain plovers in all suitable habitat, as well as avoidance of nesting 

areas from April 1 through July 15. Exceptions may be granted by the authorized officer if an environmental 

review demonstrates that effects could be mitigated to an acceptable level.

Piping Plover: The following management actions would apply to protect piping plover habitat and maintain regional 

piping plover populations:

 Piping plover habitat would include an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing: surface occupancy and use 

would be prohibited within 1/4 mile of essential and critical habitat (Appendix E.4).

 Road maintenance in piping plover habitat would not occur between April 1 and July 31 unless the road is 

surveyed prior to maintenance activities for plover presence and avoidance measures are implemented.

Sprague’s Pipit: The following management actions would apply to protect Sprague’s pipit habitat:

 Sprague’s pipits would be protected through management actions for the Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse 

Priority Areas.

 Mitigation for oil and gas activities would occur as timing limits in the conditions of approval for APDs when 

proposed wells are located in appropriate habitat. The timing condition would avoid well development from 

April 15 through July 15.

Alternative D

General Wildlife

Fences identified as barriers to wildlife movement or representing significant hazards for wildlife on BLM land would be 

modified on a case-by-case basis as problems are identified. 

Bighorn Sheep: No new sheep or goat allotments would be allowed in bighorn sheep habitat. New sheep/goat 

allotments or conversion from cows to sheep/goats would not be allowed within 5 miles of occupied wild bighorn sheep 

habitat.

Migratory Birds: Migratory bird habitat would be managed on a case-by-case basis through the environmental review 

of other resource activities.

Waterfowl: Upland and emergent vegetation in pastures surrounding reservoirs established or rebuilt for waterfowl 

values would be managed to provide adequate nesting and brood rearing cover for waterfowl.

Special Status Species

Mitigation of surface-disturbing or disruptive activities would be applied where needed to minimize impacts of human 

activities on important seasonal special status species habitats consistent with the wildlife stipulations outlined in the 

Fluid Minerals section of Chapter 2 and Appendix M. Mitigation measures would be applied on a case-by-case basis 

during activity level planning if an evaluation of the project area indicates the presence of important wildlife species. 

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

mitigated to an acceptable level, habitat for the species is not present 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 (e.g., prescribed fire or forest health treatments).

Black-tailed Prairie Dog: Prairie dog colonies would be managed on a case-by-case basis at the project level.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Wildlife 163

Greater Sage-Grouse: The BLM would use the national and Montana greater sage-grouse conservation strategies as 

the basis to address greater sage-grouse needs during the watershed planning process and project level analysis.

Greater sage-grouse habitat suitability determinations would be based upon existing guidelines modified with data from 

recent habitat inventories and assessments in the planning area. Relevant range-wide research findings would also be 

included in habitat suitability determination.

All powerlines on BLM land within 1 mile of greater sage-grouse leks would be fitted with anti-raptor perching devices.

Fragmentation of large intact blocks of important wildlife habitat would be minimized, particularly in habitat protection 

areas for greater sage-grouse and grassland birds.

Mountain Plover: The following management actions would apply to protect mountain plover habitat and to maintain 

regional mountain plover populations:

 Mountain plover habitat would include an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing: surface occupancy and use 

would be prohibited within mountain plover habitat (Appendix E.4). 

 Activities for existing oil and gas leases would be managed according to BMPs (Appendix E.2).

 For surface-disturbing or disruptive activities other than oil and gas, mitigation would be applied where needed 

to minimize impacts of human activities on mountain plover habitat. Mitigation measures would be applied on 

a case-by-case basis during activity level planning if an evaluation of the project area indicates the presence of 

mountain plovers. Exceptions may be granted by the authorized officer if an environmental review 

demonstrates that effects could be mitigated to an acceptable level.

 Road maintenance in mountain plover habitat would not occur between April 1 and July 15 unless the road is 

surveyed prior to maintenance activities for plover presence and avoidance measures are implemented.

Piping Plover: The following management actions would apply to protect piping plover habitat and maintain regional 

piping plover populations:

 A timing stipulation for oil and gas activities would apply: surface occupancy and use would be prohibited 

within 1/4 mile of piping plover habitat from May 15 through July 31 (Appendix E.4).

 Road maintenance in piping plover habitat would not occur between April 1 and July 31 unless the road is 

surveyed prior to maintenance activities for plover presence and avoidance measures are implemented.

Sprague’s Pipit: The following management actions would apply to protect Sprague’s pipit habitat:

 Mitigation for oil and gas activities would occur as timing limits in the conditions of approval for APDs when 

proposed wells are located in appropriate habitat. The timing condition would avoid well development from 

April 15 through July 15.

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

General Wildlife

Fences identified as potential barriers to wildlife movement or representing significant hazards for wildlife on BLM land 

would be inventoried. Fences would be prioritized for replacement or modification to maintain resource values 

including wildlife movements.

Bighorn Sheep: No new grazing permits authorizing sheep or goat allotments would be allowed in bighorn sheep range.

Sheep and goat allotments in areas with risk of contact with bighorn sheep and domestic sheep and/or goats in the 

planning area would be reviewed and managed, or reclassified if necessary, to achieve effective separation (both 
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

164 Wildlife

temporal and/or spatial) between domestic sheep and/or goats and bighorn sheep. Contact risk would be based on 

habitat, distance between bighorn sheep range (current and anticipated), sheep and goat allotments, movement potential, 

and current science and guidelines. Domestic sheep/goats would not be allowed within bighorn sheep range unless 

mechanisms are in place to achieve effective separation from wild sheep.

Migratory Birds: The BLM would follow the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan (2005) to analyze 

site-specific proposed actions and determine whether BLM lands are meeting rangeland health standards. The BLM 

would integrate the goals of the PPJV into programmatic and site-specific management decisions through the following 

management actions:

 Emphasize maintenance and restoration of habitats that sustain sensitive species. 

 Strive to enhance or restore migratory bird habitat composition and structure in riparian habitats, where and 

when appropriate.

Waterfowl: Upland and emergent vegetation in pastures surrounding reservoirs established or rebuilt for waterfowl 

values would be managed to provide adequate nesting and brood rearing cover for waterfowl.

Special Status Species

Mitigation measures for all resources are included in Appendix C, BMPs, and Appendix M, Mitigation Measures and 

Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat. The BLM may add additional mitigation measures as deemed 

necessary by further environmental analysis and as developed through consultation with other federal, state, and local 

regulatory and resource agencies.

The BLM will apply appropriate mitigation measures and conservation actions to BLM-authorized activities to avoid, 

minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for impacts if an evaluation of the project area indicates the presence of 

important wildlife species, seasonal wildlife habitat, or other resource concerns. The sequence of mitigation action will 

be:

Step 1. Avoid - Adverse impacts to resources are to be avoided and no action shall be permitted if there is a 

practicable alternative with less adverse impact.

Step 2. Minimize - If impacts to resources cannot be avoided, appropriate and practicable steps to minimize adverse 

impacts must be taken.

Step 3. Compensate - Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse 

impacts which remain. The amount and quality of compensatory mitigation may not substitute for avoiding and 

minimizing impacts.

Even after avoiding and minimizing impacts, projects that will cause adverse impacts to resources typically require some 

type of compensatory mitigation. Compensatory mitigation refers to the restoration, establishment, enhancement, or in 

certain circumstances preservation of resources for the purpose of offsetting unavoidable adverse impacts. The BLM 

will determine the appropriate form and amount of compensatory mitigation required. Methods of compensatory 

mitigation include restoration, establishment, enhancement and preservation.

 Restoration: Re-establishment or rehabilitation of a resource with the goal of returning natural or historic 

functions and characteristics to a currently degraded area. Restoration may result in a gain in function or acres, 

or both.

 Establishment (Creation): The development of a resource where that resource did not previously exist through 

manipulation of the physical, chemical and/or biological characteristics of the site. Successful establishment 

results in a net gain in acres and function.

 Enhancement: Activities conducted within existing resources that heighten, intensify, or improve one or more 

functions. Enhancement is often undertaken for a specific purpose such as to improve water quality, flood 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Wildlife 165

water retention or wildlife habitat. Enhancement results in a gain in function, but does not result in a net gain in 

acres.

 Conservation: The permanent protection of ecologically important resources through the implementation of 

appropriate legal and physical mechanisms (i.e. conservation easements, title transfers). Preservation may 

include protection of areas adjacent to resource locations as necessary to ensure protection or enhancement of 

the ecosystem. Preservation does not result in a net gain of acres and may only be used in certain 

circumstances, including when the resources to be preserved contribute significantly to ecological sustainability.

There are times when mitigating project impacts through onsite mitigation alone, may not be possible or sufficient to 

adequately mitigate impacts and achieve resource objectives. In these cases, it may be appropriate to consider offsite 

mitigation as a feature of one or more of the alternatives in the impact analysis. Offsite mitigation is generally 

appropriate when the authorized officer determines that impacts cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level on site and it 

is expected that the land use authorization as submitted would not be consistent with the BLM’s resource objectives. 

The BLM may expressly condition its approval of an action on the applicant’s commitment to take actions, and the BLM 

may, if necessary, seek appropriate enforcement action to ensure the terms of the contract are met (BLM Instruction 

Memorandum No. 2012-xxx).

Because of site-specific circumstances, some mitigation measures and conservation actions may not apply to some 

activities (e.g., a resource or conflict is not present on a given site) and/or may require slight variations from what is 

described in Appendix M. Proposed variations will be addressed as site-specific mitigation applied in the permitting 

process. All variations in mitigation measures and conservation actions will require appropriate analysis and disclosure 

as part of activity authorization. It is anticipated that variations in the mitigation measures and conservation actions will 

be approved in very limited circumstances and only in coordination with state wildlife management agencies. Mitigation 

measures and conservation actions selected for implementation will be identified in the Record of Decision (ROD) or 

Decision Record (DR) for those activities. The proponent must implement those identified mitigations because they are 

commitments made as part of the BLM decision. Because these decisions create a clear obligation for the BLM to 

ensure any proposed mitigation adopted in the environmental review process is performed, there is assurance that 

mitigation will lead to a reduction of environmental impacts in the implementation stage and include binding 

mechanisms for enforcement (CEQ Memorandum for Heads of Federal Departments and Agencies 2011). The 

determination of adequate application of the mitigation measures and conservation actions for specific projects will 

remain with the BLM’s Authorized Officer.

Fragmentation of large intact blocks of habitat for special status species would be minimized, particularly in habitat 

protection areas for greater sage-grouse and grassland birds.

The BLM would coordinate with MFWP or other interested parties to highlight special status species information and 

BLM management of habitats for special status species. The BLM would also provide outreach materials for the general 

public.

Black-tailed Prairie Dog: The BLM would adopt the MFWP Region 6 Prairie Dog Abundance and Distribution 

Objectives Plan (MFWP 2006a) and would contribute to achieving prairie dog objectives on BLM land as outlined in the 

plan.

Prairie Dog Abundance and Distribution Objectives (MFWP 2006a)

Maintain abundance and distribution of black-tailed prairie dogs. Acreages of active prairie dog towns would range between 

30,500 and 41,400 acres (36,000 acres plus or minus 15%) in the planning area for the next 20 years and would consist of:

 One Category 1 complex of 5000+ acres of active prairie dog towns spaced no more than 1.5 km (1 mile) apart. This complex 

will not be actively managed to exceed 10,000 acres;

 Six to eight Category 2 complexes of 1,000 or more acres of active prairie dog towns. Two or three of these complexes would 

follow the 1.5 km rule and the remainder would follow the 7km rule; and

 Category 3 prairie dog towns would be scattered throughout the historic prairie dog range in the planning area.
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

166 Wildlife

Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse

Priority Areas

Areas containing substantial and high 

quality grasslands that support large 

populations of a suite of special status 

grassland bird species. This suite of 

species includes the following species 

of concern: Sprague’s pipit, chestnutcollared longspur, McCown’s longspur, 

Baird’s sparrow, and long-billed 

curlew. Management actions would 

emphasize the conservation and 

enhancement of sustainable grassland 

bird habitats. Areas are delineated by 

using survey results, predictive models 

of species distributions, and land 

ownership patterns.

These areas also include core area for 

greater sage-grouse identified by 

MFWP. Sage-grouse core areas are 

habitats associated with 1) Montana’s 

highest densities of sage-grouse, based 

on male counts and/or 2) sage-grouse 

lek complexes and associated habitat 

important to sage-grouse distribution.

Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Areas: To minimize habitat fragmentation, two areas with BLM 

surface ownership would be managed to retain intact blocks of native vegetation. One of these areas is also a sagegrouse core area identified by MFWP. These two areas would include 298,772 acres of BLM surface (Map 2.17). The 

following management actions would apply to the two areas:

 The areas would include a no surface occupancy (NSO) stipulation for oil and gas leasing (318,143 acres). 

 Exploration and development activities for existing oil and gas leases would be managed according to BMPs 

(Appendix E.2), or other mitigation measures, through conditions of approval in authorizing APDs or plans of 

development. Consistent with surface use rights granted, the existing lease may be subject to “restrictions 

deriving from specific, nondiscretionary statutes; and such reasonable measures as may be required by the 

authorized officer to minimize adverse impacts to other resource values, land uses or users not addressed in the 

lease stipulations at the time operations are proposed” (43 CFR 

3101.1-2).

Overall consideration shall be given to minimizing the impact to 

sage-grouse through a project design that avoids, minimizes, reduces, 

rectifies, and/or adequately compensates for direct and indirect 

impacts to sage-grouse habitat or use and includes applicable and 

technically feasible conditions of approval (Appendix M). Selection

and application of these measures shall be based on current science 

and research on the effects to important breeding, nesting, broodrearing, and wintering areas.

 The areas would be avoidance areas for the issuance of rights-of-way 

except within designated corridors. Rights-of-way and similar 

facilities would be located adjacent to other facilities in a corridor 

where practical. The BLM would consider opportunities to remove, 

bury, or modify existing powerlines (e.g., burying, anti-perching 

devices or line location).

 Where leases or rights-of-way have some level of development (e.g., 

road, fence, well, etc.) that are no longer in use, the site would be 

reclaimed by removing the features and restoring the habitat. Upon 

project completion or right-of-way expiration, roads built and 

maintained for commercial use across BLM land would be 

reclaimed, unless based on site-specific analysis, the route provides 

specific benefits to the public and the continued public use does not 

contribute to resource conflicts.

 The areas would remain available for livestock grazing. Site-specific grassland bird and/or greater sage-grouse 

habitat and management objectives would be developed for BLM land and incorporated into the respective 

allotment management plans (AMPs) or livestock grazing permits as appropriate.

 Existing range improvements, including the location of supplements, would be evaluated and if necessary 

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

 The areas would be exclusion areas for wind energy rights-of-way.

 Mineral materials sales within these areas would require a plan to maintain functionality of habitat, avoid or 

minimize habitat loss, and minimize disturbances to grassland birds. 

 The areas would be closed to leasable minerals (317,197 acres).

 Withdrawal proposals would be evaluated at the project level and would not be approved unless the land 

management is consistent with maintaining and protecting BLM resource values (Appendix M).
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Wildlife 167

Greater Sage-Grouse

Protection Priority Area

An area with limited impacts containing 

substantial and high quality greater 

sage-grouse habitat that supports high 

density greater sage-grouse populations. 

Management actions would emphasize 

the conservation and enhancement of 

sustainable greater sage-grouse habitat. 

The area is delineated by using “key,” 

“core” and connectivity data/maps, land 

ownership patterns, and other resource 

information.

 New road construction would be limited to realignments of existing roads, if that realignment has a minimal 

impact on greater sage-grouse habitat, eliminates the need to construct a new road, or is necessary for public 

safety. New road construction would include appropriate mitigation and BMPs (Appendix M).

 Existing roads, or realignments, would be used to access valid existing rights. If valid existing rights cannot be 

accessed via existing roads, then any new road would be constructed to the absolute minimum standard 

necessary with appropriate mitigation and BMPs (Appendix M). 

General Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Areas: Sagebrush habitats would be managed so that mid-scale (i.e. landscape 

level) shrub cover should include a mix of height classes with herbaceous understory adequate for meeting greater sagegrouse requirements as well as habitat requirements for other sage-associated species such as mule deer and pronghorn.

Consideration would be given to incorporating site-specific greater sage-grouse habitat and management objectives as 

appropriate to the area into AMPs or livestock grazing permits.

Greater sage-grouse habitat suitability determinations would be based upon existing guidelines modified with data from 

recent habitat inventories and assessments in the planning area. Relevant range-wide research findings would also be 

included in habitat suitability determinations. 

The BLM would emphasize restoration and rehabilitation of sagebrush in areas that are capable of, but no longer support 

sagebrush to contribute to the distribution and connectivity of habitat patches.

New distribution powerlines on BLM land within 1 mile of greater sage-grouse leks would be buried.

Greater Sage-Grouse Protection Priority Area: To minimize wildlife habitat fragmentation, an area with BLM 

surface ownership greater than 50% would be managed to retain intact blocks of native vegetation where contiguous 

acreage of greater than 10,000 acres is present. This area includes 930,265 acres of BLM surface (Map 2.17) on which 

the following management actions would apply:

 The area would include a no surface occupancy (NSO) stipulation 

for oil and gas leasing (1,028,661 acres of federal minerals). 

 Exploration and development activities for existing oil and gas 

leases would be managed according to BMPs (Appendix E.2), or 

other mitigation measures, through conditions of approval in 

authorizing APDs or plans of development. Consistent with surface 

use rights granted, the existing lease may be subject to “restrictions 

deriving from specific, nondiscretionary statutes; and such 

reasonable measures as may be required by the authorized officer to 

minimize adverse impacts to other resource values, land uses or 

users not addressed in the lease stipulations at the time operations 

are proposed” (43 CFR 3101.1-2). Overall consideration shall be 

given to minimizing the impact to sage-grouse through a project 

design that avoids, minimizes, reduces, rectifies, and/or adequately compensates for direct and indirect impacts 

to sage-grouse habitat or use and includes applicable and technically feasible conditions of approval (Appendix 

M). Selection and application of these measures shall be based on current science and research on the effects to 

important breeding, nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering areas.

 The area would be an avoidance area for the issuance of rights-of-way except within designated corridors. 

Rights-of-way and similar facilities would be located adjacent to other facilities in a corridor where practical. 

The BLM would consider opportunities to remove, bury, or modify existing powerlines (e.g., burying, antiperching devices or line location).

 Where leases or rights-of-way have some level of development (e.g., road, fence, well, etc.) that are no longer 

in use, the site would be reclaimed by removing the features and restoring the habitat. Upon project completion 

or right-of-way expiration, roads built and maintained for commercial use across BLM land would be 
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

168 Wildlife

reclaimed, unless based on site-specific analysis, the route provides specific benefits to the public and the 

continued public use does not contribute to resource conflicts.

 The area would remain available for livestock grazing. Site-specific greater sage-grouse habitat and 

management objectives would be developed for BLM land and incorporated into the respective allotment 

management plans (AMPs) or livestock grazing permits as appropriate.

 Existing range improvements, including the location of supplements, would be evaluated and if necessary 

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

 The area would be an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way (930,265 acres). 

 The area would be closed to leasable minerals (1,023,068 acres).

 Mineral material sales within this area would require a plan to maintain functionality of habitat, avoid or 

minimize habitat loss, and minimize disturbances to greater sage-grouse protection priority areas. The plan 

would include appropriate monitoring and mitigation, based on current science and research, for effects to 

important breeding (leks), nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering areas.

 Withdrawal proposals would be evaluated at the project level and would not be approved unless the land 

management is consistent with maintaining and protecting BLM resource values (Appendix M).

 New road construction would be limited to realignments of existing roads, if that realignment has a minimal 

impact on greater sage-grouse habitat, eliminates the need to construct a new road, or is necessary for public 

safety. New road construction would include appropriate mitigation and BMPs (Appendix M).

 Existing roads, or realignments, would be used to access valid existing rights. If valid existing rights cannot be 

accessed via existing roads, then any new road would be constructed to the absolute minimum standard 

necessary with appropriate mitigation and BMPs (Appendix M).

Greater Sage-Grouse Photo by Craig Miller
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Wildlife 169

Greater Sage-Grouse Restoration Area: This is an area with ongoing or imminent impacts containing substantial and 

high quality sage-grouse habitat that historically supported sustainable sage-grouse populations. This area includes 

46,786 acres of BLM surface (Figure 2.7). Management actions would emphasize restoration for the purpose of 

establishing or restoring sustainable sage-grouse populations.

Specific management for this area would be addressed through plan implementation, most likely a natural gas field 

development plan for the Bears Paw South Area (see Appendix E, Map E.1). Management actions addressed during 

implementation would be based on guidance contained in Instruction Memorandum MT-2010-017 and may include: 

 Maximizing the area of interim reclamation on roads and well locations. 

 Direct planting of seedlings of shrubs and forbs important for spring and summer food. 

 Seeding of wild collected shrub seed to increase nesting habitat. 

 Burying powerlines to prevent predator perch sites.

Figure 2.7

Greater Sage-Grouse Restoration Area
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

170 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail

Mountain Plover: The following management actions would apply to protect mountain plover habitat and to maintain 

regional mountain plover populations:

 Mountain plover habitat would include an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing: surface occupancy and use 

would be prohibited within mountain plover habitat (Appendix E.4). 

 A timing stipulation would also apply: surface occupancy and use would be prohibited within 1/4 mile of 

mountain plover habitat from April 1 through July 15 (Appendix E.4).

 Activities for existing oil and gas leases would be managed according to BMPs (Appendix E.2).

 For surface-disturbing or disruptive activities other than oil and gas, mitigation would be applied where needed 

to minimize impacts of human activities on mountain plover habitat consistent with the oil and gas surface use 

restrictions. The BLM would avoid permanent above-ground structures that may provide perches for avian 

predators or deter plover from using preferred habitat. Mitigation measures would be applied on a case-by-case 

basis during activity level planning if an evaluation of the project area indicates the presence of mountain 

plovers. This would include surveys for mountain plovers in all suitable habitat, as well as avoidance of nesting 

areas from April 1 through July 15. Exceptions may be granted by the authorized officer if an environmental 

review demonstrates that effects could be mitigated to an acceptable level.

 Road maintenance in mountain plover habitat would not occur between April 1 and July 15 unless the road is 

surveyed prior to maintenance activities for plover presence and avoidance measures are implemented.

 The BLM would reduce or control non-native grasses to increase breeding habitat, and prescribed burning could 

be used to increase the availability of nesting habitat, particularly on lands where taller or non-native grasses 

occur.

 The BLM would promote integrated pest management practices that limit chemical applications in mountain 

plover habitat.

Piping Plover: The following management actions would apply to protect piping plover habitat and maintain regional 

piping plover populations:

 Piping plover habitat would include an NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing: surface occupancy and use 

would be prohibited within 1/4 mile of essential and critical habitat (Appendix E.4).

 Road maintenance in piping plover habitat would not occur between April 1 and July 31 unless the road is 

surveyed prior to maintenance activities for plover presence and avoidance measures are implemented.

Sprague’s Pipit: The following management actions would apply to protect Sprague’s pipit habitat:

 Sprague’s pipits would be protected through management actions for the Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse 

Priority Areas.

 A timing stipulation would apply to areas within Sprague’s pipit habitat: surface occupancy and use would be 

prohibited from April 15 through July 15 (Appendix E.4).

Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail

Conservation Groups Alternative

During the range-wide scoping effort for sage-grouse, several conservation organizations submitted scoping comments 

and proposed management actions and alternatives for sage-grouse conservation (referred to here as the Conservation 

Groups Alternative). In summary, the primary intent of these proposed alternatives and management actions was to: (1) 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail 171

add additional measures (beyond those conservation measures identified in the National Technical Team (NTT) report 

(disseminated by BLM WO-IM-2012-044)) in order to maintain and increase sage-grouse abundance; (2) designate two 

additional habitat types – Greater Sage-Grouse Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) and “restoration” 

habitat areas; and (3) expand NTT conservation measures to all occupied sage-grouse habitat.

These proposed actions and alternatives submitted by the conservation organizations were determined to have 

substantially similar effects to the actions and habitat areas considered within the range of alternatives identified above. 

As described in the Wildlife, Special Status Species section of Chapter 2, this Draft RMP/EIS delineates four types of 

sage-grouse habitat areas as part of the planning process, including: Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Areas; 

Greater Sage-Grouse Protection Priority Area, Greater Sage-Grouse Restoration Area, and General Greater Sage-Grouse 

Habitat Areas (see Map 2.17). Varying degrees of management are considered and analyzed as part of the range of 

alternatives within each of these habitat delineations in this Draft RMP/EIS in order to achieve the goals or objectives for 

each sage-grouse habitat area, as well as address the conservation measures and management practices to conserve 

greater sage-grouse consistent with the NTT report. Additionally, this Draft RMP/EIS includes Mitigation Measures and 

Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). The appendix identifies best practices, design features 

and proactive management activities to conserve greater sage-grouse that would be applied during project-specific 

activities through subsequent environmental review and analysis.

Specific to the organizations’ proposed alternative to designate sage-grouse ACECs and ‘restoration’ areas, this Draft 

RMP/EIS does include, within the range of alternatives for detailed study, a Greater Sage-Grouse Priorities Area ACEC 

and Greater Sage-Grouse Protection Priority Area ACEC (Alternative B), and a restoration area for greater sage-grouse 

(Alternative E). The Alternative Summary Table 2.21 provides a summary of the range of acreages for priority, general, 

and restoration habitat for greater sage-grouse and a summary of the range of alternatives (e.g., allowable uses, 

constraints, etc.). This range of alternatives is adequate to compare impacts to greater sage-grouse from different 

conservation measures as well as the size of habitat classifications.

In summary, the additional alternatives and actions proposed through the Conservation Groups Alternative were 

considered but eliminated from detailed study in this Draft RMP/EIS because the range of alternatives adequately 

addresses conservation measures for greater sage-grouse. For example, the alternatives range from open to fluid mineral 

leasing and right-of-way development, to a no-lease stipulation for new oil and gas development and exclusion areas for 

rights-of-way.

Master Leasing Plan

During preparation of the HiLine RMP, the BLM issued WO IM No. 2010-117 in May 2010, which introduced the 

Master Leasing Plan (MLP) concept. In July 2010, The Wilderness Society submitted a proposal for an MLP for an area 

called the Bitter Creek/Frenchman Breaks in northern Phillips and Valley Counties. 

The BLM reviewed this proposal and determined that the Bitter Creek/Frenchman Breaks did not meet all four of the 

criteria as required by WO IM No. 2010-117 and the proposal does not warrant preparation of an MLP (Appendix E.1). 

The preparation of an MLP is required when all four of the following criteria are met: (1) a substantial portion of the 

area is not currently leased; (2) a majority of the area has federal mineral interest; (3) the area has a moderate or high 

potential for oil and gas; and (4) additional analysis is needed to address likely impacts if oil and gas development were 

to occur. The MLP proposal for Bitter Creek/Frenchman Breaks only meets criteria (1) and (2).

 About 582,000 acres of federal minerals are within the proposed MLP. However, 61,000 acres are within the 

Bitter Creek WSA and are not available for oil and gas leasing. Currently, about 140,000 acres are leased, or 

24% of the federal minerals. A substantial portion of the area is not currently leased.

 The area submitted as a proposal includes about 1 million acres, including 582,000 acres of federal minerals. A 

majority of the area has federal mineral interest (56% of the area is federal minerals).

 The oil and gas industry has expressed some interest in leasing in the area. Some leasing has been deferred in 

the area pending completion of the HiLine RMP. None of the area is considered to have high development 

potential as defined in the reasonable foreseeable development scenario (Appendix E.1). About 2% of the area
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

172 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail

is considered to have moderate development potential. The remainder of the area is considered to have low to 

very low development potential. The southwestern portion of the area is within the Bowdoin Dome area, which 

was established in 1954. In the last 10 years, 47 wells have been drilled in the area of which 39 were drilled 

within the Bowdoin gas field. All 39 were completed as producing gas wells. The other 8 wells were drilled 

outside of the Bowdoin gas field, and all 8 were dry holes. Therefore, there is not a discovery outside of the 

Bowdoin Dome area.

 Oil and gas lease stipulations within the range of alternatives considered in the RMP address this area including 

those management actions for the Frenchman Creek ACEC, the grassland bird priority area, and crucial winter 

range. This planning process involves a great deal of information and analysis to illustrate the environmental 

consequences of oil and gas development. There is no identified need for additional analysis or information to 

address likely resource or cumulative impacts. 

No Bison Grazing

A no bison grazing alternative was considered but eliminated from detailed study because it does not meet the purpose 

and need for this Draft RMP/EIS.

Bison in private ownership are considered livestock, and as such can be permitted by the BLM (43 CFR 4130.3-2(e). 

The primary test in making this distinction is whether or not the owner of the animals qualifies as an applicant under the 

requirements of the grazing regulations. The grazing regulations define qualified applicants and apply equally to all 

qualified applicants, regardless of the class of livestock.

Privately owned bison may be authorized to graze under the regulations provided it is consistent with multiple use 

objectives. No scientifically and/or resource management based reason has been identified for why bison should not be 

permitted to graze BLM land. At the present time, there are no conflicts identified with other resource objectives if bison 

were permitted to graze. Implementation of a no bison grazing alternative is not considered reasonable or necessary. 

As with other classes of livestock, bison grazing may not be permitted where environmental review indicates conflict 

with resource objectives and attainment of Standards for Rangeland Health.

No Livestock Grazing/Reduced Grazing

Analyzing an Alternative that makes all Lands or a Reduction of Lands in the Planning Area 

Unavailable for Livestock Grazing (No Grazing / Reduced Grazing Alternative)

An alternative that proposes to make the entire HiLine Planning Area unavailable for livestock grazing would not meet 

the purpose and need of this Draft RMP/EIS. NEPA requires that agencies study, develop, and describe appropriate 

alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal that involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative 

uses of available resources. 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 (WO IM 2012-069). Where 

appropriate, removal of livestock and adjustments to livestock use have been incorporated in 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 public lands in RMPs, the 

analysis of an alternative to entirely eliminate grazing is not needed.

The HiLine RMP planning area is located in the northern portion of the Great Plains Ecoregion (EPA 2010a) and the 

rangelands in the planning area are classified as mixed-grass prairie. The 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).

From 1956 through 1972, the BLM conducted a classification of public lands to estimate the amount of available forage 

within the planning area. These are typically referred to as the “Missouri River Basin Surveys.” From this effort, 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail 173

multiple sub-basin reports were generated, which provided the carrying capacities by Animal Unit Months (AUMs) for 

all BLM-administered lands at the time of survey. 

The measurement of the available forage for livestock grazing was conducted by trained professionals and involved 

intensive vegetation sampling (clipping, weighing, and ocular estimation). The BLM, in cooperation with grazing 

advisory boards, used the information to make adjustments to the AUMs allocated to a grazing permit. This cooperative 

effort resulted in implementation of appropriate changes to grazing permits in the planning areas. These changes were 

implemented in a timely manner and completed prior to 1975. 

These historical grazing allocations have been included in the existing RMPs and allocation of vegetation generally 

ranges from 25% to 40% for livestock and 75% to 60% for other uses (e.g. wildlife, soil protection, etc.). 

In addition to the inherent role of large herbivore grazing in maintaining ecosystem health within the planning area, 

current resource conditions on BLM-administered land, including range vegetation, watershed, and wildlife 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. 

Livestock grazing is a well-established use within the BLM’s multiple-use mandate. The BLM considered but did not 

analyze in detail an alternative that would make all and/or a reduction of public lands within the planning area 

unavailable for livestock grazing, because such an alternative is not reasonable, viable, or necessary. 

During the planning process for this RMP, the BLM issued IM No. 2012-169, which governs alternative development 

with respect to livestock grazing in RMPs and their associated EISs. In accordance with that IM and BLM’s Land Use 

Planning Handbook, the BLM considered what range of alternatives was necessary to address unresolved conflicts 

among available resources. Although IM 2012-169 recognizes that RMPs will usually include one or more alternatives 

with a meaningful reduction in either lands available for grazing, forage amounts, or both, in the circumstances presented 

here such alternatives are not reasonable or necessary.

In particular, of the 969 allotments in the planning area that have been assessed, 907 meet the Standards for Rangeland 

Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota (BLM 1997a). 

For the 62 allotments not meeting one or more standard, past or present livestock uses were determined to be the cause 

on 27 allotments and in all cases corrective actions have been taken. All allotments within priority sage-grouse habitat 

are currently meeting Rangeland Health Standards. 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. 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, review of current range management science, input 

from livestock operators and interested parties, and ability to meet the Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines 

for Livestock Grazing Management (Appendix H).

Alternatives that included no grazing or reduced grazing were previously analyzed in detail in the Missouri Breaks 

Grazing Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 1979), the Prairie Potholes Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 

1982), and the national Rangeland Reform ’94 Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 1994b).

Livestock grazing is and has been an important use of the public lands in the planning area for many years and is a 

continuing government program. The CEQ guidelines for compliance with NEPA require that agencies analyze the “No 

Action Alternative” in all EISs (40 CFR 1502.14(d)). For the purposes of this NEPA analysis, the “no action 

alternative” is to continue the status quo, which includes livestock grazing. For this reason and those stated above, a no 

grazing alternative for the entire planning area was dismissed from further consideration in this Draft RMP/EIS.
Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

174 Comparison of Alternatives and Environmental Consequences

Comparison of Alternatives and Environmental Consequences

A summary comparison of all the alternatives discussed in Chapter 2 follows in Table 2.21. This table summarizes the 

major land use plan decisions including the allowable uses and actions described in Chapter 2 but does not include all the 

management actions included under each alternative. A summary comparison of the environmental consequences 

discussed in Chapter 4 also follows in Table 2.22. The summary tables provide a comparative form for defining the 

differences among the alternatives.

Sweet Grass Hills Photo by Craig Miller
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Summary Comparison of Alternatives 175

Table 2.21

Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Please note: This is a summary only and highlights the major differences between the alternatives in a comparative form.

The complete description of the alternatives including goals, objectives, and management actions can be found in Chapter 2.

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Air Resources

Air Quality Actions authorized on BLM land will comply with the Clean Air Act requirements, including the State of Montana Air Quality Implementation 

Plan, through the use of BMPs and the Air Resource Management Plan. Prescribed burns will be managed to comply with Montana DEQ smoke 

management rules and regulations.

Cultural Resources – Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP)

Little Rocky Mountains TCP (30,648 acres)

Oil and Gas Leasing NHPA requirements NSO NSO (5,936 acres)

Closed (32,166 acres)

Rights-of-Way (ROWs) Open Avoidance area

Wind Energy ROWs Open Exclusion area

Solid Minerals

Leasable

Locatable

Salable

Open

Open

Open

Closed

Withdrawn

Open

Closed

Open

Open

Closed

Open

Closed

Open (5,458 acres)

Closed (32,573 acres)

Open

Open (5,332 acres)

Closed (32,055 acres) 

Sweet Grass Hills TCP (7,718 acres)

Oil and Gas Leasing NSO Closed

Rights-of-Way (ROWs) Open Avoidance area

Wind Energy ROWs Open Exclusion area

Solid Minerals

Leasable

Locatable

Salable

Open

Withdrawn

Open

Closed

Withdrawn

Open

Closed

Open

Closed

Closed

Withdrawn

Closed

Fire Management and Ecology (Categories)

Category B 2,244,429 acres 395,092 acres 1,390,208 acres

Category C 193,046 acres 2,042,382 acres 1,047,266 acres
176 Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

Table 2.21

Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Please note: This is a summary only and highlights the major differences between the alternatives in a comparative form.

The complete description of the alternatives including goals, objectives, and management actions can be found in Chapter 2.

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Fish

Aquatic Habitats High value fisheries 

would be evaluated to 

determine the need for 

fencing to promote 

riparian vegetation.

New reservoirs would be analyzed for fish habitat potential. New and existing designated fishing reservoirs would be 

maintained and/or improved. All fishing reservoirs would be maintained as fisheries with MFWP concurrence. Fish 

stocking would be coordinated with MFWP. To the extent possible, roads would be located, designed and maintained 

to reduce sedimentation, identify and remove unnatural barriers, eliminate fish passage barriers, and maintain/restore 

riparian vegetation.

Fluid Minerals

Open to leasing:

NSO stipulation

282,062 acres (8%) 258,560 acres (7%) 1,291,160 acres (37%) 357,456 acres (10%) 1,711,378 acres (49%)

Open to leasing:

CSU/TLS stipulation

2,649,241 acres (76%) 3,291 acres (<1%) 1,681,990 acres (48%) 2,461,652 acres (71%) 1,460,097 acres (42%)

Open to leasing:

Standard lease terms

457,849 acres (13%) 55,962 acres (2%) 299,713 acres (9%) 597,668 acres (17%) 167,274 acres (5%)

Closed to leasing 102,298 acres (3%) 3,173,637 acres (91%) 218,586 acres (6%) 74,674 acres (2%) 152,702 acres (4%)

Forests and Woodlands

Forest Product Sales The ASQ would not 

exceed 350 MBF/year.

The PSQ would not exceed 650 MBF and 4,000 tons of biomass per year. Management of old growth stands would 

follow USFS overall guidance and direction.

Sweet Grass Hills ACEC Would not be available 

for sale of commercial 

wood products.

A full range of forest health treatments would be allowed, and could include sale of wood products. The ACEC would 

not be open for incidental personal use wood products.

Lands and Realty

Land Ownership Adjustment

Category 1 - Retention NA 609,978 acres 484,127 acres 332,283 acres 296,881 acres

Category 2 – Retention/ 

Limited Disposal

90,114 acres 1,813,668 acres 1,939,218 acres 2,074,881 acres 2,126,465 acres

Category 3 – Disposal 14,129 acres 14,129 acres 30,310 acres 14,129 acres

Access

Legal Public or Case-by-case basis as the need or opportunity arises. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Summary Comparison of Alternatives 177

Table 2.21

Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Please note: This is a summary only and highlights the major differences between the alternatives in a comparative form.

The complete description of the alternatives including goals, objectives, and management actions can be found in Chapter 2.

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Administrative Access Focus on areas with 

important resource 

values.

Focus on Category 1 and 2 lands where no legal public access exists or where additional access is necessary to meet 

management objectives.

Facilities

Recreation Sites, 

Administrative Sites, 

Buildings and 

Communication Towers

Recreation sites, administrative sites, buildings and communication towers will be maintained within Bureau standards to reduce deferred 

maintenance costs and meet public health and safety requirements. Comprehensive condition assessments will be conducted for all maintained 

facilities and maintenance actions would be implemented if necessary. These activities will be coordinated with other federal, state, and local 

government agencies, private landowners and the general public as needed. Existing and new facilities will be managed through FAMS. 

Rights-of-Way (Individual exclusion and avoidance areas are identified in Chapter 2, Table 2.6.) 

Corridors 1 corridor

(4 1/2 miles wide)

5 corridors

(1 mile wide)

5 corridors

(2 miles wide)

No designated

corridors

5 corridors

(1 mile wide)

Exclusion Areas 2 areas 4 areas 3 areas 2 areas 2 areas

Avoidance Areas 2 areas 15 areas 17 areas 13 areas 19 areas

Livestock Grazing

Lands Available for 

Livestock Grazing

Livestock will continue to be allocated approximately 386,600 AUMs of forage each year. Approximately 2,390,000 acres will be open to 

livestock grazing and 47,000 acres will be closed to livestock grazing except as needed for resource management. Actions consistent with 

achieving or maintaining the Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Montana, North Dakota, and 

South Dakota will continue to be incorporated into livestock grazing permits and leases and will apply to all livestock grazing activities.

Newly Acquired Lands Grazing allocations on 

newly acquired land 

would be based on 

management needs and 

objectives for the 

acquisition.

Newly acquired lands would be evaluated to determine if 

they should be designated as reserve common allotments, 

allocated for grazing, or designated as unavailable for 

livestock grazing in consideration of the management 

needs and objectives for the acquisition.

Newly acquired lands 

would be allocated for 

grazing.

Newly acquired lands 

would be evaluated to 

determine if they should 

be designated as reserve 

common allotments, 

allocated for grazing, or 

designated as unavailable 

for livestock grazing in 

consideration of the 

management needs and 

objectives for the 

acquisition.
178 Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

Table 2.21

Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Please note: This is a summary only and highlights the major differences between the alternatives in a comparative form.

The complete description of the alternatives including goals, objectives, and management actions can be found in Chapter 2.

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Grazing Preference 

Relinquishment/Reserve 

Common Allotments

NA Where grazing preference 

is relinquished or 

cancelled within the 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Protection Priority Area 

ACEC and/or the 

Grassland Bird/Greater 

Sage-Grouse Priority 

Areas ACEC, retirement 

of grazing privileges 

would be considered in a 

site-specific environmental analysis that 

addresses the potential 

impacts (both positive and 

negative) to greater sagegrouse. If the analysis 

does not support closing 

the allotment to grazing 

for the benefit of sagegrouse, the allotment 

would remain available 

for livestock grazing and 

would be designated as a 

reserve common 

allotment.

All allotments wholly 

located in the Grassland 

Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse 

Priority Areas ACEC or 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Protection Priority Area 

ACEC would be 

considered for retirement 

where the base property 

Where grazing preference 

is relinquished or cancelled 

allotments would remain 

available for livestock 

grazing and evaluated to 

determine if they should be 

designated as reserve 

common allotments or 

reassigned.

All allotments wholly 

located in the Grassland 

Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse 

Priority Areas or Greater 

Sage-Grouse Protection 

Priority Area habitat would 

be considered for 

retirement where the base 

property owner relinquishes 

their preference.

Where grazing preference 

is relinquished or 

cancelled allotments 

would be made available 

for qualified applicants.

Allotments within priority 

habitat areas for sagegrouse where grazing 

preference is relinquished 

or cancelled would be 

evaluated in a site-specific 

NEPA document to 

determine if they should 

be closed to grazing, 

designated as reserve 

common allotments, or 

reassigned.

All allotments wholly 

located in the Grassland 

Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse 

Priority Areas or Greater 

Sage-Grouse Protection 

Priority Area habitat 

would be considered for 

retirement where the base 

property owner 

relinquishes their 

preference.

Where grazing preference 

is relinquished or 

cancelled outside of 

priority sage-grouse 

habitat, allotments would 

remain in active use and 

available for livestock 

grazing. These allotments 

could be evaluated to 

determine if they should 

be designated as reserve 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Summary Comparison of Alternatives 179

Table 2.21

Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Please note: This is a summary only and highlights the major differences between the alternatives in a comparative form.

The complete description of the alternatives including goals, objectives, and management actions can be found in Chapter 2.

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

owner relinquishes their 

preference.

Allotments outside of 

priority sage-grouse 

habitat would remain 

available for livestock 

grazing and designated as 

reserve common 

allotments.

common allotments.

Yearling Factors Would be considered 

through individual AMPs.

Would not be considered. Would be considered within the framework outlined in Appendix I.

Noxious Weeds and Other Invasive Non-Native Species

Noxious Weeds Montana state and county designated noxious weeds will be managed according to current federal, state, and local weed management plans. BLM 

will continue cooperative agreements with state and county entities and will coordinate with other federal, state, and county agencies, weed 

management areas, and private landowners and organizations. Weed seed free forage will be used on BLM land.

Invasive Species Other resource programs would assist in invasive species management through project planning and program implementation, and would include 

integrating prevention measures in program activities to reduce the spread of invasive species and mitigation measures.

Pest Management Pest management including the use of pesticides is conducted on a case-by-case basis.

Off-Highway Vehicle Use and Travel and Transportation Management

OHV Area Designations

Open 124 acres 0 acres 0 acres 305 acres 165 acres

Limited 2,429,930 acres 2,429,971 acres 2,429,930 acres 2,437,169 acres 2,429,889 acres

Closed 7,419 acres 7,504 acres 7,544 acres 0 acres 7,419 acres

Travel Management Areas

High Priority 27,529 acres 1,515,503 acres 236,893 acres 236,893 acres 1,440,901 acres

Moderate Priority 694,735 acres 270,236 acres 1,262,260 acres 1,262,260 acres 121,440 acres

Low Priority 1,715,311 acres 651,735 acres 938,321 acres 938,321 acres 875,133 acres
180 Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

Table 2.21

Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Please note: This is a summary only and highlights the major differences between the alternatives in a comparative form.

The complete description of the alternatives including goals, objectives, and management actions can be found in Chapter 2.

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Travel and Transportation Management

Roads, Primitive Roads

and Trails

Roads, primitive roads and trails will be maintained in accordance with BLM policy, assigned maintenance intensities (Levels 0-5), consideration of 

resource issues, and available funding. Existing BLM roads will be managed through FAMS.

Paleontological Resources

Locations and 

Assessments

Identify and prioritize high probability paleontological locations for inventories and information attained will guide management decisions. 

Paleontological assessments will be completed for all projects proposed on federal lands to determine the need for further paleontological 

inventories.

Research and Education Develop a resource awareness program to enhance public appreciation of paleontological resource values. This includes coordination with 

permitted universities and museums. Paleontological research and education opportunities will be pursued for high priority areas.

Collection for Personal 

Use

The collection of petrified wood and invertebrate fossils for personal use will be allowed as limited by the regulations in areas not specifically 

closed.

Public Safety

Abandoned Mine Lands The closure of dangerous inactive and abandoned mine sites will be designed to reduce the risks to human health and safety, restore the 

environment, and protect geological and cultural resources. Reclamation will be implemented at the highest risk sites first. Where deemed 

appropriate, the BLM will restore severely impacted soils and watersheds as close as possible to pre-disturbed conditions that support productive 

plant communities and ensure properly functioning watersheds.

Hazard Class Dams Construction and maintenance priorities for hazard class dams will be in conformance with applicable laws and regulations, and BLM policy. 

Condition assessments and Emergency Action Planning will be performed as required by the latest version of the 9177 (Dam Safety) manual 

section and associated handbooks. The results of the condition assessments will be reviewed to determine the need for reconstruction, maintenance 

or disposal.

Hazardous Materials The BLM will comply with all federal environmental and safety laws and regulations governing storage, handling, and use of hazardous materials 

and governing disposal of hazardous waste. The BLM will also comply with state hazardous materials laws and regulations as required. The BLM 

will promote and support the appropriate use and recycling of hazardous materials in public facilities and on public land to prevent or minimize the 

generation and disposal of hazardous wastes.

Recreation

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classes

Primitive

Semi-Primitive

Nonmotorized

Motorized

0 acres

7,481 acres

91,872 acres

0 acres

7,566 acres

474,217 acres

0 acres

136,276 acres

187,503 acres

0 acres

0 acres

91,872 acres

0 acres

7,481 acres

102,586 acres
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Summary Comparison of Alternatives 181

Table 2.21

Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Please note: This is a summary only and highlights the major differences between the alternatives in a comparative form.

The complete description of the alternatives including goals, objectives, and management actions can be found in Chapter 2.

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Roaded

Natural

Modified

Rural

2,336,762 acres

125 acres

1,234 acres

1,916,104 acres

38,353 acres

1,234 acres

2,060,410 acres

52,051 acres

1,234 acres

2,095,626 acres

248,742 acres

1,234 acres

2,111,311 acres

214,861 acres

1,234 acres

Recreation Management Areas (RMAs)

Special RMAs

Extensive RMAs

Lands Not Designated

5 areas (1,307,741 acres)

3 areas (1,129,734 acres)

0 acres

0 acres

0 acres

2,437,474 acres

1 area (27,688 acres)

9 areas (61,800 acres)

2,347,986 acres

12 areas (97,088 acres)

2 areas (244 acres)

2,340,142 acres

2 areas (27,728 acres)

10 areas (69,405 acres)

2,340,341 acres

Recreation Sites Manage 70 existing 

recreation sites and 

facilities.

Manage 48 recreation sites and facilities. 24 existing

fishing reservoir recreation sites would not be managed as 

recreation sites due to poor habitat and/or insufficient 

water capacity. Reservoirs that lack water during dry 

periods would be considered for fish stocking in good

water years.

Manage 50 recreation sites 

and facilities. 24 existing 

fishing reservoir recreation 

sites would not be 

managed as recreation 

sites due to poor habitat 

and/or insufficient water 

capacity. Reservoirs that 

lack water during dry 

periods would be 

considered for fish 

stocking in good water 

years. In addition to the 

48 sites in Alternatives B 

and C, Timber Creek 

Ridge and Thirty Mile 

OHV would be managed 

as recreation areas.

Manage 49 recreation sites 

and facilities. 24 existing 

fishing reservoir recreation 

sites would not be 

managed as recreation 

sites due to poor habitat 

and/or insufficient water 

capacity. Reservoirs that 

lack water during dry 

periods would be 

considered for fish 

stocking in good water 

years. In addition to the 

48 sites in Alternatives B 

and C, Timber Creek 

Ridge would be managed 

as a recreation area.

Renewable Energy Resources

Wind Energy Rights-of-Way

Open Areas 2,248,336 acres 6,637 acres 106,182 acres 231,961 acres 33,119 acres

Avoidance Areas 0 acres 239,014 acres 821,335 acres 1,912,095 acres 885,661 acres

Exclusion Areas 189,138 acres 2,191,823 acres 1,509,958 acres 293,418 acres 1,518,695 acres
182 Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

Table 2.21

Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Please note: This is a summary only and highlights the major differences between the alternatives in a comparative form.

The complete description of the alternatives including goals, objectives, and management actions can be found in Chapter 2.

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Soil Resources

Surface-disturbing 

Activities

BLM will evaluate effects of proposed surface-disturbing activities using NRCS soil survey data/interpretations and/or through onsite investigation, 

and will apply mitigation measures/BMPs as necessary, relocate the activity to a more suitable soil type, or deny the authorization.

Authorized surface-disturbing activities will include plans for reclamation. Authorization could be denied in areas where erosion cannot be 

effectively controlled/mitigated and reclamation would likely be unsuccessful.

Solid Minerals

Leasable

Open 3,292,616 acres 1,701,587 acres 1,834,993 acres 3,125,459 acres 1,797,760 acres

Closed 76,477 acres 1,667,506 acres 1,534,100 acres 243,635 acres 1,571,333 acres

Locatable

Existing Withdrawals 4 areas (19,914 acres) 4 areas (20,058 acres) 4 areas (20,058 acres) 3 areas (387 acres) 4 areas (20,058 acres)

Recommended

Withdrawals

2 areas (1,991 acres) 9 areas (1,674,298 acres) 10 areas (1,539,290 acres) 8 areas (184,458 acres) 2 areas (24,692 acres)

Salable

Open 3,034,777 acres 1,529,973 acres 1,628,980 acres 2,866,657 acres 2,881,603 acres

Closed 74,506 acres 1,579,309 acres 1,480,302 acres 242,626 acres 227,679 acres

Special Designations – Existing ACECs

Azure Cave ACEC (141 acres)

Oil and Gas Leasing Closed

Rights-of-Way (ROWs) Avoidance area

Wind Energy ROWs Avoidance area Exclusion area

Solid Minerals

Leasable

Locatable

Salable

Open

Withdrawn

Open

Closed

Withdrawn

Closed
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Summary Comparison of Alternatives 183

Table 2.21

Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Please note: This is a summary only and highlights the major differences between the alternatives in a comparative form.

The complete description of the alternatives including goals, objectives, and management actions can be found in Chapter 2.

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Big Bend of the Milk River ACEC (1,972 acres)

Oil and Gas Leasing NSO

Rights-of-Way (ROWs) Avoidance area

Wind Energy ROWs Avoidance area Exclusion area

Solid Minerals

Leasable

Locatable

Salable

Closed

Recommend withdrawal

Open

Closed

Open

Open

Closed

Open

Closed

Bitter Creek ACEC (60,701 acres)

Oil and Gas Leasing Closed until an ACEC management plan is completed that would address leasing (60,717 acres).

Rights-of-Way (ROWs) Northern Border Corridor 

(4 1⁄2 mile width)

Northern Border Corridor 

(1 mile width)

Northern Border Corridor 

(2 mile width)

Avoidance area (no corridor)

Wind Energy ROWs Exclusion area

Solid Minerals

Leasable

Locatable

Salable

Closed

Open

Closed

Closed

Recommend withdrawal

Closed

Closed

Open

Closed

Kevin Rim ACEC (4,557 acres)

Oil and Gas Leasing NSO within 3 miles from 

active raptor nests

NSO

Rights-of-Way (ROWs) Avoidance area

Wind Energy ROWs Avoidance area Exclusion area

Solid Minerals

Leasable

Locatable

Salable

Open

Open

Open

Closed

Recommend withdrawal

Open

Closed

Recommend withdrawal

Closed

Closed

Open

Closed

Mountain Plover ACEC (24,762 acres)

Oil and Gas Leasing Timing April 1 to July 31 NSO Closed
184 Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

Table 2.21

Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Please note: This is a summary only and highlights the major differences between the alternatives in a comparative form.

The complete description of the alternatives including goals, objectives, and management actions can be found in Chapter 2.

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Rights-of-Way (ROWs) Avoidance area

Wind Energy ROWs Exclusion area

Solid Minerals

Leasable

Locatable

Salable

Open

Open

Open

Closed

Recommend withdrawal

Open

Closed

Recommend withdrawal

Closed

Prairie Dog Towns within the 7km Complex ACEC (16,392 acres)

Designation BLM would retain the 

ACEC (16,392 acres).

BLM would not retain the ACEC. Management of prairie dog habitat would be consistent with the Wildlife section of 

Chapter 2.

Sweet Grass Hills ACEC (7,419 acres)

Oil and Gas Leasing NSO Closed

Rights-of-Way (ROWs) Open Avoidance area

Wind Energy ROWs Open Exclusion area

OHV Use Closed Open Closed

Solid Minerals

Leasable

Locatable

Salable

Open

Withdrawn

Open

Closed

Withdrawn

Open

Closed

Open

Closed

Closed

Withdrawn

Open

Special Designations – Potential ACECs

Frenchman ACEC

Designation The area would not be designated an ACEC. Designate 42,020 acres Designate 63,482 acres Designate 42,020 acres

Oil and Gas Leasing NSO NSO NSO

Rights-of-Way (ROWs) Avoidance area Avoidance area Avoidance area

Wind Energy ROWs Exclusion area Exclusion area Exclusion area

Solid Minerals

Leasable

Locatable

Salable

Closed

Recommend withdrawal

Closed

Closed

Recommend withdrawal

Closed

Closed

Open

Closed
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Summary Comparison of Alternatives 185

Table 2.21

Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Please note: This is a summary only and highlights the major differences between the alternatives in a comparative form.

The complete description of the alternatives including goals, objectives, and management actions can be found in Chapter 2.

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Areas ACEC

Designation The areas would not be 

designated an ACEC.

Designate 461,220 acres.

Management would be the 

same as described for the 

Grassland Bird/Greater 

Sage-Grouse Priority Areas 

in the Wildlife Section.

The areas would not be designated an ACEC.

Oil and Gas Leasing Closed

Rights-of-Way (ROWs) Exclusion area

Wind Energy ROWs Exclusion area

Solid Minerals

Leasable

Locatable

Salable

Closed

Recommend withdrawal

Closed

Greater Sage-Grouse Protection Priority Area ACEC

Designation The area would not be 

designated an ACEC.

Designate 930,265 acres. 

Management would be the 

same as described for the 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Protection Priority Area in 

the Wildlife Section.

The area would not be designated an ACEC.

Oil and Gas Leasing Closed

Rights-of-Way (ROWs) Exclusion area

Wind Energy ROWs Exclusion area

Solid Minerals

Leasable

Locatable

Salable

Closed

Recommend withdrawal

Closed

Little Rocky Mountains ACEC

Designation The area would not be designated an ACEC. Designate 27,177 acres The area would not be 
186 Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

Table 2.21

Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Please note: This is a summary only and highlights the major differences between the alternatives in a comparative form.

The complete description of the alternatives including goals, objectives, and management actions can be found in Chapter 2.

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Oil and Gas Leasing NSO designated an ACEC.

Rights-of-Way (ROWs) Avoidance area

Wind Energy ROWs Exclusion area

Solid Minerals

Leasable

Locatable

Salable

Closed

Recommend partial 

withdrawal (15,000 acres)

Closed

Malta Geological ACEC

Designation The area would not be 

designated an ACEC.

Designate 6,153 acres Designate 6,153 acres

Oil and Gas Leasing CSU CSU

Rights-of-Way (ROWs) Avoidance area Avoidance area

Wind Energy ROWs Exclusion area Exclusion area

Solid Minerals

Leasable

Locatable

Salable

Closed

Recommend withdrawal

Closed

Closed

Open

Closed

Woody Island ACEC

Designation The area would not be designated an ACEC. Designate 22,411 acres Designate 32,869 acres

Oil and Gas Leasing NSO NSO

Rights-of-Way (ROWs) Avoidance area Avoidance area

Wind Energy ROWs Exclusion area Exclusion area

Solid Minerals

Leasable

Locatable

Salable

Closed

Recommend withdrawal

Closed

Closed

Open

Closed

Zortman/Landusky Mine Reclamation ACEC

Designation The area would not be Designate 3,609 acres The area would not be Designate 2,682 acres
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Summary Comparison of Alternatives 187

Table 2.21

Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Please note: This is a summary only and highlights the major differences between the alternatives in a comparative form.

The complete description of the alternatives including goals, objectives, and management actions can be found in Chapter 2.

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Oil and Gas Leasing designated an ACEC. NSO designated an ACEC. Closed

Rights-of-Way (ROWs) Avoidance area Avoidance area

Wind Energy ROWs Exclusion area Exclusion area

Solid Minerals

Leasable

Locatable

Salable

Closed

Recommend withdrawal

Closed

Closed

Consider withdrawal

Open for reclamation 

materials

National Historic Trails BLM will manage National Historic Trails consistent with laws and management plans.

Special Designations – Other

Wild and Scenic Rivers No segments would be 

recommended for 

inclusion in the National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System.

The 1/2 mile segment of 

the Marias River at the 

confluence of the Missouri 

River would be 

recommended as suitable. 

The 1/2 mile segment of the Marias River at the confluence of the Missouri River would 

be recommended as nonsuitable.

Wilderness Study Areas The Bitter Creek and Burnt Lodge WSAs will be managed according to the BLM Manual 6330-Management of BLM Wilderness Study Areas until 

such time as Congress acts upon the recommendations.

Vegetation – Rangeland

Rest Periods from 

Livestock Grazing 

A minimum rest period of 

2 growing seasons would 

be required after any 

major disturbance to 

vegetation communities.

Rest periods of less than 2 growing seasons may be desirable in some circumstances, and would be determined by sitespecific planning, monitoring and environmental review.

Sale of Grass Seed or 

Hay

May be authorized. Would not be authorized. May be authorized.

Water Developments In the Prairie Potholes 

area, one water source per 

section would be the 

guideline.

Installed and/or maintained to facilitate control of 

livestock use of vegetation, support other uses and 

protect resource values.

In the Prairie Potholes area, 

one water source per 

section would be the 

guideline.

Installed and/or maintained 

to facilitate control of 

livestock use of vegetation, 

support other uses and 

protect resource values.
188 Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

Table 2.21

Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Please note: This is a summary only and highlights the major differences between the alternatives in a comparative form.

The complete description of the alternatives including goals, objectives, and management actions can be found in Chapter 2.

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternate water 

developments would be 

considered before 

constructing reservoirs 

greater than 5 acre feet in 

soil subgroups 3 and 4.

Alternative water developments would be emphasized 

before constructing new pits and reservoirs.

Alternate water 

developments would be 

considered before 

constructing reservoirs 

greater than 5 acre feet in 

highly erodible soils with 

high siltation rates.

Alternative water 

developments would be 

emphasized before 

constructing new pits and 

reservoirs.

Land Treatments Additional forage would 

normally be allocated 

75% to watershed and 

25% to livestock.

Increased production would be allocated toward accomplishing multiple-use objectives. Additional forage resulting 

from land treatments could be temporarily allocated 75% to watershed and wildlife, and 25% to livestock.

Where there is substantial 

contribution by the 

livestock permittee and 

no conflicts with wildlife 

objectives, up to 50% of 

the additional vegetation 

may be allocated to 

livestock.

Where there is substantial contribution by the livestock permittee and no conflicts with wildlife objectives, up to 50% 

of the additional vegetation may be temporarily allocated to livestock.

Outside greater sage-grouse priority habitats, land treatments would be used to achieve and maintain fire regimes, and 

watershed, grazing management, and wildlife objectives.

Only treatments that 

conserve, enhance or 

restore greater sagegrouse and/or grassland 

bird habitat would be 

allowed in the Greater 

Sage-Grouse Protection 

Priority Area ACEC and 

the Grassland 

Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse 

Priority Areas ACEC.

Within the Greater SageGrouse Protection Priority 

Area and the Grassland 

Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse 

Priority Areas, only 

treatments that conserve,

enhance or restore greater 

sage-grouse habitat would 

be allowed.

Within the Greater SageGrouse Protection Priority 

Area and the Grassland 

Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse 

Priority Areas, treatments 

that conserve, enhance or 

restore greater sage-grouse 

habitat would be allowed 

as well as treatments that 

benefit other resources and 

do not adversely affect 

greater sage-grouse or 

their habitat.

Crested Wheatgrass 

Seedings

Manage existing crested 

wheatgrass seedings 

where feasible as spring 

use pastures to defer 

native rangeland grazing, 

Evaluate crested 

wheatgrass seedings 

emphasizing conversion to 

native species on a caseby-case basis.

Manage existing crested wheatgrass seedings where feasible as spring use pastures to 

defer native rangeland grazing. Seedings would be maintained for maximum livestock 

forage production with up to 70% of the production allocated to livestock when soils are 

stabilized to a satisfactory condition. Additional seedings may be used to consolidate 

existing scattered stands into manageable units.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Summary Comparison of Alternatives 189

Table 2.21

Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Please note: This is a summary only and highlights the major differences between the alternatives in a comparative form.

The complete description of the alternatives including goals, objectives, and management actions can be found in Chapter 2.

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

except where sagebrush 

invasion has resulted in 

important wildlife habitat.

Where native restoration of old crested wheatgrass seedings is considered, farming and herbicide use could be 

authorized for up to three years in order to help destroy the old seed bank and improve the success of the native 

seeding.

Rehabilitation of Surface 

Disturbance 

Rehabilitate surface 

disturbances greater than 

1/4 acre.

Reclaim surface disturbances greater than 1/10 acre. Range improvement pits and reservoirs would be excluded until 

abandonment.

Vegetation – Riparian and Wetland

Range Improvements/

Water Facilities

Range improvements 

would be built to support 

AMPs.

Alternate water facilities 

would be installed to 

relieve grazing impacts on 

riparian areas inside of 

priority sage-grouse 

habitat.

Alternate water facilities would be installed to relieve 

grazing impacts on riparian areas.

Alternate water facilities 

would be installed to 

relieve grazing impacts on 

riparian areas inside of 

priority sage-grouse 

habitat.

Hot Season Grazing No restrictions. Grazing techniques and 

practices would be 

implemented to reduce hot 

season (summer) grazing 

on riparian and meadow 

complexes within the 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Protection Priority ACEC 

and the Grassland 

Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse 

Priority Areas ACEC.

No restrictions. Grazing techniques and 

practices would be 

implemented to reduce hot 

season (summer) grazing 

on riparian and meadow 

complexes within the 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Protection Priority Area 

and the Grassland 

Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse 

Priority Areas.

Saline Seeps Saline seeps would be 

evaluated on an 

individual basis to assess 

the cause, understand the 

purview, and determine 

how the seeps should be 

managed.

Saline seeps that occur as a result of surface-disturbing activities would be prioritized and reclaimed. Surfacedisturbing activities with the potential for producing seep areas would be designed with mitigation measures to 

minimize development of saline seeps.

Riparian Exclosures Riparian exclosures 

would be monitored and

Riparian exclosures would be maintained, monitored, evaluated and/or modified for their intended purpose. If they no 

longer serve a resource management purpose they would be removed.
190 Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

Table 2.21

Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Please note: This is a summary only and highlights the major differences between the alternatives in a comparative form.

The complete description of the alternatives including goals, objectives, and management actions can be found in Chapter 2.

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

evaluated for future 

removal.

Pits/Wetlands NA No pits would be placed 

in natural wetlands and in 

some cases pits may be 

filled in to improve 

wildlife habitat in natural 

wetlands.

NA No pits would be placed in 

natural wetlands and in 

some cases pits may be 

filled in to improve 

wildlife habitat in natural 

wetlands. 

Vegetation – Special Status Plants

Inventory BLM lands to determine which BLM special status plant species occur on public lands, the condition of the plant populations and their 

habitats, and how discretionary BLM actions affect those plant species and their habitats. 

Site-specific prescriptions may include avoidance of special status plant habitat for ROWs, seasonal timing restrictions for grazing (e.g., limited to 

no grazing during flowering to seed set for a particular species), no salt or water placement within 0.25 miles of a known special status plant species 

population, seed collection or transplanting of special status plant species for mitigation.

Visual Resources

Class I 0 acres 90,032 acres 74,506 acres 74,506 acres 74,506 acres

Class II 417,334 acres 977,396 acres 914,197 acres 127,439 acres 841,087 acres

Class III 58,213 acres 498,298 acres 521,322 acres 584,113 acres 521,868 acres

Class IV 1,961,928 acres 871,748 acres 927,449 acres 1,651,416 acres 1,000,013 acres

Water Resources

Watershed Control 

Structures

Maintain some of the 

Willow Creek Basin 

watershed control 

structures in south Valley 

County for wildlife, 

riparian and access values.

Watershed control structures would be maintained on a case-by-case basis to meet 

Standards for Rangeland Health.

Watershed control 

structures would be 

maintained on a case-bycase basis to meet 

Standards for Rangeland 

Health or public safety 

concerns.

New Reservoirs New reservoirs would be 

evaluated on a case-byNew reservoirs would not be built where water 

NA New reservoirs would be 

considered on a site-
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Summary Comparison of Alternatives 191

Table 2.21

Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Please note: This is a summary only and highlights the major differences between the alternatives in a comparative form.

The complete description of the alternatives including goals, objectives, and management actions can be found in Chapter 2.

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

case basis through the 

environmental review 

process.

would inundate highly 

productive riparian areas 

and areas of important 

wildlife habitat, such as 

buffaloberry thickets.

specific basis through 

activity planning and 

would consider livestock 

grazing practices, 

important wildlife habitat, 

alternate water sources, 

and the opportunity to 

replace or repair existing 

reservoirs.

Produced Water NA Encourage oil and gas 

operators to develop and 

implement methods that 

treat produced water and 

enable its beneficial use.

Avoid the discharge of 

produced water from 

point sources to BLM 

land, including stream 

channels and uplands, as a 

means of disposal.

NA Avoid the discharge of 

produced water from point 

sources to BLM land, 

including stream channels 

and uplands, as a means of 

disposal.

Wilderness Characteristics

Areas Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics As a Priority Over Other Resource Values and Multiple Uses

(See Chapter 2, Table 2.20 for more detailed information.)

Number NA 26 acres 12 areas 0 2 areas

Acres NA 386,428 acres 228,395 acres 0 10,714 acres

Acres Managed to Emphasize Other Resource Values and Multiple Uses While Applying Management Restrictions to Reduce Impacts to Wilderness Characteristics

(See Chapter 2, Table 2.20 for more detailed information.)

Acres NA 0 75,327 acres 0 290,865 acres

Acres Managed to Emphasize Other Resource Values and Multiple Uses As a Priority Over Protecting Wilderness Characteristics

(See Chapter 2, Table 2.20 for more detailed information.)

Acres NA 0 82,706 acres 386,428 acres 84,849 acres

Wildlife

General Wildlife The BLM will provide ecological conditions that support wildlife species over the long term and promote maintenance and recovery of federally 

listed species and BLM sensitive species. The planning area provides for the range of habitat requirements for species by managing for the broad 

level ecosystem desired conditions.
192 Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

Table 2.21

Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Please note: This is a summary only and highlights the major differences between the alternatives in a comparative form.

The complete description of the alternatives including goals, objectives, and management actions can be found in Chapter 2.

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Mitigation Measures The BLM will apply appropriate mitigation measures and conservation actions to BLM-authorized activities to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or 

compensate for impacts if an evaluation of the project area indicates the presence of important wildlife species, seasonal wildlife habitat, or other 

resource concerns.

Mitigation of surface-disturbing or disruptive activities will be applied where needed to minimize impacts of human activities on important seasonal 

wildlife habitats consistent with the oil and gas leasing stipulations. Mitigation measures will be applied on a case-by-case basis during activity 

level planning if an evaluation of the project area indicates the presence of important wildlife species. Exceptions may be granted by the authorized 

officer if an environmental review demonstrates that effects could be mitigated to an acceptable level, habitat for the species is not present 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 (e.g., prescribed fire or forest health treatments).

Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations

Bald Eagle NSO - 1/4 mile from 

identified essential 

habitat of state and 

federal sensitive species.

Closed to leasing within 1/2 

mile of bald eagle nest sites 

and winter roost sites active 

within the last 7 years.

NSO within 1/4 mile of 

bald eagle nest sites active 

within the last 7 years.

TLS – Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited within 

1/2 mile of bald eagle nest 

sites active within the last 

7 years, from January 1 

through August 31.

NSO within 1/2 mile of 

bald eagle nest sites active 

within the preceding 

5 breeding seasons.

Bighorn Sheep Lambing Standard lease terms 

only (200 meters and 

60 days).

Closed to leasing. NSO TLS - Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited within 

bighorn sheep lambing 

areas from May 1 through

June 30.

NSO

Bighorn Sheep Range Standard lease terms 

only (200 meters and 

60 days).

Closed to leasing. CSU - Surface-disturbing 

or disruptive activities 

within bighorn sheep 

range would require a plan 

to avoid or minimize 

habitat loss from direct 

and indirect impacts. The 

plan would be approved 

by the authorized officer.

Standard lease terms only 

(200 meters and 60 days).

CSU - Prior to surfacedisturbing or disruptive 

activities a plan to 

maintain bighorn sheep 

habitat would be prepared 

by the proponent and 

implemented upon 

approval by the authorized 

officer.

Black-footed Ferret NSO - 1/4 mile from 

identified essential 

habitat of state and 

Closed to leasing within 1/2 

mile of black-footed ferret 

habitat.

NSO within 1/4 mile of 

black-footed ferret habitat.

NSO within black-footed 

ferret habitat.

NSO within 1/4 mile of 

black-footed ferret habitat.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Summary Comparison of Alternatives 193

Table 2.21

Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Please note: This is a summary only and highlights the major differences between the alternatives in a comparative form.

The complete description of the alternatives including goals, objectives, and management actions can be found in Chapter 2.

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

federal sensitive species.

Black-tailed Prairie Dog NSO - 1/4 mile from 

identified essential 

habitat of state and 

federal sensitive species.

Closed to leasing within 1/2 

mile of black-tailed prairie 

dog habitat.

NSO within 1/4 mile of 

black-tailed prairie dog 

habitat. 

NSO within black-tailed 

prairie dog habitat.

NSO within 1/4 mile of 

black-tailed prairie dog 

habitat.

Colonial Waterbirds 

(Surface Occupancy)

NSO within 1/4 mile of a 

waterbird nesting 

colony.

Closed to leasing within 1/2 

mile of a waterbird nesting 

colony.

NSO within 1/2 mile of a 

waterbird nesting colony.

NSO within 1/4 mile of a waterbird nesting colony.

Colonial Waterbirds 

(Timing Limits)

Standard lease terms 

only (200 meters and 

60 days).

TLS - Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 

1 mile of a waterbird nesting colony from April 1 through

July 15.

TLS - Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 

1/2 mile of a waterbird nesting colony from April 1 

through July 15.

Crucial Winter Range 

(antelope, elk, mule deer)

TLS - December 1 to 

May 15.

Closed to leasing. NSO - Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited in 

crucial winter range.

CSU - Surface-disturbing 

or disruptive activities 

within crucial winter range 

would require a plan to 

maintain functionality of 

habitat and avoid or 

minimize habitat loss. This 

plan would limit the 

number of disturbed areas 

(well pads) within crucial 

winter range to less than 

2 well disturbances per 640 

acres of crucial winter 

range. The plan would be 

approved by the authorized 

officer.

CSU - Prior to surfacedisturbing or disruptive 

activities a plan to 

maintain functionality of 

crucial winter range for

big game and/or greater 

sage-grouse will be 

prepared by the proponent 

and implemented upon 

approval by the authorized 

officer. Surfacedisturbing or disruptive 

activities would be 

restricted or prohibited 

within 0.6 miles from any 

existing surface-disturbing 

or disruptive activity. 

Elk Calving Grounds TLS - May 1 to June 30. Closed to leasing. Standard lease terms only (200 meters and 60 days).

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7 Consultation

The BLM may recommend modifications to or disapprove a proposed activity that would contribute to a need to list plants, animals, or their 

habitats determined to be threatened, endangered, or other special status species, or that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed 

or listed species or its habitat (Washington Office IM No. 2002-174).
194 Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

Table 2.21

Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Please note: This is a summary only and highlights the major differences between the alternatives in a comparative form.

The complete description of the alternatives including goals, objectives, and management actions can be found in Chapter 2.

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Grassland Bird/Greater 

Sage-Grouse Priority 

Areas

Appropriate resource 

stipulations.

Closed to leasing within the 

proposed ACEC. 

CSU - Prior to surfacedisturbing or disruptive 

activities a plan to 

maintain functionality of 

grassland bird/greater 

sage-grouse habitat would

be prepared by the 

proponent and 

implemented upon 

approval by the authorized 

officer. Surfacedisturbing or disruptive 

activities would be 

restricted or prohibited 

within 0.6 miles from any 

existing surface-disturbing 

or disruptive activity.

Appropriate resource 

stipulations.

NSO.

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Leks (General Habitat)

NSO - 1/4 mile from 

identified essential

habitat of state and 

federal sensitive species.

Closed to leasing within 

2 miles of a sage-grouse 

lek.

NSO within 1 mile of a 

sage-grouse lek.

NSO within 0.6 miles of a 

sage-grouse lek.

NSO within 1 mile of a 

sage-grouse lek.

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Nesting Habitat (General 

Habitat)

TLS - Avoid nesting 

areas March 1 to 

June 15.

Closed to leasing. CSU - Surface-disturbing 

or disruptive activities 

would require specific 

actions to prevent or 

minimize disturbance to 

sage-grouse or their 

habitat outside of the 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Protection Priority Area.

TLS - Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited within 

1 mile of leks from 

March 1 through June 15.

CSU - Surface-disturbing 

or disruptive activities 

may be restricted or 

prohibited. Prior to such 

activities a plan to 

maintain functionality of 

greater sage-grouse habitat 

will be prepared by the 

proponent and 

implemented upon 

approval by the authorized 

officer.

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Protection Priority Area

Appropriate resource 

stipulations.

Closed to leasing within the 

proposed ACEC. 

CSU - Prior to surfacedisturbing or disruptive Appropriate resource 

stipulations.

NSO.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Summary Comparison of Alternatives 195

Table 2.21

Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Please note: This is a summary only and highlights the major differences between the alternatives in a comparative form.

The complete description of the alternatives including goals, objectives, and management actions can be found in Chapter 2.

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

activities a plan to 

maintain functionality of 

greater sage-grouse 

habitat will be prepared by 

the proponent and 

implemented upon 

approval by the authorized 

officer. Surfacedisturbing or disruptive 

activities would be 

restricted or prohibited 

within 0.6 miles from any 

existing surface-disturbing 

or disruptive activity.

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Winter Range

TLS - December 1 to 

May 15.

Closed to leasing. TLS – Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited 

within winter range from 

December 1 through 

May 15.

TLS - Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 

winter range from December 1 through March 31.

Interior Least Tern NSO - 1/4 mile from 

identified essential 

habitat of state and 

federal sensitive species.

Closed to leasing within 1/2 

mile of interior least tern 

occupied habitat.

NSO within 1/2 mile of 

interior least tern occupied 

habitat.

NSO within 1/4 mile of interior least tern occupied 

habitat.

Mountain Plover 

(Surface Occupancy)

NSO - 1/4 mile from 

identified essential 

habitat of state and 

federal sensitive species.

Closed to leasing within 1/4 

mile of mountain plover 

habitat.

NSO within mountain plover habitat.

Mountain Plover (Timing 

Limit)

Standard lease terms 

only (200 meters and 

60 days).

TLS - Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited within 

1/2 mile of mountain plover 

habitat from April 1 

through July 31.

TLS - Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited 

within 1/4 mile of 

mountain plover habitat 

from April 1 through 

July 31.

Standard lease terms only 

(200 meters and 60 days).

TLS - Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited 

within 1/4 mile of 

mountain plover habitat 

from April 1 through 

July 15.

Pallid Sturgeon Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation.
196 Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

Table 2.21

Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Please note: This is a summary only and highlights the major differences between the alternatives in a comparative form.

The complete description of the alternatives including goals, objectives, and management actions can be found in Chapter 2.

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

CSU - Prior to surfacedisturbing or disruptive 

activities occurring in or 

within 1/2 mile of river or 

stream shorelines 

identified as pallid 

sturgeon habitat, a plan to 

maintain pallid sturgeon 

habitat would be prepared 

by the proponent and 

implemented upon 

approval by the authorized 

officer.

Peregrine Falcon NSO - 1/4 mile from 

identified essential 

habitat of state and 

federal sensitive species.

Closed to leasing within 1/2 

mile of peregrine falcon 

nests active within the past 

7 years.

NSO within 1/4 mile of 

peregrine falcon nests 

active within the past 

7 years.

CSU – Surface-disturbing or 

disruptive activities within 

1/4 mile of peregrine falcon 

nests active within the past 

7 years would require a plan 

to maintain the functionality 

of the nest, avoid or 

minimize habitat loss, and 

minimize disturbances to 

peregrine falcons.

NSO within 1 mile of 

peregrine falcon nests 

active within the 

preceding 7 breeding 

seasons.

Piping Plover NSO - 1/4 mile from 

identified essential 

habitat of state and 

federal sensitive species.

Closed to leasing within 1/2 

mile of piping plover 

habitat.

NSO within 1/4 mile of 

piping plover habitat.

TLS – Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited within 

1/4 mile of piping plover 

habitat from May 15 

through July 31.

NSO within 1/4 mile of 

piping plover habitat.

Raptors NSO - 1/4 mile from 

identified essential 

habitat of state and 

federal sensitive species.

Various stipulations (see 

Table 2.3 in Chapter 2 

Closed to leasing within 1/2 

mile of raptor nests active 

within the past 7 years.

NSO within 1/4 mile of 

raptor nests active within 

the past 7 years.

CSU – Surface-disturbing 

or disruptive activities 

within 1/4 mile of raptor 

nests active within the past 

7 years would require a 

plan to maintain the 

functionality of the nest, 

NSO within 1/4 mile of 

raptor nests active within 

the past 7 years.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Summary Comparison of Alternatives 197

Table 2.21

Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Please note: This is a summary only and highlights the major differences between the alternatives in a comparative form.

The complete description of the alternatives including goals, objectives, and management actions can be found in Chapter 2.

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

for specifics). avoid or minimize habitat 

loss, and minimize 

disturbances to raptors.

Raptors (Timing Limits) NSO - 1/4 mile from 

identified essential 

habitat of state and 

federal sensitive species.

TLS - Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited from 

March 1 through 

September 1 within 1 mile 

of active raptor nest sites.

TLS - Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited from 

March 1 through July 31 

within 1/2 mile of active 

raptor nest sites.

TLS - Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited from 

March 1 through July 31 

within 1/4 mile of active 

raptor nest sites.

TLS - Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited from 

March 1 through July 31 

within 1/2 mile of active 

raptor nest sites.

Sharp-tailed Grouse 

(leks)

NSO - 500 feet from 

strutting grounds.

Closed to leasing within 1/2 

mile of sharp-tailed grouse 

leks.

NSO within 1/4 mile of 

sharp-tailed grouse leks.

CSU – Surface-disturbing 

or disruptive activities 

within 1/4 mile of sharptailed grouse leks would 

require a plan to maintain 

the functionality of the lek, 

avoid or minimize habitat 

loss, and minimize 

disturbances to sharp-tailed 

grouse. 

NSO within 1/4 mile of 

sharp-tailed grouse leks.

Sharp-tailed Grouse 

(nesting habitat)

TLS - March 1 to 

June 30 within 500 feet 

of a sharp-tailed grouse 

nest.

TLS - Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited from 

March 15 through June 30 

within 1 mile of sharptailed grouse leks. 

TLS - Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited from 

March 15 through June 30 

within 1/2 mile of sharptailed grouse leks.

TLS - Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited from 

March 15 through 

June 30 within 1/4 mile of 

sharp-tailed grouse leks.

TLS - Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited from 

March 15 through June 30 

within 1/2 mile of sharptailed grouse leks.

Special Status Species NSO - 1/4 mile from 

identified essential 

habitat of state and 

federal sensitive species.

NSO within 1/4 mile of essential habitat of special status species unless other speciesspecific stipulations apply.CSU - BLM may 

recommend modifications 

to exploration and 

development proposals to 

further its conservation 

and management objective 

to avoid activities that 

would contribute to a need 

to list such a species or 

their habitat.

Sprague’s Pipit Standard lease terms Closed to leasing within Standard lease terms only (200 meters and 60 days). TLS – Surface occupancy 
198 Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

Table 2.21

Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Please note: This is a summary only and highlights the major differences between the alternatives in a comparative form.

The complete description of the alternatives including goals, objectives, and management actions can be found in Chapter 2.

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

only (200 meters and 60 

days).

Sprague’s pipit habitat. and use is prohibited from 

April 15 through July 15 

in Sprague’s pipit habitat.

Swift Fox (Lonesome 

Lake)

CSU - 1/2 mile from 

swift fox dens.

Standard lease terms only (200 meters and 60 days).

Winter Range (antelope, 

elk, mule deer)

TLS - December 1 to 

May 15.

Closed to leasing. TLS – Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited 

within winter range from 

December 1 through 

May 15.

TLS - Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited within 

winter range from 

December 1 through 

March 31.

TLS - Surface occupancy 

and use is prohibited 

within winter range from 

December 1 through 

May 15.

Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Areas

Priority Areas NA – priority areas are 

not identified under this 

alternative.

4 areas (461,220 acres) 

managed as one ACEC.

2 areas (298,772 acres) NA – priority areas are not 

identified under this 

alternative.

2 areas (298,772 acres)

Fluid Minerals Closed CSU NSO

Rights-of-Way (ROWs) Exclusion area Avoidance area Avoidance area

Wind Energy ROWs Exclusion area Exclusion area Exclusion area

Solid Minerals

Locatable

Leasable

Salable

Recommend Withdrawal

Closed

Closed to new permits

Recommend Withdrawal

Closed

Closed

Open

Closed

Open

Greater-Sage-Grouse Protection Priority Area

Protection Priority Areas NA – protection priority 

areas are not identified 

under this alternative.

1 area (930,265 acres) 

managed as an ACEC.

1 area (930,265 acres) NA – protection priority 

areas are not identified 

under this alternative.

1 area (930,265 acres)

Fluid Minerals Closed CSU NSO

Rights-of-Way (ROWs) Exclusion area Avoidance area Avoidance area

Wind Energy ROWs Exclusion area Exclusion area Exclusion area

Solid Minerals

Locatable

Leasable

Salable

Recommend Withdrawal

Closed

Closed to new permits

Recommend Withdrawal

Closed

Closed

Open

Closed

Open
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences 199

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

Air Resources

Criteria Air Pollutants 

and Volatile Organic 

Compounds 

4,409 tons/year, of which 

3,058 tons (69%) would 

be from oil and gas 

activities.

2,518 tons/year, of which 

1,072 tons (43%) would 

be from oil and gas 

activities.

4,319 tons/year, of which 

2,873 tons (67%) would 

be from oil and gas 

activities.

4,542 tons/year, of which 

3,096 tons (68%) would 

be from oil and gas 

activities.

4,082 tons/year, of which 

2,635 tons (65%) would 

be from oil and gas 

activities.

Greenhouse Gases 521,277 tons/year, of 

which 164,221 tons (32%) 

would be from oil and gas 

activities.

411,559 tons/year, of 

which 54,507 tons (13%) 

would be from oil and gas 

activities.

510,929 tons/year, of 

which 153,877 tons (30%) 

would be from oil and gas 

activities.

523,531 tons/year, of 

which 166,479 tons (32%) 

would be from oil and gas 

activities.

497,848 tons/year, of 

which 140,796 tons (28%) 

would be from oil and gas 

activities.

Cultural Resources

Fluid Minerals 102,298 acres would be 

closed to leasing, 

including 27,768 acres in 

the Little Rocky 

Mountains TCP. 

An NSO stipulation would 

be placed on 282,062

acres, including Big Bend 

of the Milk River ACEC 

(1,979 acres); Kevin Rim 

ACEC (4,564 acres); and 

Sweet Grass Hills ACEC 

(6,248 acres). 

Remaining area available 

for leasing (3,107,090 

acres) would require 

mitigation through Section 

106 of NHPA.

3,173,637 acres would be 

closed to leasing, 

including 40 acres near 

the Bear Paw Battlefield.

An NSO stipulation would 

be placed on 258,560

acres, including Big Bend 

of the Milk River ACEC 

(1,979 acres); Kevin Rim 

ACEC (4,564 acres); 

Sweet Grass Hills TCP 

(21,275 acres); Little 

Rocky Mountains TCP 

(38,102 acres); and 

National Register eligible 

properties (1,497 acres).

Remaining area available 

for leasing (59,253 acres) 

would require mitigation 

through Section 106 of 

NHPA.

218,586 acres would be 

closed to leasing, 

including 40 acres near 

the Bear Paw Battlefield.

An NSO stipulation would 

be placed on 1,291,160

acres, including Big Bend 

of the Milk River ACEC 

(1,979 acres); Kevin Rim 

ACEC (4,564 acres); 

Sweet Grass Hills TCP 

(21,275 acres); Little 

Rocky Mountains TCP 

(38,102 acres); and 

National Register eligible 

properties (1,497 acres).

Remaining area available 

for leasing (1,981,704

acres) would require

mitigation through 

Section 106 of NHPA.

74,674 acres would be 

closed to leasing.

An NSO stipulation would 

be placed on 357,456

acres, including Big Bend 

of the Milk River ACEC 

(1,979 acres); Kevin Rim 

ACEC (4,564 acres); 

Sweet Grass Hills TCP 

(21,275 acres); Little 

Rocky Mountains TCP 

(38,102 acres); and 

National Register eligible 

properties (1,497 acres).

Remaining area available 

for leasing (3,059,320

acres) would require 

mitigation through 

Section 106 of NHPA.

152,702 acres would be 

closed to leasing,

including 21,275 acres in 

the Sweet Grass Hills 

TCP and 32,166 acres in 

higher elevations of the 

Little Rocky Mountains 

TCP.

An NSO stipulation would 

be placed on 1,711,378

acres, including Big Bend 

of the Milk River ACEC 

(1,979 acres); Kevin Rim 

ACEC (4,564 acres); 

remaining lower 

elevations of the Little 

Rocky Mountains TCP 

(5,936 acres); National 

Register eligible 

properties (1,497 acres); 

and 40 acres near the Bear 

Paw Battlefield.
200 Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

Remaining area available 

for leasing (1,627,370

acres) would require

mitigation through 

Section 106 of NHPA.

Renewable Energy No special protection for 

11,590 acres of National 

Register eligible sites in 

high potential areas except 

mitigation under Section 

106 of the NHPA.

ACECs and TCPs would be better protected as exclusion areas for wind energy rights-of-way. 

No special protection for 11,590 acres of National Register eligible sites in high potential areas except mitigation 

under Section 106 of the NHPA.

Solid Minerals Upon expiration of the 

Zortman/Landusky 

withdrawal in 2015 

mining development could 

occur which could have 

indirect impacts to the 

viewshed and create 

unwanted noise for 

traditionalists using the 

surrounding areas.

If the Sweet Grass Hills 

withdrawal is not renewed 

in 2017, mining 

development could occur 

which would indirectly 

affect the visual landscape 

and could directly affect 

sacred sites.

Adverse effects to cultural 

resources from salable 

The Sweet Grass Hills and 

Little Rocky Mountains 

TCPs would be 

recommended for 

withdrawal from mineral 

entry for an additional 20 

years, which would 

provide maximum 

beneficial effects for 

archaeological sites and 

traditional uses.

The Big Bend of the Milk 

River and Kevin Rim 

ACECs would be 

withdrawn from mineral 

entry for 20 years, which 

would protect the historic 

properties and traditional 

users of the areas would 

have no visual or audio 

disturbance from mining 

The Sweet Grass Hills

TCP would be 

recommended for 

withdrawal from mineral 

entry for an additional 20 

years, which would 

provide maximum 

beneficial effects for 

archaeological sites and 

traditional uses.

The Little Rocky 

Mountains TCP would be 

closed to leasable and 

salable solid minerals, 

which would benefit 

cultural resources. 

Adverse effects to cultural 

resources from salable 

minerals would be 

mitigated through Section 

Upon expiration of the 

Zortman/Landusky 

withdrawal in 2015 

mining development 

could occur which could 

have indirect impacts to 

the viewshed and create 

unwanted noise for 

traditionalists using the 

surrounding areas.

Upon expiration of the 

Sweet Grass Hills 

withdrawal in 2017 

mining development 

could occur which would 

indirectly affect the visual 

landscape and could 

directly affect sacred sites.

Adverse effects to cultural 

resources from salable 

The Sweet Grass Hills 

TCP would be 

recommended for 

withdrawal from mineral 

entry for an additional 20 

years, which would 

provide maximum 

beneficial effects for 

archaeological sites and 

traditional uses.

A portion of the Little 

Rocky Mountains TCP 

would be closed to 

leasable minerals (32,573

acres) but would be open 

to locatable minerals, 

which would adversely 

impact the visual, aural 

and physical qualities of 

the TCP.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences 201

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

minerals would be 

mitigated through Section 

106 of the NHPA.

activities.

Cultural resources in the 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Protection Priority Area

and Grassland 

Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse 

Priority Areas would be 

protected because surface 

disturbance would be 

restricted on 1,391,485

acres.

106 of the NHPA.

Cultural resources in the 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Protection Priority Area

and Grassland 

Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse 

Priority Areas would be 

protected because surface 

disturbance would be 

restricted on 1,229,037

acres.

minerals would be 

mitigated through Section 

106 of the NHPA.

Constraints in the Greater 

Sage-Grouse Protection 

Priority Area and 

Grassland Bird/Greater 

Sage-Grouse Priority 

Areas (NSO for oil and 

gas development

(1,028,661 acres and 

318,526 acres,

respectively); closure to 

leasable minerals

(1,069,671 acres and 

317,242 acres, 

respectively); closure to 

renewable energy 

development; avoidance 

areas for transmission 

lines and new roads) 

would provide greater 

protection from surface 

disturbance.

Economics

Agricultural and 

Livestock Use

BLM would continue to provide about 7% of the total livestock forage needs in the planning area and economic dependency of livestock 

producers on BLM forage would remain unchanged. About 550 operators would continue to have grazing permits on 1,030 allotments. About 

10% of the farms/ranches in the planning area would hold grazing permits. Since the amount of authorized use would remain unchanged, 

dependency on BLM forage for each county would also remain relatively unchanged. The economic dependency of individual livestock producers 

on BLM forage would also remain unchanged and BLM forage would continue to provide a critical element of some livestock producers’ 

complement of grazing, forage, and hay production. An annual average of 329,644 AUMs of authorized livestock grazing would support 

approximately 300 total full and part-time jobs and $2.1 million in labor and proprietor’s income. Annual federal revenues from livestock grazing 

fees would be about $445,000 annually, of which about $80,000 would be distributed to the counties.

Mineral Development Under all alternatives, mineral development (mostly oil and gas) would continue to be the land/mineral use that has the most influence on the local 

economy. It would contribute more employment, income, and public revenue that any other major category of BLM activity. About 70% of 
202 Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

federal natural gas production would occur in Phillips County and almost 70% of federal oil production would occur in Toole County.

Sand/gravel production (about 38,500 short tons per year) and associated royalties (about $16,000) would remain unchanged.

Federal minerals leased 

for oil/gas exploration, 

development, and 

production would increase 

from 939,700 acres to 

about 1.387 million acres 

when areas deferred from 

leasing are available after 

RMP revision. Estimated 

annual leasing and rental 

revenues would increase 

from $880,000 to $1.83 

million. Federal mineral 

production would also 

increase. Average annual 

production of 21,409 

MMCF of natural gas, 

140,100 bbl of oil, 38,500 

short tons of sand / gravel, 

and 27,650 short tons of 

bentonite would support 

about 1,350 local jobs and 

$71.8 million in income. 

Total annual federal 

revenues from leases, 

rents, production royalties, 

and sales would be about 

$23.9 million; of which 

about $3.7 million would 

be distributed to the 

counties of production.

Federal minerals leased 

for oil/gas exploration, 

development, and 

production would increase 

from 939,700 acres to 

about 996,900 acres when 

areas deferred from 

leasing are available after 

RMP revision. Estimated 

annual leasing and rental 

revenues would increase 

from $880,000 to $1.002 

million. Federal oil 

production would increase 

slightly while gas 

production would decline 

from current levels. 

Annual production of 

7,104 MMCF of natural 

gas, 127,500 bbl of oil, 

38,500 short tons of sand / 

gravel, and 27,650 short 

tons of bentonite would 

support about 500 local 

jobs and $26.3 million in 

total income. Total annual 

federal revenues from 

mineral leases, rents, 

production royalties, and 

sales would be about $9.3 

million; of which about 

$1.4 million would be 

Federal minerals leased 

for oil/gas exploration, 

development, and 

production would increase 

from 939,700 acres to 

about 1.210 million acres 

when areas deferred from 

leasing are available after 

RMP revision. Estimated 

annual leasing and rental 

revenues would increase 

from $880,000 to $1.45 

million. Federal oil/gas 

production would increase 

less than with Alternative 

A. Annual production of 

18,278 MMCF of natural 

gas, 137,000 bbl of oil, 

38,500 short tons of 

construction sand / gravel, 

and 27,650 short tons of 

bentonite would support 

about 1,160 local jobs and 

$61.9 million in income. 

Total annual federal 

revenues from mineral 

leases, rents, and 

production would be about 

$20.5 million; of which 

about $3.2 million would 

be distributed to the 

counties of production.

Federal minerals leased 

for oil/gas exploration, 

development, and 

production would increase 

from 939,700 acres to 

about 1.390 million acres 

when areas deferred from 

leasing are available after 

RMP revision. Estimated 

annual leasing and rental 

revenues would increase 

from $880,000 to $1.837 

million. Federal oil/gas 

production would increase 

the most with this

alternative. Annual 

production of 21,639 

MMCF of natural gas, 

140,300 bbl of oil, 38,500 

short tons of construction 

sand / gravel, and 27,650 

short tons of bentonite 

would support about 1,360 

local jobs and $72.5 

million in income. Total 

annual federal revenues 

from mineral leasing, 

rents, production royalties, 

and sales would be about 

$24.1 million; of which 

about $3.8 million would 

be distributed to the 

Federal minerals leased 

for oil/gas exploration, 

development, and 

production would increase 

from 939,700 acres to 

about 1.380 million acres 

when areas deferred from 

leasing are available after 

RMP revision. Estimated 

annual leasing and rental 

revenues would increase 

from $880,000 to $1.817 

million. Federal oil/gas 

production would 

increase. Annual 

production of 20,098 

MMCF of natural gas, 

138,900 bbl of oil, 38,500 

short tons of construction 

sand / gravel, and 27,650 

short tons of bentonite 

would support about 1,270 

local jobs and $67.6 

million in income. Total 

annual federal revenues 

from mineral leasing, 

rents, production royalties, 

and sales would be about 

$22.6 million; of which 

about $3.5 million would 

be distributed to the 

counties of production.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences 203

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

distributed to the counties 

of production. 

counties of production.

Recreation Annual revenues from recreation use permits, campground receipts, and outfitter/guide receipts would be about $8,000. None of these revenues 

would be distributed to the local counties.

An annual average of 

113,000 recreation visits 

would support about 80 

full and part time jobs and 

$2.2 million in labor 

income. The willingness 

to pay for recreation 

opportunities would 

represent an estimated 

annual consumer surplus 

of $5.19 million to the 

recreation visitors.

An annual average of 

120,000 recreation visits 

would support about 90 

jobs and $2.3 million in 

labor income. The 

willingness to pay for 

recreation opportunities 

would represent an annual 

estimated consumer 

surplus of $5.51 million to 

the recreation visitors.

Recreation impacts would 

be very similar to those of 

Alternative B. An annual 

average of 120,000 

recreation visits would 

support about 90 jobs and 

$2.3 million in labor 

income. The willingness 

to pay for recreation 

opportunities would 

represent an estimated 

annual consumer surplus 

of $5.50 million to 

recreation visitors.

Recreation impacts would 

be very similar to those of 

Alternative B and C. An 

annual average of 120,000 

recreation visits would 

support about 90 jobs and 

$2.3 million in labor 

income. The willingness 

to pay for recreation 

opportunities would 

represent an estimated 

annual consumer surplus 

of $5.48 million to 

recreation visitors.

Recreation impacts would 

be very similar to those of 

Alternative B, C, and D. 

An annual average of 

120,000 recreation visits 

would support about 90 

jobs and $2.3 million in 

labor income. The 

willingness to pay for 

recreation opportunities 

would represent an 

estimated annual 

consumer surplus of $5.49 

million to recreation 

visitors.

Government Average annual BLM labor and non-labor expenditures ($9.5 million) would support an estimated 110 full and part time jobs and about $9.0 

million in wage and proprietor’s income. The influence of BLM labor and operations contributions would be most apparent in Havre (Hill 

County), Malta (Phillips County), and Glasgow (Valley County) where BLM offices are located. Employment and income effects of mine 

reclamation, water treatment, mechanical treatments, prescribed burning, invasive species treatments, and timber management (fuels treatments) 

would be included in government operations. Treating hazardous fuels would tend to reduce the threat to life and property nearby. 

Fuels Treatments and 

Fire Suppression

The relative cost of 

treating an average 6,860 

acres per year with 

prescribed fire would 

trend along the 10-year 

average for fire 

suppression.

The relative cost of treating 26,660 acres per year with prescribed fire would tend to reduce suppression costs 

compared to Alternative A (continued current management).

Lands and Realty Annual use authorizations would generate about $80,000 of federal revenue and annual PILT would be about $ 2.043 million. 
204 Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

Combined Effects The combined effect of 

Alternative A would 

contribute an average 

annual 1,920 local full and 

part-time jobs and $88.0 

million in wage and 

proprietor’s income. This 

would be about 5.3 % of 

current local employment 

and 7.3 % of current local 

income. Annual program 

revenues to the federal 

government would be 

about $24.6 million; 

payments to counties 

would be about $5.8 

million, most of which 

would be related to oil and 

gas production and PILT 

payments. BLM land and 

mineral uses would 

contribute about 5% of 

total employment. The 

number of total jobs 

would increase by about 

19% compared to current 

levels; total income would 

increase by about 22%; 

the local population and 

the number of households 

would increase by about 

510 people and 190 

households.

The combined effect of 

Alternative B would 

contribute an average 

annual 1,050 local full and 

part-time jobs and $41.8 

million in wage and 

proprietor’s income. This 

would be a reduction of 

about 570 jobs and $30.1 

million in wage and 

proprietor’s income from 

current levels. BLM land 

and mineral uses would 

contribute about 3% of 

total local employment 

and 4% of total local 

income. Annual program 

revenues to the federal 

government would be 

about $10.0 million; 

payments to counties 

would be about $3.6 

million, most of which 

would be related to oil and 

gas production and PILT 

payments. The local 

population would decrease 

by about 930; the number 

of households would 

decrease by about 350. 

The combined effect of 

Alternative C would 

contribute an average 

annual 1,740 local full and 

part-time jobs and $78.0 

million in wage and 

proprietor’s income. This 

would be a reduction of 

about 130 jobs and $6.1 

million in wage and 

proprietor’s income from 

current levels. BLM land 

and mineral uses would 

contribute about 5% of 

total local employment 

and 7% of total local 

income. Annual program 

revenues to the federal 

government would be 

about $21.2 million; 

payments to counties 

would be about $5.3 

million, most of which 

would be related to oil and 

gas production and PILT 

payments. The local 

population would increase 

by about 210 and number 

of households would 

increase by about 80. 

The combined effect of 

Alternative D would 

contribute an average 

annual 1,940 local full and 

part-time jobs and $88.9 

million in wage and 

proprietor’s income. This 

would be an increase of 

about 330 jobs and $17.0 

million in wage and 

proprietor’s income 

compared to current 

levels. BLM land and 

mineral uses would 

contribute about 5% of 

local employment and 7% 

of local income. Annual 

program revenues to the 

federal government would 

be about $24.9 million; 

payments to counties 

would be about $5.9 

million, most of which 

would be related to oil and 

gas production and PILT 

payments. The local 

population would increase 

by about 540 and number

of households would 

increase by about 200.

The combined effect of 

Alternative E would 

contribute an average 

annual 1,850 local full and 

part-time jobs and $83.9 

million in wage and 

proprietor’s income. This 

would be an increase of 

about 240 jobs and $12.0

million in wage and 

proprietor’s income from 

current levels. BLM land 

and mineral uses would 

contribute about 5% of 

total local employment 

and 7% of total local 

income. Annual program 

revenues to the federal 

government would be 

about $23.4 million; 

payments to counties 

would be about $5.6 

million, most of which 

would be related to oil and 

gas production and PILT 

payments. The local 

population would increase 

by about 390 and number 

of households would 

decrease by about 150.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences 205

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

Other Combined 

Effects

BLM management that would generate the most employment and income would be mineral development (mostly oil and gas development). The 

employment, income, and revenue effects of BLM resource management would be spread unequally among the counties and communities within 

the planning area. Most of BLM land and minerals base and land/mineral uses are in Phillips, Valley, and Blaine counties. Most of the economic 

impacts would also occur in those counties. The influence of resource management on BLM-administered lands would not change local economic 

diversity (as indicated by the number of economic sectors), dependency (i.e. where one or a few industries dominate the economy), or stability (as 

indicated by seasonal unemployment, sporadic population changes, and fluctuating income rates). The population density and average income per 

household would continue to be about the same as current levels.

Soil and Water Economic benefits from soil and water management and costs (from lost agricultural production, additional costs for municipal water treatments, 

shortened life of dams and reservoirs, additional cost of water for industrial purposes, reduced water recreation use, reduced soil productivity, and 

water pollution) associated with resource use are unknown.

Cumulative Effects The demographic and economic trends that are described in Chapter 3 to provide context for impacts would be expected to continue. The 

description of the Affected Environment found in Chapter 3 summarizes the past and present activities that influenced cumulative economic 

conditions. The economic impacts summarized above for each alternative would be combined with those demographic and economic trends to 

provide an idea of the cumulative economic effects. In addition, construction of two wind energy developments with a total of about 30 towers on 

BLM lands would be anticipated. The portion of these projects that would occur on BLM lands would support up to 338 local jobs and $12.8 

million in labor income during the two-year construction periods. Average annual operation and maintenance associated with the portion on BLM 

lands would contribute about 16 jobs and $0.58 million in wage and proprietor’s income. It would generate about $190,000 in annual federal 

revenues. Annual employment associated with maintenance and operation of other lands/realty rights-of-way would be negligible; however 

federal rights-of-way rent revenues would average about $80,000 per year.

Fire Management and Ecology

237 acres treated 

mechanically and 343 

acres treated with 

prescribed fire annually. A 

total of 11,600 acres (10% 

of BLM forested 

landscape) would be 

treated in a 20-year 

period.

Treatments would not 

keep pace with vegetation 

growth/disturbance cycles 

391 acres treated mechanically and 1,333 acres treated with prescribed fire annually. A total of 34,480 acres (73% 

of BLM forested landscape) would be treated in a 20-year period.

Over time conditions may be created where new suppression strategies in Category C areas could be considered.
206 Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

and reduced treatments 

could exacerbate or 

expand poor forest health 

conditions, and cause the 

greatest chance of extreme 

fire behavior and larger 

fire sizes.

The Class II rating for the 

Bears Paw and Little 

Rocky Mountains and 

Sweet Grass Hills may 

restrict landscape level 

forest health treatments.

The Class I rating for the 

Sweet Grass Hills and 

Kevin Rim ACECs and 

Burnt Lodge and Bitter 

Creek WSAs could 

restrict landscape level 

forest health treatments on 

90,032 acres.

The Class II rating for the 

Little Rocky Mountains, 

Frenchman area, and 

Missouri breaks (781,545 

acres) could conflict with 

vegetation treatment 

objectives.

Treatments may exceed 

the accepted level of 

change and objectives of a 

Class I or II rating.

The Class III rating for 

Sweet Grass Hills, Bears 

Paw Mountains, and Little 

Rocky Mountains could 

allow increased landscape 

level forest health 

treatments on up to 38,037 

acres.

The Class I rating for the 

Burnt Lodge and Bitter 

Creek WSAs, and Class II 

ratings in the Frenchman 

area, Woody Island ACEC, 

and Missouri breaks 

(857,061 acres) could 

conflict with vegetation 

treatment objectives.

Treatments may exceed the 

accepted level of change 

and objectives of a Class I 

or II rating.

The Class III rating for all 

forested areas except the 

WSAs could allow 

increased landscape level 

forest health treatments on 

up to 44,282 acres.

The Class I or II rating for 

all remaining forested 

acres in the planning area 

may restrict landscape 

level forest health 

treatments.

Treatments may exceed 

the accepted level of 

change and objectives of a 

Class I or II rating.

The Class III rating for 

Sweet Grass Hills, Bears 

Paw Mountains, and Little 

Rocky Mountains could 

allow increased landscape 

level forest health 

treatments on up to 38,037 

acres.

The Class I rating for the 

Burnt Lodge and Bitter 

Creek WSAs, and Class II 

rating in the Frenchman 

area, Woody Island ACEC, 

and Missouri breaks 

(857,061 acres) could 

conflict with vegetation 

treatment objectives.

Treatments may exceed the 

accepted level of change 

and objectives of a Class I 

or II rating.

Fish

Rehabilitation would be 

required only on surface 

NSO stipulations required 

within 1/4 mile of lentic 

NSO stipulations required 

within 500 feet of riparian 

CSU stipulations within

300 feet of riparian areas 

NSO stipulations within 

perennial or intermittent 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences 207

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

disturbances greater than 

1/4 acre in size, which 

could allow for more 

sedimentation in nearby 

fish-bearing streams.

Riparian and wetland 

areas would be avoidance 

areas for rights-of way, 

which would provide 

protection for fish-bearing 

streams.

or lotic riparian areas, and 

rehabilitation required on 

surface disturbances 

greater than 1/10 acre in 

size would greatly reduce 

sediment flow into fishbearing streams or 

fisheries reservoirs.

Riparian areas with 

unique values would be 

avoidance areas for rightsof-way, which would 

provide protection for 

fish-bearing streams.

areas and rehabilitation 

required on surface 

disturbances greater than 

1/10 acre in size would 

reduce sediment flow into 

fish-bearing streams.

No avoidance areas for 

rights-of-way could 

compromise habitat for 

sensitive fish species.

and rehabilitation required 

on surface disturbances 

greater than 1/10 acre in 

size would reduce 

sediment flow into fishbearing streams, but the 

greater acreage of 

disturbance allowed could 

result in increased 

sediment flow.

No avoidance areas for 

rights-of-way would 

provide fewer protections 

for fish-bearing streams.

streams and CSU 

stipulations within 300 

feet of riparian areas along 

with rehabilitation 

required on surface 

disturbances greater than 

1/10 acre in size would 

reduce sediment flow into 

fish-bearing streams.

Riparian areas with 

unique values would be 

avoidance areas for rightsof-way, which would 

provide protection for 

fish-bearing streams. 

Fluid Minerals

New Federal Oil and 

Gas Wells 1,874 647 1,617 1,894 1,756

Acres Closed by 

Development Potential

High 0 138,489 0 0 0

Moderate 0 283,347 0 0 0

Low 0 324,728 2,841 0 21,271

Very Low 102,298 2,427,013 215,745 74,674 131,431

Acres NSO by 

Development Potential

High 3,938 6,889 50,521 13,094 35,654

Moderate 9,199 45,247 154,468 10,742 59,753
208 Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

Low 22,614 72,412 169,265 31,297 55,328

Very Low 246,310 133,968 916,833 302,323 1,560,614

Acres CSU/TLS by 

Development Potential

High 137,116 0 89,832 107,298 106,803

Moderate 233,907 778 126,822 219,021 251,155

Low 277,051 423 143,928 211,988 286,720

Very Low 2,001,094 2,090 1,321,410 1,923,287 815,388

Acres Standard Terms 

Only by Development 

Potential

High 5,206 883 5,908 25,867 3,802

Moderate 94,336 8,070 56,153 107,680 26,535

Low 111,916 14,019 95,550 168,297 48,263

Very Low 246,323 32,956 142,038 295,744 88,594

Cumulative Effects Approximately 6,014 

additional oil and gas 

wells could be drilled 

during the next 20 years, 

of which 1,874 wells 

would access federal 

minerals. From baseline 

conditions, total oil 

production could be 0.6% 

less and total gas 

production could also be 

4.4% less.

Approximately 4,787 

additional oil and gas 

wells could be drilled 

during the next 20 years, 

of which 647 wells would 

access federal minerals. 

From baseline conditions, 

total oil production could 

be 9.5% less and total gas 

production could also be 

68.3% less.

Approximately 5,756 

additional oil and gas 

wells could be drilled 

during the next 20 years, 

of which 1,617 wells 

would access federal 

minerals. From baseline 

conditions, total oil 

production could be 2.8% 

less and total gas 

production could also be 

18.4% less.

Approximately 6,034 

additional oil and gas 

wells could be drilled 

during the next 20 years, 

of which 1,894 wells 

would access federal 

minerals. From baseline 

conditions, total oil 

production could be 0.5% 

less and total gas 

production could also be 

3.4% less.

Approximately 5,896 

additional oil and gas 

wells could be drilled 

during the next 20 years, 

of which 1,756 wells 

would access federal 

minerals. From baseline 

conditions, total oil 

production could be 1.5% 

less and total gas 

production could also be 

10.3% less.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences 209

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

Forests and Woodlands

FMUs would remain as 

Category B and natural 

fire would not be 

considered as a 

management tool.

Minimal gains would be 

made on restoration of 

forest health during the 

life of the plan as 

treatments could not 

exceed ASQ of 3.5 

MMBF per decade.

Class II rating for the 

Bears Paw and Little 

Rocky Mountains and 

Sweet Grass Hills may 

restrict landscape-level 

forest health treatments.

Timing limits for wildlife 

(December 1-May 15) 

could constrain most 

forest health activities and 

contracts may require 

multiple years to be 

completed.

Small forest health 

projects would provide a 

small quantity of wood 

products to the local 

The eastern half of the 

planning area (including 

30,949 acres of forested 

land in the Little Rocky 

Mountains) would be 

reclassified as FMU 

Category C. 

Forest health treatments 

averaging 390 acres per 

year would focus on 

landscape-level treatments 

rather than ASQ. 

Silvicultural treatment 

would address old growth.

Class I rating for the 

Sweet Grass Hills may 

restrict landscape-level 

forest health treatments on 

6,248 acres. Class III 

rating for the entire Little 

Rocky Mountains would 

all landscape-level 

treatments on up to 30,949 

acres.

Timing or location 

considerations for wildlife 

and habitat would be 

evaluated at the project 

planning level and 

appropriate mitigation 

The eastern half of the 

planning area (including 

30,949 acres of forested 

land in the Little Rocky 

Mountains) would be 

reclassified as FMU 

Category C. 

Forest health treatments 

averaging 390 acres per 

year would focus on 

landscape-level treatments 

rather than ASQ. 

Silvicultural treatment 

would address old growth.

Class III rating for the 

Sweet Grass Hills and 

Bears Paw and Little 

Rocky Mountains would 

provide landscape-level 

forest management 

opportunities on up to 

38,037 acres.

Timing limits for wildlife 

(December 1-May 15) 

could constrain most 

forest health activities and 

contracts may require 

multiple years to be 

completed.

The eastern half of the 

planning area (including 

30,949 acres of forested 

land in the Little Rocky 

Mountains) would be 

reclassified as FMU 

Category C. 

Forest health treatments 

averaging 390 acres per 

year would focus on 

landscape-level treatments 

rather than ASQ. 

Silvicultural treatment 

would address old growth.

Class III rating for all 

forested areas in the 

planning area except the 

WSAs would provide 

landscape-level forest 

management opportunities 

on up to 44,282 acres. All 

remaining forested acres 

would fall within Class I 

and II ratings which may 

restrict landscape-level 

forest health treatments.

Timing limits for wildlife 

(December 1-March 31) 

could constrain forest 

health activities and 

The northeastern portion 

of the planning area 

(Malta Prairie Potholes) 

would be reclassified as 

FMU Category C.

Forest health treatments 

averaging 390 acres per 

year would focus on 

landscape-level treatments 

rather than ASQ. 

Silvicultural treatment 

would address old growth.

Class III rating for the 

Sweet Grass Hills and 

Bears Paw and Little 

Rocky Mountains would 

provide landscape-level 

forest management 

opportunities on up to 

38,037 acres. All 

remaining forested acres 

would fall within Class I 

and II ratings which may 

restrict landscape-level 

forest health treatments.

Timing limits for wildlife 

(December 1-May 15) 

could constrain most 

forest health activities and 

contracts may require 
210 Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

industry and provide some 

work opportunities and 

boost to the local 

economy.

applied. Timing 

considerations within 1 

mile of active raptor nests 

could constrain vegetation 

treatments.

Forest health projects 

would provide wood 

products and work 

opportunities to the local 

industry and help boost to 

the local economy.

Forest health projects 

would provide wood 

products and work 

opportunities to the local 

industry and help boost to 

the local economy.

contracts may require 

multiple years to be 

completed. Prescribed fire 

could usually be 

implemented successfully 

in the month of April.

Forest health projects 

would provide wood 

products and work 

opportunities to the local 

industry and help boost to 

the local economy.

multiple years to be 

completed. In some 

situations prescribed fire 

may not be available as a 

treatment option in 

forested settings during 

summer and fall.

Forest health projects 

would provide wood 

products and work 

opportunities to the local 

industry and help boost to 

the local economy.

Lands and Realty

As the population continues to shift from urban areas to a more rural setting, more land is subdivided. This will result in an increasing demand for 

rights-of-way to address access needs, enhanced telecommunications capacity, and increased demands for power. As more private lands are 

closed to recreational use, the public will turn their attention to available open lands (i.e., BLM land, block management areas, and private land 

where access is allowed). Consequently, there will be an increased demand for recreational access, whether through access easements, 

conservation easements that provide access, or land exchange proposals that enhance access.

OHV Use and Travel and Transportation Management 

Areas designated as open 

to OHV use off roads, 

primitive roads and trails 

would include the Fresno 

OHV area (84 acres) and 

the Glasgow OHV area 

(40 acres); designated as 

limited to existing roads, 

primitive roads and trails 

(2,429,885 acres); and 

closed to OHV use (7,429 

acres in the Sweet Grass 

OHV designations would 

include: limited to 

existing roads, primitive 

roads and trails (2,429,925 

acres); and closed (7,513

acres). No areas would be 

designated as open to offroad travel, which would 

adversely affect OHV 

users.

No motorized game 

OHV designations would 

include: limited to 

existing roads, primitive 

roads and trails (2,429,885 

acres); and closed (7,553 

acres). No areas would be 

designated as open to offroad travel, which would 

adversely affect OHV 

users.

Motorized game retrieval 

Areas designated as open 

to OHV use off roads, 

primitive roads and trails 

would include the Fresno 

OHV area (84 acres), 

Glasgow OHV area (40 

acre), and Thirty Mile 

OHV area (181 acres); 

designated as limited to 

existing roads, primitive 

roads and trails (2,437,133 

acres). No closed areas 

The Glasgow OHV area 

(40 acres) would remain 

designated as open to 

OHV use off roads, 

primitive roads and trails. 

The Fresno OHV area 

(125 acres would remain 

designated as open to 

OHV travel off roads, 

primitive roads and trails. 

Through travel 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences 211

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

Hills ACEC).

No motorized game 

retrieval off road would be 

allowed, but could be 

considered during 

subsequent travel 

management planning.

retrieval off road would 

be allowed, and would not 

be considered during 

subsequent travel 

management planning.

Overall protection 

measures for natural and 

cultural resources would 

have a greater impact on 

OHV use than all other 

alternatives.

off road would be allowed 

in specified areas 

(387,118 acres).

Overall protection 

measures for natural and 

cultural resources would 

have a similar, but less 

impact on OHV use than 

Alternative B.

would be designated, 

which would beneficially 

affect OHV users.

Motorized game retrieval 

off road would be allowed 

on all BLM land in the 

planning area except the 

Bitter Creek and Burnt 

Lodge WSAs, and Big 

Bend of the Milk River, 

Kevin Rim, Frenchman, 

and Malta Geological 

ACECs (2,290,669 acres).

Overall protection 

measures for natural and 

cultural resources would 

have a lesser impact on 

OHV use than all other 

alternatives.

management planning the 

BLM would address the 

need for seasonal 

restrictions, and/or a 

boundary adjustment to 

address resource values 

and conflicts of use.

2,429,885 acres would be 

designated as limited to 

existing roads, primitive 

roads and trails; and 7,429 

acres in the Sweet Grass 

Hills ACEC would be 

closed to OHV use. 

This alternative would 

have little effect on the 

volume of OHV use in the 

short or long term.

Off-road game retrieval 

would not be allowed, but 

could be considered 

during subsequent travel 

management planning.

Paleontological Resources

Fluid mineral 

development could affect 

paleontological resources, 

but stipulations would 

minimize the effects of 

permitted activities. 

Fluid mineral 

development would have 

less potential to affect 

paleontological resources, 

and stipulations would 

minimize the effects of 

permitted activities.

Moderate fluid mineral 

development could lead to 

the inadvertent discovery 

of paleontological 

resources, but to a lesser 

degree because this 

alternative would have the 

Fluid mineral 

development would have 

greater potential to affect 

paleontological resources 

due to fewer surface 

limitations and more 

acreage open to surface 

Fluid mineral 

development would have 

less potential to affect 

paleontological resources 

due to the second most 

acres open to leasing with 

NSO stipulations and the 
212 Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

OHV use may 

inadvertently impact 

paleontological resources 

from vehicles driving over 

fossil exposures. Vehicle 

travel would also 

contribute to erosion, 

which would result in 

exposure and loss of 

specimens.

2,248,567 acres would be 

open areas, and 188,871 

acres would be exclusion 

areas for wind energy 

rights-of-way, and surface 

disturbance during 

construction of facilities 

would have the greatest 

potential to affect 

paleontological resources.

OHV use may 

inadvertently impact 

paleontological resources 

from vehicles driving over 

fossil exposures, but to a 

lesser extent. Vehicle 

travel would also 

contribute to erosion, 

which would result in 

exposure and loss of 

specimens. No open OHV 

areas would offer the 

greatest protection of 

paleontological resources 

from vehicles.

249,050 acres would be 

open areas and 2,188,388 

acres would be exclusion 

areas for wind energy 

rights-of-way, but surface 

disturbance during 

construction of 

commercial facilities 

would have the least 

potential to affect 

paleontological resources 

because of the limited 

acres available for 

development.

most acres open with 

NSO and the second most 

acres closed to leasing.

OHV use may 

inadvertently impact 

paleontological resources 

from vehicles driving over 

fossil exposures. Vehicle 

travel would also 

contribute to erosion, 

which would result in 

exposure and loss of 

specimens.

Off-road game retrieval 

could lead to inadvertent 

discovery of and the 

greatest potential impact 

to paleontological 

resources. 

1,112,481 acres would be 

open areas and 1,324,957 

acres would be exclusion 

areas for wind energy 

rights-of-way, and surface 

disturbance during 

construction of facilities 

could affect 

paleontological resources.

disturbance. More roads 

would be created, thus 

increasing the possibility 

for inadvertent discovery.

OHV use may 

inadvertently impact 

paleontological resources 

from vehicles driving over 

fossil exposures. Vehicle 

travel would also 

contribute to erosion, 

which would result in 

exposure and loss of 

specimens. 

Not allowing off-road 

game retrieval in the 

WSAs and 4 ACECs 

would decrease the 

number of inadvertent 

discoveries. 

2,144,466 acres would be 

open areas, and 292,992 

acres would be exclusion 

areas for wind energy 

rights-of-way, and surface 

disturbance during 

construction of facilities 

would have the second 

greatest potential to affect 

paleontological resources.

second most acres closed 

to leasing. Roads would 

still be created which 

could lead to the 

possibility for inadvertent 

discovery.

OHV use may 

inadvertently impact 

paleontological resources 

from vehicles driving over 

fossil exposures. Vehicle 

travel would also 

contribute to erosion, 

which would result in 

exposure and loss of 

specimens.

Off-road game retrieval 

would be limited which 

would lessen the potential 

for inadvertent discovery 

of paleontological 

resources. 

897,765 acres would be 

open areas and 1,539,673 

acres would be avoidance 

areas for wind energy 

rights-of-way, but surface 

disturbance during 

construction of 

commercial facilities 

would have the second 

least potential to affect 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences 213

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

paleontological resources 

because fewer acres 

would be available for 

development.

Recreation

6,860 acres would have 

short-term disturbance 

from prescribed fire, and 

4,740 acres would have 

short-term disturbance 

from mechanical 

treatment actions. Surface 

disturbance from these 

actions would reduce 

recreational opportunities 

and degrade the quality of 

recreational experiences in 

the short term, but would 

improve opportunities and 

experiences in the long 

term.

9,564 acres would have 

short-term surface 

disturbance from oil and 

gas development actions, 

and 2,422 acres would 

have long-term surface 

disturbance which would 

reduce recreational 

opportunities and the 

quality of the recreational 

experience. The 102,298 

acres closed to fluid 

26,660 acres would have short-term disturbance from prescribed fire, and 7,820 acres would have short-term 

disturbance from mechanical treatment actions. Surface disturbance from these actions would reduce recreational 

opportunities and degrade the quality of recreational experiences in the short term, but would improve opportunities 

and experiences in the long term. 

4,440 acres would have 

short-term surface 

disturbance from oil and 

gas development actions, 

and 1,544 acres would 

have long-term surface 

disturbance which would 

reduce recreational 

opportunities and the 

quality of the recreational 

experience. The 3,173,637 

acres closed to fluid 

mineral leasing and 

258,560 acres open with 

NSO stipulations would 

protect existing 

recreational opportunities 

and experiences.

Non-motorized 

recreational users would 

benefit from having no 

open areas available as 

designated OHV areas 

8,547 acres would have 

short-term surface 

disturbance from oil and 

gas development actions, 

and 2,238 acres would 

have long-term surface 

disturbance which would 

reduce recreational 

opportunities and the 

quality of the recreational 

experience. The 218,586 

acres closed to fluid 

mineral leasing and 

1,291,160 acres open with 

NSO stipulations would 

protect existing 

recreational opportunities 

and experiences.

Non-motorized 

recreational users would 

benefit from having no 

open areas available as 

designated OHV areas 

9,663 acres would have 

short-term surface 

disturbance form oil and 

gas development actions, 

and 2,436 acres would 

have long-term surface 

disturbance which would 

reduce recreational 

opportunities and the 

quality of the recreational 

experience. The 74,674 

acres closed to fluid 

mineral leasing and 

357,456 acres open with 

NSO stipulations would 

protect existing 

recreational opportunities 

and experiences.

Non-motorized 

recreational users would 

benefit from having no 

areas open to motorized 

use except for the three 

9,068 acres would have 

short-term surface 

disturbance from oil and 

gas development actions, 

and 2,337 acres would 

have long-term surface 

disturbance which would 

reduce recreational 

opportunities and the 

quality of the recreational 

experience. The 152,702 

acres closed to fluid 

mineral leasing and 

1,711,378 acres open with 

NSO stipulations would 

protect existing 

recreational opportunities 

and experiences.

Non-motorized 

recreational users would 

benefit from having no 

areas open to motorized 

use except for the Fresno 
214 Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

mineral leasing and 

282,062 acres open with 

NSO stipulations would 

not affect recreation 

experiences in these 

existing areas. 

Motorized recreational 

users would benefit from 

the designated open OHV 

areas. Recreational users 

who enjoy hiking and 

horseback riding would 

benefit from the 7,429 

acres closed to motorized 

use in the Sweet Grass 

Hills. The limited 

designation on remaining 

lands would benefit the 

motorized recreational 

user more than the nonmotorized user.

The 5 areas designated as 

SRMAs (1,305,593 acres) 

would benefit recreation 

by allowing for 

development of new 

facilities and road 

upgrades that would 

increase recreational 

opportunities and enhance 

recreational experiences.

Closing the Sweet Grass 

(including the Fresno 

OHV area which would 

be closed to motorized 

use), while motorized 

recreationists would be 

denied the opportunity to 

use their specialized 

equipment. Recreational 

users who enjoy hiking 

and horseback riding 

would benefit from the 

7,429 acres closed to 

motorized use in the 

Sweet Grass Hills. The 84 

acre Fresno OHV area 

would be closed to 

motorized use. The 

limited designation on 

remaining lands would 

benefit the motorized 

recreational user more 

than the non-motorized 

user.

Not allowing motorized 

game retrieval off road 

would enhance more 

primitive, non-motorized 

hunting experiences, 

whereas those hunters 

who are unable to retrieve 

their down big game by 

non-motorized means may 

experience decreased 

hunting opportunities.

(including the Fresno and 

Glasgow OHV areas 

which would be closed to

motorized use), while 

motorized recreationists 

would be denied the 

opportunity to use their 

specialized equipment. 

Recreational users who 

enjoy hiking and 

horseback riding would 

benefit from the 7,429 

acres closed to motorized 

use in the Sweet Grass 

Hills. The 84 acre Fresno 

OHV area would be 

closed to motorized use. 

The limited designation 

on remaining lands would 

benefit the motorized 

recreational user more 

than the non-motorized 

user.

Allowing motorized game 

retrieval off road in 

specified areas would 

benefit motorized 

recreational users by 

allowing hunting 

opportunities for those 

hunters who are unable to 

retrieve their down big 

game by non-motorized 

means.

designated open OHV 

areas: Fresno (84 acres), 

Glasgow (40 acres), and 

Thirty Mile (181 acres). 

Motorized recreational 

users would benefit from 

the designated open OHV 

areas. The Sweet Grass 

Hills would be open to 

motorized use and limited 

to existing roads, 

primitive roads and trails, 

which would benefit 

motorized recreational 

users but adversely affect 

non-motorized 

recreational users. 

Allowing motorized game 

retrieval off road in all 

areas except the Burnt 

Lodge and Bitter Creek 

WSAs and the Big Bend 

of the Milk River, Kevin 

Rim, Frenchman, and 

Malta Geological ACECs 

would benefit motorized 

recreational users by 

allowing hunting 

opportunities for those 

hunters who are unable to 

retrieve their down big 

game by non-motorized 

means. However, the 

encounter of off-road 

(125 acres) and Glasgow 

(40 acres) designated 

OHV areas. Motorized 

recreationists would 

benefit from the 

designated open OHV 

areas. Recreational users 

who enjoy hiking and 

horseback riding would 

benefit from the 7,429 

acres closed to motorized 

use in the Sweet Grass 

Hills. The limited 

designation on remaining 

lands would benefit the 

motorized recreational 

user more than the nonmotorized user.

Not allowing motorized 

game retrieval off road 

would enhance more 

primitive, non-motorized 

hunting experiences, 

whereas those hunters 

who are unable to retrieve 

their down big game by 

non-motorized means may 

experience decreased 

hunting opportunities.

The Little Rocky 

Mountains (27,688 acres) 

would be designated a 

SRMA, which would 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences 215

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

Hills SRMA to motorized 

use would adversely affect 

opportunities for 

motorized recreationists.

With a few exceptions the 

remaining lands 

(1,131,845 acres) would 

be managed as an ERMA.

The entire planning area 

(2,437,399 acres) would 

be managed as an LND, 

which would create the 

most dispersed recreation 

opportunities, but would 

adversely impact facilitybased recreation resources 

as the development of 

new facilities would have 

a lower priority for 

construction and funding. 

Disturbance from 

development of 

recreational facilities 

would be the least under 

this alternative.

The Little Rocky 

Mountains (27,688 acres) 

would be designated a 

SRMA, which would 

better enable the BLM to 

deal with high OHV use 

in the area that is 

adversely affecting the 

setting, and would also 

benefit recreation by 

allowing for development 

of new facilities at and 

near the established 

campgrounds that would 

increase recreational 

opportunities and enhance 

recreational experiences.

Nine sites would be 

managed as an ERMA 

(61,800 acres), which 

would have a lower 

priority for resources and 

development than 

SRMAs, but recreation 

resources would be less 

impacted by other 

resource issues than 

LNDs. 

The remaining lands in 

the planning area would 

be designated as an LND 

(2,347,911 acres), which 

motorized game retrieval 

could diminish hunting 

opportunities and quality 

of the experience for nonmotorized hunters.

Twelve sites would be 

manages as SRMAs 

(97,088 acres) and 2 sites

would be managed as 

ERMAs (244 acres). This 

would be the most SRMA 

acreage and the second 

least ERMA acreage of all 

the alternatives. This 

alternative would lead to 

the most potential 

disturbance from 

recreation management of 

all alternatives because it 

identifies more acres for 

high priority facilitybased recreation 

management which 

includes more 

concentrated recreation 

activities and 

development of more 

recreation-related 

facilities.[

The remaining lands in 

the planning area would 

be managed as an LND

(2,340,066 acres), which 

better enable the BLM to 

deal with high OHV use 

in the area that is 

adversely affecting the 

setting, and would also 

benefit recreation by 

allowing for development 

of new facilities at and 

near the established 

campgrounds that would 

increase recreational 

opportunities and enhance 

recreational experiences.

The Glasgow OHV area 

would also be designated 

a SRMA (40 acres) and 

open to OHV use. This 

would benefit the 

motorized recreational 

user and prioritize 

management resources to 

this type of recreation 

outcome over other 

resource issues.

Ten RMAs would be 

managed as ERMAs 

(69,405 acres) to protect 

the recreation facilities 

and uses that currently 

take place in those areas. 

Recreation outcomes 

would be a high priority 

but may be limited if they 
216 Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

would create the most 

dispersed recreation 

opportunities, but would 

adversely impact facilitybased recreation resources 

as the development of 

new facilities would have 

a lower priority for 

construction and funding.

would create the most 

dispersed recreation 

opportunities, but would 

adversely impact facilitybased recreation resources 

as the development of 

new facilities would have 

a lower priority for 

construction and funding.

conflict with other 

resource management 

priorities within the 

ERMA. 

The remaining lands in 

the planning area would 

be managed as an LND

(2,340,266 acres), which 

would create the most 

dispersed recreation 

opportunities, but would 

adversely impact facilitybased recreation resources 

as the development of 

new facilities would have 

a lower priority for 

construction and funding.

Renewable Energy Resources (Wind)

About 188,871 acres 

would be exclusion areas 

for wind energy rights-ofway. About 90% of the 

high and 93% of the 

moderate development 

potential areas on BLM 

land would be available 

for wind energy rights-ofway.

About 2,188,388 acres 

would be exclusion areas 

for wind energy rights-ofway. About 10% of the 

high and 10% of the 

moderate development 

potential areas on BLM 

land would be available 

for wind energy rights-ofway.

About 1,324,957 acres 

would be exclusion areas 

for wind energy rights-ofway. About 49% of the 

high and 45% of the 

moderate development 

potential areas on BLM 

land would be available 

for wind energy rights-ofway.

About 292,992 acres 

would be exclusion areas 

for wind energy rights-ofway. About 79% of the 

high and 91% of the 

moderate development 

potential areas on BLM 

land would be available 

for wind energy rights-ofway.

About 1,539,673 acres 

would be exclusion areas 

for wind energy rights-ofway. About 48% of the 

high and 36% of the 

moderate development 

potential areas on BLM 

land would be available 

for wind energy rights-ofway.

Social

Groups and individuals 

who give a high priority to 

resource use, including 

Groups and individuals 

who give a high priority to 

resource use would not 

Groups and individuals 

who give a high priority to 

resource use may be 

Groups and individuals 

who give a high priority to 

resource use would 

Groups and individuals 

who give a high priority to 

resource use may be 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences 217

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

many local residents, 

indicate that current 

management has 

adequately protected these 

resources.

Groups and individuals 

who give a high priority to 

resource protection, 

including the protection of 

the prairie ecosystem and 

greater sage-grouse 

habitat, may not feel this 

alternative offers adequate 

protection for these 

resources. This could 

result in a decline in the 

quality of life for these 

groups and individuals. 

Recreationists who desire 

a primitive experience 

may not feel this 

alternative provides the 

opportunities to enhance 

primitive experiences in 

the future. 

Native Americans who 

engage in traditional 

practices in the Sweet 

Grass Hills or the Little 

Rocky Mountains may be 

less able to practice their 

religion in an 

support this alternative 

because it contains the 

most restrictions on oil 

and gas development. 

This group includes many

local residents who are 

concerned about the 

potential negative social 

effects to small 

communities if economies 

suffer because resource 

development is not 

allowed. In addition, 

opportunities for OHV use 

or off road game retrieval 

would not be available.

Groups and individuals 

who give a high priority to 

resource protection, 

including the protection of 

the prairie ecosystem and 

greater sage-grouse 

habitat, may favor this 

alternative because it 

offers the most protection 

for these resources and the 

least amount of surface 

disturbance. However, 

they may also be 

concerned that some of 

the effects to these 

resources from 

development restricted on 

public lands would be 

concerned about 

restrictions on oil and gas 

development. This group 

includes many local 

residents who are 

concerned about 

economic development 

and its potential positive 

effects on the social 

environment of small 

communities.

Groups and individuals 

who give a high priority to 

resource protection, 

including the protection of 

the prairie ecosystem and 

greater sage-grouse 

habitat, may feel this 

alternative does not offer 

enough protection for 

these resources.

Recreationists who desire 

a primitive experience 

would feel this alternative 

provides opportunities to 

enhance this type of 

experience.

Effects to Native 

Americans who engage in 

traditional practices could 

be positive in the Sweet 

Grass Hills and negative 

support this alternative 

because it offers the 

fewest restrictions on oil 

and gas development. 

This group includes many 

local residents who are 

concerned about 

economic development 

and its potential positive 

effects on the social 

environment of small 

communities.

Groups and individuals 

who give a high priority to 

resource protection, 

including the protection of 

the prairie ecosystem and 

greater sage-grouse 

habitat, may not feel this 

alternative offers adequate 

protection for these

resources, because 

management actions 

under this alternative 

would slowly degrade 

existing conditions for 

these resources in most of 

the planning area. This 

could result in a decline in 

the quality of life for these 

groups and individuals. 

Effects to Native 

Americans who engage in 

concerned about 

restrictions on oil and gas 

development. This group 

includes many local 

residents who are 

concerned about 

economic development 

and its potential positive 

effects on the social 

environment of small 

communities.

Groups and individuals 

who give a high priority to 

resource protection, 

including the protection of 

the prairie ecosystem and 

greater sage-grouse 

habitat, may feel this 

alternative offers adequate 

protection for these 

resources. This could 

enhance the quality of life 

for these groups and 

individuals. 

Effects to Native 

Americans who engage in 

traditional practices could 

be positive in the Sweet 

Grass Hills and negative 

in the Little Rocky 

Mountains in terms of 

their ability to practice 

their religion in an 
218 Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

unencumbered way in the 

future.

pushed onto private lands 

where the protections 

would not be in place. 

This alternative may 

enhance the quality of life 

for these groups and 

individuals. 

Recreationists who desire 

a primitive experience 

would feel this alternative 

provides opportunities to 

enhance primitive 

experiences in the future. 

Native Americans who 

engage in traditional 

practices in the Sweet 

Grass Hills or the Little 

Rocky Mountains would 

be better able to practice 

their religion in an 

unencumbered way in the 

future.

in the Little Rocky 

Mountains in terms of 

their ability to practice 

their religion in an 

unencumbered way.

traditional practices could 

be positive in the Little 

Rocky Mountains but 

negative elsewhere in 

terms of their ability to 

practice their religion in 

an unencumbered way.

Opportunities would 

increase for those who 

enjoy a motorized 

experience and decline for 

those who enjoy a more 

primitive experience.

unencumbered way.”

Recreation opportunities 

would be balanced 

between motorized and 

nonmotorized 

opportunities.

Soil Resources and Vegetation – Rangeland

Surface disturbing activities would affect soils and vegetation to varying degrees depending on the amount, location, and type of disturbance; soil 

type; time of year; climate; and, surface hydrology. Surface disturbing activities remove protective vegetative cover and/or crusts and can alter 

soil physical, chemical, and biological properties; resulting in increased soil susceptibility to water and wind erosion, and decreased soil quality 

and site productivity. Guidance from BMPs, Standards for Rangeland Health and design standards would be implemented to minimize and 

mitigate soil effects.

Approximately 223,654

acres of new surface

disturbances are 

Approximately 241,116

acres of new surface 

disturbances are 

Approximately 245,228

acres of new surface 

disturbances are 

Approximately 246,659

acres of new surface

disturbances are 

Approximately 245,872

acres of new surface 

disturbances are 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences 219

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

anticipated on all land 

ownerships over the next 

20 years. Cumulatively, 

1.4% of soils and 

vegetation would be 

affected from new surface 

disturbances.

This alternative would 

provide an intermediate 

level of protection and 

mitigation of cumulative 

impacts.

anticipated on all land 

ownerships over the next 

20 years. Cumulatively, 

1.5% of soils and 

vegetation would be 

affected from new surface 

disturbances.

This alternative would be

the most protective and 

would provide the greatest 

reductions of cumulative 

impacts by implementing 

restrictions on many 

surface-disturbing 

activities.

anticipated on all land 

ownerships over the next 

20 years. Cumulatively, 

1.5% of soils and 

vegetation would be 

affected from new surface 

disturbances.

This alternative would 

provide an intermediate 

level of protection and 

mitigation of cumulative 

impacts.

anticipated on all land 

ownerships over the next 

20 years. Cumulatively, 

1.6% of soils and 

vegetation would be 

affected from new surface 

disturbances.

This alternative would be 

the least protective of 

soils and vegetation and 

would result in the 

greatest cumulative 

impacts.

anticipated on all land 

ownerships over the next 

20 years. Cumulatively, 

1.5% of soils and 

vegetation would be 

affected from new surface 

disturbances.

This alternative would 

provide an intermediate 

level of protection and 

mitigation of cumulative 

impacts.

Solid Minerals – Locatable

23,444 acres would be 

withdrawn from mineral 

entry. 

The Zortman/ Landusky 

mine reclamation 

withdrawal (3,530 acres) 

would be allowed to 

expire in October 2015 

and the Sweet Grass Hills 

withdrawal (19,671 acres) 

would be allowed to 

expire in April 2017. This 

would have a positive 

impact to locatable 

minerals by opening land 

for development.

23,563 acres of existing 

withdrawals in the Little 

Rocky Mountains and 

Sweet Grass Hills would 

be recommended for 

renewal. 

An additional 1,647,638

acres of recommended 

withdrawals would close 

more land to locatable 

mineral entry, including 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Protection Priority Area

(1,034,102 acres); 

Grassland Bird/Greater 

Sage-Grouse Priority 

23,563 acres of existing 

withdrawals in the Little 

Rocky Mountains and 

Sweet Grass Hills would 

be recommended for 

renewal. 

An additional 1,506,000

acres of recommended 

withdrawals would close 

more land to locatable 

mineral entry, including 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Protection Priority Area

(1,034,102 acres); 

Grassland Bird/Greater 

Sage-Grouse Priority 

Approximately 185,000

acres would be 

recommended for 

withdrawal from mineral 

entry. 

The Zortman/ Landusky 

mine reclamation 

withdrawal (3,380 acres) 

would be allowed to 

expire in October 2010, 

and the Sweet Grass Hills 

withdrawal (19,761 acres) 

would be allowed to 

expire in April 2017. This 

would have a positive 

impact to locatable 

Approximately 45,000

acres would be 

recommended for 

withdrawal from mineral 

entry. 

The Sweet Grass Hills 

withdrawal (19,761 acres) 

would be recommended 

for renewal.

Other recommended 

withdrawals would 

include Azure Cave (143 

acres); Camp Creek 

Campground (169 acres); 

Montana Gulch 
220 Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

This alternative would be 

the most favorable for 

locatable minerals 

exploration and 

development.

Areas (480,035 acres); 

Bitter Creek ACEC 

(60,717 acres); Kevin Rim 

ACEC (4,553 acres); 

Malta Geological ACEC 

(6,152 acres); Mountain 

Plover ACEC (24,672 

acres); Little Rocky 

Mountains TCP (37,387

acres); and Zortman 

Cemetery (20 acres). 

This alternative would 

reduce most locatable 

minerals development 

opportunities by 

eliminating any 

foreseeable development 

for the reestablishment 

and expansions of the 

Zortman and Landusky 

Mines and limiting all 

mining activity in the 

Sweet Grass Hills to 

claims with valid existing 

rights. 

Areas (320,405 acres); 

Bitter Creek ACEC 

(60,717 acres); 

Frenchman ACEC 

(39,661 acres); Kevin Rim 

ACEC (4,553 acres); 

Malta Geological ACEC 

(6,152 acres); Woody 

Island ACEC (15,804 

acres); and Zortman 

Cemetery (20 acres). 

This alternative would 

reduce most locatable 

minerals development 

opportunities by 

eliminating any 

foreseeable development 

for the reestablishment 

and expansions of the 

Zortman and Landusky 

Mines and limiting all 

mining activity in the 

Sweet Grass Hills to 

claims with valid existing 

rights.

minerals by opening land 

for development. 

Recommended 

withdrawals would be the 

Bitter Creek ACEC 

(60,717 acres); 

Frenchman ACEC 

(57,540 acres); Kevin Rim 

ACEC (4,553 acres); 

Little Rocky Mountains 

ACEC (15,000 acres); 

Malta Geological ACEC 

(6,152 acres); Woody 

Island ACEC (15,804 

acres); and Zortman 

Cemetery (20 acres).

Campground (75 acres); 

and the Mountain Plover 

ACEC (24,672 acres).

Through a future 

withdrawal review 

process the BLM would 

consider the need for a 

new withdrawal or rightof-way to promote 

successful reclamation of 

the Zortman/Landusky 

mines. The area for the 

withdrawal would not 

exceed the existing 

withdrawal boundary, but 

would likely be smaller 

(maximum size would be 

2,560 acres). This would 

have a positive impact to 

locatable mineral 

development. 

Special Designations – Existing ACECs

Azure Cave ACEC Retention of the ACEC (142 acres) would provide protection for sensitive bat species hibernating in the cave and features of the cave, and would 

provide for public safety by limiting access to the cave.

The area would be open

for wind energy rights-ofway.

The area would be an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way, which would provide the greatest protection for 

sensitive bat species and cave features.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences 221

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

Big Bend of the Milk 

River ACEC

Retention of the ACEC (1,979 acres) would protect and manage archaeological resources, including the Henry Smith and Beaucoup sites, which 

represent bison hunting and prehistoric ceremonial use of the Northwestern Plains.

1,140 acres are currently leased and natural gas production has direct and indirect impacts on archaeological sites within the ACEC. Direct 

impacts to sites would be avoided by mitigation through the Section 106 process.

An NSO stipulation would 

be required for future oil 

and gas leasing.

Impacts from salable 

minerals could be 

mitigated through the 

Section 106 process.

The area would be open

for wind energy rights-ofway. Surface-disturbing 

activities could be 

mitigated through the 

Section 106 process, but 

the viewshed could not be 

mitigated.

The area would be closed 

to future oil and gas 

leasing. 

Impacts from salable 

minerals could be 

mitigated through the 

Section 106 process.

The area would be an 

avoidance area for rightsof-way and an exclusion 

area for wind energy 

rights-of-way, which 

would increase protection 

to cultural resources from 

potential visual intrusions.

An NSO stipulation would 

be required for future oil 

and gas leasing.

Impacts from salable 

minerals could be 

mitigated through the 

Section 106 process.

The area would be an 

avoidance area for rightsof-way and an exclusion 

area for wind energy 

rights-of-way, which 

would increase protection 

to cultural resources from 

potential visual intrusions.

An NSO stipulation would be required for future oil and 

gas leasing.

The ACEC would be closed to salable minerals, which 

would increase the protection to cultural resources from 

surface-disturbing activities associated with sand and 

gravel extraction.

The area would be an avoidance area for rights-of-way 

and an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way, 

which would increase protection to cultural resources 

from potential visual intrusions.

Bitter Creek ACEC Retention of the ACEC (60,701 acres) would benefit scenic diversity and a variety of vegetation types and wildlife habitats.

The area would remain closed to oil and gas leasing until an ACEC management plan is completed that addresses leasing. It would also be an 

exclusion area for wind energy rights of way and closed to solid minerals-leasable and mineral material sales. The exclusion and closures would 

protect the ACEC from potential surface-disturbing activities and visual intrusions.

The 4 1/2 mile wide rightof-way for the Northern 

Border Corridor would not 

affect values for which the 

ACEC was designated due 

to successful reclamation 

The ACEC would be an 

avoidance area for rightsof-way, and the Northern 

Border Corridor within the 

ACEC would be a 

designated right-of-way 

The ACEC would be an 

avoidance area for rightsof-way, and the Northern 

Border Corridor within the 

ACEC would be a 

designated right-of-way 

The ACEC would be an 

avoidance area for rightsof-way. The values for 

which the ACEC was 

designated would be 

protected, but not to the 

The ACEC would be an 

avoidance area for rightsof-way, and no utility and 

transportation corridor 

would be designated. This 

would protect the values 
222 Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

and soil and vegetation 

productivity.

corridor with a width of 1 

mile. This would protect 

the values for which the 

ACEC was designated and 

successful reclamation 

that has occurred by 

preventing future right-ofway actions in the ACEC 

and confining the 

Northern Border Pipeline 

right-of-way to a narrower 

corridor than under 

Alternative A.

corridor with a width of 2 

miles. This would protect 

the values for which the 

ACEC was designated and 

successful reclamation 

that has occurred by 

preventing future right-ofway actions in the ACEC 

and confining the 

Northern Border Pipeline 

right-of-way to a narrower 

corridor than under 

Alternative A.

degree provided under 

Alternatives A, B, or C.

for which the ACEC was 

designated by preventing 

future right-of-way actions 

in the ACEC.

The area would be open to 

solid mineral entry and 

location, but would be 

subject to management 

consistent with BLM 

Manual 6330-

Management of BLM 

Wilderness Study Areas as 

appropriate, which would 

protect the values for 

which the ACEC was 

designated.

The BLM would recommend a withdrawal from mineral entry and location (60,717 

acres) to protect significant cultural, scenic, and wildlife values. This would benefit 

scenic views and sensitive archaeological resources, and would protect wildlife by 

providing a large, continuous, and contiguous amount of grassland habitat. 

The area would be open to 

solid mineral entry and 

location, but would be 

subject to management 

consistent with BLM 

Manual 6330-

Management of BLM 

Wilderness Study Areas as 

appropriate, which would 

protect the values for 

which the ACEC was 

designated.

Kevin Rim ACEC Retention of the ACEC (4,557 acres) would protect the diverse archeological resources and significant raptor habitat.

An NSO stipulation would be required for future oil and gas leasing. 2,950 acres are currently leased and production has direct and indirect 

impacts on cultural sites within the ACEC. Avoidance and/or other types of mitigation (BMPs) could negate or lessen the effects.

No mineral withdrawal 

would be recommended, 

but no effects from 

locatable minerals are 

A mineral withdrawal would be recommended, although no effects from locatable 

minerals would be expected due to low potential.

The area would be an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way, which would 

No mineral withdrawal 

would be recommended, 

but no effects from 

locatable minerals are 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences 223

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

expected due to low 

potential. 

The ACEC would be open 

to salable minerals. 

Impacts to cultural 

resources from surfacedisturbing activities 

associated with sand and 

gravel extraction could 

occur.

The ACEC would be open 

for wind energy rights-ofway. The surfacedisturbing activities could 

be mitigated through the 

Section 106 process, but 

impacts to the viewshed 

could not be mitigated.

increase protection to cultural resources from potential visual intrusions.

The ACEC would be closed to salable minerals, which would benefit the ACEC 

because sand and gravel would be the most likely solid mineral resource extracted 

within the ACEC.

expected due to low 

potential.

The area would be an 

exclusion area for wind 

energy rights-of-way,

which would increase 

protection to cultural 

resources from potential 

visual intrusions.

The ACEC would be 

closed to salable minerals, 

which would benefit the 

ACEC because sand and 

gravel would be the most 

likely solid mineral 

resource extracted within 

the ACEC.

Mountain Plover ACEC Retention of the ACEC (24,762 acres) would provide protection to the natural habitat for mountain plover in this unique area away from 

traditional habitat associated with prairie dogs.

A timing stipulation for oil 

and gas leasing would 

avoid direct long-term 

impacts to mountain 

plover habitat.

The ACEC would be open 

for locatable solid 

minerals (bentonite) with 

timing stipulations to 

protect breeding mountain 

plovers.

An NSO stipulation for oil 

and gas leasing would 

avoid any impacts from oil 

and gas exploration and 

development.

A mineral withdrawal 

would be recommended. 

This would protect 

mountain plover from 

potential permanent 

impacts and habitat 

An NSO stipulation for oil 

and gas leasing would 

avoid direct long-term 

impacts to mountain 

plover habitat.

A mineral withdrawal 

would be recommended. 

This would protect 

mountain plover from 

potential permanent 

impacts and habitat 

An NSO stipulation for oil 

and gas leasing would 

avoid direct long-term 

impacts to mountain 

plover habitat.

A mineral withdrawal 

would be recommended. 

This would protect 

mountain plover from 

potential permanent 

impacts and habitat 

The ACEC would be 

closed to oil and gas 

leasing which would avoid 

any impacts from oil and 

gas exploration and 

development.

A mineral withdrawal 

would be recommended. 

This would protect 

mountain plover from 

potential permanent 
224 Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

The ACEC would be open 

to salable minerals which 

could create impacts from 

surface-disturbing 

activities associated with 

sand and gravel extraction, 

but the potential is 

considered low.

The area would be open

for wind energy rights-ofway. 

reduction that mining 

would cause.

The ACEC would be open

to salable minerals which 

could create impacts from 

surface-disturbing 

activities associated with 

sand and gravel extraction, 

but the potential is 

considered low.

The area would be an 

avoidance area for rightsof-way and an exclusion 

area for wind energy

rights-of-way, which 

would increase protection 

of mountain plover 

habitat.

reduction that mining 

would cause.

The ACEC would be open 

to salable minerals which 

could create impacts from 

surface-disturbing 

activities associated with 

sand and gravel extraction, 

but the potential is 

considered low.

The area would be an 

avoidance area for rightsof-way and an exclusion 

area for wind energy 

rights-of-way, which 

would increase protection 

of mountain plover 

habitat.

reduction that mining 

would cause.

The ACEC would be 

closed to salable minerals 

which would protect the 

mountain plover habitat 

from surface-disturbing 

activities associated with 

sand and gravel extraction.

The area would be an 

avoidance area for rightsof-way and an exclusion 

area for wind energy 

rights-of-way, which 

would increase protection 

of mountain plover 

habitat.

impacts and habitat 

reduction that mining 

would cause.

The ACEC would be 

closed to salable minerals 

which would protect the 

mountain plover habitat 

from surface-disturbing 

activities associated with 

sand and gravel extraction.

The area would be an 

avoidance area for rightsof-way and an exclusion 

area for wind energy 

rights-of-way, which 

would increase protection 

of mountain plover 

habitat.

Prairie Dog Towns 

within the 7km 

Complex ACEC

The ACEC (16,403 acres) 

would be retained. 

Benefits for prairie dogs 

and associated species still 

found within the ACEC 

boundary would be 

maintained.

The ACEC would not be retained. The ACEC is no longer effective in providing special management for prairie 

dogs, associated species, and black-footed ferret reintroduction. Management actions directed at prairie dogs and 

associated species would still protect the resources for which the ACEC was originally established.

Sweet Grass Hills 

ACEC

Retention of the ACEC (7,429 acres) would protect habitat which has high potential for reintroduction of peregrine falcon; would protect areas of 

traditional spiritual importance to Native Americans; and would protect seasonally important elk and deer habitat and aquifer in the area that 

provide potable water to local residents.

An NSO stipulation for oil 

and gas leasing would 

apply to future leasing. 

An NSO stipulation for oil and gas leasing would apply 

to future leasing. BLM would work directly with oil and 

gas operators on existing leases to mitigate adverse 

An NSO stipulation for oil 

and gas leasing would 

apply to future leasing. 

The area would be closed 

to future oil and gas 

leasing. BLM would work 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences 225

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

BLM would work directly 

with oil and gas operators 

on existing leases to 

mitigate adverse impacts 

to the resources caused by 

exploration and 

development activities.

No impacts are anticipated 

to occur from locatable 

minerals because the 

Sweet Grass Hills TCP, of 

which the ACEC is part, is 

withdrawn from mineral 

entry.

The ACEC is closed to 

leasable minerals which 

would protect the 

resources from impacts 

that could occur from 

those surface-disturbing 

activities.

The ACEC is open to 

salable minerals and 

impacts could occur from 

surface-disturbing 

activities associated with 

sand and gravel extraction.

The area would be open 

for wind energy rights-ofway. Surface-disturbing 

activities could be 

impacts to the resources caused by exploration and 

development activities.

BLM would recommend a continuance of the 

withdrawal from mineral entry. No impacts would occur 

from hardrock mining.

The ACEC would be closed to leasable and salable 

minerals, which would protect the resources from 

impacts that could occur from those surface-disturbing 

activities.

The ACEC would be an avoidance area for rights-ofway and an exclusion area for wind energy rights-ofway. This would increase the protection to cultural 

resources from potential visual intrusions.

BLM would work directly 

with oil and gas operators 

on existing leases to 

mitigate adverse impacts 

to the resources caused by 

exploration and 

development activities.

BLM would recommend 

the withdrawal from 

mineral entry be allowed 

to expire. Impacts from 

mining could include 

noise and visual impacts 

to traditional users of the 

area, and damage and/or 

destruction to 

archaeological sites.

The ACEC would be 

closed to leasable and 

salable minerals, which 

would protect the 

resources from impacts 

that could occur from 

those surface-disturbing 

activities.

The ACEC would be an 

avoidance area for rightsof-way and an exclusion 

area for wind energy 

rights-of-way. This would 

increase the protection to 

cultural resources from 

directly with oil and gas 

operators on existing 

leases to mitigate adverse 

impacts to the resources 

caused by exploration and 

development activities.

BLM would recommend a 

continuance of the 

withdrawal from mineral 

entry. No impacts are 

anticipated to occur from 

hardrock mining.

The ACEC would be 

closed to leasable and 

salable minerals, which 

would protect the 

resources from impacts 

that could occur from 

those surface-disturbing 

activities.

The ACEC would be an 

avoidance area for rightsof-way and an exclusion 

area for wind energy 

rights-of-way. This would 

increase the protection to 

cultural resources from 

potential visual intrusions.
226 Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

mitigated through the 

Section 106 process, but 

the viewshed could not be 

mitigated.

potential visual intrusions.

Special Designations – Potential ACECs

Frenchman ACEC Surface-disturbing activities could occur under all alternatives and BMPs for surface-disturbing activities would be applied. Under normal 

circumstances, standard mitigation guidelines are effective in minimizing impacts to resources; however, conditions such as severely erodible 

soils, severe winters with high mule deer populations on crucial winter range, or extreme environmental events may require more aggressive 

management actions to mitigate adverse impacts.

The ACEC would not be 

designated.

The ACEC would not be 

designated. An NSO 

stipulation would apply to 

future oil and gas leases to 

protect soils with severe 

erosion hazards, badlands, 

rock outcrop, and lentic or 

lotic riparian areas. The 

crucial mule deer winter 

range within the 

Frenchman area would be 

closed to leasing to protect 

the crucial winter range.

The ACEC (42,020 acres) 

would be designated to 

maintain the unique 

landscape and scenic 

characteristics, protect 

erodible soils and rock 

outcrop, and protect 

important wildlife 

habitats.

The ACEC (63,482 acres) 

would be designated to 

maintain the unique 

landscape and scenic 

characteristics, protect 

erodible soils and rock 

outcrop, and protect 

important wildlife 

habitats.

The ACEC (42,020 acres) 

would be designated to 

maintain the unique 

landscape and scenic 

characteristics, protect 

erodible soils and rock 

outcrop and protect 

important wildlife 

habitats.

An NSO stipulation would apply to future oil and gas 

leases to protect the fragile watershed and crucial winter 

range. 

Fluid mineral development could occur on acreage 

currently leased. Development of the leases would 

impact soils. Wildlife impacts would be reduced by 

timing and/or avoidance stipulations.

The ACEC would be closed to leasable and salable solid 

minerals, which would protect the erodible soils and rock 

outcrop, and important wildlife habitats.

The ACEC would be an avoidance area for rights-of-way 

and an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences 227

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

Grassland Bird/Greater 

Sage-Grouse Priority 

Areas ACEC

The areas would not be 

designated an ACEC.

The ACEC (461,220 

acres) would be 

designated. Closing the 

ACEC to fluid mineral 

leasing, making it an 

exclusion area for ROWs 

and recommending a 

locatable mineral 

withdrawal would 

minimize fragmentation of 

sage-grouse and grassland 

bird habitat.

The areas would not be designated an ACEC.

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Protection Priority Area 

ACEC

The area would not be 

designated an ACEC.

The ACEC (930,265 

acres) would be 

designated. Closing the 

ACEC to fluid mineral 

leasing, making it an 

exclusion area for ROWs 

and recommending a 

locatable mineral 

withdrawal would 

minimize fragmentation of 

sage-grouse habitat. 

The area would not be designated an ACEC.

Little Rocky Mountains 

ACEC

The area would not be designated an ACEC. Prehistoric and historic archaeological 

resources, and spiritual and traditional resources in the area would be managed and 

protected through management of the Little Rocky Mountains TCP.

The ACEC (27,163 acres) 

would be designated to 

protect prehistoric and 

historic archaeological 

resources, and spiritual 

and traditional resources.

An NSO stipulation for oil 

and gas leasing would 

avoid potential impacts to 

prehistoric and historic 

The ACEC would not be 

designated. Prehistoric 

and historic archaeological 

resources, and spiritual 

and traditional resources 

in the area would be 

managed and protected 

through management of 

the Little Rocky 

Mountains TCP, including 

the exclusion of wind 
228 Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

archaeological resources.

The ACEC would be an 

avoidance area for rightsof-way and an exclusion 

area for wind energy 

rights-of-way. This would 

increase the protection to 

cultural resources from 

potential visual intrusions.

BLM would recommend a 

withdrawal for the 

northern portion of the 

ACEC (15,000 acres) to 

avoid potential impacts 

associated with mining.

The area would be closed 

to solid mineral leasing 

and mineral material sales 

to avoid potential impacts 

associated with these 

activities. 

The area would have a 

limited designation for 

OHV use; seasonal 

restrictions, if enacted 

through travel 

management planning, 

would protect cultural 

resource values.

energy rights-of-way.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences 229

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

Malta Geological 

ACEC

The area would not be 

designated an ACEC. 

Paleontological resources 

would be protected under 

BLM 8270 Guidance and 

Handbook. Impacts due to 

damage, destruction, theft, 

and vandalism would 

diminish the scientific 

value of paleontological 

resources. 

Further field 

investigations could 

benefit scientific 

knowledge. 

An NSO stipulation for oil 

and gas leasing would be 

required for known 

paleontological sites, 

which would protect the 

resource.

The area would be open to 

wind energy rights-ofway; however, anticipated 

effects of surface 

disturbance required 

during construction could 

be minimized or 

eliminated through 

avoidance and mitigation 

actions.

The Malta Geological ACEC (6,153 acres) would be designated to protect significant 

paleontological values. 

A CSU stipulation would be placed on future oil and gas leases to protect the 

paleontological values.

The area would be an avoidance area for rights-of-way and an exclusion area for wind 

energy rights-of-way to protect the shallow subsurface paleontological resources. This 

would increase the protection to paleontological resources from potential surfacedisturbing activities.

BLM would recommend a withdrawal for locatable minerals, and the area would be 

closed to solid mineral leasing and mineral material sales to avoid potential impacts 

associated with these activities. 

The Malta Geological 

ACEC (6,153 acres) 

would be designated to 

protect significant 

paleontological values. 

A CSU stipulation would 

be placed on future oil and 

gas leases to protect the 

paleontological values.

The area would be an 

avoidance area for rightsof-way and an exclusion 

area for wind energy 

rights-of-way to protect 

the shallow subsurface 

paleontological resources.

BLM would not 

recommend a withdrawal 

for locatable minerals, but 

the area is in a very low or 

unknown potential for 

locatable mineral 

development.

The area would be closed 

to solid mineral leasing 

and mineral material sales 

to avoid potential impacts 

associated with these 

activities. 
230 Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

Woody Island ACEC The area would not be designated an ACEC. The Woody Island ACEC (22,411 acres) would be 

designated to maintain the unique landscape and scenic 

characteristics, and to protect the fragile watershed and 

wildlife species from fragmentation.

An NSO stipulation would apply to all future oil and gas 

leases, but this would have little to no impact because 

development potential is very low.

The ACEC would be an avoidance area for rights-ofway and an exclusion area for wind energy rights-ofway. This would increase the protection for the unique 

landscape from potential surface-disturbing activities.

BLM would recommend a withdrawal from locatable 

mineral entry and the area would be closed to solid 

mineral leasing and mineral material sales.

The Woody Island ACEC 

(32,869 acres) would be 

designated to maintain the 

unique landscape and 

scenic characteristics, and 

to protect the fragile 

watershed and wildlife 

species from 

fragmentation.

An NSO stipulation would 

be applied to all future oil 

and gas leases, but this 

would have little to no 

impact because

development potential is 

very low.

The ACEC would be an 

avoidance area for rightsof-way and an exclusion 

area for wind energy 

rights-of-way.

BLM would recommend a 

withdrawal from locatable 

mineral entry and the area 

would be closed to solid 

mineral leasing and 

mineral material sales.

Zortman/Landusky 

Mine Reclamation 

ACEC

The area would not be 

designated an ACEC.

The Zortman/Landusky Mine Reclamation ACEC 

(3,575 acres) would be designated to promote successful 

reclamation and ensure public safety on BLM lands 

affected by prior surface and underground mining 

The area would not be 

designated an ACEC. 

The withdrawal would be 

The Zortman/Landusky 

Mine Reclamation ACEC 

(2,656 acres) would be 

designated to promote 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences 231

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

activities.

An NSO stipulation would be applied to all future oil 

and gas leases. This would support reclamation success 

by preventing surface disturbance associated with oil 

and gas exploration and development.

The area would be an avoidance area for rights-of-way 

and an exclusion area for wind energy rights-of-way. 

This would increase the success of reclamation by 

preventing potential surface-disturbing activities.

BLM would recommend a 20-year withdrawal from 

mineral entry and location upon expiration of the 

existing withdrawal in 2015. The area would be closed 

to solid mineral leasing and mineral material sales. This 

would support reclamation success by preventing 

surface disturbance from mining activity.

allowed to expire (2015). successful reclamation and 

ensure public safety on 

BLM lands affected by 

prior surface and 

underground mining 

activities. 

The area within the higher 

elevations of the Little 

Rocky Mountains TCP 

(2,604 acres) would be 

closed to oil and gas 

leasing to protect the 

prehistoric and historic 

archaeological resources 

in the area.

The existing withdrawal 

will expire in 2015. 

Through the withdrawal 

review process the BLM 

would consider the need 

for a new withdrawal or 

right-of-way to promote 

successful reclamation. 

The area of the withdrawal 

or right-of-way would be 

based on need to maintain 

and protect infrastructure 

associated with 

reclamation activities.

The area would be open to 

mineral material sales 

associated with the need 
232 Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

for reclamation materials 

and maintenance of 

existing roads (5-6 miles).

The area would be an 

avoidance area for rightsof-way.

The area would be an 

exclusion area for wind 

energy rights-of-way.

The area would be 

designated closed to offroad vehicles to maintain 

the reclamation and ensure 

public safety until 

reclamation is completed. 

Vegetation – Riparian and Wetland

Surface-Disturbing 

Activities

2,188 acres of long-term 

surface disturbance are 

anticipated, mostly in the 

high and moderate 

potential oil and gas 

development areas. 

Impacts would include 

direct removal of 

vegetation on stream 

banks and around potholes 

when surface-disturbing 

activities cannot be moved 

due to other resource 

values, and would most 

likely occur on small, 

1,056 acres of long-term 

surface disturbance are 

anticipated. 

The short-term and longterm surface disturbance 

would be the lowest under 

this alternative and would 

have the least potential to 

affect riparian and 

wetland values.

1,927 acres of long-term 

surface disturbance are 

anticipated, mostly in the 

high and moderate 

potential oil and gas 

development areas. 

Impacts would include 

direct removal of 

vegetation on stream 

banks and around potholes 

when surface-disturbing 

activities cannot be moved 

due to other resource 

values, and would most 

likely occur on small, 

2,202 acres of long-term 

surface disturbance are 

anticipated, mostly in the 

high and moderate 

potential oil and gas 

development areas. 

Impacts would include 

direct removal of 

vegetation on stream 

banks and around potholes 

when surface-disturbing 

activities cannot be moved 

due to other resource 

values, and would most 

likely occur on small, 

2,055 acres of long-term 

surface disturbance are 

anticipated, mostly in the 

high and moderate 

potential oil and gas 

development areas.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences 233

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

intermittent riparian areas 

where oil and gas 

development is most 

intensive. 

The short-term and longterm surface disturbance 

would be the highest 

under this alternative and 

would have the most 

potential to affect riparian 

and wetland values.

intermittent riparian areas 

where oil and gas 

development is most 

intensive. 

intermittent riparian areas 

where oil and gas 

development is most 

intensive. 

The short-term and longterm surface disturbance 

would be the highest 

under this alternative and 

would have the most 

potential to affect riparian 

and wetland values.

Fluid Minerals Stipulations would apply 

to 243 miles (25%) and 

5,857 acres (11%) of 

riparian habitat with major 

constraints (closed or 

NSO). Of this total, 229 

miles (94%) and 5,071 

acres (87%) are unleased 

in the very low potential 

area. 

60 miles and 7,410 acres 

of riparian habitat are not 

protected by major 

constraints in the high and 

moderate potential areas 

and could be affected by 

fluid mineral 

development.

Stipulations would apply 

to 36 miles and 4,513 

acres of riparian habitat 

that are unleased in the 

high, moderate and low 

potential areas. The 

remaining areas have very 

low development potential 

or are currently leased. As 

existing leases expire, a 

1/4 mile NSO stipulation 

would be applied to new 

leases, which would 

protect more riparian 

areas from surface 

disturbance.

All of the lotic and lentic 

riparian habitat in the high 

and moderate potential 

areas that could be 

affected by fluid mineral 

Major constraints (closed 

or NSO) would apply to 

36 miles and 4,513 acres 

of riparian habitat that are 

unleased in the high, 

moderate and low 

potential areas.

All of the lotic and lentic 

riparian habitat in the high 

and moderate potential 

areas that could be 

affected by fluid mineral 

development would be 

protected by major 

constraints.

Major constraints (closed 

or NSO) would apply to 9 

miles and 80 acres of 

riparian habitat that are 

unleased in the high, 

moderate and low 

potential areas.

61 miles and 7,563 acres 

of riparian habitat not 

protected by major 

constraints in the high and 

moderate potential areas 

could be affected by fluid 

minerals development.

Major constraints (closed 

or NSO) would apply to 

14 miles and 207 acres of 

riparian habitat that are 

unleased in the high, 

moderate and low 

potential areas.

50 miles and 7,185 acres 

of riparian habitat not 

protected by major 

constraints in the high and 

moderate potential areas 

could be affected by fluid 

mineral development.
234 Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

development would be 

protected by major 

constraints.

Solid Minerals 390 acres have potential 

for short-term surface 

disturbance and 2,495 

acres for long-term 

surface disturbance for 

solid mineral 

development.

Overall effects on riparian 

areas would be small 

because the high 

development potential 

area includes only 52 

acres and 11 miles of 

riparian habitat.

355 acres have potential 

for short-term and longterm surface disturbance.

355 acres have potential 

for short-term and longterm surface disturbance.

235 acres have potential 

for short term surface 

disturbance and 300 acres 

for long-term surface 

disturbance.

355 acres have potential 

for short-term and longterm surface disturbance.

Visual Resources

This alternative includes 

the following acreages by 

VRM Class:

Class I 0 acres

Class II 417,334 acres

Class III 58,513 acres

Class IV 1,961,591 acres

Surface-disturbing 

activities would affect 

35,541 acres in the short 

term and 2,581 acres in 

the long term.

This alternative includes 

the following acreages by

VRM Class:

Class I 90,032 acres

Class II 977,396 acres

Class III 498,298 acres

Class IV 871,712 acres

Surface-disturbing 

activities would affect 

62,837 acres in the short 

term and 2,576 acres in 

the long term.

This alternative includes 

the following acreages by 

VRM Class:

Class I 74,506 acres

Class II 914,194 acres

Class III 521,322 acres

Class IV 927,413 acres

Surface-disturbing 

activities would affect 

63,404 acres in the short 

term and 2,734 acres in 

the long term.

This alternative includes 

the following acreages by 

VRM Class:

Class I 74,506 acres

Class II 127,439 acres

Class III 584,113 acres

Class IV 1,651,380 acres

Surface-disturbing 

activities would affect 

63,945 acres in the short 

term and 2,979 acres in 

the long term.

This alternative includes 

the following acreages by 

VRM Class:

Class I 74,506 acres

Class II 841,087 acres

Class III 521,868 acres

Class IV 999,977 acres

Surface-disturbing 

activities would affect 

63,404 acres in the short 

term and 2,734 acres in 

the long term.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences 235

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

Effects from fluid mineral development would mostly occur within high and moderate potential areas in Blaine, Hill, and Phillips counties and 

would continue through the life of the plan or term of the leased wells. These effects could be reduced by utilizing VRM class objectives to 

provide the basis for allowable changes in form, line, color, and texture. 

The 102,298 acres closed 

to fluid mineral leasing 

and 282,062 acres with an 

NSO stipulation would 

protect existing visual 

resources on those acres 

from surface-disturbing 

activities related to natural 

gas development and 

would benefit scenic 

quality.

The 3,173,637 acres 

closed to fluid mineral 

leasing and 258,560 acres 

with an NSO stipulation 

would protect existing 

visual resources on those 

acres from surfacedisturbing activities 

related to natural gas 

development and would 

benefit scenic quality.

The 218,586 acres closed 

to fluid mineral leasing 

and 1,291,160 acres with 

an NSO stipulation would 

protect existing visual 

resources on those acres 

from surface-disturbing 

activities related to natural 

gas development and 

would benefit scenic 

quality.

The 74,674 acres closed to 

fluid mineral leasing and 

357,456 acres with an 

NSO stipulation would 

protect existing visual 

resources on those acres 

from surface-disturbing 

activities related to natural 

gas development and 

would benefit scenic 

quality.

The 152,702 acres closed 

to fluid mineral leasing 

and 1,711,378 acres with 

an NSO stipulation would 

protect existing visual 

resources on those acres 

from surface-disturbing 

activities related to natural 

gas development and 

would benefit scenic 

quality.

Approximately 6,860 

acres of short-term 

disturbance and 4,740 

acres of long-term 

disturbance are projected 

for management-ignited 

prescribed fire actions. 

Approximately 3,500 

acres of short-term 

disturbance are projected 

for silviculture treatments, 

fuels management, and 

forest product harvesting 

actions. The long-term 

benefits of prescribed fire 

and forest and woodland 

treatments (improved 

vegetation composition 

and wildlife habitat) may, 

in turn, improve scenic 

Approximately 26,660 acres would have short-term disturbance from prescribed fire, and 7,820 acres would have 

short-term disturbance from mechanical treatment actions. Surface disturbance from these actions would reduce 

recreational opportunities and degrade the quality of recreational experiences in the short term, but would improve 

opportunities and experiences in the long term. The long-term benefits of prescribed fire and forest and woodland 

treatments (improved vegetation composition and wildlife habitat) may, in turn, improve scenic quality and increase 

recreational opportunities for wildlife viewing, hiking and hunting.
236 Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

quality and increase 

recreational opportunities 

for wildlife viewing, 

hiking and hunting.

OHV activities can affect visual resources by adding different colored, linear forms that contrast with the forms and colors of the characteristic 

landscape. OHV use on roads, primitive roads and trails could increase color contrasts between the travel surface and surrounding vegetation 

through continued vegetation loss and soil erosion.

OHV designations would 

include 124 acres as open; 

2,355,457 acres as limited 

to existing roads, 

primitive roads and trails, 

and 7,429 acres in the 

Sweet Grass Hills ACEC 

as closed to OHV use. 

74,428 acres in the WSAs 

would be limited to

identified primitive routes.

OHV designations would 

include 2,355,497 acres as 

limited to existing roads, 

primitive roads and trails 

and 7,513 acres (Fresno 

OHV area and Sweet 

Grass Hills ACEC) as 

closed to OHV use. 

74,428 acres in the WSAs 

would be limited to

identified primitive routes.

OHV designations would 

include 2,355,457 acres as 

limited to existing roads, 

primitive roads and trails 

and 7,513 acres (Fresno 

OHV area, Glasgow OHV 

area, and Sweet Grass 

Hills ACEC) as closed to 

OHV use. 74,428 acres in 

the WSAs would be 

limited to identified 

primitive routes.

Motorized game retrieval 

off road on 387,118 acres 

could affect visual

resources in those areas.

OHV designations would 

include 305 acres as open; 

and 2,362,705 acres as 

limited to existing roads, 

primitive roads and trails. 

74,428 acres in the WSAs 

would be limited to 

identified primitive routes. 

Motorized game retrieval 

off road on 2,290,669 

acres would have the 

greatest potential to affect 

visual resources in the 

planning area.

OHV designations would 

include 165 acres as open 

(Fresno and Glasgow 

OHV areas), 2,355,967 

acres as limited to existing 

roads, primitive roads and 

trails and 7,429 acres 

(Sweet Grass Hills 

ACEC) as closed to OHV 

use. 74,428 acres in the 

WSAs would be limited to

identified primitive routes. 

Options for motorized 

game retrieval off road 

could be considered 

during subsequent sitespecific travel 

management planning, 

which could affect visual 

resources in the areas 

considered.

Water Resources

Surface-disturbing activities affect water resources to varying degrees depending on the type, amount, and location of disturbance; time of year; 

precipitation; and the condition and types of present and surrounding soil and vegetation. Surface-disturbing activities lead to alterations in the 

chemical, physical, and biological integrity of water when vegetation and protective crusts are removed or manipulated, when contaminants are 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences 237

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

introduced, or when natural soil architecture and functionality is disrupted. Protecting the quality and quantity of water for ourselves and future 

generations consists of the BLM adhering to the objectives of the federal Clean Water Act to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and 

biological integrity of the nation’s water. Site-specific mitigation measures, BMPs, and reclamation standards would be implemented and 

monitored in order to minimize effects to water resources.

Approximately 218,600 

acres of new surface 

disturbances are 

anticipated on all land 

ownerships over the next 

20 years.

On BLM surface, mostly 

in the high and moderate 

potential oil and gas 

development areas, 

approximately 2,422 acres 

of long-term disturbance 

are anticipated.

This alternative would 

provide an intermediate 

level of protection and 

mitigation of cumulative 

impacts.

Approximately 230,600 

acres of new surface 

disturbances are 

anticipated on all land 

ownerships over the next 

20 years.

On BLM surface, 

approximately 1,544 acres 

of long-term disturbance 

are anticipated.

This alternative would be 

the most protective and 

would provide the greatest 

reductions of cumulative 

impacts by implementing 

restrictions on many 

surface-disturbing 

activities.

Approximately 236,900 

acres of new surface 

disturbances are 

anticipated on all land 

ownerships over the next 

20 years.

On BLM surface, mostly 

in the high and moderate 

potential oil and gas 

development areas, 

approximately 2,238 acres 

of long-term disturbance 

are anticipated.

This alternative would 

provide an intermediate 

level of protection and 

mitigation of cumulative 

impacts.

Approximately 241,600 

acres of new surface 

disturbances are 

anticipated on all land 

ownerships over the next 

20 years.

On BLM surface, mostly 

in the high and moderate 

potential oil and gas 

development areas, 

approximately 2,436 acres 

of long-term disturbance 

are anticipated.

This alternative would be 

the least protective and 

would result in the 

greatest cumulative 

impacts.

Approximately 238,700 

acres of new surface 

disturbances are 

anticipated on all land 

ownerships over the next 

20 years.

On BLM surface, mostly 

in the high and moderate 

potential oil and gas 

development areas, 

approximately 2,337 acres 

of long-term disturbance 

are anticipated.

This alternative would 

provide an intermediate 

level of protection and 

mitigation of cumulative 

impacts.

Wilderness Characteristics

Allowable uses and management actions that could affect wilderness characteristics include surface development and associated infrastructures 

such as vegetation management, range improvement projects, or more intensive activities such as natural gas development.

No actions would be taken 

to manage lands with 

wilderness characteristics 

to retain their wilderness 

qualities under this 

alternative.

All 26 areas totaling 

386,428 acres that were 

found to have wilderness 

characteristics would be 

managed to protect 

wilderness characteristics 

Twelve areas totaling 

228,395 acres would be 

managed to protect 

wilderness characteristics 

as a priority over other 

resource values and 

No actions would be taken 

to manage lands with 

wilderness characteristics 

to retain their size, 

apparent naturalness, 

opportunities for solitude, 

Two areas totaling 10,714 

acres would be managed 

to protect wilderness 

characteristics as a 

priority over other 

resource values and 
238 Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

as a priority over other 

resource values and 

multiple uses. A variety 

of protective measures 

would be applied to these 

areas, as described under 

the applicable resource 

sections.

multiple uses. A variety of 

protective measures 

would be applied to these 

areas, as described under 

the applicable resource 

sections. Management 

proposed for other 

resources is 

complementary to 

maintaining wilderness 

characteristics on 75,327 

acres. Management 

proposed for other 

resources may be 

incompatible with 

maintaining wilderness 

characteristics on 82,706 

acres.

opportunities for primitive 

and unconfined recreation, 

or supplemental values. 

These lands would be 

managed for other 

resource values which 

may be in direct conflict 

with preservation of 

wilderness 

characteristics..

multiple uses. A variety of 

protective measures 

would be applied to these 

areas, as described under 

the applicable resource 

sections. Management 

proposed for other 

resources is 

complementary to 

maintaining wilderness 

characteristics on 290,865 

acres. Management 

proposed for other 

resources may be 

incompatible with 

maintaining wilderness 

characteristics on 

84,849 acres.

Wildlife

General Impacts to wildlife would 

vary by species and 

activity. 

Impacts to wildlife would vary by species and activity. Species-specific mitigation measures would be adopted for 

all surface-disturbing activities.

Fluid Minerals The 102,298 acres closed 

to fluid mineral leasing, 

282,062 acres with an 

NSO stipulation, 

2,649,242 acres with 

CSU/TLS stipulations, 

and 457,849 acres with 

standard lease terms 

would protect wildlife 

habitat on those acres 

from surface-disturbing 

The 3,173,637 acres 

closed to fluid mineral 

leasing, 258,560 acres 

with an NSO stipulation, 

3,291 acres with 

CSU/TLS stipulations, 

and 55,962 acres with 

standard lease terms 

would protect wildlife 

habitat on those acres 

from surface-disturbing 

The 218,586 acres closed 

to fluid mineral leasing, 

1,291,160 acres with an 

NSO stipulation, 

1,681,990 acres with 

CSU/TLS stipulations, 

and 299,713 acres with 

standard lease terms 

would protect wildlife 

habitat on those acres 

from surface-disturbing 

The 74,674 acres closed to 

fluid mineral leasing, 

357,456 acres with an 

NSO stipulation, 

2,461,653 acres with 

CSU/TLS stipulations, 

and 597,668 acres with 

standard lease terms 

would protect wildlife 

habitat on those acres 

from surface-disturbing 

The 152,702 acres closed 

to fluid mineral leasing, 

1,711,378 acres with an 

NSO stipulation, 

1,460,096 acres with 

CSU/TLS stipulations, 

and 167,274 acres with 

standard lease terms 

would protect wildlife 

habitat on those acres 

from surface-disturbing 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 2, Alternatives

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences 239

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

activities. activities. activities. activities. activities.

Anticipated Well Density (Wells per Square Mile) on BLM Land

High

(existing – 0.44) 2.34 2.64 2.14 2.38 2.22

Moderate

(existing – 0.44) 3.33 2.36 3.06 3.34 3.23

Low

(existing – 0.44) 1.18 0.87 1.12 1.18 1.15

Very Low

(existing – 0.44) 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03

The greatest impact in the 

long-term would occur in 

the high development 

potential areas, including 

the Bears Paw South area, 

where mean well densities 

would rise from the 

current 0.44 wells/mi2 to 

2.34 wells/mi2 (a 420% 

increase) and mean road 

densities would increase 

from 0.47 to 1.21 miles of 

road/mi2. This would 

result in a direct and 

indirect loss of most 

habitat for big game in the 

high development 

potential areas. 

The greatest impact 

during the life of the plan 

would occur in the high 

development potential 

areas, including the Bears 

Paw South area, where 

mean well densities would 

rise from the current 0.44 

wells/mi2 to 2.64 

wells/mi2 (a 587% 

increase) and road 

densities would increase 

from 0.47 to 1.14 miles of 

road/mi2. This would 

result in an increase in 

direct and indirect loss of 

habitat for big game in the 

high development 

potential areas but mean 

well densities on BLM 

land would not exceed the 

upper threshold.

The greatest impact 

during the life of the plan 

would occur in the high 

development potential 

areas, including the Bears 

Paw South area, where 

mean well densities would 

rise from the current 0.44 

wells/mi2 to 2.14 

wells/mi2 (a 408% 

increase) and road 

densities would increase 

from 0.47 to 1.15 miles of 

road/mi2. This would 

result in a direct and 

indirect loss of most 

habitat for big game in the 

high development 

potential areas.

Mean well densities on 

BLM land in each of the 

oil and gas development 

potential areas would 

exceed 1.04 wells/mi2 

except in the very low 

development potential 

areas (0.03 wells per 

square mile). Road 

densities would exceed 

the upper threshold in the 

moderate development 

potential area and the 

lower threshold in the 

high and low development 

potential areas (Table 

4.96). A significant 

decline in populations of 

big game animals would 

be expected within all 

potential areas except in 

the very low development 

Mean well densities on 

BLM land in each of the 

oil and gas development 

potential areas would 

exceed 1.04 wells/mi2 

except in the very low 

development potential 

areas (0.05 wells per 

square mile). Road 

densities would exceed 

the upper threshold in the 

moderate development 

potential area and the 

lower threshold in the 

high and low development 

potential areas (Table 

4.96). A significant 

decline in populations of 

big game animals would 

be expected within high, 

moderate and low 

potential areas except in 
240 Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Chapter 2, Alternatives HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

Table 2.22

Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource

Alternative A

(Current Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Throughout the planning area, BLM-authorized activities associated with all resources and all resource use programs would be subject to mitigation and minimization 

guidelines and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Appendix C), including specific Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse (Appendix M). 

For analysis purposes, it has been assumed that these practices and conservation actions would be implemented during site-specific project planning where appropriate.

potential area because of 

the density of wells and 

roads.

the very low development 

potential areas because of 

the density of wells and 

roads.

Greater Sage-Grouse Not applicable. Protection priority areas 

for greater sage-grouse 

(930,265 acres) and 

priority areas for 

grassland birds/greater 

sage-grouse (461,220

acres) would be 

established and managed 

as ACECs which would 

minimize additional 

impacts to wildlife 

resources in these areas.

Protection priority areas 

for greater sage-grouse 

(930,265 acres) and 

priority areas for 

grassland birds/greater 

sage-grouse (298,772

acres) would be 

established which would 

minimize additional 

impacts to wildlife 

resources in these areas.

Not applicable. Protection priority areas 

for greater sage-grouse 

(930,265 acres) and 

priority areas for 

grassland birds/greater 

sage-grouse (298,772

acres) would be 

established which would 

minimize additional 

impacts to wildlife 

resources in these areas.