HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix A 

Implementation and Monitoring 813

Appendix A 

Implementation and Monitoring 

Plan implementation is a continuous process occurring over the life of the resource management plan that will consider 

changing circumstances and new information through monitoring. The goal is to maintain a dynamic resource 

management plan that is evaluated and amended if necessary on an issue-by-issue basis. 

The implementation and monitoring process for the HiLine District involves four major steps: planning, implementation, 

monitoring, evaluation, and adjustments, as necessary. Planning involves a great amount of time and resources to 

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

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

process is completed, decisions are implemented, monitored, and evaluated over 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 based on 

results, if necessary. 

Planning

Implementation

Monitoring

Evaluation

Planning 

The Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is approved once the 

Record of Decision is signed. An Approved Plan will also be available that will include all the approved decisions from 

the RMP. 

The BLM regulation in 43 CFR 1610.5-4 provides that land use plan decisions and supporting components can be 

maintained to reflect minor changes in data. Maintenance is limited to further refining, documenting, or clarifying a 

previously approved decision incorporated in the plan. Maintenance must not expand the scope of resource uses or 

restrictions or change the terms, conditions, and decisions of the Approved Plan. 

Land use plan decisions are changed through either a plan amendment or a plan revision. The process for conducting 

plan amendments is basically the same as the land use planning process used in developing RMPs. The primary 
Appendix A HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

814 Implementation and Monitoring

difference is that circumstances may allow for completing a plan amendment through the environmental assessment 

(EA) process, rather than through an EIS. Plan amendments (43 CFR 1610.5-5) change one or more of the terms, 

conditions, or decisions of an approved land use plan. Plan amendments are most often prompted by the need to 

consider a proposal or action that does not conform to the plan; implement new or revised policy that changes land use 

plan decisions; respond to new, intensified, or changed uses on BLM land; and consider significant new information 

from resource assessments, monitoring, or scientific studies that change land use plan decisions.

Implementation

Implementation of the resource management plan (RMP) begins once the Record of Decision and Approved Plan for the 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS is signed. 

Decisions made through the RMP planning process are implemented over a period of time. Some of the decisions are 

immediate and go into effect with the Record of Decision. These include decisions such as the road designations and 

lands available for disposal through exchange. Some decisions would be implemented after a site-specific environmental 

review is completed. Examples include range improvements, recreation sites, or approval of an application for permit to 

drill a natural gas well. Other decisions include guidance that would be applied during site-specific analysis or activity 

planning.

Any future proposals or management actions will be reviewed against the Approved Plan to determine if the proposal 

would be in conformance with the RMP. While the Final EIS for the HiLine RMP provides the compliance with NEPA 

for the broad-scale decisions to be made in the Record of Decision, it does not replace the requirement to comply with 

NEPA for implementation actions. 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.

Activity level planning will address any proposed new activities and long-term permitted activities that need to be 

brought into compliance with plan decisions, subject to valid existing rights. Monitoring of these activities will then 

determine the effectiveness of applying the land use plan direction. Where land use plan actions or best management 

practices are not effective, modifications could occur without amendment or revision of the plan as long as assumptions 

and impacts disclosed in the analysis remain valid and broad-scale goals and objectives are not changed. This approach 

uses on-the-ground monitoring, review of scientific information, and consideration of practical experience and common 

sense to adjust management and modify implementation of the plan to reach the desired outcome.

As part of this process, the BLM will review management actions and the plan periodically to determine whether the 

objectives set forth in this document are being met. Where they are not being met, the BLM will consider adjustments of 

appropriate scope. Where the BLM considers taking or approving actions which will alter or not conform to overall 

direction of the plan, the BLM will prepare a plan amendment and environmental analysis of appropriate scope.

In addition, during the life of the Approved Plan, the BLM expects that new information gathered from field inventories 

and assessments, research, other agency studies, and other sources will update baseline data or support new management 

techniques, best management practices, and scientific principles. To the extent that such new information or actions 

address issues covered in the plan, the BLM will integrate the data through plan maintenance.

Monitoring

Monitoring is the repeated measurement of activities and conditions over time. Monitoring data gathered over time is 

examined and used to draw conclusions on whether management actions are meeting stated objectives, and if not, why. 

Conclusions are then used to make recommendations on whether to continue current management or what changes need 

to be made in management practices to meet objectives.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix A

Implementation and Monitoring 815

Monitoring determines whether planned activities have been implemented in the manner prescribed by the plan. This 

monitoring documents BLM’s progress toward full implementation of the land use plan decision. There are no specific 

thresholds or indicators required for this type of monitoring.

Monitoring also is used to determine if the implementation of activities has achieved the desired goals and objectives. 

This requires knowledge of the objectives established in the RMP as well as indicators that can be measured. Indicators 

are established by technical specialists in order to address specific questions, and thus avoid collection of unnecessary 

data. Success is measured against the benchmark of achieving desired future conditions established by the plan.

Monitoring is also used to ascertain whether a cause-and-effect relationship exists among management activities or 

resources being managed. It confirms whether the predicted results occurred and if assumptions and models used to 

develop the plan are correct. This type of monitoring is often done by contract with another agency, academic 

institution, or other entity, and is usually expensive and time consuming since results are not known for many years.

Regulations at 43 CFR 1610.4-9 require that the proposed plan establish intervals and standards, as appropriate, for 

monitoring and evaluation of the plan, based on the sensitivity of the resource decisions involved. Progress in meeting 

the plan objectives and adherence to the management framework established by the plan is reviewed periodically. CEQ 

regulations implementing NEPA state that agencies may provide for monitoring to assure that their decisions are carried 

out and should do so in important cases (40 CFR 1505.2(c)). To meet these requirements, the BLM will prepare periodic 

reports on the implementation of the RMP.

Evaluation

Evaluation is a process in which the plan and monitoring data are reviewed to see if management goals and objectives 

are being met and if management direction is sound. 

Land use plan evaluations will be used by BLM to determine if the decisions in the RMP, supported by the 

accompanying NEPA analysis, are still valid. Evaluation of the RMP will generally be conducted every five years, 

unless unexpected actions, new information, or significant changes in other plans, legislation, or litigation triggers an 

evaluation. Land use plan evaluations determine if decisions are being implemented, whether mitigation measures are 

satisfactory, whether there are significant changes in the related plans of other entities, whether there is new data of 

significance to the plan, and if decisions should be changed through amendment or revision. 

Based on a Record of Decision and Approved Plan released in the spring of 2014, the following evaluation schedule 

would be followed for the HiLine RMP/EIS: 

 March 2019

 March 2024

 March 2029

 March 2034

Evaluations will follow the protocols established by the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1 in effect at the 

time the evaluation is initiated.

HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix B

Draft ARMP Adaptive Management Strategy 817

Appendix B

DRAFT

HiLine District Air Resource Management Plan:

Adaptive Management Strategy for Oil and Gas Resources
Appendix B HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

818 Draft ARMP Adaptive Management Strategy
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix B

Draft ARMP Adaptive Management Strategy 819

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 821

1.1 Purpose of the Air Management Plan .............................................................................................................. 821

1.2 Revision of the Air Resource Management Plan ............................................................................................. 822

1.3 Current Air Quality .......................................................................................................................................... 822

1.4 Background of the AQTW and the MOU Regarding Air Quality Analyses and

Mitigation for Federal Oil and Gas Decisions through the NEPA Process ..................................................... 822

2.0 Oil and Gas Activity Assessment ........................................................................................................................... 823

3.0 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Support .............................................................................................................. 824

4.0 Air Quality and AQRV Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 825

4.1 Annual NAAQS and MAAQS Assessment ..................................................................................................... 825

4.2 Preliminary Ozone Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 826

4.3 Annual AQRV Assessment ............................................................................................................................. 827

5.0 Future Modeling ..................................................................................................................................................... 828

5.1 Photochemical Grid Modeling ........................................................................................................................ 828

5.1.1 Data Acquisition .................................................................................................................................... 828

5.1.2 PGM Schedule ....................................................................................................................................... 828

5.1.3 MDEQ and AQTW Review and Input to PGM ..................................................................................... 830

5.1.4 Availability of PGM Results ................................................................................................................. 830

5.2 Limited CALPUFF Modeling for AQRVs ...................................................................................................... 830

5.3 Post-PGM Modeling ....................................................................................................................................... 830

6.0 Mitigation ............................................................................................................................................................... 831

6.1 Initial Mitigation Actions ................................................................................................................................ 831

6.2 Monitoring-Based Mitigation .......................................................................................................................... 831

6.2.1 Monitoring-based Thresholds Before PGM Completion ....................................................................... 832

6.2.2 Determination of Enhanced Mitigation Measures Before PGM Completion ........................................ 833

6.2.3 Monitoring-Based Thresholds After PGM Completion ........................................................................ 833

6.2.4 Determination of Enhanced Mitigation Measures After PGM Completion .......................................... 834

6.3 Modeling-Based Mitigation ............................................................................................................................ 834

6.3.1 Modeling-Based Thresholds .................................................................................................................. 834

6.3.2 Determination of Modeling-Based Enhanced Mitigation Measures ...................................................... 834

7.0 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................................... 835

List of Tables

Table B.1 HiLine Monitoring Station ....................................................................................................................... 824

Table B.2 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Pollutants Monitored in the HiLine ................................................. 825

Table B.3 Maximum Monitored Ozone Concentrations Near the HiLine ................................................................ 826

Table B.4 Data Acquisition and PGM Schedule ....................................................................................................... 829
Appendix B HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

820 Draft ARMP Adaptive Management Strategy

Acronyms

APD Application for Permits to Drill

AQRV Air quality related value

AQTW Air Quality Technical Workgroup

ARMP Air Resource Management Plan

ARTSD Air Resource Technical Support Document

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CAMx Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CMAQ EPA Models-3/Community Multiscale Air Quality 

CO Carbon monoxide

DOI U.S. Department of the Interior

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FLIR Forward looking infrared 

FS U.S. Forest Service

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

hp Horsepower

MAAQS Montana Ambient Air Quality Standards

μg/m3 Micrograms per cubic meter

MDEQ Montana Department of Environmental Quality 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NO Nitric oxide

NO2 Nitrogen dioxide

NOx Nitrogen oxides

NPS National Park Service

O3 Ozone

Pb Lead

PGM Photochemical grid modeling

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

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

POD Plan of Development

ppb Parts per billion

ppm Parts per million

REC Reduced emissions completion

ROD Record of Decision

RMP Resource Management Plan

SLAMS State or Local Air Monitoring Station 

SO2 Sulfur dioxide

VOC Volatile organic compound

WRAP Western Regional Air Partnership

WRF Weather and Research Forecasting
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix B

Draft ARMP Adaptive Management Strategy 821

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the Air Management Plan

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) HiLine District (HiLine) Air Resource Management Plan (ARMP) for oil and 

gas activities describes the air quality adaptive management strategy that would be used to assess future air quality and 

Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs) and identify mitigation measures to address unacceptable impacts that may be 

associated with future oil and gas development. The adaptive management strategy focuses on oil and gas activity 

because aggregated emissions from multiple small sources at well sites can potentially cause significant air quality and 

AQRV impacts under certain circumstances. Many of these small oil and gas emission sources are not required to obtain 

air quality permits from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), unlike large stationary sources 

such as coal mines that are permitted and inspected by the MDEQ. The oil and gas adaptive management strategy was 

prepared in collaboration with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and three federal land management 

agencies under the Understanding Among the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of the Interior, and U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Regarding Air Quality Analyses and Mitigation for Federal Oil and Gas Decisions 

Through the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] Process (DOI 2011). This agreement is described in more 

detail in Section 1.4.

The ARMP includes both near-term actions and long-term actions. In the near-term, the ARMP sets forth initial actions 

to maintain good air quality until regional modeling can be performed to further assess potential impacts to air quality 

and AQRVs. In the long-term, the ARMP provides ongoing management strategies to assess and adapt to new air 

quality and AQRV ambient monitoring and modeling data during the life of this Resource Management Plan (RMP).

The ARMP includes a multifaceted approach involving the following activities:

 Oil and gas activity assessment

 Ambient air quality monitoring support

 Air quality and AQRV assessment

 Future air quality and AQRV modeling

 Mitigation

Pollutant emissions addressed by the ARMP include the criteria air pollutants listed below.

 Carbon monoxide (CO)

 Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)

 Ozone (O3)

 Particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 10 microns (PM10)

 Particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns (PM2.5)

 Sulfur dioxide (SO2)

Three criteria air pollutants, CO, lead, and SO2, are not monitored within the HiLine because high concentrations of 

these pollutants are unlikely. Elevated concentrations of CO are associated with vehicle traffic in very large urban areas, 

while high concentrations of lead and SO2 are typically found near industrial facilities that emit large quantities of these 

pollutants or in areas with sour gas production. These situations do not occur in the planning area, as described in 

Chapter 3 of the Draft RMP. CO and SO2 emissions would be modeled to demonstrate compliance with the NAAQS. 

Due to the lack of lead emissions from oil and gas activities, lead emissions would not be modeled as part of the air 

quality analysis. 

The ARMP also addresses modeling and mitigation for the following AQRV assessments:

 Deposition of sulfur and nitrogen

 Lake acid neutralizing capacity

 Visibility
Appendix B HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

822 Draft ARMP Adaptive Management Strategy

The adaptive management strategy for oil and gas resources provides the flexibility to respond to changing conditions 

that could not have been predicted during RMP development, as well as allow for the use of new technology and 

methods that may minimize or reduce impacts.

1.2 Revision of the Air Resource Management Plan

This ARMP may be modified as necessary to comply with law, regulation, and policy and to address new information 

and changing circumstances. Changes to the goals or objectives set forth in the HiLine RMP/EIS would require 

maintenance or amendment of the RMP while changes to implementation, including modifying this ARMP, may be 

made without amending the RMP.

1.3 Current Air Quality

Based on the closest available monitoring data for rural oil and gas activity areas in northern Montana, air quality within 

the HiLine is believed to be good, as described in Chapter 3. All areas within the HiLine are designated as areas that

attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). State-based standards, known as the Montana Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (MAAQS), are also believed to be met in the HiLine. However, no air quality monitors have been 

operating in the HiLine during recent years. New BLM-funded monitors in Malta and Lewistown will provide muchneeded ambient concentration data for northern and central Montana.

1.4 Background of the AQTW and the MOU Regarding Air Quality Analyses and Mitigation 

for Federal Oil and Gas Decisions through the NEPA Process

The Air Quality Technical Workgroup (AQTW) includes representatives from the following agencies: the BLM, EPA, 

U.S. Forest Service (FS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the National Park Service (NPS). Each of these 

agencies is a party to the Memorandum of Understanding Among the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department 

of the Interior, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regarding Air Quality Analyses and Mitigation for Federal 

Oil and Gas Decisions Through the National Environmental Policy Act Process (DOI 2011) (herein referred to as the 

MOU). This agreement is designed to “. . . facilitate the completion of NEPA environmental analyses for Federal land 

use planning and oil and gas development decisions [DOI 2011].”

The Memorandum of Agreement (MOU) sets forth collaborative procedures that the AQTW agencies use to analyze 

potential air quality and AQRV impacts. The agencies also work together to identify potential mitigation measures that 

may be needed to reduce impacts to air quality and AQRVs. The lead agency (the BLM in this case), in collaboration 

with the other agencies, has the responsibility to identify reasonable mitigation and control measures and design features 

to address adverse impacts to air quality. Mitigation measures may also address impacts to AQRVs at Class I areas and 

at sensitive Class II areas that have been identified by the BLM, FS, FWS, and NPS.

The AQTW provided input to this ARMP and will continue to work collaboratively on future modeling efforts 

associated with this RMP. Provisions of the MOU continue to apply to future oil and gas activities in the planning area. 

In some cases, air quality and AQRV modeling performed under this ARMP may be sufficient to address modeling 

needs for future oil and gas projects that would otherwise require additional modeling under the MOU. However, the 

ARMP in no way replaces provisions of the MOU. Determinations of existing modeling adequacy for future oil and gas 

activities that trigger the MOU would be made collaboratively by the AQTW using the procedures included in the MOU.

The MDEQ has the primary authority to protect air quality within the state. Although the MDEQ is not a signatory to 

the national MOU, successful air quality management of BLM-authorized oil and gas activities depends on a close 

working relationship between the BLM and the MDEQ. The two agencies have worked together to improve air quality 

monitoring and will continue to cooperate by sharing data, planning modeling efforts, and working together to identify 

emission reduction measures needed to maintain good air quality.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix B

Draft ARMP Adaptive Management Strategy 823

2.0 Oil and Gas Activity Assessment

Each year, the BLM would track the number and locations of new oil and gas wells drilled on federal mineral estate and 

the number of new and abandoned producing wells on federal mineral estate. These numbers would be compared to the 

planning area RFD and to the level of oil and gas development identified in the preferred alternative.

In addition, the BLM would estimate oil and gas emissions from federal mineral estate every three years for oil and gas 

wells drilled and producing after the ROD is signed. Emission estimates would be based on well types, well numbers, 

and knowledge of typical equipment and operations. Emission estimation methods are expected to improve over time as 

better data become available. The emission estimates would also account for implemented mitigation measures and for 

new emission control regulations as they become effective. The BLM would collect additional data related to oil and gas 

equipment and operations to improve emission inventory quality. One area identified for improvement involves

acquiring better data on oil and gas equipment used in the planning area. In order to improve fugitive dust emission 

estimates, the number, type, and length of vehicle trips in high-activity areas would also be assessed.

Each three-year oil and gas emission inventory would be compared to emission estimates for the RFD and the preferred

alternative. 
Appendix B HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

824 Draft ARMP Adaptive Management Strategy

3.0 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Support

The Air Resources Management Bureau of the MDEQ has primary responsibility for siting and operating ambient air 

quality monitors within Montana and for reporting monitoring data to EPA and to the public. As described in its annual 

Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan (MDEQ 2012), the MDEQ identifies monitoring objectives for assessing ambient 

concentrations of criteria air pollutants and assessing compliance with the NAAQS and MAAQS. Historically, most 

MDEQ monitors were placed in cities to assess human health impacts in the more densely populated areas of Montana.

The BLM has been working cooperatively with the MDEQ to place ambient air quality monitors in less densely 

populated areas where oil and gas activities are occurring or may occur in the future. The purpose of these monitors is 

two-fold: 1) to assess compliance with ambient air quality standards, and 2) to provide background ambient air quality 

concentrations for use in modeling efforts. Using a cooperative agreement, the BLM has provided funding to help 

purchase, install, and operate monitoring equipment near Malta at the location shown in Table B.1.

The recently installed monitoring station near Malta measures ambient concentrations of NO2, ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, 

as well as meteorological parameters such as temperature, wind speed, and wind direction. The BLM plans to continue 

to support monitoring at this location by providing operational funding and BLM staffing support to the MDEQ.

Table B.1. HiLine Monitoring Station

Station Name Monitored Pollutants

Installation 

Date

Station 

Number County Latitude Longitude

Malta NO, NO2, NOx, 

O3, PM10, PM2.5

July 2012 30-071-

0010 Phillips 48.3175 -107.8625
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix B

Draft ARMP Adaptive Management Strategy 825

4.0 Air Quality and AQRV Assessment

The BLM would assess air quality and AQRVs on an annual basis using quality-assured data from the EPA, MDEQ, FS, 

FWS, NPS, and other sources. In addition, a preliminary assessment of ozone concentrations would be performed on a 

weekly basis using data provided by the MDEQ.

4.1 Annual NAAQS and MAAQS Assessment

Based on the monitor listed in Section 3.0, the BLM would assess air quality monitoring data annually and would share 

the results of the assessment with the MDEQ and AQTW. The purposes of the annual assessment are to compare 

monitored data to NAAQS and MAAQS and to identify seasonal and long-term trends in air pollutant concentrations. 

The BLM would complete the annual assessment by May 31 of each year in order to ensure that quality-assured data are 

available for review.

NAAQS and MAAQS are provided in Table B.2 for pollutants monitored within the planning area. 

Table B.2. Ambient Air Quality Standards for Pollutants Monitored in the HiLine

Pollutant

Averaging 

Period

Federal NAAQS 1 MAAQS 2

Concentration Standard Type

Form of NAAQS

Primary Standard Concentration

NO2

1-hour 100 ppb Primary 3-year average of the 98th

percentile concentrations 0.30 ppm

Annual 53 ppb Primary, 

Secondary Annual mean 0.05 ppm 7

Ozone

1-hour --- --- --- 0.12 ppm 8

8-hour 0.075 ppm Primary, 

Secondary

3-year average of the fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour 

average

---

PM2.5

24-hour 35 μg/m3 Primary, 

Secondary 4

3-year average of the 98th

percentile concentrations ---

Annual 15.0 μg/m3 3 Primary, 

Secondary

3-year average of the annual 

mean

---

PM10

24-hour 150 μg/m3 Primary, 

Secondary

NTBE more than one per year 

on average over 3 years

---

Annual Revoked 5--- --- 50 μg/m3 6

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

MAAQS Montana Ambient Air Quality 

Standards

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NTBE not to be exceeded

PM2.5 particulate matter less than or equal 

to 2.5 microns

PM10 particulate matter less than or equal

to 10 microns

ppb parts per billion

ppm parts per million

1 NAAQS are codified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR), Part 50.

2 Montana AAQS are codified in Title 17, Chapter 8, Subchapter 

2 of the Ambient Air Quality in the Administrative Rules of 

Montana and are shown in this column.

3 EPA proposed to revise the annual primary PM2.5 standard to 

within a range of 12–13 μg/m3. 

4 EPA proposed a new secondary standard for PM2.5 visibility of 

28 or 30 deciviews (equivalent to 24 or 19 kilometers [15 or 12 

miles] standard visual range). 

5 The annual PM10 NAAQS was revoked October 17, 2006.

6 Based on annual second maximum.

7 Not to be exceeded in the averaging period specified. 

8

 State violation when exceeded more than once during any 12 

consecutive months.
Appendix B HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

826 Draft ARMP Adaptive Management Strategy

Montana standards are shown only if they are more stringent than the NAAQS. As of August 1 2012, CO, lead, and SO2

were not monitored within the HiLine. With regard to pollutants regulated exclusively under the MAAQS, hydrogen 

sulfide and settleable PM are not monitored within the planning area. Hydrogen sulfide is not monitored because 

ambient concentrations are believed to be very low due to low hydrogen sulfide levels in gas produced in the area. 

Settleable PM is not monitored in the area because the MDEQ prioritizes monitoring of pollutants subject to NAAQS 

and settleable PM is a MAAQS.

The BLM would use design values to compare ambient monitoring data to the NAAQS. Design values reflect the form 

of the NAAQS; they define the statistical metric used to compare monitoring data to federal and state standards. 

Depending on the pollutant and averaging time being assessed, the NAAQS is typically stated in terms of the maximum 

or second maximum concentration, average concentration, or a percentile of the standard. The form of a standard also 

states whether the design value is determined based on one or more years of monitoring data. EPA-calculated design 

values serve a critically important regulatory purpose; they determine whether areas are designated attainment or 

nonattainment. As such, EPA’s design value determinations may take more than one year to finalize.

In order to review air quality trends more quickly, the BLM would calculate “mitigation design values” by May 31 of 

each year for the previous calendar year(s). The mitigation design value would be a metric calculated by the BLM that 

uses procedures similar to EPA’s regulatory design value calculation methodology, with the advantage that the BLMcalculated values can be determined more quickly. The timing allows the MDEQ adequate time to quality assure 

monitoring data. However, the MDEQ may not yet have EPA concurrence on data that has been flagged by the MDEQ 

due to exceptional events such as wildfires. Consequently, the BLM-calculated mitigation design values would exclude 

monitoring data associated with MDEQ-identified exceptional events. Each BLM annual assessment would look back 

the requisite number of years for each pollutant and include data from the time period prior to ROD issuance for the first 

several annual BLM assessments. Additional information concerning design value calculations is provided in Section 

6.2.3

4.2 Preliminary Ozone Assessment

Because the new Malta monitor began operation in mid-2012, a full calendar year of data is not yet available. The most 

representative historical ozone concentration data for oil and gas areas in the HiLine comes from the Sidney monitoring 

station, for which data are provided in Table B.3 The maximum (1st highest) monitored ozone 8-hour concentration is 

shown in the following table. These numbers are greater than the values provided in Chapters 3 and 4, which are based 

on the 3-year average of the 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour average for direct comparison to the NAAQS. In its 

annual network monitoring plan, the MDEQ stated: “The information collected from these sites to-date indicates that O3

is not currently a pollutant of concern in Montana” [MDEQ 2012]. However, in other states, ozone has become a 

pollutant of concern in rural areas with oil and gas activity. In order to protect air quality, the BLM has developed an 

adaptive management strategy that would quickly identify any high-ozone events that may occur in the future and gather 

data that may help explain these events. 

Table B.3. Maximum Monitored Ozone 

Concentrations Near the HiLine

Year

8-hr Ozone 

Concentrations (ppb)

2009 62

2010 65

2011 57

The BLM would perform weekly preliminary ozone concentration reviews to determine if high ozone events occur at the 

Malta monitor. If a high-ozone event occurs, the BLM would document meteorological and other conditions that may 

have contributed to the event. Because high-ozone events in other rural parts of the nation are not well understood and 

contributing factors can be site-specific, the BLM would gather data to develop baseline information relevant to any 

high-ozone events that may occur within the HiLine. Relevant baseline information includes capturing meteorological 

data for each event, determining the amount of snow on the ground (if applicable), and identifying any other data that 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix B

Draft ARMP Adaptive Management Strategy 827

may help describe circumstances associated with the event. For the purposes of this effort, a high-ozone event would be

defined as a day for which the maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is at or above 0.065 ppm.

In order to quickly ascertain relevant circumstances, the preliminary ozone assessments would use non-quality-assured 

data provided by the MDEQ. As part of the annual NAAQS assessment, quality-assured ozone data would be reviewed 

to determine if the preliminary ozone monitoring data were valid or if monitored high ozone concentrations were due to 

monitor malfunctions.

If high-ozone events occur within the HiLine, a summary of events and a discussion of relevant meteorological data and 

circumstances would be developed as part of the annual NAAQS assessment. These summaries and the underlying data 

may provide important information that can be used to predict potential occurrences of high-ozone events and to identify 

mitigation measures and/or proactive measures that could prevent future events.

4.3 Annual AQRV Assessment

Federal land managers track the status, condition, and trends of AQRVs for Class I and sensitive Class II areas under 

their jurisdictions. Consequently, the BLM would request visibility, sulfur and nitrogen deposition, and lake acid 

neutralizing capacity data from the FS, FWS, and NPS and would include agency-submitted data in the BLM’s annual 

review of AQRV trends. The annual review would also include AQRV data from any Class I or sensitive Class II areas 

under BLM jurisdiction.

Based on these reviews, the BLM would maintain an awareness of AQRV trends. However, it should be noted that the 

reviews would not necessarily link AQRV trends to oil and gas development. AQRV impacts are often associated with 

pollutants that can be transported long distances from many different types of sources. For example, visibility 

degradation in eastern Montana primarily results from large stationary sources such as electric generating units and 

cement kilns, as addressed in the Montana Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan (EPA 2012).

Prior to completion of the final RMP, CALPUFF modeling would be performed to assess visibility impacts from 

potential BLM-authorized oil and gas emission sources in a portion of the HiLine planning area. Photochemical grid 

modeling (PGM) would be completed after the ROD is signed and would provide additional information concerning the 

potential impact of oil and gas emissions and cumulative emissions on AQRVs.
Appendix B HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

828 Draft ARMP Adaptive Management Strategy

5.0 Future Modeling

The BLM has committed to perform PGM in order to assess regional air quality and AQRV impacts. Due to insufficient 

monitoring and regional emissions data available during development of the RMP, PGM would not be completed prior 

to issuance of the RMP/EIS and the ROD. In order to complete PGM expeditiously, the BLM has begun data acquisition 

and initiated steps needed to proceed with PGM. When PGM is completed and the results assessed, the BLM may 

identify additional emission mitigation measures for oil and gas activity.

5.1 Photochemical Grid Modeling

Comprehensive regional air quality and AQRV regional modeling of emission sources within the HiLine and 

surrounding areas requires PGM. This type of modeling can predict ozone and regional haze impacts, for which major 

pollutants and precursors can be transported many hundreds of miles. 

5.1.1 Data Acquisition

PGM requires three main types of concurrent data: meteorological data, ambient monitoring data, and comprehensive 

emission data. The BLM’s analysis determined that the latter two types of data need to be augmented and updated prior 

to performing PGM.

5.1.1.1 Additional Monitoring

Ambient monitoring data throughout the PGM domain is needed in order to validate model performance, which is 

assessed by modeling a previous year and comparing the model’s predicted concentrations to actual monitored 

concentrations. New monitors in Malta and Lewistown will provide much-needed data to assess model performance in 

the northern and central portions of Montana.

5.1.1.2 Updating Emission Inventories

Comprehensive emission inventories are also critically important in predicting cumulative air quality and AQRV 

impacts. Current oil and gas regional emission inventories for Montana and the Dakotas are known to lack important 

emission sources, particularly sources of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which contribute to ozone formation. The 

existing oil and gas inventories for the Williston and Central Montana Basins represent the year 2002 and were 

developed as part of the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Phase II inventory. Since then, 2006 Phase III 

emission inventories have been developed for oil and gas basins within Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and New Mexico, but 

have not yet been completed for Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The Phase III inventories have more 

comprehensive emission inventories of VOC sources at oil and gas facilities.

The BLM Montana and Dakotas State Office is providing financial assistance to the WRAP so that Phase III oil and gas 

emission inventories can be completed in 2013 for the Williston Basin and the Central Montana Basin. These 

inventories would represent calendar year 2011 emissions. In addition to covering the planning area, the inventories 

would include comprehensive recent emission estimates for oil and gas activity in North Dakota and South Dakota.

5.1.2 PGM Schedule

In order to use a full 12 months of ambient monitoring data from the new Malta monitor (and a similar monitor near 

Lewistown), the baseline year for PGM is expected to be 2013 or may be a 12-month period beginning in late 2012 and 

ending in 2013. PGM planning began in 2012 and development of the PGM modeling protocol is expected to be 

completed during 2013, with modeling occurring primarily in 2014 and early 2015. Review and assessment of PGM 

results would be completed in June 2015. Table B.4 provides the data acquisition and PGM schedule.

The Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model would be used to model meteorological conditions and the 

photochemical grid model to be used would be either the EPA Models-3/Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) 

modeling system or the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx). In addition, multiple models 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix B

Draft ARMP Adaptive Management Strategy 829

would be used to develop and process emission inventories for input into the photochemical grid model. When modeling 

is completed, an Air Resource Technical Support Document (ARTSD) would be developed.

Table B.4. Data Acquisition and PGM Schedule

Task / Subtask

Duration 

(calendar days) Start Date End Date

Pre-Modeling Emission Inventory Development

Emission Inventory Contracting 56 7/16/2012 8/27/2012

"WRAP" Williston and Central Montana Basin Inventory 270 11/1/2012 7/29/2013

Contracting for WRF Model and PGM Protocol

WRF Model and PGM Protocol RFP 56 7/16/2012 9/10/2012

Select PGM Modeling Protocol Contractor 14 9/11/2012 9/25/2012

PGM Protocol

Develop Initial Draft WRF and PGM Protocol 102 10/1/2012 1/10/2013

AQTW and MDEQ Protocol Review 26 1/11/20132 2/6/2013

Finalize Protocol 54 2/7/2013 4/2/2013

Contracting for WRF and PGM Modeling

WRF and PGM RFP 30 4/2/2013 5/2/2013

Select WRF and PGM Contractor 21 5/3/2013 5/24/2013

Base Year (calendar year 2013) Modeling and 

Evaluation

WRF Modeling 120 10/23/2013 2/20/2014

Draft WRF Model Evaluation 30 2/20/2014 3/22/2014

AQTW and MDEQ WRF Evaluation Review 30 3/22/2014 4/21/2014

Emission Modeling (Base and Future Year) & Report 120 10/23/2013 2/20/2014

Photochemical Grid Modeling 150 2/20/2014 7/20/2014

Draft PGM Evaluation 30 7/20/2014 8/19/2014

AQTW and MDEQ PGM Evaluation Review 30 8/19/2014 9/18/2014

Finalize WRF and PGM Evaluations 21 9/18/2014 10/9/2014

Future Year Modeling and Evaluation

Photochemical Grid Modeling 150 10/9/2014 3/8/2015

Analyze Air Quality and AQRV Impacts 21 3/8/2015 3/29/2015

Draft ARTSD 21 3/29/2015 4/19/2015

AQTW ARTSD Review 30 4/19/2015 5/19/2015

Finalize ARTSD 21 5/19/2015 6/9/2015

AQTW = Air Quality Technical Workgroup

ARTSD = Air Resource Technical Support Document

MDEQ = Montana Department of Environmental Quality

PGM = Photochemical grid modeling

RFP = Request for Proposal

WRF = Weather Research and Forecasting Model

WRAP = Western Regional Air Partnership
Appendix B HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

830 Draft ARMP Adaptive Management Strategy

Initial PGM would include future year modeling for a year between 2017 and 2020. The specific year would be 

determined by the BLM based on the ability to predict future regional oil and gas emissions in the Williston and Central 

Montana Basins. After initial PGM is completed, the BLM would begin an assessment process to determine when 

additional PGM updates are needed. Factors to be considered in determining when additional PGM is needed include: 

1) the adequacy of the adaptive management strategy to maintain good air quality, and 2) the level of BLM-authorized 

oil and gas activity and emissions compared to modeled levels.

5.1.3 MDEQ and AQTW Review and Input to PGM

Throughout the PGM data collection and modeling process, the BLM would work collaboratively with the MDEQ and 

the AQTW that was formed to provide input on this ARMP, and with other agencies or Tribes that request to be involved 

in the PGM effort. These collaborators would provide technical review and comment on the draft modeling protocol, on 

WRF and PGM performance evaluations, and on the draft ARTSD. Substantial time has been included in the schedule 

shown in Table B.4 to allow adequate review and comment periods during the PGM process.

5.1.4 Availability of PGM Results 

Future PGM results would be presented in the final ARTSD and in a summary of the results. The ARTSD and summary 

document would be posted on the Glasgow, Malta, and Havre BLM websites. In addition, the WRF and PGM protocol 

document would be provided via the websites when the photochemical modeling ARTSD is made available. Outreach 

information regarding the availability of the results would be made through the AQTW and agencies involved in the 

PGM process, as well as other interested parties.

5.2 Limited CALPUFF Modeling for AQRVs

Through their participation under the AQ MOU, the FWS and the NPS specifically requested that limited CALPUFF 

modeling be prepared between the Draft and the Final RMP. This limited modeling effort would assess direct AQRV 

impacts from potential future BLM-authorized oil and gas sources in the northern portion of the planning area near the 

FWS UL Bend Wilderness and Medicine Lake Wilderness.

For the purposes of this RMP, the CALPUFF modeling is being used as a screening tool to assess direct oil and gas 

impacts to AQRVs at FWS Class I and sensitive Class areas. If unacceptable AQRV impacts are identified, a review of 

mitigation measures would be undertaken to determine if the initial mitigation measures described in Section 6.1 would

be sufficient upon their implementation or if additional enhanced mitigation may be needed.

Regional far-field impact analysis for this RMP would be based on results from future PGM described above in Section 

5.1. Photochemical grid models are recommended for AQRV analysis of large domains in the Appendix to the MOU

(DOI 2011).

5.3 Post-PGM Modeling

To the extent that future emission increases are within the levels modeled with PGM or other modeling and are 

proximate to modeled emission locations, far-field air quality and AQRV impact analysis may incorporate by reference 

PGM and other modeling results. The BLM and the AQTW would determine whether previous modeling is sufficient to 

satisfy MOU requirements. This air quality management approach is consistent with the MOU (DOI 2011) and allows 

for efficient air quality and AQRV impact analysis.

If additional modeling is performed after PGM is complete, an assessment of air quality and AQRV impacts would be 

made and, if necessary, additional mitigation measures may be identified.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix B

Draft ARMP Adaptive Management Strategy 831

6.0 Mitigation

Air quality and AQRV impact mitigation would involve two types of mitigation: 1) initial mitigation measures that 

become effective when the ROD is signed, and 2) enhanced mitigation measures that may be identified based on future 

ambient monitoring data or modeling results.

6.1 Initial Mitigation Actions

The following air quality mitigation measures would be applied upon issuance of the ROD through leasing documents 

and project-specific NEPA documents. To the extent practical, emission reductions associated with these mitigation 

measures have been included in the HiLine emission inventory.

1. Design and construct roads and well pads to reduce the amount of fugitive dust generated by traffic or other 

activities. During construction activities, apply water, apply dust-suppression chemicals, apply gravel, or use 

other control methods to achieve 50 percent fugitive dust control efficiency, except when ground is wet or 

frozen.

2. Use water or other BLM-approved dust suppression during drilling, completion, and well workover operations 

for dust abatement on access roads, as needed, to achieve a 50 percent fugitive dust control efficiency, except 

when ground is wet or frozen.

3. Use water or other BLM-approved dust suppression in high traffic areas during production operations for dust 

abatement, as needed, to achieve 50 percent fugitive dust control efficiency, except when ground is wet or 

frozen. Operators will work with local government agencies to improve dust suppression on roads.

4. For oil and gas Project Plans of Development (PODs), oil and gas operators will establish speed limits for 

project-required unpaved roads in and adjacent to the project area; oil and gas operator employees will comply 

with these speed limits.

5. For oil and gas Project PODs, oil and gas operators will be encouraged to reduce surface disturbance, vehicle 

traffic, and fugitive dust emissions by consolidating facilities (e.g., using multi-well pads, storage vessels) when 

feasible.

6. Diesel drill rig engines greater than 200 hp will meet Tier 4 emission standards for non-road diesel engines. 

Alternatively, oil and gas operators may use drill rig engines that exceed Tier 4 emission standards if modeling 

demonstrates compliance with the NAAQS and protection of AQRVs.

7. For hydraulically fractured gas wells that do not qualify as “low pressure wells”, “wildcat,” or “delineation” 

wells, oil and gas operators will comply with reduced emissions completion (REC) requirements specified in 

Subpart OOOO, Standards of Performance for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production, Transmission and 

Distribution (40 CFR §60.5375) within six months of ROD issuance.

8. Non-road diesel engines will be required to use ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (15 ppmw) as required by 40 CFR 

§80.610(e)(3)(iii).

6.2 Monitoring-Based Mitigation

Enhanced mitigation would be evaluated and implemented if ambient monitoring data at monitor(s) located in oil and 

gas activity areas within the planning area indicate that pollutant concentrations are approaching or threatening the 

NAQQS or MAAQS. As of August 1, 2012, one ambient air quality monitor near Malta was located in oil and gas 

activity areas within the HiLine. If, in future years, additional MDEQ monitoring stations are placed in oil and gas 

activity areas for the purpose of assessing air quality impacts from oil and gas activity, ambient monitoring data from 

these stations would be included in ambient air quality assessments used to determine whether enhanced mitigation is 

needed.
Appendix B HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

832 Draft ARMP Adaptive Management Strategy

Prior to completion of initial PGM, monitoring-based thresholds would be based on evaluation of exceedances of the 

NAAQS, as described in Section 6.2.1. After completion of initial PGM, monitoring-based thresholds would be based 

on BLM-calculated design values, as described in Section 6.2.3.

6.2.1 Monitoring-Based Thresholds Before PGM Completion

Based on requests from EPA during the MOU review process, the BLM would review NAAQS exceedances and 

determine if enhanced mitigation would be warranted during the interim period between ROD issuance and PGM 

completion. The BLM would require enhanced mitigation for BLM-authorized oil and gas activities if there is a 

monitored exceedance of the NAAQS at the Malta monitor, unless the BLM determines that enhanced mitigation is not 

warranted after completing specified steps as outlined below.

1. The BLM would notify the EPA and the MDEQ within 30 days after Malta monitoring data showing an 

exceedance has been posted on EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS). The notification would state that the BLM is 

reviewing the exceedance according to this procedure.

2. After consulting with the MDEQ, the BLM would determine whether an exceptional event1 may have caused 

the exceedance. 

 If the MDEQ informs the BLM that an exceptional event likely caused the exceedance, the BLM would

provide a letter to that effect to the EPA. No further action would be necessary.

 If an exceptional event did not cause the exceedance or if MDEQ would not submit an exceptional event 

waiver to EPA, the BLM would perform Step 3. 

3. The BLM would conduct a screening level analysis2to determine the likely source and location of the 

exceedance and whether mitigation is needed.3

 If the screening analysis indicates that the exceedance was not caused by BLM-authorized oil and gas 

source(s) within the planning area or indicates that the BLM-authorized oil and gas source(s) within the 

planning did not contribute to the exceedance, the BLM would convey this finding in writing to the MDEQ 

and EPA for review and comment. No further action would be necessary.

 If the screening analysis indicates that the exceedance was caused or contributed to by BLM-authorized oil 

and gas sources inside the planning area, the BLM would perform Step 4.

4. The BLM would consult with the MDEQ and EPA to determine whether there is a need for: 1) a refined 

attribution analysis (e.g., attribution test using CAMx ozone source attribution technology or anthropogenic 

 

1 The BLM would not formally decide that an exceptional event occurred as this decision would be made by MDEQ. 

Until a final determination of an exceptional event is presented to EPA by MDEQ, and the EPA has concurred, the BLM 

would assume that an exceptional event occurred based on a stated intention by the MDEQ to submit an exceptional 

event waiver.

2

Publically available web based applications suggested by EPA to identify sources of air pollution and potential impacts 

include the following sites: trajectory analysis tools like HySplit (http://ready.arl.noaa.gov/), air quality data at the 

EPA’s AQS site (http://airnow.gov ), state regulatory agency sites and airnowtech.org, an interactive snow site 

(http://www.nohrsc.nws.gov/interactive/html/map.html), daily ozone modeling (http://airquality.weather.gov/), daily 

ozone and PM2.5 modeling site (http://www.getbluesky.org/), and daily satellite imagery site

(http://ge.ssec.wisc.edu/modis-today/). 

3

If data necessary to conduct a screening level analysis is not available, the BLM would consult with the MDEQ and the 

EPA regarding source attribution and the need for mitigation. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix B

Draft ARMP Adaptive Management Strategy 833

precursor’s culpability assessment) or 2) mitigation on BLM-authorized oil and gas emission sources within the 

planning area. If the refined analysis:

 is warranted, the BLM would perform the refined analysis within 6 months of completing Step 3 in 

consultation with MDEQ and EPA.

 indicates that the exceedance was not caused or contributed to by BLM-authorized oil and gas sources 

inside the planning area, the BLM would provide that recommendation to the MDEQ and EPA for review 

and comment. No further action would be necessary.

 indicates that the exceedance was caused by BLM-authorized oil and gas sources within the planning area, 

the BLM would evaluate enhanced mitigation measures, as described in Section 6.2.2.

6.2.2 Determination of Enhanced Mitigation Measures Before PGM Completion

If a NAAQS exceedance occurs prior to completion of PGM and the refined analysis in Step 4 above determined that the 

exceedance was caused by BLM-authorized oil and gas sources within the planning area, enhanced mitigation measures 

would be evaluated and selected by the BLM, in cooperation with the MDEQ and the AQTW, when appropriate. 

Preference would be given to mitigation methods that the MDEQ intends to impose as new regulations or air quality 

permitting provisions. Selected mitigation measures would be implemented within one year after the BLM decision to 

apply additional mitigation.

Potential enhanced mitigation measures include the measures listed below based on current information concerning 

potential emission reduction technologies. Additional measures or equivalent methods or emission restrictions may be 

identified in the future.

 Drilling and/or blowdown activity restrictions based on meteorological conditions 

 Construction activity restrictions based on meteorological conditions

 Centralization of gathering facilities

 Electric drill rigs

 Field electrification for compressors and/or pumpjack engines

 Plunger lift systems with smart automation

 Oil tank load out vapor recovery

 VOC controls on tanks with a potential to emit less than 5 tons per year

 Selective catalytic reduction on non-drill rig stationary engines

 Reduced emission completions beyond those required by EPA regulations, if determined to be technically and 

economically feasible

 Well pad density limitations

 Reducing the total number of drill rigs operating simultaneously

 Seasonally reducing or ceasing drilling during specified periods

 Using only lower-emitting drill and completion rig engines during specified time periods

 Using natural gas-fired drill and completion rig engines

 Replacing internal combustion engines with gas turbines for natural gas compression 

 Employing a monthly forward looking infrared (FLIR) leak detection program to reduce VOCs

 Tank load out vapor recovery

 Enhanced VOC emission controls with 95% control efficiency on additional production equipment having a 

potential to emit of greater than 5 tons/year 

 Enhanced direct inspection and maintenance program

6.2.3 Monitoring-Based Thresholds After PGM Completion

By May 31 of each year following completion of PGM, the BLM would calculate design values for each pollutant 

monitored at a federal reference monitor within the planning area and identified as a representative monitor in Section 

3.0. The design value would be calculated based on calendar year monitoring data available at the time. Monitoring 

data from the appropriate prior period would be used. For example, based on PGM completion in summer 2015, the first 

annual design value calculation would be performed by May 31, 2016 and would include monitoring data for calendar 
Appendix B HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

834 Draft ARMP Adaptive Management Strategy

years 2013, 2014, and 2015 for three-year design values and on monitoring data for calendar year 2015 for single-year 

design values.

Calculation methods would, to the extent possible, follow EPA procedures provided in the following appendices within 

Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 50 in effect as of December 1, 2012. These procedures may be 

updated by future EPA regulations and this section of the ARMP would be revised to reflect changing regulations.

 NO2 (Appendix S)

 O3 (Appendix P)

 PM10 (Appendix K)

 PM2.5 (Appendix N)

 SO2 (Appendix T)

Design values would be calculated on a site-specific basis (i.e., no spatial averaging of multiple monitors). The BLM 

design value calculations would exclude data associated with exceptional events identified by MDEQ.

6.2.4 Determination of Enhanced Mitigation Measures After PGM Completion

If the air quality assessment described in Section 6.2.3 indicates that a BLM-calculated design value is greater than 85 

percent of a NAAQS, enhanced mitigation measures addressing that pollutant or pollutant precursor would be evaluated 

and selected by the BLM, in cooperation with the MDEQ and EPA, when appropriate. Potential enhanced mitigation 

measures include the measures listed above in Section 6.2.2, as well as additional measures that may be identified in the 

future.

6.3 Modeling-Based Mitigation

6.3.1 Modeling-Based Thresholds

Future modeling would assess air quality and AQRV impacts from future BLM-authorized oil and gas activity and 

would include regional PGM and project-specific modeling. Modeling-based thresholds for evaluating enhanced 

mitigation would include potential future impacts on NAAQS or MAAQS or impacts above specific levels of concern 

for AQRVs in Class I or sensitive Class II areas (as identified on a case-by-case basis by MDEQ or a federal land 

management or tribal agency).

6.3.2 Determination of Modeling-Based Enhanced Mitigation Measures

If BLM-authorized oil and gas activity is predicted to cause or contribute to impacts above the thresholds described 

above, the BLM would facilitate an interagency process to ensure that a comprehensive strategy is developed to manage 

air quality impacts from future oil and gas development within the region. The local, state, federal, and Tribal agencies 

involved in the regulation of air quality and the authorization of oil and gas development would evaluate modeling 

results from future modeling studies and identify potential air quality concerns and necessary reductions in air emissions. 

If the modeling predicts significant impacts, these agencies would use their respective authorities to implement enhanced 

emission control strategies, operating limitations, equipment standards, and/or pacing of development as necessary to 

ensure continued compliance with applicable ambient air quality standards, including the enhanced mitigation measures 

listed in Section 6.2.2, other future mitigation measures identified through BLM’s adaptive management strategy, or 

reasonable mitigation measures suggested by the MDEQ or AQTW. If necessary, implementation of mitigation 

measures would occur within one year of obtaining final modeling results for mitigation measures that conform to 

currently implemented land use planning decisions and constraints.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix B

Draft ARMP Adaptive Management Strategy 835

7.0 Bibliography

DOI 2011. Memorandum of Understanding Among the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regarding Air Quality Analyses and Mitigation for Federal Oil 

and Gas Decisions Through the National Environmental Policy Act Process. June 23, 2011.

http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/resources/policies/nepa/air-quality-analyses-mou-2011.pdf

EPA 2012. Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Montana; State Implementation Plan and 

Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan. Docket No. EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0851. August 15.

MDEQ 2011. Email and spreadsheet from Vickie Walsh (MDEQ) to Susan Bassett (BLM). September 21, 2011.

MDEQ 2012. State of Montana Ambient Monitoring Network Plan. Montana Department of Environmental Quality. 

May 2012.

HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix C

Best Management Practices 837

Appendix C

Best Management Practices

The publications referenced in this appendix are sources of best management practices (BMPs). BMPs are measures that 

have been developed by agency, industry, scientific, and/or working groups as voluntary methods for reducing 

environmental impacts associated with certain classes of activity. The BLM typically uses these measures as guidelines 

or project design features during implementation planning at the activity and/or project-specific levels.

The list included in this appendix is not limiting, but references the most frequently used sources. As new publications 

are developed, the BLM may consider those BMPs. In addition, many BLM handbooks (such as BLM Manual 9113-

Roads and 9213-Interagency Standards for Fire and Aviation Operation) also contain BMP-type measures for 

minimizing impacts. These BLM-specific guidance and direction documents are not referenced in this appendix.

The use of BMPs is not mandatory, since individual measures may not be appropriate for use in every situation. They 

may be added, dropped, or modified through plan maintenance.

Only the wind energy development BMPs have been analyzed in a NEPA process. The use of other BMPs should be 

analyzed on a case-by-case basis during environmental review associated with projects on the BLM land. These caseby-case analyses should not tier to the BMP publication as a way to dismiss environmental impacts (i.e., the review must 

analyze and disclose the environmental considerations and effects associated with use of the BMP). 

Air Resource BMPs

Developed by: Bureau of Land Management

Publication reference: BLM/WO Updated May 9, 2011

Available from: Online at: 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/best_management_practices/technical_information.html

Description: Identifies a range of typical Best Management Practices for protecting air resources during oil and gas 

development and production operations.

Erosion and Sediment Control Practices: Field Manual

Developed by: Prepared for the Montana Department of Transportation

Publication reference: FHWA/MT-030003/8165 

Available from: National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 21161

Description: The Erosion and Sediment Control Best Management Practices Construction Field Manual was developed 

to assist in design, construction, and post-construction phases of MDT projects. This manual provides background to 

concepts of Erosion and Sediment Control. Most of MDTs Best Management Practices are listed within the manual 

based on application categories. Each BMP is described; its applications and limitations are listed, as well as its design 

criteria. Construction phase and post-construction phase BMPs are described. This manual is a field guide and 

condensed version of the Erosion and Sediment Control Design Construction Best Management Practices Manual. For 

more detailed discussion on topic found within, refer to the Erosion and Sediment Control Construction Best 

Management Practices Manual.
Appendix C HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

838 Best Management Practices

Erosion and Sediment Control Practices: Reference Manual

Developed by: Prepared for the Montana Department of Transportation 

Publication reference: FHWA/MT-030003/8165

Available from: National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 21161 

Description: The Erosion and Sediment Control Construction Best Management Practices Manual was developed to 

assist in the design, construction, and post-construction phases of Montana Department of Transportation (MDT)

projects. This manual provides background to State and Federal regulations associated with erosion and sediment 

control practices including a general overview of the erosion and sediment processes. Best management practices are 

listed within the manual based on application categories. Each BMP is described; its applications and limitations are 

listed, as well as its design criteria. The design phase includes development of construction plans, notice of intent (NOI), 

and stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). Construction phase includes the finalization of the SWPPP, NOI, 

and the implementation of BMPs. Post-construction phase includes monitoring, maintenance, and removal activities.

Fluid Minerals BMPs

Developed by: Bureau of Land Management

Publication reference: BLM/WO/ST-06/021+3071

Available from:

Online at: http://www.blm.gov/bmp/

Online at: http://www.mt.blm.gov/oilgas/operations/goldbook/goldbook1.html

Online at: http://www.mt.blm.gov/oilgas/operations/goldbook/Stand_Enviro_Color.pdf

Online at: http://www.mt.blm.gov/oilgas/operations/color.pdf

Description: BMPs for oil and gas demonstrate practical ideas which may eliminate or minimize adverse impacts from 

oil and gas development to public health and the environment, landowners, and natural resources; enhance the value of 

natural and landowner resources; and reduce conflict. The publication reference is to the “Gold Book” which is formally 

titled “Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development.” In addition, the first 

internet citation is to a location maintained by the Washington Office of the BLM containing general and technical 

information on the use and application of BMPs. The second location refers the reader directly to an online version of 

the “Gold Book.” The third and fourth locations refer the reader to color charts for use in selecting paint colors for oil 

and gas facilities.

Montana Guide to the Streamside Management Zone Law

Developed by: Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation Service Forestry Bureau, in cooperation 

with Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Montana Logging Association, Montana Wood Products 

Association, Plum Creek Timber LP, USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management

Publication reference: Revised August 2002

Available from: Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, 2705 Spurgin Road, Missoula MT 59801-

3199, (406)542-4300, or local MT DNRC field office.

Description: The Montana Guide to the Streamside Management Zone Law is a field guide to compliance with State of 

Montana Law 77-5-301[1] MCA.) Complementary BMPs are found in the Water Quality BMPS for Montana Forests 

(also referenced in this appendix). Provides definitions, stream classifications, and guidelines on the seven forest 

practices prohibited by Montana law in SMZs (broadcast burning, operation of wheeled or tracked vehicles except on 

established roads, the forest practice of clearcutting, the construction of roads except when necessary to cross a stream or 

wetland; the handling, storage, application, or disposal of hazardous or toxic materials in a manner that pollutes streams, 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix C

Best Management Practices 839

lakes, or wetlands, or that may cause damage or injury to humans, land, animals, or plants; the side casting of road 

material into a stream, lake, wetland, or watercourse; and the deposit of slash in streams, lakes, or other water bodies.

Montana Non-Point Source Management Plan

Developed by: Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Planning Bureau, Watershed Protection 

Section 

Publication reference: 2007

Available from: Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Planning Bureau, Watershed Protection 

Section, P.O. Box 200901, Helena, MT 59620-0901.

Online at: http://www.deq.state.mt.us/wqinfo/nonpoint/2007NONPOINTPLAN/Final/NPSPlan.pdf

Description: This document describes the Montana Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) updated strategy for 

controlling nonpoint source (NPS) water pollution, which is the state’s single largest source of water quality impairment. 

NPS pollution is contaminated runoff from the land surface that can be generated by most land use activities, including 

agriculture, forestry, urban and suburban development, mining, and others. Common NPS pollutants include sediment, 

nutrients, temperature, heavy metals, pesticides, pathogens, and salt. The purpose of the Montana NPS Pollution 

Management Plan (Plan) is: 1) to inform the state’s citizens about NPS pollution problems; and 2) to establish goals, 

objectives, and both long-term and short-term strategies for controlling NPS pollution on a statewide basis. The goal of 

Montana’s NPS Management Program is to protect and restore water quality from the impacts of non-point sources of 

pollution in order to provide a clean and healthy environment.

Montana Placer Mining BMPs

Developed by: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology

Publication reference: Special Publication 106, October 1993

Available from: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Main Hall, Montana College of Mineral Science and 

Technology, Butte MT 59701

Description: Provides guidelines for planning, erosion control, and reclamation in arid to semi-arid, alpine, and 

subalpine environments, to prevent or decrease environmental damage and degradation of water quality.

Water Quality BMPs for Montana Forests

Developed by: Montana State University Extension Service

Publication reference: Logan, R. 2001. Water Quality BMPs – Best Management Practices for Montana Forests. 

EB158, MSU Extension Forestry, Missoula, MT. 58 pp.

Available from: MSU Extension Forestry, 32 Campus Dr., Missoula MT 59812, OR MSU Extension Publications, PO 

Box 172040 Bozeman MT 59717

Description: Discusses methods for managing forest land while protecting water quality and forest soils. Intended for 

all forest land in Montana, including non-industrial private, forest industry, and state or federally-owned forests. These 

are preferred (but voluntary) methods that go beyond Montana State Law (Streamside Management Zones). Includes 

definitions, basic biological information, and BMPs for Streamside Management Zones; road design, use, planning and 

locating, construction, drainage, and closure; stream crossings, soil, timber harvesting methods, reforestation, winter 

planning, and clean-up.
Appendix C HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

840 Best Management Practices

Wind Energy BMPs

Developed by: Bureau of Land Management

Publication reference: Wind Energy Development Programmatic EIS

Available from: FEIS Chapter 2 (section 2.2.3.2) at http://windeis.anl.gov/

Description: As part of the proposed action, BLM developed BMPs for each major step of the wind energy development 

process, including site monitoring and testing, plan of development preparation, construction, operation, and 

decommissioning. General BMPs are available for each step, and certain steps also include specific BMPs to address the 

following resource issues: wildlife and other ecological resources, Visual resources, Roads, Transportation, Noise, 

Noxious Weeds and Pesticides, Cultural/Historic Resources, Paleontological Resources, Hazardous Materials and Waste 

Management, Storm Water, Human Health and Safety, monitoring program, air emissions and excavation and blasting 

activities.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix D

Fire and Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation 841

Appendix D

Fire and Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation

Fire

The following table compares fire management categories. The table is an excerpt from the Montana/Dakotas Fire/Fuels 

Plan EA/Plan Amendment (2003), and can be found on the internet at 

http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/prog/fire/fire_management_plans/state_plan.html

Table D.1

Fire Management Category Descriptions

Category A:

Fire is not desired at all

(None of this category is 

in the planning area)

Category B:

Unplanned fire is likely to 

cause negative effects

Category C:

Fire is desired to manage 

ecosystems, but current 

vegetative condition 

creates constraints on use

Category D:

Fire is desired; no 

constraints on its use

(None of this category is 

in the planning area)

Fire Management 

Activities:

• Mitigation and 

suppression required 

• Fire should not be used 

to manage fuels

Fire Management 

Activities:

• Suppression required 

• Fire and non-fire fuels 

treatments may be used

Fire Management 

Activities: 

• Suppression may be 

required 

• Fire and non-fire fuels 

treatments may be used

Fire Management 

Activities: 

• Suppression may not be 

necessary 

• Both fire and non-fire 

treatments could be 

used

Rationale for 

Categorization: 

• Direct threats to life or 

property 

• Ecosystems not fire 

dependent 

• Long fire return 

intervals

Rationale for 

Categorization: 

• Unplanned ignitions 

would have negative 

effects on ecosystems 

unless mitigated

Rationale for 

Categorization: 

• Significant ecological, 

social, or political 

constraints 

Rationale for 

Categorization: 

• Few ecological, social, 

or political constraints 

• Less need for fuels 

treatment

Fire Suppression 

Considerations: 

• Emphasis on 

prevention, detection, 

and rapid suppression 

response and techniques

Fire Suppression 

Considerations: 

• Emphasis on 

prevention/education 

and suppression

Fire Suppression/Use 

Considerations: 

• Emphasis on reducing 

unwanted ignitions, 

resource threats, and 

fuels accumulations

Fire Suppression/Use 

Considerations: 

• Emphasis on using 

planned and unplanned 

wildfire to achieve 

resource objectives

Multiple Fire 

Priority: 

1 Highest

Multiple Fire 

Priority: 

1 High

Multiple Fire 

Priority: 

1 Medium

Multiple Fire 

Priority: 

1 Lowest

1 If multiple fires were burning, Categories A and B would generally receive priority for fire management resources.
Appendix D HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

842 Fire and Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation

Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation (ES&R)

Introduction

Emergency stabilization plans and/or rehabilitation plans are prepared after a wildland fire to minimize threats to life or 

property and stabilize and prevent unacceptable degradation to natural and cultural resources resulting from the effects of 

the fire, in a cost-effective and expeditious manner. Not all fires need emergency stabilization and/or rehabilitation.

The Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Handbook (H-1742-1) provides detailed information 

specific to BLM policies, standards, and procedures used in the Burned Area ES&R programs. The Handbook is 

intended to be the primary guidance to BLM ES&R activities. ES&R activities and treatment undertaken in the HiLine 

District will follow the Handbook guidance. ES&R activities and treatments in Wilderness Study Areas will comply 

with policy in the Management of BLM Wilderness Study Areas (BLM Manual 6330). As updates and revisions to the 

departmental manuals are completed, conformance to the new direction will supersede the criteria included herein.

Emergency stabilization is defined as “Planned actions to stabilize and prevent unacceptable degradation to natural and 

cultural resources, to minimize threats to life and property resulting from the effects of a fire, or to repair/

replace/construct physical improvements necessary to prevent degradation of land or resources. Emergency Stabilization 

actions must be taken within one year following containment of a wildland fire.” (620 DM 3.3E)

Rehabilitation is defined as “Efforts undertaken within three years of containment of a wildland fire to repair or improve 

fire-damaged lands unlikely to recover naturally to management approved conditions, or to repair or replace minor 

facilities damaged by fire.” (620 DM 3.3M)

Emergency stabilization and rehabilitation funds are not used for rehabilitation of wildland fire suppression efforts; this 

includes rehabilitating firelines, helispots, fire camp, etc. Costs for rehabilitating wildland fire suppression efforts will 

be funded by the wildland fire project code.

Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Protocols 

Emergency stabilization protection priorities are: 1) human life and safety; and 2) property and unique biological 

resources (designated Critical Habitat for Federal and State listed, proposed or candidate threatened and endangered 

species) and significant heritage sites. (620 DM 3.7A) Burned area rehabilitation protection priorities are: 1) to repair or 

improve lands damaged directly by a wildland fire; and 2) to rehabilitate or establish healthy, stable ecosystems in the 

burned area. (620 DM 3.8A)

Emergency Stabilization

The objective of emergency stabilization is “To determine the need for and to prescribe and implement emergency 

treatments to minimize threats to life or property or to stabilize and prevent unacceptable degradation to natural and 

cultural resources resulting from the effects of a fire.” (620 DM 3.4A)

Emergency stabilization plans are prepared by an interdisciplinary team, immediately following a wildland fire and 

specify emergency treatments and activities to be carried out within one year following containment of the wildfire. 

Generally, activities are only prescribed within the perimeter of a burned area. 

Allowable emergency stabilization actions are limited to the following items, grouped by issue topic:

Human Life and Safety

• Replacing or repairing minor facilities essential to public health and safety when no other protection options are 

available.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix D

Fire and Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation 843

Soil/Water Stabilization

• Placing structures to slow soil and water movement.

• Stabilizing soil to prevent loss of degradation or productivity.

• Increasing road drainage frequency and/or capacity to handle additional post-fire runoff.

• Installing protective fences or barriers to protect treated or recovering areas.

Designated Critical Habitat for Federal/State Listed, Proposed, or Candidate Species

• Conducting assessments of critical habitat in those areas affected by emergency stabilization treatments.

• Seeding or planting to prevent permanent impairment of designated Critical Habitat for Federal and State listed, 

proposed or candidate threatened and endangered species.

Critical Heritage Resources

• Conducting assessments of significant heritage sites in those areas affected by emergency stabilization 

treatments.

• Stabilizing critical heritage resources.

• Patrolling, camouflaging, burying significant heritage sites to prevent looting.

Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Areas and Protection Priority Areas

• Prioritize native seed allocation for use in greater sage-grouse habitat in years when preferred native seed is in 

short supply. Where probability of success or native seed availability is low, non-native seeds may be used as 

long as they meet sage-grouse habitat conservation objectives. Re-establishment of appropriate sagebrush 

species/subspecies and important understory plants, relative to site potential, shall be the highest priority for 

rehabilitation efforts. 

• Design post ES&R management to ensure long term persistence of seeded or pre-burn native plants.

• Consider potential changes in climate when proposing post-fire seedings using native plants. Consider seed 

collections from the warmer component within a species’ current range for selection of native seed.

Invasive Plants

• Seeding to prevent establishment of invasive plants, and direct treatment of invasive plants. Such actions will 

be specified in the emergency stabilization plan only when immediate action is required and when standard 

treatments are used that have been validated by monitoring data from previous projects, or when there is 

documented research establishing the effectiveness of such actions.

• Using integrated pest management techniques to minimize the establishment of non-native invasive species 

within the burned area. When there is an existing approved management plan that addresses non-native 

invasive species, emergency stabilization treatments may be used to stabilize the invasive species.

Monitoring

• Monitoring of treatments and activities for up to three years from date of fire containment.

Burned Area Rehabilitation

The objectives of rehabilitation are: 1) to evaluate actual and potential long-term post- fire impacts to critical cultural and 

natural resources and identify those areas unlikely to recover naturally from severe wildland fire damage; 2) to develop 

and implement cost-effective plans to emulate historical or pre-fire ecosystem structure, function, diversity, and 

dynamics consistent with approved land management plans, or if that is infeasible, then to restore or establish a healthy, 

stable ecosystem in which native species are well represented; and 3) to repair or replace minor facilities damaged by 

wildland fire (620 DM 3.4B).
Appendix D HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

844 Fire and Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation plans are prepared by an interdisciplinary team as a separate plan, independent of an emergency 

stabilization plan. The rehabilitation plan specifies non-emergency treatments and activities to be carried out within 

three years following containment of a wildfire. Generally, rehabilitation activities are prescribed only within the 

perimeter of a burned area. 

Allowable rehabilitation actions are limited to the following items, grouped by issue topic:

Lands Unlikely to Recover Naturally

• Repair or improve lands unlikely to recover naturally from wildland fire damage by emulating historical or prefire ecosystem structure, function, diversity, and dynamics consistent with existing land management plans.

Weed Treatments

• Chemical, manual, and mechanical removal of invasive species, and planting of native and non-native species, 

restore or establish a healthy, stable ecosystem even if this ecosystem cannot fully emulate historical or pre-fire 

conditions.

Tree Planting

• Tree planting to reestablish burned habitat, reestablish native tree species lost in fire, prevent establishment of 

invasive plants.

Repair/Replace Fire Damage to Minor Facilities

• Repair or replace fire damage to minor operating facilities (e.g., fences, campgrounds, interpretive signs and 

exhibits, shade shelters, wildlife guzzlers, etc.) Rehabilitation may not include the planning or replacement of 

major infrastructure, such as visitor centers, residential structures, administration offices, work centers and 

similar facilities. Rehabilitation does not include the construction of new facilities that did not exist before the 

fire, except for temporary and minor facilities necessary to implement burned area rehabilitation efforts.

Monitoring

• Monitoring of treatments and activities for up to three years from date of fire containment.

 After three years, the long-term monitoring of an ES&R project will be officially transferred to a designated 

resource program. Long-term responsibility for tracking the ES&R investment should be identified early in the 

ES&R planning process through an interdisciplinary team. The resource program is encouraged to conduct an 

evaluation at the five-year interval to identify management changes needed to ensure project success in reaching 

the intended objectives. (WO-IM-2010-195, 9/3/2010).

Policies on timeframes for ES&R planning funding, and implementation are very specific. ES&R treatments must be 

implemented, to the extent possible, before additional damage occurs to the burned area, immediately down slope of the 

burned area, or before undesirable vegetation becomes established. Treatments must be implemented at a time that will 

ensure a high or maximum probability of success. The ES&R Program timeframes in relations to tasks and 

responsibilities are shown in Table D.2.

Due to the broad spectrum of situations encountered in emergency stabilization and/or rehabilitation, several options of 

possible treatments, either separately or in combination, must be considered. The ES&R Handbook list several 

treatments under the Treatment Guidance section.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix D

Fire and Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation 845

Table D.2

ES&R Program Timeframes, Tasks, and Responsibilities

Event Timeframes Task

Wildfire occurs Immediately Manager assigns a Resource Advisor (RA).

While the fire is still burning, the RA, in 

consultation with resource specialists and the 

appropriate Manager, decides if ES&R is 

warranted bases on Values-atRisk/Resources-at-Risk. If it is decided that 

ES&R is warranted, the RA is to notify the 

Central Montana Fire Zone (CMFZ) or 

District Office ES&R lead, prior to 

containment. The CMFZ or District Office 

ES&R Lead will then notify the State Office 

ES&R Program Lead of the scope of the fire

and the anticipated fire containment date.

Initial ES Plan needed. Submit Form 1310-2 

plus supplemental attachments (both 2822 

and 2881 may be indicated on Form, although 

funding under 2881 may not occur until the 

following fiscal year).

Within 7 days of 

fire containment

Concurrently to State ES&R Program Lead, 

National ES&R Program Lead, and Denver 

Budget Office (BC-612).

Complete ES Plan needed. Prepare/Submit 

complete ES Plan.

Within 21 days 

of fire 

containment

<$100,000 submit to State ES&R Program 

Lead. ≥$100,000 submit to State ES&R 

Program Lead (for review) and concurrently 

to National ES&R Program Lead.

Receive approval/disapproval of ES Plan. Within 6 

working days of 

receipt by 

Approval Office

Requesting Office receives memo approving 

funding, or need for revision on a plan by 

plan basis. State Director or acting has 

funding approval authority for plans 

<$100,000. Bureau Budget Officer, after 

concurrence with Assistant Director WO-200 

or their designee, has funding approval 

authority for plans ≥$100,000. 

Receive notification of ES funding approval. Immediately Local fire office enters project data into 

NFPORS.

BAR Plan needed. Prepare/Submit BAR 

Plan.

Timely, ideally 

soon after 

submitting ES 

Plan, but no later 

than Sept. 5

annually

To State ES&R Program Lead and National 

ES&R Program Lead. Field Office. Local 

fire office enters project data into NFPORS.

Receive approval/disapproval of BAR Plan 

funding.

Before October 

31 annually

Funding for BAR Plans is approved via the 

Annual Work Plan.

Accomplishment Report and Funding 

Request Form for next FY 2881 funds.

Early September To State ES&R Program Lead for review and 

submission to National ES&R Program Lead 

for concurrence. Funding for years 2 and 3 is 

approved via the Annual Work Plan.

Close-out Report. Early September 

of 3rd year

To State ES&R Program Lead for review and 

submission to National ES&R Program Lead.

HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Operations 847

Appendix E

Fluid Minerals

E.1 Oil and Gas Operations

Geophysical Exploration

Oil and gas can be discovered by either direct or indirect exploration methods, such as the mapping of rock outcrops, 

seeps, borehole data, and remote sensing data. In many cases, indirect methods such as seismic, gravity, and magnetic 

surveys are required to delineate subsurface features that may contain oil and gas. Geophysical exploration may provide 

information that increases the chances of drilling a discovery well and information that may discourage drilling and the 

associated surface disturbance. More sophisticated geophysical techniques, like three-dimensional (3-D) seismic 

surveys, may supply enough information to model a reservoir and optimize drilling to prevent excess wells and the 

associated surface disturbance. Geophysical exploration does not include core drilling for subsurface geologic 

information or well drilling for oil and gas.

Gravity Surveys

Gravitational prospecting detects micro-variations in gravitational attraction caused by the differences in the density of 

various types of rock. Gravity data are used to generate anomaly maps from which faults and general structural trends 

can be interpreted. These surveys are generally not considered definitive because of the many corrections required (e.g., 

terrain, elevation, latitude) and the poor resolution of complex subsurface structures. The instrument used for gravity 

surveys is a small portable device called a gravimeter. Generally, measurements are taken at many points along a linear 

transect, and the gravimeter is transported either by backpack, helicopter, or off-road vehicle. The only surface 

disturbance associated with gravity prospecting is that caused by a vehicle, if used. 

Geomagnetic Surveys 

Magnetic prospecting is most commonly used for locating metallic ore bodies, but is used to a limited extent in oil and 

gas exploration. Magnetic surveys use an instrument called a magnetometer to detect small magnetic anomalies caused 

by mineral and lithologic variations in the earth’s crust. These surveys can detect trends in basement rock and the 

approximate depth to those basement rocks but, in general, they provide little specific data to aid in petroleum 

exploration. Many corrections are required to obtain reliable information. The generated maps lack resolution and are 

considered rudimentary views of subsurface geology. Magnetometers vary greatly in size and complexity and, in 

general, most magnetic surveys are conducted from the air by suspending a magnetometer under an airplane. Magnetic 

surveys conducted on the ground are nearly identical to gravity surveys and surface disturbance is minimal to 

nonexistent.

Seismic Reflection Surveys 

Seismic prospecting is the best and most popular indirect method used for locating subsurface structures and stratigraphy 

that may contain hydrocarbons. Seismic energy (shock waves) is induced into the earth using one of several methods. 

As these waves travel downward and outward, they encounter various rock strata, each having a different seismic 

velocity characteristic. As the wave energy encounters the interface between rock layers, where the lower layer is of 

lower seismic velocity, some of the seismic energy is reflected upward. Sensing devices, commonly called geophones, 

are placed on the surface to detect these reflections. The geophones are connected to a recording truck that stores the 

data. The time required for the shock waves to travel from the shot point down to a given reflector and back to the 

geophone is related to depth, and this value is mapped to give an underground picture of the geologic structure. Many 

methods are available today that an explorationist can use to induce the initial seismic energy into the earth. All methods 

require preliminary surveying and laying of geophones. The thumper and vibrator methods pound or vibrate the earth to 

create a shock wave. Usually large trucks are used, each equipped with vibrator pads (about 4 feet square). The pads are 
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

848 Oil and Gas Operations

lowered to the ground, and vibrators on all trucks are triggered electronically from the recording truck. Information is 

recorded and then the trucks move forward a short distance and the process is repeated. Less than 50 square feet of 

surface area is required to operate the equipment at each test site. The trucks are equipped with large flotation type tires, 

which reduce the impact of driving over undisturbed terrain.

The drilling method uses truck-mounted drills that drill small-diameter holes to depths of 100 to 200 feet. Four to 12 

holes are drilled per mile of line. Usually, a 50-pound charge of explosives is placed in the hole, covered, and detonated. 

The detonated explosive sends a shock wave below the earth’s surface that is subsequently reflected back to the surface 

from various subsurface rock layers. In rugged topography, a portable drill is sometimes carried in by helicopter. 

Charges are placed in the hole as is done in a truck-mounted operation. Another portable technique is to carry the 

charges in a helicopter and place the charges on wooden sticks, or lath, about 3 feet above the ground. Usually, 10 

charges in a line are detonated at once. In remote areas where there is little known subsurface data, a series of short 

seismic lines may be required to determine the subsurface geology. Subsequently, more extensive seismic lines are 

arranged to obtain the greatest amount of geologic information.

Seismic information can be obtained in two-dimensional (2-D) or 3-D configurations. To obtain 3-D seismic 

information, the seismic sensors and energy source are located along lines in a grid pattern. This type of survey differs 

from the more common 2-D surveys because of the large volume of data and the intensive computerization of the data. 

The results are expensive to obtain but give a more detailed and informative subsurface picture. The orientation and 

arrangement of the components in 3-D seismic surveys are less tolerant of adjustments to the physical locations of the 

lines and geophones, but they are also more compact in the area they cover. Although alignment can be fairly critical, 

spacing of the lines can often be changed to significantly increase the information collected. The depth of the desired 

geologic information will dictate the spacing of the grid lines, with smaller spacing detailing shallower formations. The 

3-D surveys are very expensive and usually conducted after 2-D surveys or drilling has delineated a geologic prospect 

that will justify the extra cost. Extensive computer processing of the raw data is required to produce a usable seismic 

section from which geophysicists can interpret structural relationships to depths of 30,000 feet or more. The effective 

depth of investigation and resolution are determined, to some degree, by which method is used.

A typical drilling seismic operation can use 10 to 15 men operating five to seven trucks. Under normal conditions, three 

to five miles of line can be surveyed each day using the explosive method. The vehicles used for a drilling program 

include several heavy truck-mounted drill rigs, water trucks, a computer recording truck, and several light pickup trucks 

for the surveyors, shot hole crew, geophone crew permit man, and party chief.

Public roads and existing private roads and vehicle routes are used. Off-highway cross-country travel may be necessary 

to carry out tasks. Motor graders and/or dozers may be required to provide access to remote areas. Vehicle use for 

necessary tasks, such as geophysical exploration, including project survey and layout, would be allowed. Concern about 

unnecessary surface disturbance has caused government and industry to more carefully plan surveys. As a result, earthmoving equipment is now only rarely used in seismic exploration work. Several trips a day are made along a 

seismograph line; this usually establishes a well-defined two-track vehicle route. The repeated movement back and forth 

along the line (particularly the light pickup trucks) defines the vehicle route. Spreading vehicles out so that vehicle 

routes are not straight, and vehicles do not retrace the same route, has in some cases prevented the establishment of new 

vehicle routes and has reduced impacts. Drilling water, when needed, is usually obtained from the nearest source.

Each of the foregoing exploration methods has inherent strengths and weaknesses, and explorationists must decide which 

method is the most practical with regard to surface constraints (such as topography) while still producing useful 

information. Economics and past information also play a role in determining the method used. Reconnaissance-type 

surveys of gravity and geomagnetic can be run in areas where little information is available, with the attendant lower 

costs and fewer impacts. More expensive and higher impact seismic surveys are run when more detailed information is 

required. 

Geophysical Management (Permitting Process) 

Geophysical operations on and off an oil and gas lease are reviewed by the appropriate federal Surface Management 

Agency (i.e., Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation, or U.S. Forest Service). Although a federal 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Operations 849

oil and gas lease is not required before conducting geophysical operations, exploration on public lands requires review 

and approval following the procedures in 43 CFR Subparts 3150, 3151, and 3154. During a 13-year period (from 1998 

through 2010) the planning area processed 80 seismic exploration notices or permits on public land in the planning area 

(Table E.1.1). An average of 6 notices or permits can be expected to be processed in any given year.

Table E.1.1

Seismic Exploration Permits on Public 

Lands in the Planning Area

Year Number

1998 4

1999 3

2000 2

2001 3

2002 8

2003 28

2004 7

2005 7

2006 7

2007 4

2008 5

2009 1

2010 1

Total 80

The responsibilities of the geophysical operator and the authorized officer are as follows: 

 Geophysical Operator – An operator is required to file with the authorized officer a “Notice of Intent (NOI) to 

Conduct Oil and Gas Exploration Operations.” The NOI shall include a map (preferably 1:24,000 scale) 

showing the location of the line, all access routes, and ancillary facilities. The party filing the NOI shall be 

bonded. A copy of the bond or other evidence of satisfactory bonding shall accompany the NOI. Proper 

bonding may include a $5,000 individual, $25,000 statewide, or $50,000 nationwide geophysical exploration 

bond. In lieu of an exploration bond, a statewide or nationwide oil and gas performance bond may be used if it 

includes a rider for geophysical exploration. For geophysical operation methods involving surface disturbance, 

a pre-work field conference may be conducted. Special requirements or procedures that are identified by the 

authorized officer would be included in the Terms and Conditions for Notice of Intent to Conduct Geophysical 

Exploration. Any changes in the original Notice of Intent must be submitted in writing to the authorized officer 

and written approval must be secured before activities proceed. Additionally, the operator is required to comply 

with applicable federal, state, and local laws such as the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Operators 

may be required to submit an archaeological evaluation if dirt work is contemplated, or if there is reason to 

believe that significant cultural resources may be adversely affected. Upon completion of operations, including 

required rehabilitation, the operator is required to file a “Notice of Completion of Oil and Gas Exploration 

Operations.” The Notice should include a map that shows the actual line location, access route, and other 

survey details.

 Authorized Officer – The authorized officer is required to contact the operator within five working days after 

the NOI is filed to explain the terms of the notice, including the “Terms and Conditions for Notice of Intent to 

Conduct Geophysical Exploration,” current laws, and BLM administrative requirements. The written orders or 

instructions should be given to the operator at the time of the prework conference or field inspection. The

authorized officer is also responsible for the examination of resource values to determine appropriate surface 

protection and reclamation measures. After the operations are completed, as specified by the “Notice of 

Completion,” the authorized officer shall complete a final inspection and notify the operator within 30 days of 

receipt of the notice whether the terms and conditions of the NOI have been met or if additional action is 

required. Consent to release the bond or termination of liability shall not be granted until the terms and 
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

850 Oil and Gas Operations

conditions have been met; however, the bonding liability will automatically terminate within 90 days after 

receipt of the Notice of Completion unless the authorized officer notifies the operator of the need for additional 

reclamation work.

State Standards

In Montana, the operator is required to apply for a permit with the Montana Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation (DNRC). DNRC standards for plugging shot holes, personnel safety, and so on, would be followed as 

specified in the State permit.

Mitigation

When a geophysical Notice of Intent is received, restrictions may be placed on the application to protect resource values 

or to mitigate impacts. Many of these requirements may be the same as the oil and gas lease stipulations adopted in the 

resource management plan (RMP). Other less restrictive measures may be used when impacts to resource values will be 

less severe. This is due in part to the temporary nature of geophysical exploration and the idea that decisions concerning 

the level of protection required should be made on a case-by-case basis.

The most critical management practice is compliance monitoring during and after seismic activity. Compliance 

inspections during the operation ensure that stipulations are being followed. Compliance inspections upon completion of 

work ensure that the lines are clean and the drill holes are properly plugged. 

Oil and Gas Leasing 

The Mineral Leasing Act provides that all public lands are open to oil and gas leasing unless a specific order has been 

issued to close an area. Based on the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, all leases must be 

exposed to competitive lease sales. Lands for which bids are not received at the lease sale will be available for 

noncompetitive leasing for a period not to exceed two years. All offers filed the day after the sale (referred to as dayafter-the-sale filings) are considered simultaneously filed. This means that if more than one offer is filed for a specific 

parcel the day after the sale, a drawing must be held to determine the priority on multiple offers. Noncompetitive offers 

filed after that time are on a first-come first-served basis. If no offers are filed for a parcel during the two-year period 

after the sale, the lands must be nominated again for competitive leasing. Competitive sales will be held at least 

quarterly and by oral auction. Competitive and noncompetitive leases are issued for a term of 10 years or for as long as 

oil and/or gas are produced. Rental payments for these leases are $1.50 per acre for the first five years and $2.00 per 

acre thereafter until production is established. Royalty is received at the rate of 121⁄2% of the total saleable production, 

one-half of which is typically returned to the State of Montana. Minimum royalty is the same amount as the rental.

The leasing of federal oil and gas is also affected by other acts such as the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA), Wilderness Act of 1964, National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Endangered Species Act of 1973, and 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. The federal regulations that govern oil and gas leasing are contained 

in 43 CFR Part 3100 with additional requirements and clarification found in Onshore Operating Orders and Washington 

Office (WO) manuals, handbooks and instruction memorandums.

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments (EPCA) of 2000, Public Law (PL) 106-469, directed the 

Secretary of the Interior to conduct an inventory of oil and natural gas resources beneath federal lands. The Act also 

directed the Department of the Interior to identify the extent and nature of any restrictions to resource development. As a 

result, the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and Energy released a report, “Inventory of Onshore Federal Oil and 

Natural Gas Resources Restrictions to Their Development” (referred to as the “EPCA Phase III Inventory”) in May 

2008.

The BLM is integrating the results of the EPCA inventory into its RMPs. The oil and gas resource inventory data are 

integrated into the RFD scenario that predicts future mineral development within the planning area. The restrictions and 

impediments to mineral resource development would be considered throughout the RMP with the intent to:
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Operations 851

 Clearly present mitigation requirements necessary to reduce impacts of oil and gas operations on other 

resources.

 Ensure that such mitigation is either statutorily required or scientifically justifiable and is the least restrictive 

measure necessary to accomplish the desired level of resource protection. The mitigation requirements would 

be monitored to determine if more or less restrictive measures might accomplish the same goal. 

Once a lease is issued, it grants the right to the lessee(s) to explore, extract, remove, and dispose of oil and gas deposits

that may be found in the leased lands. Lease rights may be subject to lease stipulations and permit approval 

requirements. Stipulations and permit requirements describe how lease rights are modified. Lease constraints or 

requirements may also be applied to Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs) on existing leases provided the constraints 

or requirements are within the authority reserved by the terms and conditions of the lease. The stipulations and 

conditions of approval must be in accordance with existing laws, regulations and lease terms. 

The BLM planning process is the mechanism used to evaluate and determine where and how federal oil and gas 

resources will be made available for leasing. In areas where oil and gas development may conflict with other resources, 

the areas may be closed to leasing. Areas where oil and gas development could coexist with other land uses or resources 

will be open to leasing. Leases in these areas will be issued with standard lease terms or with added stipulations based 

upon decisions in the land use document. Added stipulations are a part of the lease only when environmental and 

planning records demonstrate the necessity for the stipulations.

Consistent with WO IM No. 2010-117, the BLM will form an Interdisciplinary Parcel Review (IDPR) team of resource 

specialists to review lease sale parcels and ensure compliance with NEPA and other legal and policy requirements. The 

IDPR team will include subject matter experts for the resources potentially affected by leasing. When appropriate, the 

IDPR team should consider including staff specialists from other agencies when lands and/or resources administered by 

those agencies could be impacted by future development on the lease parcels under review. To benefit from the team’s 

skills, experience, and expertise, the parcel reviews should be conducted in a group setting, thereby encouraging group 

discussion and interaction. Data and recommendations should be reviewed and discussed as a team, allowing parcels to 

be compared and contrasted in an open discussion. The IDPR team must be familiar with current oil and gas 

development technologies and impacts, and should periodically visit areas of existing oil and gas development as a team 

to gain a better understanding of the potential impacts of development on prospective lease sale parcels. The IDPR team 

will ensure the following steps are performed for the review of parcels in each lease sale, including review of split estate 

parcels where the mineral estate is federally owned:

 gather and evaluate existing environmental resource information;

 determine whether leasing the parcel is in conformance with the RMP;

 review parcels in light of the most current national and local program-specific guidance to determine 

availability of parcels for leasing and/or applicable stipulations; 

 usually conduct site visits to validate existing data or gather new information in order to make an informed 

leasing recommendation; 

 coordinate and/or consult on the parcel review and NEPA analysis with stakeholders that may be affected by the 

BLM’s leasing decisions; and 

 provide for public participation as part of the review of parcels identified for potential leasing through the 

NEPA compliance documentation process.

Oil and gas lease stipulations may be modified or eliminated using the exception, modification, or waiver criteria 

outlined in this RMP (Appendix E.4) or through more site-specific environmental analysis. Stipulations that are either 

too restrictive or too lenient to accomplish the desired resource protection would be changed if monitoring or new 

scientific data justify the change. Clarifying changes may be made to the wording of oil and gas lease stipulations as 

long as there is no substantial change to the mitigated protection, as justified by new scientific data or monitoring.

The authorized officer has the authority to relocate, control timing, and impose other mitigation measures under Section 

6 of the Standard Lease Form, provided appropriate environmental documentation can justify the modification. This 

authority is invoked when specific lease stipulations are not attached to the lease or new resources are discovered on a 

lease. Lease stipulations are conditions of lease issuance that provide protection for other resource values or land uses by 
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

852 Oil and Gas Operations

establishing authority for delay, site changes, or the denial of operations within the terms of the lease contract. These 

stipulations adhere to the Uniform Format for Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations prepared by the Rocky Mountain Regional 

Coordinating Committee in March 1989. The stipulations are specified for each applicable parcel in the Notice of 

Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale and are intended to inform interested parties (potential lessees, operators) that 

certain activities will be regulated or prohibited unless the operator and the Surface Management Agency arrive at an 

acceptable plan for mitigation of anticipated impacts. These stipulations are attached to the whole lease, regardless of 

whether the protection measure affects only a specific portion of the lease. Lease stipulations are based on the perceived 

resource requirements and land uses as specified in NEPA documentation. New science, comprehensive documentation 

of resource requirements, land pattern interference, and ongoing monitoring of the effectiveness of a stipulation may 

allow granting of an exception, modification, or waiver to a stipulation. An exception is a one-time exemption to a lease 

stipulation and is determined on a case-by-case basis. A modification is a change to the provisions of a lease stipulation 

either temporarily or for the term of the lease. A lease stipulation waiver is a permanent exemption to a lease stipulation.

Master Leasing Plan

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 (WO 

Instructional Memorandum (IM) No. 2010-117). The preparation of an MLP is required when all four of the following 

criteria are met: 

1. A substantial portion of the area to be analyzed in the MLP is not currently leased.

2. There is a majority federal mineral interest.

3. The oil and gas industry has expressed a specific interest in leasing, and there is a moderate or high potential for 

oil and gas confirmed by the discovery of oil and gas in the general area.

4. Additional analysis or information is needed to address likely resource or cumulative impacts if oil and gas 

development were to occur where there are:

 multiple-use or natural/cultural resource conflicts;

 impacts to air quality;

 impacts on the resources or values of any unit of the national park system, national wildlife refuge, or 

national forest wilderness area, as determined after consultation or coordination with the National Park 

Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or the U.S. Forest Service; or

 impacts on other specially designated areas.

Five areas were considered for an MLP (Table E.1.2), including one external proposal. 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 all five areas and determined that they did not meet all four of the criteria as required by WO IM No. 

2010-117 and the areas do not warrant preparation of a MLP (Table E.1.2). An MLP will not be completed for the 

HiLine RMP.

Table E.1.2

Master Leasing Plan Areas Considered in the Planning Area

Master Leasing Plan Area Percent Unleased Federal Mineral 

Interest

Development 

Potential

Additional Analysis 

Needed

Bears Paw South 22% 47% High No

Bitter Creek/Frenchman Breaks 76% 56% Low/Very Low No

Bowdoin 22% 55% Moderate No

Creedman Coulee 21% 8% High No

North Blaine 39% 30% Moderate No
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Operations 853

Bears Paw South

The Bears Paw South area is located in southern Blaine County and is adjacent to the Upper Missouri River Breaks 

National Monument (Figure E.1 and Map E.1, which is located at the end of the Oil and Gas Operations section). This 

area was considered by the BLM due to continued natural gas development and potential resource conflicts with wildlife. 

The BLM reviewed this proposal and determined that the Bears Paw South 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.

 The area contains 177,127 acres of federal oil and gas mineral estate of which 38,400 acres (22%) are currently 

unleased. Therefore, this area does not meet the criteria that a substantial portion is not currently leased.

 There is not a majority federal oil and gas mineral estate in the area. The area contains 374,523 acres of which 

177,127 acres (47%) are federal oil and gas mineral estate. Of the 177,127 acres of federal minerals, 108,474 

acres (61%) are non-BLM managed surface.

 The oil and gas industry has expressed some interest in leasing the unleased lands in the area. The majority of 

the leased lands are held by production. Most of the area has high development potential (Figure E.1 and Map 

E.1). There is substantial gas production throughout the area and there will continue to be new wells drilled on 

existing leases potentially with an increase in density.

 BLM land in the Bears Paw South area is concentrated within the southcentral and northeast sections of the 

area. Resources include greater sage-grouse winter range and nesting habitat and big game winter range. BLM 

lands in the southern and eastern portions of the area contain steep slopes with highly erodible soils. Oil and 

gas lease stipulations within the range of alternatives considered in the RMP address this area including those 

management actions for greater sage-grouse (restoration area), winter range, and soils. 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.

Bitter Creek/Frenchman Breaks

In July 2010, The Wilderness Society submitted a proposal for a Master Leasing Plan (MLP) for an area called the Bitter 

Creek/Frenchman Breaks in northern Phillips and Valley counties (Figure E.2). 

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.

 The area contains 582,157 acres of federal oil and gas mineral estate of which 441,748 acres (76%) are 

currently unleased. Therefore, this area does not meet the criteria that a substantial portion is not currently 

leased. However, 60,700 acres are within the Bitter Creek Wilderness Study Area and are unavailable for 

leasing.

 There is a majority federal oil and gas mineral estate in the area. The area contains 1,045,915 acres of which 

582,157 acres (56%) are federal oil and gas mineral estate. Of the 582,157 acres of federal minerals, 112,545 

acres (19%) are non-BLM managed surface.

 The oil and gas industry has expressed some interest in the past 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 (Figure E.2). About 2% of the area 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, there have been 47 wells drilled within 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.
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

854 Oil and Gas Operations

 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.

Bowdoin

The Bowdoin area is located in northern Phillips County and west-central Valley County (Figure E.3 and Map E.1, 

which is located at the end of the Oil and Gas Operations section). This area was considered by the BLM since it 

surrounds and encompasses the Bowdoin Natural Gas Project Area. 

The BLM reviewed this proposal and determined that Bowdoin did not meet all four of the criteria as required by WO 

IM No. 2010-117 and the proposal does not warrant preparation of a MLP.

 The area contains 449,563 acres of federal oil and gas mineral estate of which 96,657 acres (22%) are currently 

unleased. Therefore, this area does not meet the criteria that a substantial portion is not currently leased. Most 

of the unleased federal mineral estate is located along the southern portion of the area. Much of this unleased 

area was previously leased, but the leases expired due to lack of production.

 There is a majority federal oil and gas mineral estate in the area. The area contains 814,065 acres of which 

449,563 acres (55%) are federal oil and gas mineral estate. Of the 449,563 acres of federal minerals, 224,006 

acres (50%) are non-BLM managed surface.

 The oil and gas industry has expressed an interest in leasing in the area in the past as indicated by 352,906 acres 

that are currently leased. Most of the area has moderate development potential (Figure E.3 and Map E.1). The 

area encompasses the Bowdoin Natural Gas Project Area, which is one of the top producing gas fields in 

Montana. The Bowdoin gas field is an old established field. Recent interest in the area has consisted of stepout wells, infill wells, and replacement wells. Because of this recent interest, a field development 

environmental assessment was completed in December of 2008 (BLM 2008a).

 The Bowdoin MLP area is within an established, producing natural gas field, and the majority of federal 

mineral interest has been leased. Resources and potential resource conflicts have been fully analyzed in the 

Bowdoin Natural Gas Development Project EA (BLM 2008a). Oil and gas lease stipulations and best 

management practices (BMPs) within the range of alternatives considered in the RMP address this area 

including those management actions for the Bowdoin Natural Gas Project Area. 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. 

Creedman Coulee

The Creedman Coulee area is located in northwestern Blaine County (Figure E.4). This area was considered by the 

BLM since it was identified as having high development potential for oil and gas.

The BLM reviewed this proposal and determined that the Bears Paw South 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.

 The area contains 5,446 acres of federal oil and gas mineral estate of which 1,163 acres (21%) are currently 

unleased. Therefore, this area does not meet the criteria that a substantial portion is not currently leased.

 There is not a majority federal oil and gas mineral estate in the area. The area contains 68,040 acres of which 

5,466 acres (8%) are federal oil and gas mineral estate. Of the 5,446 acres of federal minerals, 5,325 acres 

(98%) are non-BLM managed surface.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Operations 855

 The oil and gas industry has expressed very little interest in leasing the unleased lands in the area. The majority 

of the leased lands are held by production. All of the area is identified as having high development potential. 

(Figure E.4). There is substantial gas production throughout the area and there will continue to be some new 

wells drilled on existing leases.

 The Creedman Coulee MLP area is 98% fee surface. A small wildlife refuge is located within the boundary of 

the MLP area. The Creedman Coulee National Wildlife Refuge is comprised of 80 acres of federal surface and 

2,648 acres of fee surface under a conservation easement. Resource conflicts due to increased oil and gas 

development would be minimal due to NSO stipulations, and additional analysis or information is not required.

North Blaine

The North Blaine area is located in northern Blaine County (Figure E.5 and Map E.1, which is located at the end of the 

Oil and Gas Operations section). This area was considered by the BLM because there have been proposals in the past for 

an expansion of the existing natural gas production. 

The BLM reviewed this proposal and determined that North Blaine 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.

 The area contains 82,822 acres of federal oil and gas mineral estate of which 32,169 acres (39%) are currently 

unleased. Therefore, this area does not meet the criteria that a substantial portion is not currently leased.

 There is not a majority federal oil and gas mineral estate in the area. The area contains 276,364 acres of which 

82,822 acres (30%) are federal oil and gas mineral estate. Of the 82,822 acres of federal minerals, 8,027 acres 

(10%) are non-BLM managed surface.

 The oil and gas industry has expressed very little interest in leasing the unleased lands in the area. The majority 

of the leased lands are held by production. A portion of the area has moderate development potential (Figure 

E.5 and Map E.1). There is substantial gas production throughout the area and there will continue to be some 

new wells drilled on existing leases. There is some oil production within the area as well.

 Resources within the North Blaine MLP area include active sage-grouse leks, sage-grouse winter range and 

nesting habitat, pronghorn winter range, mule deer winter range, and numerous raptor nests. The North Blaine 

MLP area does contain a developed natural gas field. Oil and gas lease stipulations and best management 

practices (BMPs) within the range of alternatives considered in the RMP address this area including those 

management actions for greater sage-grouse, big game winter range, and raptors. 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.
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

856 Oil and Gas Operations
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Operations 857
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

858 Oil and Gas Operations
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Operations 859
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

860 Oil and Gas Operations
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Operations 861

Lease Stipulations

Certain resources in the planning area require protection from impacts associated with oil and gas activities. The specific 

resource and the method of protection are contained in lease stipulations. Lease stipulations are usually No Surface 

Occupancy, Controlled Surface Use, or Timing Limitation (Seasonal Restriction). A notice may also be included with a 

lease to provide guidance regarding resources or land uses. While the actual wording of the stipulations may be adjusted 

at the time of leasing, the protection standards described will be maintained.

No Surface Occupancy

Use or occupancy of the surface land for fluid mineral extraction or development is prohibited in order to protect 

identified resource values. The no surface occupancy stipulation includes stipulations which may have been worded as 

“No Surface Use and Occupancy,” “No Surface Disturbance,” “Conditional No Surface Occupancy” and “Surface 

Disturbance or Occupancy Restriction (by location).”

Controlled Surface Use

Use or occupancy is allowed (unless restricted by another stipulation), but identified resource values require special 

operational constraints that may modify the lease rights. A Controlled Surface Use stipulation is used for operating 

guidance, not as a substitute for the No Surface Occupancy or Timing stipulations.

Timing Limitation (Seasonal Restriction)

Surface use is prohibited during specified times to protect identified resource values. This stipulation does not apply to 

the operation and maintenance of production facilities unless the findings of analysis demonstrate the continued need for 

such mitigation and that less stringent, project-specific mitigation measures would be insufficient.

Plan Maintenance

New information may lead to changes in existing resource inventories. New use areas and resource locations may be 

identified or use areas and resource locations that are no longer valid may be identified. These resources usually cover 

small areas requiring the same protection or mitigation as identified in this plan. Identification of new areas or removal 

of old areas that no longer have those resource values will result in the use of the same lease stipulation identified in this 

plan. These areas will be added to the existing data inventory without a plan amendment. In cases where the changes 

constitute a change in resource allocation outside the scope of this plan, a plan amendment would be required.

Drilling Permit Process

A federal lessee or the operator of record is governed by procedures set forth in Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1

(updated in May 2007), “Approval of Operations on Onshore Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Leases,” issued under 43 

CFR 3164. These procedures cover the full scope of operations on federal minerals, from initial permitting of the well, 

to subsequent operations, to final abandonment. Before beginning construction or drilling a well, the lessee must have 

an approved APD, including requirements for surface and subsurface operations. Many other lease operations, including 

surface and subsurface, must be approved by a Sundry Notice. When a well is no longer useful, the well is plugged and 

the surface reclaimed. The well plugging and reclamation operations are typically approved via a Sundry Notice; 

however, verbal approval for plugging may be given for a well that was drilled but not completed for production (dry 

hole). The period of bond liability is terminated after all wells covered by the bond are properly plugged and the surface 

reclaimed.

All APDs processed in the planning area are filed with the Great Falls Oil and Gas Field Office. A copy of the APD is 

posted in the Great Falls Oil and Gas Field Office and in the Havre Field Office, Glasgow Field Office, or Malta Field 

Office depending upon the office having jurisdiction over the lands described in the application. If applicable, a copy of 

the APD is also posted with the Surface Management Agency. The APD must be posted for a minimum of 30 days to 

allow for review by the public. After 30 days, the APD can be approved in accordance with (a) lease stipulations, (b) 
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

862 Oil and Gas Operations

Onshore Oil and Gas Orders, and (c) Onshore Oil and Gas regulations (43 CFR Part 3160) if it is administratively and 

technically complete.

Evidence of bond coverage for lease operations must be submitted with the application. Bond amount must not be less 

than a $10,000 lease bond, a $25,000 statewide bond, or a $150,000 nationwide bond.

Occasionally, the BLM may require that a lessee drill a well on a lease if it is determined that federally owned minerals 

are being drained by an adjacent well on private or state-owned lands. This may cause conflicts in areas of sensitive 

surface resources. If the economics are not sufficient to drill a directional well from a location on the federal lease, 

drainage protection may require compromising the sensitive surface resource after a thorough environmental review. 

Permitting

In the initial permitting process, the operator selects the location of a proposed drill site based upon Montana Board of 

Oil and Gas (MBOG) spacing requirements, subsurface geology, topography, and avoidance of known sensitive surface 

resource values. At that point, the operator is able to survey and stake the well, access road and pipeline without notice 

to the BLM. Cultural inventories can also be obtained without notice.

After the operator makes the decision to drill a well, it must decide whether to submit a Notice of Staking (NOS) or 

APD. The NOS and APD are described as follows:

 Notice of Staking (NOS) – The NOS is an abbreviated notice that consists of an NOS form, staked location 

map, and sketched site plan. This notice is posted for a 30-day public review and begins the processing 

timeframe for approval of the APD. The NOS triggers the onsite inspection of the well, which determines 

whether any conflicts with critical resource values are evident and provides the preliminary data to assess what 

additional items are necessary to complete the APD.

 Application for Permit to Drill (APD) – The operator can submit a completed APD in lieu of an NOS but, in 

either case, no surface-disturbing activity can be conducted in conjunction with the drilling operations until the 

APD is approved by the authorized officer. 

If the APD option is used, an APD is submitted to the Great Falls Oil and Gas Field Office and a field inspection is held 

with the operator and any other interested party. The purpose of the onsite field inspection is to evaluate the operator’s 

plan, assess the situation for possible impacts (surface and subsurface), and formulate resource protection stipulations. 

To lessen environmental impacts, a site can be moved, reoriented, or resized, within certain limits, at the onsite 

inspection. The proposed access road or pipeline can also be rerouted. If necessary, site-specific mitigations are added 

to the APD as Conditions of Approval (COAs) for protection of surface and/or subsurface resource values in the vicinity 

of the proposed activity. 

The authorized officer is responsible for preparing environmental documentation necessary to satisfy the NEPA 

requirements and provide any mitigation measures needed to protect the affected surface resource values. Consideration 

is also given to the protection of subsurface water resources. When processing an APD, the BLM geologist is required to 

identify the maximum depth of usable water as defined in Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 2. Usable water is defined as 

that water containing 10,000 parts per million or less of total dissolved solids. Water of this quality is to be protected,

usually by surface casing and cement. Determining the depth to fresh water requires specific water quality data in the 

proposed well vicinity or geophysical log determination of water quality, depending on existing well proximity and log 

availability. If water quality data or logs from nearby wells are not available, the area within a 2-mile radius of the 

proposed well is checked for water wells. If wells exist, surface casing is required to be set below the deepest fresh 

water zone found in these wells or to be placed below a depth reasonably estimated for future water wells. 

For operations proposed on privately-owned surface, if the operator after a good-faith effort is unable to reach an 

agreement with the private surface owner, the operator must post a bond to cover loss of crops and damages to tangible 

improvements prior to the approval of the APD.

The Great Falls Oil and Gas Field Office will act on the application in one of two ways:
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Operations 863

 approve the application (a) as submitted or (b) with appropriate modifications or COAs; or

 return the application and advise the lessee or operator of the reasons for denial or why final action has been 

delayed and the date such final action is expected. 

When final approval is given by the BLM, the operator can commence construction and drilling operations. Approval of 

an APD is valid for 2 years. If drilling does not begin within 2 years, the stipulations can be revised prior to extending 

the APD for another year. 

For drilling operations proposed on lands with state or private mineral ownership, the lessee must meet the requirements 

of the mineral owner and the state regulatory agency. The BLM does not have jurisdiction over non-federal minerals; 

however, the BLM has surface management responsibility in situations of BLM surface located over non-federal mineral 

ownership.

Conditions of Approval

Conditions of approval are mitigation measures that implement restrictions in light of site-specific conditions. General 

guidance for COAs is found in the BLM and U.S. Forest Service brochure entitled “Surface Operating Standards and 

Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development” (BLM 2007e) and BLM Manual 9113 entitled “Roads.”

The following mitigation measures may be applied to approved permits as COAs. The listing is not all-inclusive, but 

presents some standard COAs that are currently being used in the planning area. The wording of the COAs may be 

modified or additional COAs may be developed to address specific conditions.

1. Informational Notice:

a. Approval of this APD does not warrant or certify that the applicant holds legal or equitable title to those rights 

in the subject lease which would entitle the applicant to conduct operations thereon.

b. The lessee shall comply with applicable laws and regulation; lease terms, Onshore Oil and Gas Orders; Notices 

to Lessee; and other orders and instructions of the authorized officer.

c. A complete copy of the approved APD must be on the well site and available for reference during the 

construction and drilling phase.

d. Any deviation from the terms of this APD requires prior approval.

e. This drilling permit is valid for either 2 years from the approval date or until lease expiration, whichever occurs 

first.

f. Each drilling, producing or abandoned well shall be identified with the Operator’s name, the lease serial 

number, the well number, and the surveyed description of the well (either footages or the quarter section, the 

section, township and range). All markings must be legible and in a conspicuous place.

g. Pursuant to Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1, Section IV, General Operating Requirements, Operator 

Responsibilities, paragraph (e), Completion Reports, the operator is encouraged to submit all well logs in an 

electronic format, such as “.LAS” format, in lieu of providing the BLM with two (2) paper copies of all well 

logs, as currently required.

h. The operator must provide the Surface Use Plan of Operations to the private surface owner of the well site 

location.

2. Notification Requirements:

The Bureau of Land Management, Great Falls Oil and Gas Field Office, 1101 15th Street North, Great Falls, 

Montana, shall be notified in advance of actual work so that a representative may have an opportunity to witness the 
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

864 Oil and Gas Operations

operation. BLM office hours are 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The BLM's office telephone 

number is (406) 791-7700. Following are the notification requirements:

a. Notify this office at least 48 hours before beginning dirt work.

b. Notify this office verbally at least 6 hours before the well is spudded.

c. Notify this office verbally at least 6 hours prior to running/cementing casing.

d. Notify this office verbally at least 6 hours prior to conducting blowout preventer (BOP) tests.

e. Notify this office at least 6 hours prior to plugging for verbal plugging orders.

3. Downhole Stipulations:

a. Surface casing will have centralizers on each of the bottom three joints and will be cemented back to surface.

b. The BOP system will be consistent with Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 2.

c. Fresh water will be required for cementing. If the fresh water source is from a reservoir, a water quality 

analysis will need to be performed and submitted to the BLM to ensure that the quality of the water will not 

degrade the cement.

d. The operator will have sufficient weighting materials and lost circulation materials on location in the event of a 

pressure kick or lost circulation.

4. Plugging Requirements:

a. Prior approval for abandonment must be obtained. Initial approval for abandonment during drilling operations 

may be verbal, but must be followed by written notification on Sundry Notice Form 3160-5, in triplicate.

b. Upon completion of the approved plugging, the Operator will cut the well off four (4) feet below reclaimed 

ground level and a 1/4” x 12” x 12” plate (with a 1/8” weep hole) shall be welded onto a fitting to be screwed 

into a collar either welded or screwed to the production casing. The standard above-ground dry hole marker 

in accordance with 43 CFR 3162.6(d) has been waived by the Great Falls Oil and Gas Field Office. Pits 

must be fenced until dry or pumped and then filled in and recontoured unless otherwise approved by the 

authorized officer.

c. The following minimum information shall be permanently placed on the plate: “Fed” or “Ind” as applicable; 

“Lease Number, Operator, Well Number, and Location by quarter/quarter, Section, Township, and Range.”

5. Reports and Notifications:

a. All submitted information not marked “CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION” will be available for public 

inspection upon request. The exception is Indian lease information, which is always considered confidential.

b. Production Startup Notification is required not later than the fifth business day after any well begins production 

on which royalty is due anywhere on a lease site or allocated to a lease site, or resumes production in the case of 

a well which has been off production for more than 90 days. The operator will notify the authorized officer by 

letter, Sundry Notice Form 3160-5, or orally to be followed by a letter or Sundry Notice of the date on which 

such production has begun or resumed.

6. Hazardous Materials:

a. Operators and their contractors are to ensure all production, use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous 

materials resulting from the proposed project is in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local laws, 

regulations and guidelines, existing or hereafter enacted or promulgated that affect the management of 

hazardous material, as defined in this paragraph. Hazardous material means any substance, pollutant, or 

contaminant listed as a hazardous substance under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation 

and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, 42 USC 9601 et seq., and its regulations (found at 40 CFR 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Operations 865

302). The definition of hazardous substances under CERCLA includes “hazardous waste” defined in the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, as amended, 42 USC 6901 et seq., and its 

regulations. The term also includes any extremely hazardous substances defined by 40 CFR 355, and any 

nuclear or byproduct material defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 USC 2011 et seq. 

The term does not include petroleum, including crude oil or any fraction thereof not otherwise listed or 

designated as a hazardous substance under CERCLA section 101 (14), 42 USC 9601 (14), or natural gas.

b. Only drilling muds, drilling fluids, cuttings, native soils, cementing materials and/or approved pit solidifying 

materials will be placed in the reserve or working pits.

c. Nonexempt wastes will not be mixed with exempt wastes.

d. No hazardous materials will be used in the drilling and construction of well sites and access roads. Commercial 

preparations, which may contain hazardous materials, may be used in production operations and will be 

transported within the project area. These materials will be handled in an appropriate manner to minimize 

potential for leaks or spills to the environment. Other waste disposal methods and locations should be described 

on the APD or Sundry Notice and approved by the BLM prior to disposal.

7. Environmental Obligations and Disposal of Produced Water:

a. The operator is required to take all necessary steps to prevent any death of a migratory bird in pits or open 

vessels associated with the drilling, testing, completion, or production of this well. The death of any migratory 

bird found in such a pit or open vessel is a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and is considered a 

criminal act. Any deaths of migratory birds attributable to pits or open vessels associated with drilling, testing, 

completion, or production operations must be reported to this office and the United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service within 24 hours.

b. The BLM may require that the pit be designed or the open vessel be covered to deter the entry of birds in any 

facility associated with drilling, testing, completion, or production of this well. Fencing, screening, and netting 

of pits may be required as a means to deter bird entry. These conditions would most likely be imposed to 

prevent the entry of migratory birds if oil is left in pits or open vessels after the cessation of drilling or 

completion operations, if water disposal pits consistently receive oil, or if pits or open vessels are used 

repeatedly for emergency situations which result in the accumulation of oil.

c. Voluntary pit fencing, screening, and netting or sealing vessels is encouraged, thus avoiding potential instances 

that may result in the death of a migratory bird.

d. With BLM approval, water produced from newly completed wells may be temporarily disposed of in unlined 

pits for up to 90 days. During this initial period, application for the permanent disposal method must be made 

in accordance with Onshore Order No. 7.

8. Surface Conditions of Approval:

a. Access road maintenance will need prior BLM approval.

b. The operator will be responsible for weed control on the access road, well location, and pipeline for the life of 

the well plus three (3) years. The operator will be responsible for control of noxious weeds occurring as a result 

of operations. 

c. The operator will clean the undercarriage of all rigs prior to entering onto the leasehold to reduce the chances 

for noxious weed infestations.

d. The operator will identify soil type(s) and depth of topsoil/surface layer (usually 4-6 inches) for removal and 

clearly separate and stockpile topsoil from excess spoil material. Topsoil will be stored and protected from 

erosion for use in reclamation on all areas of surface disturbance. Topsoil that is not respread within 30 days 

will be covered with a tackifier, mulch, or other approved cover.
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

866 Oil and Gas Operations

e. If safety, disrepair, erosion and/or excessive rutting problems are discovered along the access roads, the holder 

will be responsible to repair, improve and/or maintain the roads to assure safety and stability, and to limit soil 

erosion/rutting.

f. Construction, drilling, completion, interim or final reclamation activities will not be performed during periods 

when the soil is too wet to adequately support equipment/vehicles. If equipment/vehicles create ruts in excess 

of 3 inches deep, operations must cease as the soil will be deemed too wet to adequately support 

equipment/vehicles.

g. Site reclamation will initiate with the ripping of any compacted areas and grading to blend with the adjacent site 

characteristics and topography. In no instances will grading material and/or subsoil be placed over topsoil. The 

order of soil replacement will be the reverse of removal (e.g., first off, last on).

h. To prevent improper settling of soil material, interim or final reclamation activities will not be conducted using 

frozen or saturated soil material.

i. The holder will prepare a seedbed by: (a) scarifying the disturbed area; and (b) disking the topsoil as directed 

by the authorized officer.

j. Rehabilitation of upland sites following disturbance would use the plant species listed below for seeding. The 

species used for rehabilitation would vary depending on the adjacent habitat conditions, site potential, soils and 

precipitation. Species not in the following list could be added if site conditions warrant, species availability 

changes, or if large acreages are involved.

k. The seeding will be repeated until a satisfactory stand is established as determined by the authorized officer. 

Evaluation of growth will not be made before completion of the first growing season following seeding. 

Broadcast seeding will no longer be allowed. All seed must be drill seeded for optimum success in minimal 

time.

l. The holder will mulch disturbed areas designated by the authorized officer. The type of mulch will meet one of 

the following requirements:

i. Straw used for mulching will be from oats, wheat, rye, or other approved grain crops, and free from 

noxious weeds or other objectionable material as determined by the authorized officer. Straw mulch will

be suitable for placing with mulch blower equipment.

ii. Hay will be of approved herbaceous mowings, free from noxious weeds or objectionable material as 

determined by the Authorized Office. Hay will be suitable for placing with mulch blower equipment.

iii. Wood cellulose fiber will be natural or cooked wood cellulose fiber, will disperse readily in water, and will

be nontoxic. The homogeneous slurry or moisture will be capable of application with power spray 

equipment. A colored dye that is noninjurious to plant growth may be used when specified. Wood 

cellulose fiber will be packaged in new, labeled containers.

m. All permanent structures will be painted the neutral color of Desert Brown as displayed in the Supplemental 

Environmental Color chart (available at the BLM office) except where another color is required for safety.

9. Paleontological/Cultural Stipulations:

Paleontological and archaeological field checks by BLM personnel or other authorized personnel will occur prior to 

disturbance as deemed appropriate by the BLM. A BLM-approved archaeologist or paleontologist will conduct 

monitoring during surface-disturbing activities. Paleontological or cultural resource sites will be avoided or 

mitigated as necessary prior to disturbance. Any cultural and/or paleontological resource (historic or prehistoric site 

or object) discovered by the holder, or any person working on his behalf, on public or federal land shall be 

immediately reported to the authorized officer. Holder shall suspend all operations in the immediate area of such 

discovery until written authorization to proceed is issued by the authorized officer. An evaluation of the discovery 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Operations 867

will be made by the authorized officer to determine appropriate actions to prevent the loss of significant cultural or 

scientific values. 

Surface Disturbance Associated With Exploratory Drilling 

After the APD is approved, the operator moves construction equipment, usually dozers (track-mounted and rubber-tired), 

scrapers, and motor graders, over existing roads to the point where the access road will begin. Moving equipment to the 

construction site requires several loads (some overweight and over width) on public and private roads. Existing roads 

and vehicle routes are improved in places and, occasionally, culverts and cattle guards are installed as specified in the 

approved APD.

The length of the access road varies. The shortest feasible route is usually selected to reduce the haul distance and 

construction costs. Environmental factors or the landowner’s wishes may dictate a longer route. Because of the gentle 

topography and shallow depth of wells (1,500 to 3,000 feet) that are prevalent across the majority of the planning area, 

the wells can all typically be drilled using a truck-mounted rig, which often means that very little or no access road work 

is needed. In rough terrain, the type of construction is sidecasting (using the material taken from the cut portion of the 

road to construct the fill portion); slightly less than one-half of the roadbed is on a cut area and the rest is on a fill area. 

Roads are usually constructed with a l4-foot (single lane) or 24-foot (double lane) running surface (in relatively level 

terrain). Soil texture, steepness of the topography, and moisture conditions may dictate surfacing the access road. The 

total acreage disturbed for each mile of access road constructed varies significantly with the steepness of the slope.

Well locations are constructed by one of three different general types of construction but, in every case, all soil material 

suitable for plant growth is first removed and stockpiled in a designated area. Sites on flat terrain usually require little 

more than removing the topsoil material and vegetation. Drilling sites on ridge tops and hillsides are constructed by 

cutting and filling portions of the location. The majority of the excess cut material is stockpiled in an area that will allow 

it to be easily recovered for rehabilitation. It is important to confine extra cut material in a stockpile rather than cast it 

down hillsides and drainages where it cannot be recovered for rehabilitation. 

The amount of level surface required for safely assembling and operating a drilling rig varies with the type of rig, and the 

depth and type of the well. The amount of level surface required averages 200 by 250 feet and should be constructed so 

that the drill rig can be placed on the cut surface instead of fill material to prevent the derrick from leaning or toppling as 

a result of the settling of uncompacted soil.

In addition to the drilling rig footprint, a reserve pit is constructed, usually square or oblong, but sometimes in another 

shape to accommodate topography. Generally, the reserve pit is 6 to 12 feet deep by 15 to 20 feet wide by 40 to 50 feet 

in length, but may be deeper to compensate for smaller length and width or deeper drilling depths. For air drilling, 

smaller reserve pits are used, usually less than 10 feet by 10 feet and approximately 6 to 10 feet in depth. Depending 

upon the soil permeability, pits can be lined with an impermeable material to contain the drilling fluids. If water is 

encountered while digging the reserve pit, a closed mud system consisting of steel tanks may be required. For oil-base 

mud, closed systems are mandatory, and the mud and cuttings must be recycled or disposed of in an approved manner.

Depending on how the drill site is located relative to a natural drainage, it may be necessary to construct water bars or 

diversions to control surface runoff and erosion. The area disturbed for construction and the potential for successful 

revegetation depends largely on topography, soil type, climate and the degree of disturbance.

Typical equipment used for drilling wells in the planning area includes the following:

Drill Pad Construction

 Cat-type dozer and backhoe. Two semi-loaded trailers used to transport these pieces of equipment.

 Two 3/4-ton pickup trucks can also be used as support vehicles.

Drilling Operations

 Drill rig (including a 55-86 foot freestanding mast) either truck-mounted or trailer-mounted and elevated 

anywhere from 5 to 9 feet above ground level, powered by a diesel engine with a power rating from 280 to 420 

horsepower.
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

868 Oil and Gas Operations

 Mud pump, powered by a diesel engine with a power rating from 350 to 600 horsepower.

 Diesel electric generator for lights and other electrical equipment with a power rating from 150 to 400 

horsepower.

 Other support equipment such as a mud and chemical trailer, dog house, drill pipe racks, water tanks, mud 

tanks, fuel tanks, two to three camp trailers, and a portable latrine.

Drilling activities usually begin within a week or two after the location and access road have been constructed. The 

conventional drilling rig and associated equipment are moved to the location and erected. Moving a drill rig may require 

transporting 8 to 15 truckloads of equipment over public highways and private roads. The derrick, when erected, is 

approximately 100 feet high. Water for drilling is hauled to rig storage tanks or transported by surface pipeline. Water 

sources are usually wells or commercial water sources. Occasionally, water supply wells are drilled on or close to the 

site. The operator must obtain a permit from the Montana State Engineer for the use of surface or subsurface water for 

drilling and any applicable BLM surface use permits. When drilling commences, and as long as it progresses, water is 

continually transported to the rig location. Approximately 300 barrels or 12,600 gallons of water are required to drill an 

oil or gas well to the depth of 2,500 feet. More water is required if circulation is lost or permeable zones are encountered 

that cannot withstand the pressure of the drilling fluid. 

During casing and cementing operations, a semi-type cement bulk truck, cement pump truck and a 3/4-ton truck could 

potentially come on to location twice during the operation: once for running and cementing the surface casing, and again 

for running and cementing the production casing if a successful well is drilled.

Some drilling operations may require that the well safety equipment (blowout prevention equipment, or BOPE) be tested 

by a third party rather than utilize the equipment of the drill rig. This would require the need for a 1-ton type truck at the 

location for a minimum of four hours.

A 4-ton truck is required to perform a petrophysical survey (formation logging) of the wellbore. This is normally 

conducted after the well is drilled to total depth.

Once the well is cased with pipe and cemented back to the surface, the drill rig and support equipment rig down and 

move out to the next location, usually within a half day after the decision to move. If the well is determined to be a dry 

hole, it will typically be plugged while the drill rig is still on location.

Drilling Operations

Rotary Drilling

The actual commencement of the drilling is referred to as spudding in. Initially, drilling proceeds rapidly because of the 

unconsolidated nature of shallow formations. Drilling is accomplished by rotating the drill string and putting variable 

weights on the bit located at the bottom of the string. The weight on the bits is controlled to maintain as vertical a hole 

as possible or deviate from vertical when desired, and to prevent premature wearing of the bit. While drilling, the 

derrick and associated hoisting equipment bear a majority of the drill string’s weight. The combination of rotary motion 

and weight on the bit causes rock to be gouged away at the bottom of the hole. The rotary motion is created by a square 

or hexagonal rod, called a kelly, which fits through a square or hexagonal hole in a large turntable, called a rotary table. 

The rotary table sits on the drilling rig floor and, as the bit advances, the kelly slides down through it. When the kelly 

has gone as deep as it can, it is raised and a new piece of drill pipe about 30 feet in length is attached in its place. The 

drill pipe is then lowered, the kelly is reattached, and drilling recommences. When the bit becomes dull, it is necessary 

to “trip” the drill string and replace the bit. This is a time-consuming process of withdrawing 90-foot sections of the drill 

pipe until the bit is out of the hole. Once the bit is replaced the drill string is reassembled, lowered into the hole, and 

drilling recommences. This process requires a large part of the total drilling time and may cause other hole problems. 

New bits constructed with modern metals and manufactured polycrystalline diamonds, along with down hole mud 

motors, have revolutionized drilling operations so that thousands of feet of hole can be drilled with one bit run.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Operations 869

Drilling mud is circulated through the drill pipe to the bottom of the hole, through the bit, up the annulus of the well, 

across a screen that separates the rock chips, and into holding tanks from which finer sediments settle from the mud 

before it is pumped back into the well. The mud is maintained at a required weight and viscosity to cool the bit, reduce 

the drag of the drill pipe on the sides of the hole, seal off any porous zones, contain formation fluids to prevent a 

blowout, and bring the rock chips to the surface for disposal. Various additives are used in maintaining the mud at the 

appropriate viscosity and weight. Most of the mud consists of bentonite, a naturally occurring mineral that is mined in 

Montana. Drilling muds are not allowed to contain any hazardous or toxic substances.

High pressure air is sometimes used in place of mud. The use of mud or air is largely dependent upon the target 

formation, drilling depth and type of completion desired. When drilling with air, the cuttings are blown into another pit 

called the blooie pit, where compressed air and cuttings leave the drill system. By regulation, the blooie pit must be 

located no closer than 100 feet from the well bore.

Drilling operations are continuous, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The crews usually work three 8-hour shifts or two 12-

hour shifts a day. Pickup trucks or cars are used for workers’ transportation to and from the site. A typical well drilled 

in the planning area take three to four days to reach total depth. BLM personnel, usually petroleum engineering 

technicians, will conduct inspections of the drilling rig and operations to ensure compliance with the approved plans in 

the APD and regulations.

Completion Operations 

Upon completion of the drilling, a determination is made regarding the productive potential of the well. If oil or gas is 

not discovered in commercial quantities, the well is considered dry. The operator is then required to follow BLM 

procedures to properly plug the dry hole. The drill site and access road are then rehabilitated in accordance with the 

stipulations attached to the APD and the plugging approval. If the well is a producer, drilling rig operations continue 

until the production casing is cemented into the well prior to removing the drilling equipment from the location.

Completion operations can begin as early as one week after the drill rig moves off location, but they normally occur 

within two to three weeks.

The typical equipment used for completing a well in the planning area includes the following:

 Wire line truck and mast trailer (~30 tons combined) used to determine the depth of the zone of interest and 

perforate the well (to expose the formation with natural gas in it to the well bore)

 3/4-ton support truck

 Workover unit (semi-mounted mast) used to hoist tubing in and out of the well

 Stand-alone air compressor unit

 Supply trailer

 Tubing trailer

 Two 3/4-ton trucks

Or, in place of the workover unit, a semi-mounted coiled tubing unit which includes the following:

 Air compressor

 Coil tubing

 Reel and injector head

 Catch tank trailer to catch any formation water or make up water that is blown off the well

 Two 3/4-ton support trucks

Logging

Geophysical logs are obtained by running various instruments into the hole on a wire cable. Logs are usually run at a 

depth point where casing will be installed. A log is not usually run before surface casing is set but, in most instances, a 

log recording natural gamma radiation is run through the surface casing to determine the geology of that section. The 

logs can determine water resistivity, hydrocarbon saturations, natural gamma radiations, porosity of the rock by density, 
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

870 Oil and Gas Operations

nuclear receptivity and sonic measurements, permeability, pressure, temperature, hole geometry, and subsurface track. 

Logs are used to evaluate whether the well is dry or has the potential for a satisfactory completion. Logs also delineate 

the various geologic horizons; hydrocarbon zones; fresh, usable, and unusable water; and sands, shales, limestones, 

coals, and other minerals. The hydrocarbon intervals are usually randomly situated in each well, and logs are required to 

specify these intervals so that they can be perforated and stimulated during the completion program. Normally in the 

planning area, logs recording resistivity and a combined porosity log of density and nuclear receptivity are run in the 

well. The dual porosity logs are a direct indicator of gas because the measured values can be compared to provide 

contrasting porosities.

Casing

Various types of casing are placed in the drilled hole to enhance completion operations and safety. Casing is a string of 

steel pipe composed of approximately 40-foot lengths of pipe that are threaded together. Casing is cemented into the 

well to protect against migration of fluids within the hole and to isolate the productive zones so they can be completed 

and produced without interference from other zones containing hydrocarbons or water. Hole deviation, depth, bore hole 

environment, placement of centralizers (if any), and a myriad of other factors affect the integrity of the casing and 

cement job and must be considered in the original design.

Surface casing that is properly set and cemented also protects surface aquifers from contamination by drilling and 

production operations. Surface casing should be set to a depth greater than the deepest fresh water aquifer that could be 

reasonably developed. Usable water may exist at greater depths but these aquifers are not normally considered to be 

important water sources. Surface casing is designed to be large enough to allow subsequent strings of smaller casing to 

be set as the well is drilled deeper. Cement is placed in the annulus of the surface casing from casing shoe to ground 

level. The surface casing is the first string on which blowout prevention (BOP) equipment is installed. The BOP allows 

the well to be shut in at any time that conditions warrant, protecting against unanticipated formation pressures and 

allowing safe control of the well. Blowout prevention equipment is tested and inspected regularly by both the rig 

personnel and the inspection and enforcement branch of BLM. Minimum standards and enforcement provisions are part 

of Onshore Order No. 2. Well-trained rig personnel are a necessity for proper blowout prevention.

Generally, the production casing in the planning area is required to be cemented from the production casing shoe all the 

way to the surface. This requirement ensures adequate protection from interzonal migration of unsuitable water and 

hydrocarbons. The production casing is designed to provide isolation of oil and gas formations and also to provide a 

high-pressure conduit to the hydrocarbon zones that allows stimulation of these intervals to improve the productivity. 

During completion operations, the production casing is perforated into zones containing the oil or gas. In much of the 

planning area, the low permeability character of the productive formations requires these zones to be “fraced,” or 

stimulated by treated fresh water and large quantities of sand, which improves the productivity to an economic rate. In 

those instances in which the wells would require a frac, the following pieces of equipment would be required:

 Blender truck (a semi-type truck)

 Chemical van (lab and chemicals, semi-type truck)

 Data van (computer monitoring equipment, similar sized truck to a wire line truck)

 Liquid pump truck

 One to two nitrogen pump trucks (semi-type trucks)

 Iron truck (semi-type truck carrying surface pipe supplies)

 Sand storage unit (semi-type truck)

 One 400 barrel water holding tank on location (transported via semi-type truck)

 One 250 barrel flowback tank (semi-type truck)

 Up to four 3/4-ton trucks for support

The frac operation usually takes less than half a day and on average the frac operation/post operation (flowback and well 

cleanup) lasts up to four days.

After completion, operations are finished and wellhead equipment consisting of various valves and pressure regulators is 

installed to control the oil or gas flow to the production facilities and allow safely shutting in the well under any 

conditions. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Operations 871

Production Operations 

Gas, oil, and water are currently being produced in the planning area by means of natural flow (velocity strings) and 

artificial lift (gas and electric pumping units and submersible pumps).

Gas Production 

The installation of gas production facilities generally requires little additional surface disturbance beyond that necessary 

for drilling and completion; however, additional disturbance could result from pipeline and gathering line installations if 

they are installed across undisturbed areas. If pipelines follow existing access roads, no appreciable additional surface 

disturbance is necessary to hook the well up to production. The typical equipment used for installing production 

equipment to a well includes the following:

 Pipe trailer transported via semi-type truck or poly pipe that is spooled off a coiled tubing reel trailer pulled by a 

3/4-ton truck

 Excavator or a trenching piece of equipment brought into the site via a semi-type tractor trailer or a large goose 

neck trailer pulled by a 3/4-ton truck

Equipment that would stay with the well during its life includes the following:

 Well head and a gas meter house – usually a 10 feet by 10 feet by 8 feet skid-mounted steel shed that houses the 

well head and gas flow meter

 Pumpjack – used when water is produced with the gas, and the gas reservoir pressure declines to a point that is 

not adequate to overcome the hydrostatic pressure created by a column of water in the well. Pumpjacks are 

usually 8 to 10 feet in height, require a slightly larger surface area than a gas meter house, and may or may not 

be skid-mounted. They are powered by either electric motors or natural gas/propane internal combustion 

engines.

If the gas well is producing some oil or condensate, oil tanks are used to store the oil or condensate until it is sold via 

truck or pipeline. Pipeline quality gas at the wellhead requires a minimum of processing equipment. As the quality of 

gas decreases with the increased presence of water, solids, or liquid hydrocarbons, the amount of processing equipment 

increases. Water or liquid hydrocarbons in the gas are removed before the gas is sold, usually in the separation 

equipment near the wellhead. If liquid hydrocarbons are present, storage facilities (tank batteries) are required to store 

the liquids until they accumulate in sufficient quantities to be hauled out by large trucks. Gas wells which produce water 

require a disposal pit for evaporation or to catch the water to be hauled away later by truck. Each water pit is sized to fit 

the operation but can be expected to range from 30 feet by 20 feet by 8 feet, to 40 feet by 40 feet by 10 feet. Operators in 

the planning area have constructed larger pits that handle water from multiple wells, with the biggest pits located in the 

Battle Creek field area in north Blaine County. Gas dehydration equipment may also be present to remove water 

entrained in the gas to a water content defined by pipeline specifications.

Typical wells in the planning area are identified as “sweet gas” wells, that is, they contain no hydrogen sulfide gas 

(H2S); therefore, H2S facilities are generally not required to be used in order to produce the gas. As the wells produce in 

an area, pressures eventually become depleted to the point that they require an artificial lift method to lower the pressure 

of the gathering system to allow for production to continue. Once this occurs, the operator will design and install a 

compressor station that further enables the production of natural gas from the wells.

Gas that occurs with oil is separated by venting it at the tank battery; it may also be collected into feeder lines leading to 

compressors that boost the pressure to the transportation system. If enough casinghead gas is separated to make it 

economical for marketing, a plant can be constructed to process the gas, or a pipeline can be constructed to carry the 

product to an existing plant. If the volume of casinghead gas is insufficient to warrant treatment in a gas plant, it is 

usually used as fuel for pump engines in the field or as heating fuel for the heater-treaters. Gas is flared or vented into 

the atmosphere if it exceeds the fuel requirements on the lease but is not in commercial quantities. Montana law 

prohibits the flaring or venting of natural gas. Exceptions allowed by the MBOG are (1) during testing of a new well, or 
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

872 Oil and Gas Operations

(2) when the amount of gas produced with the oil is so small that pipeline construction is not practical. Otherwise, if a 

well produces both oil and gas, provisions for conserving the gas must be made before oil production can continue. 

BLM Notice to Lessee 4A (NTL4A) requires that all gas not used on the lease, vented, or flared without prior 

authorization either by the BLM or the MBOG/BLM, or avoidably lost, is subject to royalty obligations. The small 

amount of casinghead gas that is produced in the planning area occurs in the mature oil fields located in the western 

portion of the planning area.

In 2006, the planning area produced 56.3 billion cubic feet of natural gas. Natural gas production was 61% of Montana’s 

total natural gas production. The planning area is clearly an important natural gas production area for Montana. 

Production for 2006 was about 41% greater than the production recorded for 1990. For the 17-year time period, 2001 

recorded the highest production at almost 56.8 million cubic feet of natural gas.

Oil Production

In the planning area, oil is generally produced using artificial lift methods (pump units). The oil production equipment 

(heater-treater, tank battery, and holding facility for production water) is either placed on a portion of the location (on cut 

rather than fill) and located a safe distance from the wellhead, or placed as a centralized facility that services a number of 

wells with a pipeline connection. The heater-treater and tanks are surrounded by earthen dikes to contain accidental 

spills. Either all of the facilities or only the produced water pit (if present) will be fenced. Production facility colors are 

required to be from the standard color chart and are specified in the APD COAs.

Production from several wells on one lease can be carried by pipeline to a central tank battery. Use of a central tank 

battery can depend on whether the oil is from the same formation, the same lease ownership, or multiple lease 

ownerships and formations if a commingling agreement is approved. Generally, because of the nature of the oil, 

adequate separation of oil and water is only obtained through applications of heat. The fluid stream arrives at a separator 

point where the flash gas is taken off and, in most cases; this flash gas is used for lease operations. The remainder of the 

flash gas is either compressed and sold or flared. Flash gas is defined as solution gas liberated from the oil through a 

reduction in pressure. Water and oil are also separated at this point by gravity segregation. The oil is sent to storage 

tanks, and the water is sent to a disposal or injection facility. Once the oil is in the storage tanks, it can then be measured 

and sold. The primary method of oil measurement in the planning area is tank gauging. Measurement is required by 43 

CFR 3162.7-2 and Onshore Order No. 4 to ensure proper and full payment of federal royalty.

Oil wells can be completed as flowing (those wells with sufficient underground pressure to raise the oil to the surface) 

or, if the pressure is inadequate, they are completed with the installation of subsurface pumps. The subsurface pumps are 

usually mechanically powered by a pumping unit. Pumping units come in a variety of sizes; however, most pumping 

units in the planning area are 15 feet or less in height. The units are powered by internal combustion engines or electric 

motors. Fuel for the engines may be casinghead gas or propane. In cases where large volumes of water are produced 

with the oil, electric submersible pumps may be installed. These pumps may produce up to 6,000 barrels of fluid per day 

at an oil cut of 1/2 of 1% oil.

Oil producing fields in the planning area presently make a smaller contribution to the state’s oil production. In 2006, oil 

production in the planning area was only about 4% of Montana’s total oil production (Montana Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission, 2006a and 2007). In 2005, the planning area produced 1.225 million barrels of oil (Montana 

Oil and Gas Conservation Division, 2006a). That year’s production was about 50% less than the production recorded for 

1991. The reported 1991 production was the highest of the 16-year time period and production has declined each year 

since then. It is unlikely that oil production in the planning area will increase in the future, and will most likely continue 

to decline.

Coalbed Natural Gas Production 

Coalbed natural gas (CBNG) exploration has been negligible within the planning area. With that said, the planning area 

lies within the Northern Great Plains Coal Province. The Blackfeet-Valier, North Central, and Fort Union coal regions 

lie within this province. The two westernmost coal regions contain Cretaceous aged bituminous and sub bituminous 

coals and the easternmost region contains Tertiary aged lignite coals. Wood and Bour (1988) reported some information 

about these coal regions. They found:
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Operations 873

 The Blackfeet-Valier Coal Region contains five known coal beds greater than 30 inches thick and at depths less 

than 2,000 feet in most of the area and less than 3,000 in some small areas;

 The North Central Coal Region contains three known coal beds greater than 30 inches thick and at depths less 

than 2,000 feet; and

 The Fort Union Coal Region contains up to 20 coal beds greater than 30 inches thick and at depths less than 

2,000 feet. The planning area probably contains far fewer than 20 coal beds.

The Potential Gas Committee (2003) estimated 1.2 trillion cubic feet of potential recoverable coalbed gas resources in 

North Central Montana, which includes the Blackfeet-Valier and North Central coal regions and large areas to the south 

of the planning area. The Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario is projecting that 150 total CBNG wells will 

be drilled in the time period of 1997-2026.

Typical CBNG production combines high water production rates of some oil fields with low-pressure operations of some 

gas fields. Because of the reservoir characteristics of coal, high water production rates are initially required to dewater 

the reservoir and allow gas to be liberated from cleat surfaces within the coal. In a coal reservoir, gas is primarily 

trapped on the face of the coal within the cleat system via molecular attraction. Pressure must be reduced to liberate the 

gas molecules from the coal face. The production history of typical CBNG wells shows that water production rates 

begin high, with little or no gas. The water rate then drops at a constant rate, with increasing gas rates until a maximum 

gas rate is achieved relative to the original gas saturation and reservoir pressures. The gas rate then declines to the 

economic limit. This process is the exact opposite of that associated with most oil and gas production, which starts at 

high hydrocarbon rates and low water rates and advances to low hydrocarbon rates and high water rates. The depth limit 

of a CBNG well is dictated by the coal permeability, which is highly sensitive to overburden weight. A CBNG operation 

usually consists of a high-capacity submersible or progressive cavity pump, with water produced out of the tubing and 

low-pressure gas produced out of the casing. Centralized facilities collect the gas for compression to pipeline pressures 

and the water for disposal. Electric power is usually used to power the well pumps and is connected to the well via a 

subsurface cable (or overhead power) laid with the water and gas lines. The producing well pad is very small, with only 

the well head and an insulating house to cover the well head. The centralized production facilities typically contain well 

header buildings where the individual well gas is measured and that house collection tanks, injection wells, pumps for 

disposal of the water, and multistage compressors to bring the very low pressure gas to sales line pressure.

Water Production

Associated water produced with the oil, gas, or CBNG is disposed of by trucking the water to an authorized disposal pit, 

placing the water in lined or unlined pits, discharging the water into surface drainages, or through subsurface injection. 

The disposal of produced water in an injection or disposal well requires permit(s) from the primacy state or 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Primacy means that a state or agency has the ultimate responsibility for 

permitting and monitoring the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program for Class 2 wells (saltwater disposal and 

secondary recovery wells). Montana is currently a primacy state candidate; operators in Montana must seek EPA 

approval until primacy is granted. In some instances, an additional surface management agency authorization may be 

necessary. The quality of the water often dictates the appropriate disposal method, and the Montana Department of 

Environmental Quality has primacy through the EPA to approve surface disposal of this water. An environmental 

assessment is prepared for all requests concerning disposal of produced water from federal wells.

In the planning area, approximately 193.6 million barrels of associated water were produced in the ten-year period from 

2003-2012 (PI/Dwights Production Data, December 2012). This water production occurred as a byproduct of natural gas 

production. Of the total 193.6 million barrels of produced water, 156.4 million barrels, or roughly 81%, were produced 

in Glacier (61.2 million barrels) and Toole (95.2 million barrels) Counties, primarily from mature oil fields that employ 

water flooding operations. The remaining 37.2 million barrels of water were produced from the remaining counties 

(1997-2006) as follows:

Blaine 18,316,470 barrels

Chouteau 79,828 barrels

Hill 2,955,812 barrels

Liberty 7,618,436 barrels

Phillips 7,999,896 barrels

Valley 165,875 barrels
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

874 Oil and Gas Operations

During the production phase the BLM monitors and approves field activities needed for well and field operations. Many 

operations, such as plugging completion in a different zone, deepening, etc., require prior approval. Other actions, such 

as acidizing and fracturing, do not require prior approval but a subsequent report of operations describing the operation 

in detail must be filed. 

Secondary and Enhanced Oil Recovery

Gas reservoirs typically have no secondary recovery associated with the recovery of gas. This is because natural gas is 

produced by expansion resulting from the reduction of reservoir pressure. Typically a high reservoir recovery factor can 

be expected from this expansion process unless the reservoir is of such low permeability that economics becomes a 

factor in the recovery efficiency. Economics is a determining factor because of the expense of operating compression 

facilities to reduce the reservoir pressure to the minimum. In the planning area, most of the reservoirs are overpressured 

but have very low permeability. The overpressure allows more gas to be stored but the low permeability limits the 

recovery to a smaller portion of the area around each well.

In rare cases where the gas is very rich and contains a large quantity of entrained liquids, secondary recovery uses inert 

gases like nitrogen or dry natural gas to keep the reservoir pressure above the condensation point in order to produce the 

maximum amount of liquids. This secondary recovery process requires sweeping the reservoir with undersaturated gas 

to entrain and sweep out the rich gas. After this secondary process is accomplished, especially in dry natural gas 

secondary recovery operations, the reservoir is depressurized to recover the maximum amount of the remaining gas 

reserves.

Secondary recovery in coal reservoirs has been tested in the San Juan Basin and found to be technically feasible. It 

involves the molecular replacement of natural gas by carbon dioxide or nitrogen. This process has also been touted as a 

method of sequestering CO2 to remove the greenhouse gas from the atmosphere.

An oil reservoir typically contains oil, gas, and water trapped within the rock matrix under pressure. Because of the 

pressure, much or all of the gas is dissolved in the oil. “Primary drive” is accomplished by the expansion of gas in 

solution, which forces oil out of the reservoir into the well and up to the surface. Oil flowing out of the reservoir drains 

energy from the formation and the primary drive diminishes. To keep oil flowing in the reservoir, pressure drawdown is 

required, and subsurface pumps may be used to lift oil to the surface. As reservoir pressures continue to drop, solution 

gas in the oil escapes, forming bubbles in the pore space. These bubbles further retard the flow of oil and increase the 

gas saturation and the flow of solution gas. This process accelerates as the pressure declines and, at some point, 

production rates become uneconomical, with as much as 80% of the original oil remaining in the reservoir. In the United 

States, primary oil recovery accounts for less than half of the current oil production. The remaining oil is produced via 

secondary and enhanced recovery techniques.

Two basic secondary recovery methods are in use: (1) water flooding, and (2) displacement by gas. The preferred 

secondary recovery method is water flooding. This process involves injecting water into oil reservoirs to maintain or 

increase pressure. The process is usually most efficient when the pressure has not fallen to the point where the reservoir 

is highly saturated with gas. Reservoir heterogeneity in the form of fractures, directional permeability, and thin zones 

may limit the success of this process.

The process of injecting gas is a less popular secondary recovery technique. Historically, produced gas was considered a 

waste product and was flared (burned) at the point of production. Later, it was recognized that the energy could be 

conserved and the recovery of oil increased if the produced gas was reinjected into the reservoir. Increased production 

was achieved by (1) maintaining reservoir pressure by injecting the gas into the existing gas cap; and (2) injecting the gas 

directly into the oil-saturated zone, creating an immiscible gas drive that displaced the oil. To achieve miscibility, the 

reservoir must have reasonably high pressures and temperatures and contain high-gravity oil. Many gas injection 

projects use the water and gas (WAG) process (i.e., inject water and gas alternately to achieve better contact with the oil 

within the reservoir). Currently, the high price and demand for natural gas has precluded this type of secondary 

recovery.

The term “enhanced recovery” is used to describe recovery processes other than the more traditional secondary recovery 

procedures. These enhanced recovery methods include thermal, chemical, and miscible (mixable) drives. No enhanced 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Operations 875

recovery techniques are currently being implemented within the planning area, but it is unknown whether these 

techniques could be applicable in the future based on economics and new discoveries. 

Some reservoirs contain large quantities of heavy oil that cannot be produced using normal or secondary methods. These 

may be stimulated by thermal drive processes in which heat is introduced from the surface or developed in place in the 

subsurface reservoir. In the surface introduction process, hot water or steam is injected. Raising the temperature of 

heavy oil reduces the viscosity and makes the oil more mobile. Thermal recovery techniques are not likely to be tried in 

the planning area because the oils present are not heavy oils. In the in-situ process, both heavy and light oils can be 

processed. Spontaneous or induced ignition within the reservoir is induced by injected air to develop a fire front that 

burns the hydrocarbons. Evaporation of the lighter ends immediately ahead of the fire front and later condensation is the 

primary recovery mechanism. The remaining hydrocarbons are consumed by the fire and are generally not considered of 

any value. These techniques are very expensive and must have large reserves and thick pay zones to be economical. It is 

unlikely they will be used within the planning area in the immediate future unless new discoveries are made.

Several chemical drive techniques are currently in use, including (1) polymer flooding, (2) caustic flooding, and (3) 

surfactant-polymer injection. These methods attempt to change reservoir conditions to allow recovery of additional oil. 

Caustic and surfactant-polymer flooding have not been economical in the past, and unless a breakthrough in technology 

is achieved, they will probably not be considered during the planning period. Polymer flooding is an economically 

viable process but is used mainly in viscous reservoirs with high permeability. No such reservoirs currently exist in the 

planning area, but future discoveries could be made.

Carbon dioxide appears to have the best potential for enhanced and tertiary recovery methods. CO2 is miscible with oil 

at relatively low pressures and temperatures, and can be used with oil with a wide range of characteristics. CO2 

miscibility reduces the oil viscosity and allows much more efficient displacement by water. Usually CO2 is injected via 

the WAG process in alternating slugs of CO2 and water. Not only does CO2 create miscible flow but it also can displace 

oil by gravity segregation between the CO2, gas, and oil. This process may allow sequestration of large volumes of the 

CO2 greenhouse gas in the many applicable reservoirs in the western portion of the planning area and recover the last 

possible oil reserves. Sequestration of CO2 is advocated as a method to remove the gas from the earth’s atmosphere by 

storing the gas for geologic time. 

Gas Storage

Pipeline-quality gas can be stored in good quality reservoirs with excellent sealing parameters. This gas is pumped into 

the reservoir during nonpeak, usually lower priced time periods, and then pumped out into the transmission lines at times 

of peak demand and good prices. The differential in price pays the governmental storage fees for the use of the reservoir 

and the injection/compression costs required to store and retrieve the gas. It also serves as a buffer for cold periods when 

demand is high and levels out the summer slack period of production. Currently, 63 active gas storage wells are located 

in three different gas storage fields within the planning area.

Plugging and Abandonment Operations

The purpose of plugging and abandoning a well is to prevent fluid migration between zones, protect minerals from 

damage, and restore the surface area. Each well must be handled individually due to a combination of factors, including 

geology, subsurface well design, and specific rehabilitation concerns. Therefore, only minimum requirements can be 

established, and these must be modified for individual wells. 

The first step in the plugging process is the filing of the Notice of Intent to Abandon. This notice will be reviewed by 

both the surface management agency and the BLM petroleum engineer. The notice must be filed and approved prior to 

plugging a past producing well. Verbal plugging instructions can be given for plugging current drilling operations, but a 

notice must be filed after the work is completed. If usable fresh water was encountered while the well was being drilled, 

the surface management agency may be allowed, if interested, to assume future responsibility for the well, and the 

operator will be reimbursed for the attendant costs. This assumption of responsibility becomes effective after the deeper 

zones are plugged back to the usable water zone. Usually the operator is more than satisfied to remove the surface 

reclamation liability and will not charge for the remaining well equipment. 
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

876 Oil and Gas Operations

The operator’s plan for securing the well bore is reviewed. The minimum requirements as stated in Onshore Order No. 

2, are as follows: In open hole situations, cement plugs must extend at least 50 feet above and below zones that have 

fluid with the potential to migrate, zones of lost circulation (this type of zone may require an alternate method to isolate 

it), and zones of potentially valuable minerals. Thick zones may be isolated using cement plugs across the top and 

bottom of the zone. In the absence of productive zones and minerals, long sections of open hole may be plugged with 

cement plugs placed every 3,000 feet. In cased holes, cement plugs must be placed opposite perforations and extend 50 

feet above and below, except where limited by plug back depth. The length of the plug is 100 feet plus 10% per 1,000 

feet (e.g., at 10,000 feet, the plug will be 200 feet long).

Cement plugs could be replaced with a cement retainer, if the retainer is set 50 feet above the open perforations and the 

perforations are squeezed with cement. A bridge plug may also be used to isolate a producing zone and must be capped, 

if placed through tubing, with a minimum of 50 feet of cement. If the cap is placed using a dump bailer, a minimum of 

35 feet of cement is required. A dump bailer is an apparatus run on wire line to convey the cement to the bottom of the 

hole. In the event that the casing has been cut and recovered, a plug is placed 50 feet within the casing stub, and the 100 

feet plus 10% per 1,000 feet rule is used for the space above the cutoff point. In all cases, a plug is set at the bottom of 

the surface casing that has a volume of cement using the 100 feet plus 10% per 1,000 feet rule. This may require 

perforating the casing and circulating or squeezing cement behind the production casing if that casing is not removed. 

Annular space at the surface will be plugged with 50 feet of cement using small-diameter tubing or by perforating and 

circulating cement.

If the integrity of a plug is questionable or the position is extremely vital, it can be tested with pressure or by tagging the 

plug with the tubing or drill string. Tagging the plug involves running pipe into the hole until the plug is encountered 

and placing a specified amount of weight on the plug to verify its placement and competency. The surface plug within 

the casing must be a minimum of 50 feet. The interval between plugs must be filled with mud that will balance the 

subsurface pressures, and if this balance point is unknown, a minimum of 9 pounds per gallon is specified. After the 

casing has been cut off below the ground level, any void at the top of the casing must be filled with cement. A metal 

plate is welded over the top of the casing with a weep hole in the plate and the well identity and location permanently 

inscribed.

Typical equipment associated with plugging operations includes:

 Well workover/pulling unit

 Cement bulk truck, cement pump truck, and water hauling truck (all semi-type trucks)

 Two to three, 1/2 to 3/4-ton pickup trucks

Depending on the depth of the well, the plugging operation can last from one to three days.

Disturbance from plugging operations is usually contained within the existing disturbed area used to drill or produce the 

well, whichever the case may be. If the well to be plugged is a depleted producer, it is customary that the operator will 

dig a small catch pit (10 feet long by 10 feet wide by 8 feet deep) to contain any fluids pumped in and out of the well. 

Typical fluids that may come out of the well and travel into the catch pit are formation water, drilling mud and cement. 

These fluid materials are removed from the pit within 48 hours of the well being plugged. Within a week of plugging the 

well, initial reclamation (dirt work) begins depending on the time of the year that the well is plugged.

The surface management agency is responsible for establishing and approving methods for surface rehabilitation and 

determining when this rehabilitation has been satisfactorily accomplished. With satisfactory rehabilitation, a Subsequent 

Report of Abandonment is approved, and the well bond released.

Regulations, Laws, and Special Procedures

Units and Communitization Agreements

Units and Communitization Agreements can be formed in the interest of conservation and to allow for the orderly 

development of oil and gas reserves.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Operations 877

In areas of federal and mixed mineral ownership, an exploratory unit can be formed before a wildcat exploratory well is 

drilled. The boundary of the unit is based on geologic data and attempts to consolidate the interests in an entire structure 

or geologic play. The developers of the unit enter into an agreement to develop and operate as a single entity, without 

regard to separate lease ownerships. Costs and benefits are allocated according to agreed-upon terms. Development in a 

unitized field can proceed more efficiently than in a field composed of individual leases because competition between 

lease operators and drainage considerations is not a primary concern. Unitization also can reduce surface use 

requirements because all wells are operated as though under a single lease, and operations can be planned for more 

efficiency. Duplication of field processing facilities is eliminated, and consolidation of facilities into more efficient 

systems is probable. Unitization can also involve wider spacing than usual or spacing based on a reservoir factor rather 

than a set rule. This could result in fewer wells and higher recovery efficiency. Through planning, access roads are 

usually shorter and better organized, facilities are usually consolidated, and well efficiency is maximized to a degree not 

seen in individual lease operations.

A secondary unit is formed after the field has been defined and enhanced recovery techniques are being utilized. The 

different types of secondary recovery have already been described previously in this document in the section titled 

Secondary and Enhanced Oil Recovery. Injection is utilized to maintain the reservoir pressure which, in turn, maintains 

steady oil production. The secondary unit agreement provides for the allocation of production among all interest owners.

A communitization agreement combines two or more leases (federal, state, or fee) that otherwise could not be 

independently developed in conformity with established well spacing patterns. The leases within the spacing unit share 

in the costs and benefits of the well drilled in the spacing unit. Therefore, unit and communitization agreements can 

lessen the amount of damage to the environment by eliminating unnecessary wells, roads, pipelines, and other lease 

equipment.

Drainage Provisions

All federal oil and gas leases include a clause that the lessee must protect the leased area from drainage by off-lease 

wells. The regulations at 43 CFR 3162-2-9(b) state that the lessee/operating rights owner has an obligation to notify the 

BLM if drainage is occurring. If the lessee/operating rights owner has an interest in draining the well, he must notify the 

BLM within 60 days after completion of a drill stems, production, pressure analysis, or flow tests of the well. However, 

if the lessee/operating rights owner has no interest in the well, he must notify the BLM within 60 days after well 

completion or first production reports for the draining well are filed with either the BLM, State Oil and Gas 

Commissions, or regulatory agencies and are publicly available. The lessee/operating rights owner must inform the 

BLM of his plan to either protect the lease from drainage, or demonstrate that a protective well would not be economic. 

The lessee has the option of drilling a protective well on lease or paying compensatory royalty for the lost oil or gas. The 

lessee also has the options of submitting data showing that drainage is not occurring or relinquish the portion of the lease 

subject to drainage after payment of compensatory royalty for drainage that did occur. The objective of the drainage 

program is to prevent the loss of federal oil and gas due to drainage by requiring the drilling of protective wells and, 

where appropriate, to assess a compensatory royalty for such losses.

Drilling Access with No Surface Occupancy Stipulations on Oil and Gas Leases

No surface occupancy stipulations can restrict the development potential of a federal oil and gas lease by limiting the 

amount of surface acreage available for occupancy. No surface occupancy restrictions often do not affect access to oil 

and gas resources unless blocks of contiguous land have a no surface occupancy stipulation or the drilling depth is 

presumed to be shallow. The drilling access area is that area under a no surface occupancy lease or lease parcel that can 

be accessed by the well bore from a surface location outside of the area.

Lands near the outer boundary of a lease affected by a no surface occupancy stipulation can theoretically be developed 

by directional drilling. The BLM cannot assume that a prudent operator would use new technology such as horizontal 

drilling to access an entire lease area. Although the technology might allow exploration, the expense might make the 

venture uneconomical. However, the BLM can assume that an operator might be willing to directionally drill wells 

using equipment and drilling techniques that make the venture economical. For a directionally drilled well, a maximum 

deviation of approximately five degrees is a commonly used rule of thumb for how much a vertical hole can be 

economically deviated using a standard drilling rig.
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

878 Oil and Gas Operations

A “directional drilling accessibility” concept has been developed for leases affected by no surface occupancy 

stipulations. Shallow wells in Montana, less than 6,000 feet deep, can be deviated up to 1/8 mile and have the angle of 

deviation remain reasonably close to five degrees. This will place the bottom hole location in the center of a 40-acre 

tract.

Because these wells are commonly spaced on a 40-acre basis, all spacing units within 1/4 mile of the outer boundary of 

the lease can be tested. Wells between 6,000 and 11,000 feet deep can also be deviated up to 1/4 mile. This will place 

the bottom hole location of the well the maximum allowable distance from the lease line for a well of this depth. 

Because these wells are spaced on a 160-acre basis, all spacing units within 1/2 mile of the exterior boundary of the lease 

can be tested.

Wells in Montana with a total depth greater than 11,000 feet are normally spaced on a 320-acre basis. These wells can 

be deviated up to 1/4 mile using the above criteria. Using this distance, all spacing units within 1/2 mile of the outer 

boundaries of an affected lease can be tested.

Split Estate

Part of the planning area contains lands known as split estate lands. These are lands where the surface ownership is 

different from the mineral ownership. Management of federal oil and gas resources on these lands is somewhat different 

from management on lands where both surface and mineral ownership is federal. On split estate lands where the surface 

ownership is private, the BLM places necessary restrictions and requirements on its leases and permit approvals and 

works in cooperation with the surface owner. The BLM has established policies for the management of federal oil and 

gas resources in accordance with federal laws and regulations.

The BLM does not have the legal authority to regulate how private surface is managed, but does have the statutory 

authority to require measures by lessees to avoid or minimize adverse impacts that may result from federally authorized 

mineral lease activities. These measures, in the form of lease stipulations or permit conditions of approval, are intended 

to protect or preserve the privately owned resources and prevent adverse impacts to adjoining lands, not to dictate 

management to the surface owner.

The term split estate can also refer to lands where the surface ownership is federal and the mineral ownership is private. 

In this situation, the BLM is the surface owner and works in cooperation with the proponent and the state regulatory 

agency that approves private mineral applications. The BLM has responsibilities under the previously mentioned 

statutes; however, it does not have the authority to approve or disapprove the mineral owner’s actions. The mineral 

estate owner usually has the right to enter the land and use the surface that is necessary and reasonable for mineral 

development through either a reserved or an outstanding right contained in the deed.

Field Development

New field development is analyzed in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement after the 

sufficient confirmation wells are drilled. The operator generally can estimate the extent of drilling and disturbance 

required to extract and produce the oil and gas at that time. Many fields go through several development stages. A field 

can be considered fully developed and produce for many years when it is determined that a well can be drilled to a 

deeper pay zone or a new interval is discovered to be economically attractive. In this situation, there is generally little 

new disturbance because the old well bores or the old well pads are used for the new completions. A new stage of field 

development, such as infill drilling, can lead to increases in roads and facilities. All new construction, reconstruction, or 

alterations of existing facilities, including roads, flow lines, pipelines, tank batteries, or other production facilities, must 

be approved by the BLM and may require a new environmental analysis. Throughout field development, partial 

restoration and rehabilitation is required to reduce the surface impacts to the minimum required to produce the resource.

Well Spacing Requirements

The most important factor in further development of an oil or gas field is the economics of production. When an oil or 

gas discovery is made, a well spacing pattern must be established before development drilling begins. This is dependent 

upon the current statewide or areawide spacing. Well spacing is regulated by MBOG, and factors considered in the 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Operations 879

establishment of a spacing pattern include data from the discovery well that translate into recovery efficiency. These 

data include porosity, permeability, pressure, composition of reservoir and fluids, depth of formations, well production 

rates, and the economic effect of the proposed spacing on recovery. These data are relatively sparse in the initial phase 

of development, and extended production permits refinement of these values. The State of Montana establishes well 

spacing requirements for both exploratory and development wells which the BLM generally adopts. The state specifies 

the minimum distance from lease lines or government survey lines for bottom hole location of the well bore depending 

upon the depth of the well. The spacing regulations determine the acres assigned to each well. Spacing unit size is 

established to provide for the most efficient and economic recovery of oil or gas from a reservoir. Well spacing ranges 

from 40 acres to 640 acres. Wells deeper than 11,000 feet can be no closer than 1,650 feet to other producing wells 

below 11,000 feet. Only one producing well per formation is allowed in each 40, 80, 160, 320, and 640-acre unit. 

Spacing requirements can pose problems in selecting an environmentally sound location or in the cumulative overall 

impacts. Reservoir characteristics determine the most efficient spacing to achieve maximum recovery. If an operator 

determines that a different spacing is necessary to achieve maximum recovery, the state (with input from the BLM) may 

grant exceptions to the spacing requirements.

Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenarios for 

Resource Management Plan Alternatives

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the HiLine Resource Management Plan contains five management 

alternatives. Each alternative contains management imposed restrictions that may negatively affect oil and gas 

development. These restrictions can effectively decrease the baseline estimated number of well locations in areas of 

federal oil and gas ownership. For each alternative, we have analyzed the restrictions and estimated the number of 

resulting well locations that could be reduced from the baseline total.

Procedures Used to Determine Well Location Reductions

Well location reductions from the baseline reasonable foreseeable development scenario for each alternative, are due to 

proposed management restrictions. Restrictions applied to each alternative can affect oil and gas development activities 

by not allowing leasing, not allowing surface occupancy, controlling surface use, or placing restrictive stipulations on 

conditions of approval of federal applications to drill. Reduced oil and gas activities result in increased exploration and 

development costs, fewer drilled wells, and reduced production. For reasonable foreseeable development scenario 

analysis purposes, the restrictions for the five alternatives analyzed were separated into four categories designated A, B, 

C, and D. Restrictions on drilling are progressively more limiting from restriction category A to restriction category D 

and are: 

 Restriction Category A - areas open to leasing. Restrictions are relatively minor and result in standard lease 

terms and conditions that are applied to every federal oil and gas lease sold in the planning area. These 

restrictions are considered to have little to no effect on the number of future well locations or production for any 

alternative.

 Restriction Category B – areas open to leasing subject to relatively minor constraints. These restrictions can 

have a moderate effect such as multiple, consecutive timing restrictions for protection of wildlife values (e.g., 

crucial winter range, raptor nesting habitat, or sage-grouse strutting grounds). We also considered restrictions 

such as avoidance of areas within wetlands, riparian areas, or perennial waters could have a moderate effect on 

the potential locations of future wells and cumulative production.

 Restriction Category C – areas open to leasing subject to major constraints. These restrictions can have a 

moderate to severe effect on the location of wells; such as no surface occupancy stipulations on an area more 

than 40 acres in size or requirements that viewsheds be protected, thus requiring that well locations and 

production facilities not be visible from areas such as historic trails. Overlapping minor constraints may also 

severely limit the future development of oil and gas resources.
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

880 Oil and Gas Operations

 Restriction Category D – areas closed to leasing. These are areas where a determination is made that other land 

uses or resource values cannot be adequately protected with even the most restrictive lease stipulations. 

Because areas are closed to leasing, this category has the most severe restrictions on future oil and gas activity 

and production.

Estimates of future reductions in well locations from the baseline reasonable foreseeable development projection were 

determined as described below:

 An estimate of the number of well locations/township (average well density) that could be drilled in each 

development potential category over the 20-year life of the Resource Management Plan was made for 

conventional oil and gas development activity (within the Bowdoin Natural Gas Project Area (BNGPA) and 

within the rest of the planning area) and for CBNG development activity. The average well density per 

township was projected to be 110 wells for high development potential; 60 wells for moderate development 

potential; 10 wells for low development potential; and 0.5 wells for very low development potential.

 The acres of federal oil and gas ownership for each area of non-CBNG development potential were determined 

using GIS software. Acres of non-federal oil and gas minerals were not included because proposed Resource 

Management Plan decisions will only apply to federal oil and gas minerals. It was assumed that development 

on non-federal minerals will occur as estimated in the baseline foreseeable development projection.

 The acres of federal oil and gas ownership for each area of CBNG development potential were determined 

using GIS software. Acres of non-federal oil and gas minerals were not included because proposed Resource 

Management Plan decisions will only apply to federal oil and gas minerals. It was assumed that development 

on non-federal minerals will occur as estimated in the baseline foreseeable development projection.

 Next, the areas covered by each restriction category (B, C, or D) within the high, moderate, low, or very low 

development potential areas for non-CBNG (within the BNGPA area and within the rest of the planning area) 

and CBNG potential were calculated using GIS software. The area within category A was not calculated, 

because it was previously determined that this type of restriction would have no significant effect on the number 

of well locations for any alternative. As an example, the Alternative B acreage calculations for each potential 

area are presented in Table E.1.3.

Table E.1.3

Development Potential in the HiLine Planning Area by Restriction Category

Under Alternative B

Development Potential

Restriction Category B

(Federal Acres)

Restriction Category C

(Federal Acres)

Restriction Category D

(Federal Acres)

Non-CBNG Oil and Gas – Excluding BNGPA

High 0 6,889 138,489

Moderate 0 14,119 50,383

Low 0 65,915 258,858

Very Low 0 133,968 2,427,013

Non-CBNG Oil and Gas – BNGPA

High 0 0 0

Moderate 0 31,128 232,964

Low 0 6,497 65,870

Very Low 0 0 0

CBNG

Very Low 8,245 103,740 548,175

 After the acres of federal oil and gas were calculated for each alternative in each restriction category, the 

percent reduction in well locations for each alternative in each category of restriction was estimated. This 

estimate is a percent of the well locations that would not be drilled in each area due to the specific category of 

restriction. As an example, the results of calculations for Alternative B, Category C restrictions are shown in 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Operations 881

Table E.1.4 below. Category C restrictions for Alternative B indicate there would be a reduction of about 40 

non-CBNG well locations in the area excluding the BNGPA area, about 34 non-CBNG well locations in the 

BNGPA, and about 1.4 CBNG well locations on federal lands. The number of townships was calculated by 

dividing the federal acres by 23,040 acres per township.

Table E.1.4

Analysis Results Showing the Calculated Reduction in Federal Wells

of Each Type for Alternative B Due to Category C Restrictions

Development 

Potential

Well Locations 

per Township

Federal Oil and 

Gas Mineral

Acres

Federal Oil and 

Gas Mineral 

Townships

Percent 

Reduction in 

Federal Well 

Locations

Reduction in 

Federal Well 

Locations

Non-Coalbed Oil and Gas – Excluding BNGPA

High 110 6,889 0.299 30% 9.866

Moderate 60 14,119 0.613 40% 14.707

Low 10 65,915 2.861 50% 14.305

Very Low 0.5 133,968 5.815 55% 1.599

Non-Coalbed Oil and Gas – BNGPA

High 110 0 0.000 30% 0.000

Moderate 60 31,128 1.351 40% 32.425

Low 10 6,497 0.282 50% 1.410

Very Low 0 0 0.000 0 0.000

CBNG

Very Low 0.5 103,740 4.50 60% 1.35

 The percent reduction in well location for each alternative, each category of restriction, and each development 

potential combination was determined. The estimates of reduction in well locations were then summed for nonCBNG wells in all areas excluding BNGPA, the BNGPA, and for CBNG wells for each alternative. The results 

of these calculations are shown in Table E.1.5.

 Because reductions in well locations were calculated only for federal wells, the percent of federal wells 

projected to be drilled for each alternative is different. The percentage of federal wells projected to be drilled 

for each alternative is modified from the baseline analysis and is presented in Table E.1.5.

Table E.1.5

Total Wells Projected to be Drilled within the Planning Area for the

Baseline and Each Alternative for the Period 2011-2030

CBNG Wells

(% Federal Wells)

Non-CBNG Wells

Excluding BNGPA

(% Federal Wells)

Non-CBNG Well

BNGPA

(% Federal Wells) Total Wells

Baseline 150 (16.00%) 4,861 (26.98%) 1,091 (57.44%) 6,102

Alternative A 149 (15.44%) 4,802 (26.64%) 1,066 (56.12%) 6,017

Alternative B 137 (8.03%) 4,102 (22.80%) 546 (28.59%) 4,785

Alternative C 146 (13.70%) 4,686 (25.96%) 933 (47.12%) 5,765

Alternative D 149 (15.44%) 4,819 (26.74%) 1,068 (56.23%) 6,036

Alternative E 144 (12.50%) 4,720 (26.26%) 1,013 (53.75%) 5,877
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

882 Oil and Gas Operations

Estimated Future Oil and Gas Production

Table E.1.6 (Tables E.1.6 through E.1.17 are located at the end of Appendix E.1) presents yearly baseline estimates of 

future numbers of newly completed producing oil and gas wells within the planning area. These well counts were 

derived from the projection of total new gas and oil wells (Table E.1.5). The average number of producing gas wells 

completed from 2001 through 2006 was 219 while the average number of producing oil wells completed was 8. We 

estimated that in 2011, producing gas well completions would decrease to 208 and producing oil well completions would 

increase to 13. The yearly numbers of producing gas well completions varied from a low of 113 to a high of 334 through 

2030. Yearly producing oil well completions were held constant for the entire 20-year period at 13 each year.

Table E.1.6 well counts and analysis of their likely production rates, along with production data from existing wells, was 

used to project yearly oil and gas production for the 20-year period from 2011 to 2030, which is also presented in Table 

E.1.6. The actual yearly gas production from 2001 through 2006 averaged 55.886 million cubic feet with little 

fluctuation from year to year. Yearly gas production was assumed to fluctuate for the 20-year period from 2011 to 2030 

between 36,759 and 92,783 million cubic feet. The number of gas well completions described above corresponds to this 

rate.

The actual yearly oil production from 2001 through 2006 averaged 1.275 million barrels with some fluctuation from year 

to year. Some increase in oil production occurred in 2006. Most of this increase occurred in Toole County, which 

appears to have been due to the large number of workovers of existing wells. These wells appear to have been worked 

over due to the incentive of higher oil prices received in 2006 as compared to previous years. We estimated that yearly 

oil production for the 20-year period would fluctuate yearly, with estimated production of 220,783 barrels in 2011, a 

high of 1,210,240 barrels in 2020, and the lowest production of 38,143 barrels occurring in 2030. This annual 

fluctuation is due to the large number of existing oil wells in the planning area that are approaching the end of their 

productive life and the small number of new wells that would be completed. Drilling only 13 new oil wells per year 

would not add significantly to yearly oil production; consequently, future workovers of existing wells are assumed to be 

the main reason for the relatively low decline rate that is being predicted in the estimated yearly oil production.

Table E.1.6 also presents our estimates of the number of new oil and gas wells on federal lands, oil and gas production 

rates on federal lands, and abandonments of producing federal wells. The projections of numbers of new federal wells 

were derived from the projected total numbers of new wells by using calculated percentages of federal versus other types 

of producing wells, such as wells producing on private and state lands.

Since there is no history of CBNG production near the planning area, no attempt was made to try to project rates of gas 

production for this type of development. CBNG wells produce relatively low volumes of gas at other productive 

locations in the Rocky Mountains, so we do not project that there would be a significant increase in gas production from 

any CBNG wells found to be productive.

The above types of projections were also made for each alternative (Alternative A – Table E.1.7, Alternative B – Table 

E.1.8, Alternative C – Table E.1.9, Alternative D – Table E.1.10, and Alternative E – Table E.1.11) and reflect the 

adjusted well count projections presented for each alternative from Table E.1.5. 

Potential Surface Disturbance

Table E.1.12 presents our estimates of short-term and long-term disturbance associated with the baseline projection of 

wells that could be drilled for the period of 2011 through 2030 that is presented in Table E.1.6. The upper portion of 

Table E.1.12 shows our projection of 6,102 new exploratory and development wells ((150+1,091+4,861) with 1,962 

(24+627+1,311) of those wells managed by the Bureau) that could be drilled. An additional 9,214 existing unplugged 

wells (1,594 unplugged wells on Bureau-managed lands) lie within the planning area. This portion of Table E.1.12 also 

calculates associated acres of total surface disturbance (short-term disturbance) directly associated with those wells. 

Approximately 28,814 acres (428+3,109+25,277) of new short-term surface disturbance (8,674 acres (68+1,786+6,820) 

of Bureau-managed surface disturbance) could occur if all projected wells are drilled. Including existing wells, shortterm surface disturbance is projected to be about 36,970 acres (9,960 acres of Bureau-managed surface disturbance).
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Operations 883

In addition, the lower portion of Table E.1.12 calculates the estimated numbers of wells remaining after dry holes are 

abandoned and reclaimed and producing wells cease to be productive and are also abandoned and reclaimed (4,924 wells 

(135+1,058+3,731) with 1,637 of those wells (22+608+1,007) managed by the Bureau). An additional 7,858 

(1,579+6,279) existing unplugged and unreclaimed wells (1,345 (887+458) unplugged and unreclaimed wells on 

Bureau-managed lands) are projected to remain within the planning area in the long-term. This portion of Table E.1.12 

also calculates unreclaimed associated acres of total surface disturbance (long-term disturbance) directly associated with 

those wells. Approximately 4,327 acres (101+794+3,432) of new unreclaimed surface disturbance (1,398 acres 

(16+456+926) of Bureau-managed unreclaimed surface disturbance) could remain in the long-term. Including existing 

wells, long-term unreclaimed surface disturbance is projected to be about 11,288 acres (2,484 acres of Bureau-managed 

unreclaimed surface disturbance).

In the BNGPA, approximately 55% of all wells drilled are expected to be wells managed by the Bureau. In the rest of 

the planning area approximately 27% of all new wells are expected to be wells managed by the Bureau. We assumed 

that since Bureau-managed minerals occupy about 16% of the planning area, any future drilling on Bureau-managed 

minerals would likely mirror that percentage.

As additional wells are being drilled, some existing wells are being plugged and abandoned. The great majority of these 

are wells which are either unproductive (dry holes), or have become depleted and are not economic to produce. We have 

projected that total abandonments will be at a rate of:

 10% for CBNG wells

 3% for new exploratory and development wells in the BNGPA

 23.25% for new exploratory and development wells in the rest of the planning area

 7.8% for existing wells in the BNGPA

 22.9% for existing wells in the rest of the planning area

Assumptions used in Table E.1.12 to calculate short-term and long-term surface disturbance from access roads/flow lines 

and well pads associated with oil/gas exploration and development drilling activities are based on existing and planned 

oil and gas development across the planning area.

For each alternative, the same above-described methods of calculating surface disturbance (short-term and long-term) 

were used. Projections of future wells for each alternative were brought forward from Table E.1.5 and used in these 

calculations. The resulting short-term and long-term surface disturbance figures for each alternative are presented in 

Tables E.1.12 through E.1.17.

Summary

For our baseline projection we analyzed the oil and gas resource within the planning area, discussed types of future 

development that may occur, estimated the development potential for each type of resource, and projected baseline 

activity levels for the period 2011 through 2030. For our analysis of the baseline projection, we assumed that the only 

land use restrictions on future oil and gas resource development would be those that have been legislatively imposed. 

Projections of future well numbers, oil and gas production, and surface disturbance were prepared (Tables E.1.6 and 

E.1.12). Projections of future well numbers (Table E.1.5), oil and gas production (Tables E.1.7 through E.1.11), and 

surface disturbance (Tables E.1.13 through E.1.17) were also prepared for each alternative.
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

884 Oil and Gas Operations

Table E.1.6

Projected New Producing Well Numbers, and

Oil and Gas Production for All Producing Wells and All Federal Producing Wells

Baseline – 2011-2030

Year

Gas 

Produced 

(mcf1)

Oil 

Produced 

(barrels)

New Oil 

Wells

New Gas 

Wells

Total New 

Producing 

Wells

New 

Federal 

Oil Wells

New 

Federal Gas 

Wells

Total New 

Producing 

Federal 

Wells

Federal 

Oil 

Produced 

(barrels)

Federal 

Gas 

Produced 

(mcf1)

Federal 

Wells 

Abandoned

2011 57,867 220,783 13 208 221 1.54 73.07 74.61 105,453 19,513 12.45

2012 40,174 184,796 13 161 175 1.54 57.34 58.87 101,225 13,547 12.45

2013 55,514 277,350 13 199 212 1.54 69.82 71.35 112,100 18,719 12.45

2014 47,587 128,719 13 158 171 1.54 56.25 57.79 94,635 16,046 12.45

2015 65,035 235,060 13 230 243 1.54 80.40 81.94 107,131 21,930 12.45

2016 71,481 705,834 13 293 307 1.54 101.83 103.37 162,446 24,103 12.45

2017 85,803 888,018 13 262 275 1.54 91.25 92.79 183,853 28,933 12.45

2018 52,815 750,251 13 212 225 1.54 74.43 75.97 167,665 17,809 12.45

2019 74,181 1,051,983 13 261 274 1.54 90.98 92.52 203,119 25,014 12.45

2020 90,401 1,210,240 13 334 348 1.54 115.67 117.21 221,714 30,483 12.45

2021 74,950 807,801 13 212 225 1.54 74.43 75.97 174,428 25,273 12.45

2022 58,561 704,847 13 208 221 1.54 73.07 74.61 162,331 19,747 12.45

2023 72,033 670,475 13 275 288 1.54 95.59 97.13 158,292 24,289 12.45

2024 79,680 652,209 13 240 253 1.54 83.92 85.46 156,146 26,868 12.45

2025 92,783 729,452 13 297 310 1.54 102.92 104.45 165,222 31,286 12.45

2026 51,637 369,962 13 182 196 1.54 64.39 65.93 122,982 17,412 12.45

2027 84,153 246,420 13 235 248 1.54 82.02 83.56 108,465 28,377 12.45

2028 71,814 499,269 13 227 240 1.54 79.31 80.85 138,175 24,216 12.45

2029 36,759 87,134 13 113 126 1.54 41.06 42.60 89,749 12,395 12.45

2030 65,199 38,143 13 218 231 1.54 76.33 77.87 83,993 21,985 12.45

Totals 1,328,427 10,458,746 262 4,527 4,789 31 1,584 1,615 2,819,123 447,946 249

1 mcf = thousand cubic feet
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Operations 885

Table E.1.7

Projected New Producing Well Numbers, and

Oil and Gas Production for All Producing Wells and All Federal Producing Wells

Alternative A (Current Management) – 2011-2030

Year

Gas 

Produced 

(mcf1)

Oil 

Produced 

(barrels)

New Oil 

Wells

New Gas 

Wells

Total New 

Producing 

Wells

New 

Federal 

Oil Wells

New 

Federal Gas 

Wells

Total New 

Producing 

Federal 

Wells

Federal Oil 

Produced 

(barrels)

Federal 

Gas 

Produced 

(mcf1)

Federal 

Wells 

Abandoned

2011 57,021 217,556 13 205 218 1.52 69.78 71.30 105,074 18,652 12.45

2012 39,587 182,095 13 159 172 1.52 54.78 56.30 100,907 12,949 12.45

2013 54,703 273,296 13 196 209 1.52 66.89 68.40 111,623 17,893 12.45

2014 46,891 126,837 13 156 169 1.52 53.73 55.25 94,414 15,338 12.45

2015 64,084 231,625 13 227 240 1.52 76.88 78.40 106,727 20,962 12.45

2016 70,436 695,517 13 290 302 1.52 97.40 98.92 161,234 23,040 12.45

2017 84,549 875,038 13 258 271 1.52 87.14 88.66 182,328 27,656 12.45

2018 52,043 739,285 13 209 222 1.52 71.10 72.61 166,377 17,023 12.45

2019 73,097 1,036,606 13 257 270 1.52 86.88 88.40 201,312 23,910 12.45

2020 89,080 1,192,550 13 327 340 1.52 109.77 111.29 219,636 29,138 12.45

2021 73,854 795,994 13 209 222 1.52 71.10 72.61 173,040 24,158 12.45

2022 57,705 694,545 13 205 218 1.52 69.78 71.30 161,120 18,875 12.45

2023 70,980 660,674 13 271 284 1.52 91.35 92.87 157,140 23,218 12.45

2024 78,515 642,676 13 236 249 1.52 80.04 81.56 155,025 25,682 12.45

2025 91,427 718,789 13 292 305 1.52 98.19 99.71 163,969 29,906 12.45

2026 50,882 364,555 13 180 193 1.52 61.62 63.14 122,346 16,643 12.45

2027 82,923 242,818 13 231 244 1.52 78.20 79.72 108,042 27,124 12.45

2028 70,764 491,971 13 224 236 1.52 75.83 77.35 137,318 23,147 12.45

2029 36,222 85,861 13 112 125 1.52 39.26 40.78 89,600 11,848 12.45

2030 64,246 37,585 13 215 228 1.52 72.94 74.45 83,927 21,015 12.45

Totals 1,309,010 10,305,873 258 4,459 4,717 30 1,513 1,543 2,801,160 428,177 249

1 mcf = thousand cubic feet
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

886 Oil and Gas Operations

Table E.1.8

Projected New Producing Well Numbers, and

Oil and Gas Production for All Producing Wells and All Federal Producing Wells

Alternative B – 2011-2030

Year

Gas 

Produced 

(mcf1)

Oil Produced 

(barrels)

New Oil 

Wells

New Gas 

Wells

Total New 

Producing 

Wells

New 

Federal 

Oil Wells

New 

Federal Gas 

Wells

Total New 

Producing 

Federal 

Wells

Federal Oil 

Produced 

(barrels)

Federal 

Gas 

Produced 

(mcf1)

Federal 

Wells 

Abandoned

2011 45,209 172,487 10 160 170 1.20 22.09 23.29 99,778 6,189 12.45

2012 31,386 144,372 10 124 135 1.20 17.22 18.42 96,475 4,297 12.45

2013 43,371 216,680 10 153 163 1.20 21.12 22.32 104,971 5,937 12.45

2014 37,177 100,561 10 121 131 1.20 16.78 17.98 91,327 5,090 12.45

2015 50,808 183,641 10 177 187 1.20 24.37 25.57 101,089 6,956 12.45

2016 55,844 551,433 10 226 236 1.20 31.08 32.29 144,304 7,645 12.45

2017 67,034 693,764 10 202 212 1.20 27.83 29.04 161,028 9,177 12.45

2018 41,262 586,134 10 163 173 1.20 22.52 23.73 148,382 5,649 12.45

2019 57,954 821,862 10 200 211 1.20 27.62 28.82 176,080 7,934 12.45

2020 70,626 945,500 10 255 265 1.20 35.09 36.29 190,607 9,669 12.45

2021 58,555 631,095 10 163 173 1.20 22.52 23.73 153,665 8,016 12.45

2022 45,751 550,662 10 160 170 1.20 22.09 23.29 144,214 6,263 12.45

2023 56,276 523,808 10 211 222 1.20 29.13 30.34 141,058 7,704 12.45

2024 62,250 509,538 10 184 195 1.20 25.45 26.65 139,382 8,522 12.45

2025 72,487 569,884 10 228 238 1.20 31.41 32.61 146,472 9,923 12.45

2026 40,341 289,033 10 140 150 1.20 19.38 20.59 113,472 5,523 12.45

2027 65,745 192,516 10 180 190 1.20 24.80 26.00 102,132 9,000 12.45

2028 56,105 390,054 10 174 184 1.20 24.04 25.24 125,342 7,681 12.45

2029 28,718 68,074 10 87 97 1.20 12.12 13.33 87,510 3,932 12.45

2030 50,937 29,799 10 167 177 1.20 23.07 24.27 83,012 6,973 12.45

Totals 1,037,834 8,170,897 205 3,475 3,680 24 480 504 2,550,300 142,079 249

1 mcf = thousand cubic feet
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Operations 887

Table E.1.9

Projected New Producing Well Numbers, and

Oil and Gas Production for All Producing Wells and All Federal Producing Wells

Alternative C – 2011-2030

Year

Gas 

Produced 

(mcf1)

Oil 

Produced 

(barrels)

New Oil 

Wells

New Gas 

Wells

Total New 

Producing 

Wells

New 

Federal 

Oil Wells

New 

Federal Gas 

Wells

Total New 

Producing 

Federal 

Wells

Federal Oil 

Produced 

(barrels)

Federal 

Gas 

Produced 

(mcf1)

Federal 

Wells 

Abandoned

2011 54,182 206,725 12 195 207 1.45 59.53 60.98 103,801 15,924 12.45

2012 37,616 173,029 12 153 166 1.45 47.29 48.74 99,842 11,055 12.45

2013 51,979 259,689 12 187 199 1.45 57.17 58.63 110,024 15,277 12.45

2014 44,556 120,522 12 150 163 1.45 46.34 47.79 93,672 13,095 12.45

2015 60,894 220,093 12 216 228 1.45 65.65 67.10 105,372 17,897 12.45

2016 66,929 660,889 12 274 286 1.45 82.60 84.05 157,165 19,670 12.45

2017 80,340 831,472 12 246 258 1.45 74.36 75.81 177,209 23,612 12.45

2018 49,452 702,478 12 199 211 1.45 60.71 62.16 162,052 14,534 12.45

2019 69,458 984,997 12 244 256 1.45 73.89 75.34 195,248 20,414 12.45

2020 84,645 1,133,176 12 311 324 1.45 93.67 95.12 212,659 24,877 12.45

2021 70,178 756,364 12 200 212 1.45 60.94 62.39 168,384 20,625 12.45

2022 54,832 659,966 12 195 207 1.45 59.53 60.98 157,057 16,115 12.45

2023 67,446 627,781 12 256 268 1.45 77.42 78.87 153,275 19,822 12.45

2024 74,606 610,679 12 226 238 1.45 68.48 69.93 151,266 21,927 12.45

2025 86,875 683,003 12 276 288 1.45 83.31 84.76 159,764 25,533 12.45

2026 48,349 346,405 12 174 186 1.45 53.17 54.62 120,214 14,210 12.45

2027 78,795 230,729 12 220 232 1.45 66.83 68.28 106,622 23,158 12.45

2028 67,241 467,478 12 213 225 1.45 64.71 66.16 134,440 19,762 12.45

2029 34,419 81,586 12 109 121 1.45 34.10 35.55 89,097 10,116 12.45

2030 61,047 35,714 12 205 217 1.45 62.35 63.81 83,707 17,942 12.45

Totals 1,243,838 9,792,775 247 4,248 4,495 29 1,292 1,321 2,740,871 365,564 249

1 mcf = thousand cubic feet
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

888 Oil and Gas Operations

Table E.1.10

Projected New Producing Well Numbers, and

Oil and Gas Production for All Producing Wells and All Federal Producing Wells

Alternative D – 2011-2030

Year

Gas Produced 

(mcf1)

Oil Produced 

(barrels)

New Oil 

Wells

New Gas 

Wells

Total New 

Producing 

Wells

New Federal 

Oil Wells

New Federal 

Gas Wells

Total New 

Producing 

Federal Wells

Federal Oil 

Produced 

(barrels)

Federal Gas 

Produced 

(mcf1)

Federal Wells 

Abandoned

2011 57,216 218,298 13 205 218 1.52 70.29 71.81 105,161 18,853 12.45

2012 39,722 182,716 13 160 173 1.52 55.45 56.97 100,980 13,088 12.45

2013 54,889 274,228 13 196 209 1.52 67.37 68.90 111,733 18,086 12.45

2014 47,051 127,270 13 156 169 1.52 54.12 55.65 94,465 15,503 12.45

2015 64,303 232,414 13 228 240 1.52 77.71 79.23 106,820 21,188 12.45

2016 70,676 697,888 13 290 303 1.52 98.38 99.90 161,513 23,288 12.45

2017 84,837 878,022 13 260 273 1.52 88.31 89.83 182,679 27,954 12.45

2018 52,220 741,806 13 210 223 1.52 71.88 73.40 166,673 17,207 12.45

2019 73,346 1,040,141 13 258 271 1.52 87.78 89.30 201,728 24,168 12.45

2020 89,387 1,196,616 13 330 343 1.52 111.63 113.15 220,113 29,452 12.45

2021 74,106 798,708 13 210 223 1.52 71.88 73.40 173,359 24,418 12.45

2022 57,902 696,913 13 206 219 1.52 70.55 72.08 161,398 19,079 12.45

2023 71,222 662,927 13 272 285 1.52 92.28 93.80 157,405 23,468 12.45

2024 78,783 644,867 13 237 250 1.52 80.89 82.41 155,283 25,959 12.45

2025 91,738 721,240 13 293 306 1.52 99.17 100.69 164,257 30,228 12.45

2026 51,055 365,798 13 180 193 1.52 62.07 63.60 122,492 16,823 12.45

2027 83,206 243,646 13 232 244 1.52 79.03 80.56 108,139 27,416 12.45

2028 71,006 493,649 13 224 237 1.52 76.65 78.17 137,515 23,396 12.45

2029 36,346 86,153 13 113 125 1.52 39.82 41.34 89,634 11,976 12.45

2030 64,465 37,713 13 215 228 1.52 73.73 75.26 83,942 21,241 12.45

Totals 1,313,474 10,341,013 259 4,474 4,733 30 1,529 1,559 2,805,289 432,790 249

1 mcf = thousand cubic feet
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Operations 889

Table E.1.11

Projected New Producing Well Numbers, and

Oil and Gas Production for All Producing Wells and All Federal Producing Wells

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) – 2011-2030

Year

Gas Produced 

(mcf1)

Oil Produced 

(barrels)

New Oil 

Wells

New Gas 

Wells

Total New 

Producing 

Wells

New Federal 

Oil Wells

New Federal 

Gas Wells

Total New 

Producing 

Federal Wells

Federal Oil 

Produced 

(barrels)

Federal Gas 

Produced 

(mcf1)

Federal Wells 

Abandoned

2011 55,923 213,365 13 200 213 1.49 65.17 66.66 104,581 17,509 12.45

2012 38,824 178,586 13 156 169 1.49 51.34 52.82 100,495 12,156 12.45

2013 53,649 268,030 13 192 205 1.49 62.66 64.14 111,005 16,797 12.45

2014 45,988 124,393 13 152 165 1.49 50.08 51.57 94,127 14,399 12.45

2015 62,849 227,162 13 222 235 1.49 71.96 73.45 106,203 19,678 12.45

2016 69,079 682,116 13 283 296 1.49 91.08 92.57 159,660 21,629 12.45

2017 82,920 858,179 13 253 266 1.49 81.77 83.26 180,347 25,962 12.45

2018 51,040 725,041 13 205 218 1.49 66.68 68.17 164,703 15,981 12.45

2019 71,689 1,016,634 13 252 265 1.49 81.52 83.01 198,965 22,446 12.45

2020 87,364 1,169,573 13 322 335 1.49 103.41 104.89 216,936 27,354 12.45

2021 72,432 780,657 13 205 218 1.49 66.68 68.17 171,238 22,678 12.45

2022 56,593 681,163 13 201 214 1.49 65.42 66.91 159,548 17,719 12.45

2023 69,612 647,945 13 265 278 1.49 85.55 87.03 155,645 21,796 12.45

2024 77,003 630,293 13 232 244 1.49 74.98 76.47 153,570 24,110 12.45

2025 89,665 704,940 13 286 299 1.49 92.09 93.57 162,341 28,074 12.45

2026 49,901 357,531 13 176 189 1.49 57.63 59.11 121,521 15,624 12.45

2027 81,326 238,140 13 226 239 1.49 73.22 74.71 107,492 25,463 12.45

2028 69,401 482,493 13 219 231 1.49 70.96 72.44 136,204 21,729 12.45

2029 35,524 84,206 13 109 122 1.49 36.75 38.23 89,405 11,122 12.45

2030 63,008 36,861 13 210 223 1.49 68.19 69.68 83,842 19,728 12.45

Totals 1,283,789 10,107,308 253 4,368 4,621 30 1,417 1,447 2,777,829 401,954 249

1 mcf = thousand cubic feet
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

890 Oil and Gas Operations

Table E.1.12

Surface Disturbance

Associated with All New Drilled Wells and Existing Active Wells

Baseline Development Scenario – 2011-2030

Short-Term Surface Disturbance

Wells Acres of Surface Disturbance

Type Total

BLMManagedAccess Roads/

Flow Lines Well Pads Total

BLMManaged

New Exploratory and 

Development Wells

Coalbed Gas 150 24 1.85 1 428 68

Bowdoin Dome Area 1,091 627 1.85 1 3,109 1,786

Rest of Planning Area 4,861 1,311 3.1 2.1 25,277 6,820

Existing Wells

Bowdoin Dome Area 1,887 1,060 0.25 0.5 1,415 795

Rest of Planning Area 7,327 534 0.78 0.14 6,741 491

Total Wells/Disturbance 15,316 3,556 36,970 9,960

Long-Term Surface Disturbance

Wells Acres of Surface Disturbance

Type Total

BLMManagedAccess Roads/ 

Flow Lines Well Pads Total

BLMManaged

New Exploratory and

Development Wells

Coalbed Gas 135 22 0.25 0.5 101 16

Bowdoin Dome Area 1,058 608 0.25 0.5 794 456

Rest of Planning Area 3,731 1,007 0.78 0.14 3,432 926

Existing Wells

Bowdoin Dome Area 1,579 887 0.25 0.5 1,184 665

Rest of Planning Area 6,279 458 0.78 0.14 5,777 421

Total Wells/Disturbance 12,782 2,981 11,288 2,484
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Operations 891

Table E.1.13

Surface Disturbance

Associated with All New Drilled Wells and Existing Active Wells

Alternative A Development Scenario – 2011-2030

Short-Term Surface Disturbance

Wells Acres of Surface Disturbance

Type Total

BLMManagedAccess Roads/

Flow Lines Well Pads Total

BLMManaged

New Exploratory and 

Development Wells

Coalbed Gas 149 23 1.85 1 425 66

Bowdoin Dome Area 1,066 602 1.85 1 3,038 1,715

Rest of Planning Area 4,802 1,249 3.1 2.1 24,970 6,497

Existing Wells

Bowdoin Dome Area 1,887 1,060 0.25 0.5 1,415 795

Rest of Planning Area 7,327 534 0.78 0.14 6,741 491

Total Wells/Disturbance 15,231 3,468 36,589 9,564

Long-Term Surface Disturbance

Wells Acres of Surface Disturbance

Type Total

BLMManagedAccess Roads/ 

Flow Lines Well Pads Total

BLMManaged

New Exploratory and

Development Wells

Coalbed Gas 134 21 0.25 0.5 101 16

Bowdoin Dome Area 1,034 584 0.25 0.5 776 438

Rest of Planning Area 3,686 959 0.78 0.14 3,391 882

Existing Wells

Bowdoin Dome Area 1,579 887 0.25 0.5 1,184 665

Rest of Planning Area 6,279 458 0.78 0.14 5,777 421

Total Wells/Disturbance 12,712 2,908 11,228 2,422
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

892 Oil and Gas Operations

Table E.1.14

Surface Disturbance

Associated with All New Drilled Wells and Existing Active Wells

Alternative B Development Scenario – 2011-2030

Short-Term Surface Disturbance

Wells Acres of Surface Disturbance

Type Total

BLMManagedAccess Roads/

Flow Lines Well Pads Total

BLMManaged

New Exploratory and 

Development Wells

Coalbed Gas 137 11 1.85 1 390 31

Bowdoin Dome Area 546 79 1.85 1 1,556 224

Rest of Planning Area 4,102 557 3.1 2.1 21,330 2,899

Existing Wells

Bowdoin Dome Area 1,887 1,060 0.25 0.5 1,415 795

Rest of Planning Area 7,327 534 0.78 0.14 6,741 491

Total Wells/Disturbance 13,999 2,241 31,433 4,441

Long-Term Surface Disturbance

Wells Acres of Surface Disturbance

Type Total

BLMManagedAccess Roads/ 

Flow Lines Well Pads Total

BLMManaged

New Exploratory and

Development Wells

Coalbed Gas 123 10 0.25 0.5 92 7

Bowdoin Dome Area 530 76 0.25 0.5 397 57

Rest of Planning Area 3,148 428 0.78 0.14 2,896 394

Existing Wells

Bowdoin Dome Area 1,579 887 0.25 0.5 1,184 665

Rest of Planning Area 6,279 458 0.78 0.14 5,777 421

Total Wells/Disturbance 11,659 1,859 10,347 1,545
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Operations 893

Table E.1.15

Surface Disturbance

Associated with All New Drilled Wells and Existing Active Wells

Alternative C Development Scenario – 2011-2030

Short-Term Surface Disturbance

Wells Acres of Surface Disturbance

Type Total

BLMManagedAccess Roads/

Flow Lines Well Pads Total

BLMManaged

New Exploratory and 

Development Wells

Coalbed Gas 146 20 1.85 1 416 57

Bowdoin Dome Area 933 469 1.85 1 2,659 1,336

Rest of Planning Area 4,686 1,128 3.1 2.1 24,367 5,868

Existing Wells

Bowdoin Dome Area 1,887 1,060 0.25 0.5 1,415 795

Rest of Planning Area 7,327 534 0.78 0.14 6,741 491

Total Wells/Disturbance 14,979 3,211 35,598 8,547

Long-Term Surface Disturbance

Wells Acres of Surface Disturbance

Type Total

BLMManagedAccess Roads/ 

Flow Lines Well Pads Total

BLMManaged

New Exploratory and

Development Wells

Coalbed Gas 131 18 0.25 0.5 99 14

Bowdoin Dome Area 905 455 0.25 0.5 679 341

Rest of Planning Area 3,597 866 0.78 0.14 3,309 797

Existing Wells

Bowdoin Dome Area 1,579 887 0.25 0.5 1,184 665

Rest of Planning Area 6,279 458 0.78 0.14 5,777 421

Total Wells/Disturbance 12,491 2,683 11,047 2,238
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

894 Oil and Gas Operations

Table E.1.16

Surface Disturbance

Associated with All New Drilled Wells and Existing Active Wells

Alternative D Development Scenario – 2011-2030

Short-Term Surface Disturbance

Wells Acres of Surface Disturbance

Type Total

BLMManagedAccess Roads/

Flow Lines Well Pads Total

BLMManaged

New Exploratory and 

Development Wells

Coalbed Gas 149 23 1.85 1 425 66

Bowdoin Dome Area 1,068 604 1.85 1 3,044 1,720

Rest of Planning Area 4,819 1,267 3.1 2.1 25,059 6,591

Existing Wells

Bowdoin Dome Area 1,887 1,060 0.25 0.5 1,415 795

Rest of Planning Area 7,327 534 0.78 0.14 6,741 491

Total Wells/Disturbance 15,250 3,488 36,683 9,663

Long-Term Surface Disturbance

Wells Acres of Surface Disturbance

Type Total

BLMManagedAccess Roads/ 

Flow Lines Well Pads Total

BLMManaged

New Exploratory and

Development Wells

Coalbed Gas 134 21 0.25 0.5 101 16

Bowdoin Dome Area 1,036 586 0.25 0.5 777 439

Rest of Planning Area 3,699 973 0.78 0.14 3,403 895

Existing Wells

Bowdoin Dome Area 1,579 887 0.25 0.5 1,184 665

Rest of Planning Area 6,279 458 0.78 0.14 5,777 421

Total Wells/Disturbance 12,727 2,924 11,241 2,436
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Operations 895

Table E.1.17

Surface Disturbance

Associated with All New Drilled Wells and Existing Active Wells

Alternative E Development Scenario – 2011-2030

Short-Term Surface Disturbance

Wells Acres of Surface Disturbance

Type Total

BLMManagedAccess Roads/

Flow Lines Well Pads Total

BLMManaged

New Exploratory and 

Development Wells

Coalbed Gas 144 18 1.85 1 410 51

Bowdoin Dome Area 1,013 557 1.85 1 2,887 1,587

Rest of Planning Area 4,720 1,181 3.1 2.1 24,544 6,144

Existing Wells

Bowdoin Dome Area 1,887 1,060 0.25 0.5 1,415 795

Rest of Planning Area 7,327 534 0.78 0.14 6,741 491

Total Wells/Disturbance 15,091 3,350 35,998 9,068

Long-Term Surface Disturbance

Wells Acres of Surface Disturbance

Type Total

BLMManagedAccess Roads/ 

Flow Lines Well Pads Total

BLMManaged

New Exploratory and

Development Wells

Coalbed Gas 130 16 0.25 0.5 97 12

Bowdoin Dome Area 983 540 0.25 0.5 737 405

Rest of Planning Area 3,623 907 0.78 0.14 3,333 834

Existing Wells

Bowdoin Dome Area 1,579 887 0.25 0.5 1,184 665

Rest of Planning Area 6,279 458 0.78 0.14 5,777 421

Total Wells/Disturbance 12,593 2,808 11,128 2,338
Link to Map E.1 - Fluid Mineral Leasing Potential
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas BMPs (General Conditions of Approval) 897

Appendix E.2

Oil and Gas Best Management Practices 

(General Conditions of Approval) 

General or typical conditions of approval (COAs) are mitigation measures that may be considered when processing 

Applications for Permits to Drill (APDs), Sundry Notice Drilling Plans, and Surface Use Plans when they are: 1) not 

specifically addressed in those plans or existing lease stipulations; and 2) needed to mitigate impacts to resource values 

identified at the onsite inspection or during review of the plans. 

The COAs also allow the BLM to prescribe resource protection measures for lands that were previously leased with 

varying sets of lease stipulations. However, for lands that are already leased BLM restrictions on development, not 

required to comply with existing laws, must be reasonable and consistent with existing lease rights. The COAs must not 

constrain or restrict development beyond the measures anticipated or authorized by the lease terms or regulations and/or 

interfere with the lessee’s opportunity to economically recover the oil and gas resources, considering the lease as a 

whole. 

The following list is not all-inclusive, but presents some general or typical conditions of approval that may be considered 

in the planning area to address potential impacts at the time of site-specific lease operations. The wording of the 

conditions of approval may be modified or additional conditions of approval may be developed to address site-specific 

conditions. An exception, waiver, and modification may be added to a COA during the permitting process, if the permit 

condition serves a purpose similar to a traditional lease stipulation, such as a timing limitation or a permit condition that 

restricts development in a particular area. It is important to note that these conditions do not apply to routine operation 

and maintenance of production facilities. 

Historic Properties and/or Cultural Resources 

The affected area may be found to contain historic properties and/or resources protected under the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA), American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act., E.O. 13007, or other statutes and executive orders. The BLM will not approve any surface-disturbing 

activities that may affect any such properties or resources until it completes its obligations under applicable requirements 

of the NHPA and other authorities. The BLM may require modification to exploration or development proposals to 

protect such properties, or disapprove any activity that is likely to result in adverse effects that cannot be successfully 

avoided, minimized or mitigated. 

Occupancy and use would be avoided if possible within, and for a distance of 300 feet from the boundaries of cultural 

properties and archaeological/historic districts determined to be eligible or potentially eligible to the National Register of 

Historic Places. This includes cultural properties designated for conservation use, scientific use, traditional use, public 

use, and experimental use. Defined archaeological districts include but are not limited to: Sweet Grass Hills ACEC, Big 

Bend of the Milk River ACEC, Kevin Rim ACEC, and the Medicine Rock, Fantasy and Laundry Springs sites. 

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible within 1/2 mile of the boundaries of cultural 

properties determined to be of particular importance to Native American groups, determined to be Traditional Cultural 

Properties, and/or designated for traditional use. Such properties include (but are not limited to) burial locations, 

pictograph/petroglyph sites, vision quest locations, plant gathering locations, and areas considered sacred or used for 

religious purposes. 

An inventory of those portions of the affected area subject to proposed disturbance may be required prior to any surface 

disturbance to determine if cultural resources are present and to identify needed mitigation measures. Prior to 

undertaking any surface-disturbing activities on the lands covered by a lease, the lessee or operator shall: 
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

898 Oil and Gas BMPs (General Conditions of Approval)

1. Engage the services of a cultural resource consultant acceptable to the Surface Management Agency (SMA) to 

conduct a cultural resource inventory of the area of proposed surface disturbance. The operator may elect to 

inventory an area larger than the standard ten-acre minimum to cover possible site relocation which may result 

from environmental or other considerations. An acceptable inventory report is to be submitted to the SMA for 

review and approval no later than that time when an otherwise complete application for approval of drilling or 

subsequent surface-disturbing operation is submitted. 

2. Implement mitigation measures required by the SMA. Mitigation may include the relocation of proposed leaserelated activities or other protective measures such as data recovery and extensive recordation. Where impacts 

to cultural resources cannot be mitigated to the satisfaction of the SMA, surface occupancy on that area must be 

prohibited. The lessee or operator shall immediately bring to the attention of the SMA any cultural resources 

discovered as a result of approved operations under this lease, and shall not disturb such discoveries until 

directed to proceed by the SMA. 

The operator is responsible for informing all persons in the area who are associated with this project that they will be 

subject to prosecution for knowingly disturbing historic or archaeological sites, or for collecting artifacts. If historic or 

archaeological materials are uncovered during construction, the operator is to immediately stop work that might further 

disturb such materials, and contact the authorized officer. Within five working days the authorized officer will inform 

the operator as to:

 whether the materials appear eligible for the National Register of Historic Places;

 the mitigation measures the operator will likely have to undertake before the site can be used (assuming in situ 

preservation is not necessary); and

 a timeframe for the authorized officer to complete and expedited review under 36 CFR 800.11 to confirm, 

through the State Historic Preservation Officer, that the findings of the authorized officer are correct and that 

mitigation is appropriate.

If the operator wishes, at any time, to relocate activities to avoid the expense of mitigation and/or the delays associated 

with the process, the authorized officer will assume responsibility for whatever recordation and stabilization of the 

exposed materials may be required. Otherwise, the operator will be responsible for mitigation costs. The authorized 

officer will provide technical and procedural guidelines for the conduct of the mitigation. Upon verification from the 

authorized officer that the required mitigation has been completed, the operator will then be allowed to resume 

construction.

National Historic Trails

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible within 1/4 mile of designated National Historic 

Trails (Lewis and Clark Trail and Nez Perce Trail).

Noise

Install remote monitoring systems (e.g., Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) or Computer Assisted 

Operations (CAOs)), where feasible, to mitigate the noise and disruptions associated with increased field truck traffic. 

Limitations to the feasibility of implementing this recommendation may exist due to the age of the field, the lack of 

appropriate infrastructure, and the remote nature of the area.

Muffle and maintain all motorized equipment according to manufacturers' specifications in an effort to achieve the 

recommended standard of 55 dBA (with an average day/night noise level of 49 dBA) for noise impacts to sensitive 

receptors at 1/4 mile from the source. When background noise exceeds 55 dBA, noise levels will be no greater than 5 

dBA above background at 1/4 mile. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas BMPs (General Conditions of Approval) 899

Paleontological Resources

Surface-disturbing activities would be avoided if possible within designated paleontological sites/locales.

In areas known to have high potential (Class IV and V) for containing significant paleontological resources and in the 

Malta Geological ACEC, the Lessee would be required to conduct a paleontological inventory prior to any surface 

disturbance. The Lessee must engage the services of a qualified paleontologist, acceptable to the surface management 

agency, to conduct the inventory. An acceptable inventory report is to be submitted to the BLM for review and approval 

at the time a surface-disturbing plan of operations is submitted.

Inadvertent Discovery – Upon discovery of significant paleontological materials during operations, work in the 

immediate area of the find shall be diverted and the find will be reported to the authorized officer immediately. 

Stabilization of the find to prevent further physical damage or erosion should be undertaken as feasible and protective 

measures to prevent looting should be initiated. An evaluation of the paleontological discovery will be made by a BLMpermitted paleontologist within an appropriate timeframe to determine the appropriate action(s) to minimize the loss of 

any significant paleontological values. The operator will bear the cost of any required paleontological appraisals, 

collection of fossils, or salvage of any fossils of significant scientific interest discovered during the operation.

Collection Restrictions – The operator shall provide a background briefing for all project personnel describing 

procedures and notifications required in the event of discoveries by project personnel. Supervisory personnel shall 

advise project personnel of restrictions for collection of significant fossils. Supervisory personnel are also required to 

enforce collection restrictions.

Recreation Sites

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible within and 500 feet from recreation sites.

Residential Structures

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible within and 500 feet from incorporated city 

limits or occupied residential structures. 

Install signage notifying the public of the area of increased activity.

Remotely monitor well production where practical and technically feasible.

Water, Riparian Areas/Wetlands, Floodplains

Surface-disturbing activities would be avoided if possible within perennial or intermittent streams (as indicated by 

obligate wetland species or hydric soils); lakes, ponds, and reservoirs; floodplains; wetlands; and riparian areas. 

Surface-disturbing activities may be controlled within and 300 feet from riparian/wetland areas. Surface-disturbing 

activities would require a plan with design features that demonstrate how all actions would maintain and/or improve the 

functionality of riparian/wetland areas. The plan will address: (1) potential impacts to riparian and wetland resources, 

(2) mitigation to reduce impacts to acceptable levels (including timing restrictions), (3) post project restoration, and (4) a 

detailed monitoring plan that would show the controlled use is compatible with wetland and riparian objectives 

(including habitat and water quality). 

Limit construction of drainage crossings to no-flow periods or low-flow periods.

Minimize the area of disturbance within ephemeral and intermittent drainage channel environments.
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

900 Oil and Gas BMPs (General Conditions of Approval)

Prohibit construction of well sites, access roads, and pipelines within 300 feet of surface water and/or riparian areas. 

Exceptions would be granted by the BLM based on an environmental analysis and site-specific mitigation plans.

Implement minor routing variations during access road layout to avoid steep slopes adjacent to ephemeral or intermittent 

drainage channels. Maintain a 100-foot-wide buffer strip of natural vegetation where possible (not including wetland 

vegetation) between all construction activities and ephemeral and intermittent drainage channels.

Do not install culverts on ephemeral drainages. The use of culverts on intermittent drainage crossings would be analyzed 

on a case-by-case basis. Design all drainage-crossing structures to carry 25- to 50-year discharge events or as otherwise 

directed by the BLM.

Design channel crossings to minimize changes in channel geometry and subsequent changes in flow hydraulics.

Maintain vegetation barriers occurring between construction activities and ephemeral and intermittent channels.

Minimize construction activities in areas of steep slopes and install special slope-stabilizing structures if construction 

cannot be avoided in these areas.

Install runoff and erosion control measures such as water bars, berms, and interceptor ditches as needed.

Include adequate drainage control devices and measures in the road design (e.g., road berms and drainage ditches, 

diversion ditches, cross drains, culverts, outsloping, and energy dissipaters) at sufficient intervals and intensities to 

adequately control and direct surface runoff above, below, and within the road environment in order to avoid erosionconcentrated flows. Use erosion control devices in conjunction with the surface runoff and drainage control devices and 

measures such as temporary barriers, ditch blocks, erosion stops, mattes, mulches, and vegetative covers. Implement a 

revegetation program as soon as possible to re-establish the soil protection afforded by a vegetal cover.

Design and construct interception ditches, sediment traps, water bars, and revegetation and soil stabilization measures if 

needed.

Construct channel crossings for buried pipelines such that the pipe is buried a minimum of four feet below the channel 

bottom.

Regrade disturbed channel beds to the original geometric configuration with the same or very similar bed material.

Upon completion of construction activities, restore topography to near pre-existing contours at well sites, other facility 

sites, and along access roads and pipelines. Replace up to 12 inches of topsoil or suitable plant-growth material over all 

disturbed surfaces. Apply fertilizer, seed (specified in a reclamation plan), and mulch as required.

Ensure that the project complies with EO 11990 (floodplains protection) and RMP management directives that relate to 

protection of water resources. These regulations require avoidance of stream channels to the maximum practicable 

extent. Where total avoidance is not practicable, implement measures to minimize impacts to streams and associated 

floodplains/floodways. Where streams and floodplains cannot be avoided, the operators would be required to show the 

BLM authorized officer why such resources cannot be totally avoided and how impacts would be minimized during the 

APD process.

Case wells during drilling, and case and cement all wells in accordance with Onshore Order No. 2 to protect accessible 

high-quality aquifers. High-quality aquifers are those with known water quality of 10,000 ppm TDS or less. The 

protection of high-quality aquifers involves well casing and welding of sufficient integrity to contain all fluids under 

high pressure during drilling and well completion. Further, ensure that wells adhere to the appropriate BLM cementing 

policy.

Construct reserve pits so that a minimum of one-half of the total depth is below the original ground surface on the lowest 

point within the pit. To prevent seepage of fluids, utilize drilling mud gel or poly liners to line reserve pits in areas 

where subsurface material would not contain fluids. Liners would be of sufficient strength and thickness to withstand 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas BMPs (General Conditions of Approval) 901

normal installation and use. The liner would be impermeable (i.e., having a permeability of less than 10-7cm/sec) and 

chemically compatible with all substances which may be put in the pit.

Maintain two feet of freeboard on all reserve pits to ensure the reserve pits are not in danger of overflowing. Shut down 

drilling operations until the problem is corrected if leakage is found outside the pit.

Extract hydrostatic test water used in conjunction with pipeline testing and all water used during construction activities 

from sources with sufficient quantities and through appropriation permits approved by the State of Montana.

Discharge all concentrated water flows within access road rights-of-way onto or through an energy dissipater structure 

(e.g., rip-rapped aprons and discharge points) and discharge into undisturbed vegetation.

Develop and implement a stormwater pollution plan for stormwater runoff at drill sites as required per Montana 

Department of Environmental Quality stormwater MPDES permit requirements.

Coordinate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to determine the specific Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 

permit requirements and conditions (including the potential requirement of compensatory mitigation) for each facility 

that occurs in waters of the U.S. to prevent the occurrence of significant impact to such waters.

Ensure that the project must comply with all applicable requirements of the CWA, including the requirement to obtain an 

MPDES permit.

Evaluate all project facility sites for occurrence and distribution of waters of the U.S., special aquatic sites, and 

jurisdictional wetlands. Locate all project facilities out of these sensitive areas. If complete avoidance is not possible, 

minimize impacts through modification and minor relocations. Coordinate activities that involve dredge or fill into 

wetlands with the Corps of Engineers.

Soils

Prior to any surface disturbance on sensitive soils a reclamation plan must be approved by the authorized officer. The 

plan must demonstrate that no other practicable alternatives exist for relocating the activity. The plan must include a 

detailed description of how the activity would: (1) control wind and water erosion; (2) control surface runoff; (3) 

minimize sediment production; (4) maintain site productivity; and (5) complete reclamation. The plan will consider 

avoidance, size limitations, timing restrictions (e.g. limiting wet condition road usage), physical mitigation, and off-site 

mitigation. Sensitive soils are defined as those with severe erosion ratings (wind and water). 

Surface-disturbing activities would be avoided if possible on badlands, rock outcrop, or slopes susceptible to mass 

failure. The authorized officer may grant an exception to this requirement for pipelines if the operator submits a 

reclamation plan that clearly demonstrates effects from the proposed actions can be adequately mitigated. An exception 

may also be granted if an activity would occur on a previously disturbed area if the operator submits a reclamation plan 

that clearly demonstrates effects from the proposed actions can be adequately mitigated.

Stabilization efforts shall be completed within 30 days of the initiation of construction activities.

Reduce the area of disturbance to the absolute minimum necessary for construction and production operations while 

providing for the safety of personnel. Where possible, disturbance should be limited to the topping of shrubs and 

grasses. The operator should avoid off-road vehicle activity.

Where feasible, locate buried pipelines immediately adjacent to roads to avoid creating separate areas of disturbance and 

in order to reduce the total area of disturbance.

Reclamation shall not be conducted using frozen or saturated soil material.

Where possible, minimize disturbance to vegetated cut-and-fill areas on existing improved roads.
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

902 Oil and Gas BMPs (General Conditions of Approval)

Construction, drilling, completion, pipeline installation, interim or final reclamation activities shall not be performed 

during periods when the soil is too wet to adequately support equipment/vehicles. If such equipment/vehicles create ruts 

in excess of 3 inches deep, operations must cease as the soil will be deemed too wet to adequately support 

equipment/vehicles. If safety, disrepair, erosion and/or excessive rutting problems are discovered, the operator will be 

responsible to repair, improve and/or maintain the roads to assure safety, stability and to limit soil erosion/rutting.

Additional measures can be found in Appendix J, Reclamation.

Visual Resources

Minimizing potential visual impacts from pumpjack units should include consideration of whether a well can be 

relocated to take advantage of distance, vegetation, or topography to reduce its visibility or contrast with the 

characteristic landscape from the point of view of recreational use of BLM land. When it can be used, site selection can 

be critical (as is color choice) in reducing the contrast of a pumpjack unit.

Since the visual impact potential of a pumpjack unit depends on location, Visual Resource Management (VRM) land 

classification, and visibility from BLM land in and near recreation sites, a determination of impact would require 

analysis of the specific circumstances surrounding a well. This would occur when the operator submits an APD.

Submit a visual impact analysis of a well location on VRM Class II and III land as part of an APD. The analysis would 

use BLM’s VRM contrast rating system (BLM Manual Section 8431). The BLM at its option would investigate and 

analyze well locations; at its discretion, BLM may require an operator to move a facility up to 600 feet in order to reduce 

the impact to views of facilities from recreational sites on BLM land.

Incorporate appropriate environmental best management practices (BMPs) into APDs and associated rights-of-way to 

mitigate anticipated impacts to surface resources on VRM Class II lands and VRM Class III lands BLM 1994a; BLM 

1994b) in accordance with BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2007-021.

Wastes, Hazardous and Solid

Recycle drilling mud to the extent feasible.

Drilling mud could be provided to private landowners for use as stock pond sealant.

Use closed-loop systems with above-ground steel tankage for exotic drilling mud operations.

Recycle completion fluids to the extent feasible. 

Provide receptacles for trash and construction debris generated during construction and operations prior to transport in 

closed containers to a county sanitarian-approved landfill for disposal.

Recycle used oil and methanol to the extent feasible. 

Investigate the feasibility of using produced water in well drilling and completion processes.

Use lined produced-water evaporation pits at high-volume central facilities. 

To minimize undue exposure to hazardous situations, require measures that would preclude the public from entering 

hazardous areas and place warning signs alerting the public to truck traffic.

Institute a Hazard Communication Program for all operator employees and require subcontractor programs in accordance 

with OSHA 29 CFR 1910.1200. These programs are designed to educate and protect the employees and subcontractors 

with respect to any chemicals or hazardous substances that may be present in the workplace. As every chemical or 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas BMPs (General Conditions of Approval) 903

hazardous material is brought on location, require that a Material Safety Data Sheet accompany that material and become 

part of the file kept at the field office as required by 29 CFR 1910.1200. Ensure that all employees receive the proper 

training in storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous substances.

Inventory and report chemical and hazardous materials in accordance with the Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title III 40 CFR Part 335, if quantities exceeding 10,000 pounds or the threshold planning 

quantity (TPQ) are to be produced or stored in association with the proposed action. Submit the appropriate Section 311 

and 312 forms at the required times to the state and county emergency management coordinators and the local fire 

departments.

Transport and/or dispose of any hazardous wastes, as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 

in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations.

Design operations to severely limit or eliminate the need for extremely hazardous substances, and avoid the creation of 

hazardous wastes as defined by RCRA wherever possible.

Write and implement Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans as appropriate in accordance with 40 

CFR Part 112 to prevent discharge of oil into navigable waters of the United States.

Manage gas transmission system equipment maintenance fluids such as used oil and antifreeze through third-party or inhouse recyclers.

Implement the system-wide SPCC, expanded when necessary to cover new facilities, as required by the Clean Water Act 

(40 CFR 112.7).

Recycle methanol to minimize the need for disposal. 

Provide portable toilets for field operations.

Wildlife

Bald Eagle

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible within 1/2 mile of bald eagle nest sites that were 

active within the preceding 5 breeding seasons.

Bighorn Sheep Lambing

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible within bighorn sheep lambing areas.

Bighorn Sheep Range

Prior to surface-disturbing or disruptive activities a plan to maintain bighorn sheep habitat will be prepared by the 

proponent and implemented upon approval by the authorized officer. This plan shall address how short-term and longterm direct and indirect effects to bighorn sheep range will be mitigated based on current science and research.

Black-footed Ferret

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible within 1/4 mile of black-footed ferret habitat.
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

904 Oil and Gas BMPs (General Conditions of Approval)

Black-tailed Prairie Dog

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible within 1/4 mile of black-tailed prairie dog 

habitat.

Colonial Waterbirds

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible within 1/4 mile of a waterbird nesting colony. 

Additionally, surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided from April 1 through July 15 within 1/2 mile 

of a waterbird nesting colony.

Minimize or avoid disturbance near important nesting and foraging areas such as Nelson Reservoir, Whitewater Lake, 

Pea Lake, Hewitt Lake, and other areas identified by the BLM based on the most current information available.

Crucial Winter Range

Prior to surface-disturbing or disruptive activities a plan to maintain functionality of crucial winter range for big game 

and/or greater sage-grouse will be prepared by the proponent and implemented upon approval by the authorized officer. 

Within crucial winter range surface-disturbing or disruptive activities would be avoided if possible within 6/10 of a mile 

from any existing surface-disturbing or disruptive activity. The plan shall address how short-term and long-term direct 

and indirect effects to crucial winter range will be mitigated based on current science and research.

Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation

This lease area may now or hereafter contain plants, animals, or their habitats determined to be threatened, endangered, 

or other special status species. The BLM may recommend modifications to exploration and development proposals to 

further its conservation and management objective to avoid a BLM-approved activity that will contribute to a need to list 

such species or their habitat. The BLM may require modifications to or disapprove a proposed activity that is likely to 

result in jeopardy to the continued existence of a proposed or listed threatened or endangered species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of a designated or proposed critical habitat. The BLM will not approve any surfacedisturbing activity that may affect any such species or critical habitat until it completes its obligations under applicable 

requirements of the Endangered Species Act as amended, 16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq., including completion of any required 

procedure for conference or consultation.

Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Areas

Prior to surface-disturbing 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 would be avoided if possible within 6/10 of a mile from any existing 

surface-disturbing or disruptive activity. The plan shall address how short-term and long-term direct and indirect effects 

to important breeding (leks), nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering areas will be mitigated based on current science and 

research.

Greater Sage-Grouse Leks

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible within 1 mile of greater sage-grouse leks. This 

does not apply within the boundaries of the greater sage-grouse protection priority area.

Greater Sage-Grouse Nesting Habitat

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible within greater sage-grouse nesting habitat. 

Prior to surface-disturbing or disruptive activities a plan to maintain functionality of greater sage-grouse habitat will be 

prepared by the proponent and implemented upon approval by the authorized officer. This plan shall address how short-
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas BMPs (General Conditions of Approval) 905

term and long-term direct and indirect effects to nesting and brood-rearing areas will be mitigated based on current 

science and research.

Require a one-day notice prior to any planned activity so that the pad site and any undeveloped access route or pipeline 

can be nest-dragged to determine the presence or absence of active nests. Require a second nest-drag survey if drilling 

activity begins more than two days after completion of pad construction.

Prioritize pad development based on suitability of habitat; construct pads that are in less suitable habitat (i.e., along 

existing roadways or within degraded habitats) during the breeding season, and construct pads located in more suitable 

habitat prior to or after the critical breeding season.

Avoid sagebrush, but if disturbance is necessary, interim reclamation should include sage plantings/seedings and/or the 

use of minimum disturbance practices to protect sage on well pads and pipelines.

Manage produced water to reduce the spread of West Nile virus within sage-grouse habitat areas. Implement the 

following impoundment construction techniques and measures to eliminate water sources that support breeding 

mosquitoes:

 Overbuild the size of ponds to accommodate a greater volume of water than is discharged. This will result in 

non-vegetated and muddy shorelines that breeding mosquitoes avoid.

 Build steep shorelines to reduce shallow water and aquatic vegetation around the perimeter of impoundments. 

Construction of steep shorelines also will increase wave action that deters mosquito production.

 Maintain the water level below rooted vegetation for a muddy shoreline that is unfavorable habitat for mosquito 

larvae. Rooted vegetation includes both aquatic and upland vegetative types. Always avoid flooding terrestrial 

vegetation in flat terrain or low-lying areas.

 Use a horizontal pipe to discharge inflow directly into existing open water, thus precluding shallow surface 

inflow and accumulation of sediment that promotes aquatic vegetation.

 Fence pond sites to restrict access by livestock and other wild ungulates that trample and disturb shorelines, 

enrich sediments with manure, and create hoof print pockets of water that are attractive to breeding mosquitoes.

 Use adulticides to target adult mosquito populations and larvicides to control the hatching of mosquito larvae, 

using approved pesticides and utilizing licensed applicators with a Pesticide Use Plan.

Greater Sage-Grouse Protection Priority Area

Prior to surface-disturbing or disruptive activities a plan to maintain functionality of greater sage-grouse habitat will be 

prepared by the proponent and implemented upon approval by the authorized officer. Within the protection priority area 

surface-disturbing or disruptive activities will be avoided if possible within 6/10 of a mile from any existing surfacedisturbing or disruptive activity. The plan shall address how short-term and long-term direct and indirect effects to 

important breeding (leks), nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering areas will be mitigated based on current science and 

research.

Greater Sage-Grouse Winter Range 

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible from December 1 through March 31 in greater 

sage-grouse winter range.

Interior Least Tern

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible within 1/4 mile of interior least tern occupied 

habitat. 
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

906 Oil and Gas BMPs (General Conditions of Approval)

Mountain Plover

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible within mountain plover habitat. Additionally, 

surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible from April 1 through July 15 within 1/4 mile of 

mountain plover habitat.

Pallid Sturgeon 

Prior to surface-disturbing or disruptive activities occurring in or within 1/2 mile of river or stream shorelines identified 

as pallid sturgeon habitat, a plan to maintain pallid sturgeon habitat would be prepared by the proponent and 

implemented upon approval by the authorized officer.

Peregrine Falcon

Surface disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible within 1 mile of peregrine falcon nest sites 

active within the preceding 7 breeding seasons.

Piping Plover

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible within 1/4 mile of piping plover habitat.

Potential piping plover nesting habitat near drilling and construction sites at Nelson Reservoir and Whitewater Lake will 

be identified and appropriate surveys will be conducted for this species prior to oil and gas activities. A timing 

stipulation during the nesting season would protect nesting piping plovers, but would not protect the function and utility 

of the site for subsequent nesting activity or occupancy. Therefore, no surface occupancy would apply to all new 

developments as well as to modifications of existing developments within 1/4 mile of piping plover nest sites, piping 

plover nesting habitat, and designated critical habitat (critical habitat is on the Bowdoin NWR). This condition of 

approval will minimize threats and disturbances to piping plovers, and prevent fragmentation and degradation of piping 

plover nesting habitat and critical habitat. Waivers, exceptions, and modifications may apply if it is determined that the 

factors leading to its inclusion have changed sufficiently to make the protection provided by the condition of approval no 

longer justified, so long as the proposed operations would have “No Effect” on piping plovers and would not “Adversely 

Modify” piping plover critical habitat.

Raptors

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible within 1/4 mile of raptor nest sites that were 

active within the past 7 years. Additionally, surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided from March 1 

through July 31 within 1/2 mile of active raptor nest sites.

Install and maintain power line facilities to reduce raptor collisions and electrocutions, and discourage perching and nestbuilding on infrastructure.

Conduct nesting raptor surveys in suitable nesting habitats within 1/2 mile of proposed disturbance. Surveys could be 

conducted throughout the year; however, any potential nest sites located must be resurveyed during the breeding season 

to determine activity. Construction activities would be avoided within one mile of an active nest of listed or sensitive 

raptor species, and 1/2 to 3/4 mile (depending upon species or line of sight) of an active nest of other raptor species from 

March 1 through August 31, or until fledging and dispersal of the young. The nature of the restrictions and the 

protection radius would vary according to the raptor species involved and would be determined by the BLM.

Sharp-tailed Grouse Leks

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided within 1/4 mile of sharp-tailed grouse leks.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas BMPs (General Conditions of Approval) 907

Sharp-tailed Grouse Nesting Habitat

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible from March 15 through June 30 within 1/2 mile 

of sharp-tailed grouse nesting habitat.

Sprague’s Pipit

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible from April 15 through July 15 in Sprague’s 

pipit habitat.

Winter Range

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible from December 1 through May 15 within 

identified big game winter range. Within winter ranges, locate disturbances so that specific important vegetation types, 

as identified by the BLM, would be avoided where possible.

HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Bureau of Reclamation Lease Stipulations 909

Appendix E.3

Bureau of Reclamation Lease Stipulations

Form 3109-1

(December 1972)

(formerly 3103-1) LEASE STIPULATIONS

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

The lessee agrees to maintain, if required by the lessor during 

the period of this lease, including any extension thereof, an 

additional bond with qualified sureties in such sum as the lessor, 

if it considers that the bond required under Section 2(a) is 

insufficient, may at any time require:

 (a) to pay for damages sustained by any reclamation 

homestead entryman to his crops or improvements caused by 

drilling or other operations of the lessee, such damages to 

include the reimbursement of the entryman by the lessee, when 

he uses or occupies the land of any homestead entryman, for all 

construction and operation and maintenance charges becoming 

due during such use or occupation upon any portion of the land 

so used and occupied;

 (b) to pay any damage caused to any reclamation project or 

water supply thereof by the lessee's failure to comply fully with 

the requirements of this lease; and

 (c) to recompense any nonmineral applicant, entryman, 

purchaser under the Act of May 16, 1930 (46 Stat. 367), or 

patentee for all damages to crops or to tangible improvements 

caused by drilling or other prospecting operation, where any of 

the lands covered by this lease are embraced in any nonmineral 

application, entry, or patent under rights initiated prior to the 

date of this lease, with a reservation of the oil deposits, to the 

United States pursuant to the Act of July 17, 1914 (38 Stat. 

509).

As to any lands covered by this lease within the area of any 

Government reclamation project, or in proximity thereto, the 

lessee shall take such precautions as required by the irrigation 

under such project or to the water supply thereof; provided that 

drilling is prohibited on any constructed works or right-of-way of 

the Bureau of Reclamation, and provided, further, that there is 

reserved to the lessor, its successors and assigns, the superior 

and prior right at all times to construct, operate, and maintain 

dams, dikes, reservoirs, canals, wasteways, laterals, ditches, 

telephone and telegraph lines, electric transmission lines, 

roadways, appurtenant irrigation structures, and reclamation 

works, in which construction, operation, and maintenance, the 

lessor, its successors and assigns, shall have the right to use any 

or all of the lands herein described without making 

compensation therefor, and shall not be responsible for any 

damage from the presence of water thereon or on account of 

ordinary, extraordinary, unexpected , or unprecedented floods. 

That nothing shall be done under this lease to increase the cost 

of, or interfere in any manner with, the construction, operation, 

and maintenance of such works. It is agreed by the lessee that, 

if the construction of any or all of said dams, dikes, reservoirs, 

canals, wasteways, laterals, ditches, telephone or telegraph 

lines, electric transmission lines, roadways, appurtenant 

irrigation structures or reclamation works across, over, or upon 

said lands should be made more expensive by reason of the 

existence of the improvements and workings of the lessee 

thereon, said additional expense is to be estimated by the 

Secretary of the Interior, whose estimate is to be final and 

binding upon the parties hereto, and that within thirty (30) days 

after demand 

is made upon the lessee for payment of any such sums, the 

lessee will make payment thereof to the United States, or its 

successors, constructing such dams, dikes, reservoirs, canals, 

wasteways, laterals, ditches, telephone and telegraph lines, 

electric transmission lines, roadways, appurtenant irrigation 

structures, or reclamation works, across, over, or upon said 

lands; provided, however, that subject to advance written 

approval by the United States, the location and course of any 

improvements or works and appurtenances may be changed by 

the lessee; provided , further, that the reservations, 

agreements, and conditions contained in the within lease shall 

be and remain applicable notwithstanding any change in the 

location or course of said improvements or works of lessee. The 

lessee further agrees that the United States, its officers, agents, 

and employees, and its successors and assigns shall not be held 

liable for any damage to the improvements or workings of the 

lessee resulting from the construction, operation, and 

maintenance of any of the works hereinabove enumerated. 

Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as in any manner 

limiting other reservations in favor of the United States 

contained in this lease.

THE LESSEE FURTHER AGREES That there is reserved to the 

lessor, its successors and assigns, the prior right to use any of 

the lands herein leased, to construct, operate, and maintain 

dams, dikes, reservoirs, canals, wasteways, laterals, ditches, 

telephone and telegraph lines, electric transmission lines, 

roadways, or appurtenant irrigation structures, and also the 

right to remove construction materials therefrom, without any 

payment made by the lessor or its successors for such right, with 

the agreement on the part of the lessee that if the construction 

of any or all of such dams, dikes, reservoirs, canals, wasteways, 

laterals, ditches, telephone and telegraph lines, electric 

transmission lines, roadways, or appurtenant irrigation 

structures across, over, or upon said lands or the removal of 

construction materials therefrom, should be made more 

expensive by reason of the existence of improvements or 

workings of the lessee thereon, such additional expense is to be 

estimated by the Secretary of the Interior, whose estimate is to 

be final and binding upon the parties hereto, and that within 

thirty (30) days after demand is made upon the lessee for 

payment of any such sums, the lessee will make payment 

thereof to the United States or its successors constructing such 

dams, dikes, reservoirs, canals, wasteways, laterals, ditches, 

telephone and telegraph lines, electric transmission lines, 

roadways, or appurtenant irrigation structures across, over, or 

upon said lands or removing construction materials therefrom. 

The lessee further agrees that the lessor, its officers, agents, 

and employees and its successors and assigns shall not be held 

liable for any damage to the improvements or workings of the 

lessee resulting from the construction, operation, and 

maintenance of any of the works herein above enumerated. 

Nothing contained in this paragraph shall be construed as in any 

manner limiting other reservations in favor of the lessor 

contained in this lease.
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

910 Bureau of Reclamation Lease Stipulations

To insure against the contamination of the waters of the Reservoir,

 Project, State of , the lessee agrees that

the following further conditions shall apply to all drilling and operations on lands covered by this lease, 

which lie within the flowage or drainage area of the Reservoir, as such area

is defined by the Bureau of Reclamation: 

1. The drilling sites for any and all wells shall be approved by the Superintendent, 

Bureau of Reclamation, Project, before

drilling begins. Sites for the construction of pipe-line rights-of-way or other authorized facilities shall also 

be approved by the Superintendent before construction begins.

2. All drilling or operation methods or equipment shall, before their employment, 

be inspected and approved by the Superintendent of the Project,

 , and by the supervisor of the U.S. Geological Survey having jurisdiction over the area.

GPO 854-703

PARCEL NO.

BOR 17-1
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Bureau of Reclamation Lease Stipulations 911

GP-135

(02/03)

SPECIAL STIPULATION - BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

To avoid interference with recreation development and/or impacts to fish and wildlife habitat and to assist in preventing damage to any 

Bureau of Reclamation dams, reservoirs, canals, ditches, laterals, tunnels, and related facilities, and contamination of the water supply 

therein, the lessee agrees that the following conditions shall apply to all exploration and developmental activities and other operation of 

the works thereafter on lands covered by this lease:

1. Prior to commencement of any surface-disturbing work including drilling, access road work, and well location construction, a 

surface use and operations plan will be filed with the appropriate officials. A copy of this plan will be furnished to the Regional Director, 

Great Plains Region, Bureau of Reclamation, P.O. Box 36900, Billings, MT 59107-6900, for review and consent prior to approval of the 

plan. Such approval will be conditioned on reasonable requirements needed to prevent soil erosion, water pollution, and unnecessary 

damages to the surface vegetation and other resources, including cultural resources, of the United States, its lessees, permittees, or 

licensees, and to provide for the restoration of the land surface and vegetation. The plan shall contain provisions as the Bureau of 

Reclamation may deem necessary to maintain proper management of the water, recreation, lands structures, and resources, including 

cultural resources, within the prospecting, drilling, or construction area.

 Drilling sites for all wells and associated investigations such as seismograph work shall be included in the above-mentioned 

surface use and operation plan.

 If later explorations require departure from or additions to the approved plan, these revisions or amendments, together with a 

justification statement for proposed revisions, will be submitted for approval to the Regional Director, Great Plains Region, Bureau of 

Reclamation, or his authorized representative.

Any operations conducted in advance of approval of an original, revised, or amended prospecting plan, or which are not in 

accordance with an approved plan constitute a violation of the terms of this lease. The Bureau of Reclamation reserves the right to close 

down operations until such corrective action, as is deemed necessary, is taken by the lessee.

2. No occupancy of the surface of the following excluded areas is authorized by this lease. It is understood and agreed that 

the use of these areas for Bureau of Reclamation purposes is superior to any other use. The following restrictions apply only to mineral 

tracts located within the boundary of a Bureau of Reclamation project where the United States owns 100 percent of the fee mineral 

interest.

a. Within 500 feet on either side of the centerline of any and all roads or highways within the leased area.

b. Within 200 feet on either side of the centerline of any and all trails within the leased area.

c. Within 500 feet of the normal high-water line of any and all live streams in the leased area.

d. Within 400 feet of any and all recreation developments within the leased area.

e. Within 400 feet of any improvements either owned, permitted, leased, or otherwise authorized by the Bureau of

Reclamation within the leased area.

f. Within 200 feet of established crop fields, food plots, and tree/shrub plantings within the leased area.

g. Within 200 feet of slopes steeper than a 2:1 gradient within the leased area.

h. Within established rights-of-way of canals, laterals, and drainage ditches within the leased area.

i. Within a minimum of 500 feet horizontal from the centerline of the facility or 50 feet from the outside toe of the canal, 

lateral, or drain embankment, whichever distance is greater, for irrigation facilities without clearly marked rights-of-way within the leased 

area.

j. Providing that appropriate environmental compliance measures can be ensured, and providing further that Reclamation 

project works and other public interests can be protected, Reclamation may consider, on a case-by-case basis, waiving the requirement 

specified in Section 2 hereof. HOWEVER, LESSEES ARE ADVISED THAT OBTAINING SUCH A WAIVER CAN BE A DIFFICULT, 

TIME CONSUMING, AND COSTLY PROCESS WITH NO GUARANTEE THAT RECLAMATION WILL GRANT THE REQUESTED 

WAIVER.
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

912 Bureau of Reclamation Lease Stipulations

3. No occupancy of the surface or surface drilling will be allowed in the following areas. In addition, no directional drilling will 

be allowed that would intersect the subsurface zones delineated by a vertical plane in these areas. The following restrictions apply only 

to mineral tracts located within the boundary of a Bureau of Reclamation project, where the United States owns 100 percent of the fee 

mineral interest in said tract, or tracts.

a. Within 1,000 feet of the maximum water surface, as defined in the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), of any 

reservoirs and related facilities located within the leased area.

b. Within 2,000 feet of dam embankments and appurtenance structures such as spillway structures, outlet works, etc.

c. Within one-half (1/2) mile horizontal from the centerline of any tunnel within the leased area.

d. Providing that appropriate environmental compliance measures can be ensured, and providing further that Reclamation 

project works and other public interests can be protected. Reclamation may consider, on a case-by-case basis, waiving the requirements 

specifies in Section 3 hereof. HOWEVER, LESSEES ARE ADVISED THAT OBTAINING SUCH A WAIVER CAN BE A DIFFICULT, 

TIME CONSUMING, AND COSTLY PROCESS WITH NO GUARANTEE THAT RECLAMATION WILL GRANT THE REQUESTED 

WAIVER.

4. The distances stated in items 2 and 3 above are intended to be general indicators only. The Bureau of Reclamation 

reserves the right to revise these distances as needed to protect Bureau of Reclamation facilities.

5. The use of explosives in any manner shall be so controlled that the works and facilities of the United States, its successors 

and assigns, will in no way be endangered or damaged. In this connection, an explosives use plan shall be submitted to and approved 

by the Regional Director, Great Plains Region, Bureau of Reclamation, or his/her authorized representative.

6. The lessee shall be liable for all damage to the property of the United States, its successors or assigns, resulting from the 

exploration, development, or operation of the works contemplated by this lease, and shall further hold the United States, its successors or 

assigns, and its officers, agents, and employees, harmless from all claims of third parties for injury or damage sustained or in any way 

resulting from the exercise of the rights and privileges conferred by the lease.

7. The lessee shall be liable for all damages to crops or improvements of any entryman, nonmineral applicant, or patentee, 

their successors or assigns, caused by or resulting from the drilling or other operations of the lessee, including reimbursement of any 

entryman or patentee, their successors or assigns, for all construction, operation, and maintenance charges becoming due on any 

portion of their said lands damaged as a result of the drilling or other operation of the lessee.

8. In addition to any other bond required under the provisions of this lease, the lessee shall provide such bond as the United 

States may at any time require for damages which may arise under the liability provisions of Section six (6) and seven (7) above.

PARCEL NO.

BOR 17-2
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria 913

Appendix E.4

Oil and Gas Stipulations and

Exception, Modification, and Waiver Criteria

“A stipulation included in an oil and gas lease shall be subject to modification or waiver only if the authorized officer 

determines that the factors leading to its inclusion in the lease have changed sufficiently to make the protection provided 

by the stipulation no longer justified or if proposed operations would not cause unacceptable impacts. If the authorized 

officer has determined, prior to lease issuance, that a stipulation involves an issue of major concern to the public, 

modification or waiver of the stipulation shall be subject to public review for at least a 30-day period. In such cases, the 

stipulation shall indicate that public review is required before modification or waiver. If subsequent to lease issuance 

the authorized officer determines that a modification or waiver of a lease term or stipulation is substantial, the 

modification or waiver shall be subject to public review for at least a 30-day period.” (43 CFR 3101.1-4)

The purpose of this appendix is to provide the stipulations that would be applied to future leases within the 

planning area under each alternative. 

Exceptions, Modifications, and Waivers

Any requests for exceptions, modifications, and waivers from the stipulations would be processed by the appropriate 

BLM office. The requests for exceptions must be initiated in writing by the operator near the time that the work is 

proposed to be initiated. This requirement is in place due to the unpredictability of weather, animal movement and 

condition, etc. The analysis of a request will typically include the review of potential mitigation measures and 

alternatives (traffic restrictions, alternative scheduling, staged activity, etc.). The request is considered as a unique action 

and is analyzed and documented individually for RMP and NEPA compliance. 

The definitions for exceptions, modifications, and waivers are as follows:

Exception – A one-time exemption for a particular site within the leasehold; exceptions are determined on a case-bycase basis; the stipulation continues to apply to all other sites within the leasehold. An exception is a limited type of 

waiver.

Modification – A change to the provisions of a lease stipulation, either temporarily or for the term of the lease. 

Depending on the specific modification, the stipulation may or may not apply to all sites within the leasehold to which 

the restrictive criteria are applied.

Waiver – A permanent exemption from a lease stipulation. The stipulation no longer applies anywhere within the 

leasehold.

Process for Reviewing and Approving an Exception to, Waiver of, or Modification to a 

Stipulation on a Lease That Has Been Issued (WO IM No. 2008-32)

The authorized officer generally requires the operator to submit a written request for an exception, waiver, or 

modification and information demonstrating that (1) the factors leading to the inclusion of the stipulation in the lease 

have changed sufficiently to make the protection provided by the lease stipulation no longer justified or (2) that the 

proposed operation would not cause unacceptable impacts. Requests from the operator should contain, at a minimum, a 

plan including related on-site or off-site mitigation efforts, to adequately protect affected resources; data collection and 

monitoring efforts; and timeframes for initiation and completion of construction, drilling, and completion operations. 

The operator’s request may be included in an APD, Notice of Staking, Sundry Notice, or letter. The BLM may also 

proactively initiate the process.
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

914 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

During the review process, BLM coordination with other state or federal agencies should be undertaken, as appropriate, 

and documented. For example, it may be appropriate to coordinate the review of wildlife exceptions, waivers, and

modifications with the local office of the State wildlife agency. The BLM will also consult with the federal Surface 

Management Agency if other than the BLM.

The BLM staff’s review and recommendations should be documented along with any necessary mitigation and provided 

to the authorized officer for approval or disapproval. The applicant is then provided with a written notification of the

decision. Decisions on exceptions, waivers, and modifications are subject to administrative review by the State Director 

and thereafter may be appealed to the Interior Board of Land Appeals pursuant to 43 CFR Part 4. However, decisions on 

exceptions, waivers, and modifications submitted by the operator after drilling has commenced are final for the 

Department of the Interior and not subject to administrative review by the State Director or appeal pursuant to 43 CFR 

Part 4. 

After drilling has commenced, the BLM may consider verbal requests for, and grant verbal approvals of, exceptions, 

waivers, or modifications. However, the operator must submit a written notice within 7 days after the verbal request. 

The BLM must also confirm verbal approvals in writing. This requirement is provided for in Onshore Oil and Gas Order 

No. 1. Operators should not be encouraged to submit requests unless the delay in completing the well was due to

unforeseen circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the operator or a serious economic or a public health and 

safety problem could result from denial of the request.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria 915

Alternative A (Current Management)

Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations

(Form MT-3109-1)

Esthetics – To maintain esthetic values, all surface-disturbing activities, semi-permanent and permanent facilities may 

require special design including location, painting and camouflage to blend with the natural surroundings and meet the 

intent of the visual quality objectives of the federal Surface Management Agency (SMA).

Erosion Control – Surface-disturbing activities may be prohibited during muddy and/or wet soil periods. This 

limitation does not apply to operation and maintenance of producing wells using authorized roads.

Controlled or Limited Surface Use Stipulation – This stipulation may be modified by special stipulations which are 

hereto attached or when specifically approved in writing by the Bureau of Land Management with concurrence of the 

SMA. Distances and/or time periods may be made less restrictive depending on the actual onground conditions. The 

prospective lessee should contact the SMA for more specific locations and information regarding the restrictive nature of 

this stipulation. 

The lessee/operator is given notice that the lands within this lease may include special areas and that such areas may 

contain special values, may be needed for special purposes, or may require special attention to prevent damage to surface 

and/or other resources. Possible special areas are identified below. Any surface use or occupancy within such special 

areas will be strictly controlled, or if absolutely necessary, excluded. Use or occupancy will be restricted only when the 

Bureau of Land Management and/or the SMA demonstrates the restriction necessary for the protection of such special 

areas and existing or planned uses. Appropriate modifications to imposed restrictions will be made for the maintenance 

and operations of producing oil and gas wells. 

After the SMA has been advised of specific proposed surface use or occupancy on the leased lands, and on request of the 

lessee/operator, the Agency will furnish further data on any special areas which may include:

100 feet from the edge of the rights-of-way from highways, designated county roads and appropriate federallyowned or controlled roads and recreation trails.

500 feet from, or when necessary, within the 25-year flood plain from reservoirs, lakes, and ponds and intermittent, 

ephemeral or small perennial streams; 1,000 feet from, or when necessary, within the 100-year flood plain from 

larger perennial streams, rivers, and domestic water supplies.

500 feet from grouse strutting grounds. Special care to avoid nesting areas associated with strutting grounds will be 

necessary during the period from March 1 to June 30; 1/4 mile from identified essential habitat of state and federal 

sensitive species; wildlife winter ranges during the period from December 1 to May 15; and in elk calving areas 

during the period from May 1 to June 30.

300 feet from occupied buildings, developed recreational areas, undeveloped recreational areas receiving 

concentrated public use, and sites eligible for or designated as National Register sites.

Seasonal road closures, roads for special uses, specified roads during heavy traffic periods, and on areas having 

restrictive off-road vehicle designations.

On slopes over 30%, or 20% on extremely erodible or slumping soils.

Notice for Cultural and Paleontological Resources – The federal SMA is responsible for assuring that the leased lands 

are examined to determine if cultural resources are present and to specify mitigation measures. Prior to undertaking any 

surface-disturbing activities on the lands covered by this lease, the lessee or operator, unless notified to the contrary by 

the SMA, shall:
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

916 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

1. Contact the appropriate SMA to determine if a site-specific cultural resource inventory is required. If an 

inventory is required, then;

2. Engage the services of a cultural resource specialist acceptable to the SMA to conduct a cultural resource 

inventory of the area of proposed surface disturbance. The operator may elect to inventory an area larger than 

the area of proposed disturbance to cover possible site relocation which may result from environmental or other 

considerations. An acceptable inventory report is to be submitted to the SMA for review and approval no later 

than that time when an otherwise complete application for approval of drilling or subsequent surface-disturbing 

operation is submitted.

3. Implement mitigation measures required by the SMA. Mitigation may include the relocation of proposed leaserelated activities or other protective measures such as testing salvage and recordation. Where impacts to 

cultural resources cannot be mitigated to the satisfaction of the SMA, surface occupancy on that area must be 

prohibited.

The lessee or operator shall immediately bring to the attention of the SMA any cultural or paleontological resources 

discovered as a result of approved operations under this lease, and not disturb such discoveries until directed to proceed 

by the SMA.

Notice for Endangered or Threatened Species – The SMA is responsible for assuring that the leased land is examined 

prior to undertaking any surface-disturbing activities to determine effects upon any plant or animal species, listed or 

proposed for listing as endangered or threatened, or their habitats. The findings of this examination may result in some 

restrictions to the operator’s plans or even disallow use and occupancy that would be in violation of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1983 by detrimentally affecting endangered or threatened species or their habitats.

The lessee/operator may, unless notified by the authorized officer of the SMA that the examination is not necessary, 

conduct the examination on the leased lands at his discretion and cost. This examination must be done by or under the 

supervision of a qualified resources specialist approved by the SMA. An acceptable report must be provided to the SMA

identifying the anticipated effects of a proposed action on endangered or threatened species or their habitats.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria 917

Alternative B

Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations

Resource: National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Eligible Properties/Districts – No 

Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Occupancy and use is prohibited within the boundaries of cultural properties and archaeological/

historic districts determined to be eligible or potentially eligible to the National Register of Historic 

Places. This includes cultural properties designated for conservation use, scientific use, traditional use, 

public use, and experimental use. 

Objective: To protect significant cultural properties and archaeological districts and their settings, and to avoid 

disturbance or inadvertent impacts to these resources. 

Exception: None. 

Modification: None.

Waiver: None. 

Resource: Cultural Resource Survey

Stipulation: An inventory of those portions of the leased lands subject to proposed disturbance may be required 

prior to any surface disturbance to determine if cultural resources are present and to identify needed 

mitigation measures. Prior to undertaking any surface-disturbing activities on the lands covered by 

this lease, the lessee or operator shall: 

1. Engage the services of a cultural resource consultant acceptable to the Surface Management 

Agency (SMA) to conduct a cultural resource inventory of the area of proposed surface 

disturbance. The operator may elect to inventory an area larger than the standard ten-acre 

minimum to cover possible site relocation which may result from environmental or other 

considerations. An acceptable inventory report is to be submitted to the SMA for review and 

approval no later than that time when an otherwise complete application for approval of 

drilling or subsequent surface-disturbing operation is submitted.

2. Implement mitigation measures required by the SMA. Mitigation may include the relocation 

of proposed lease-related activities or other protective measures such as data recovery and 

extensive recordation. Where impacts to cultural resources cannot be mitigated to the 

satisfaction of the SMA, surface occupancy on that area must be prohibited. The lessee or 

operator shall immediately bring to the attention of the SMA any cultural resources 

discovered as a result of approved operations under this lease, and shall not disturb such 

discoveries until directed to proceed by the SMA.

Objective: Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is required for all actions 

which may affect cultural properties eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. Section 6 of 

the Oil and Gas Lease Terms (Form 3100-11) requires that operations be conducted in a manner that 

minimizes adverse impacts to cultural and other resources. 

Exception: None. 

Modification: None. 
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

918 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

Waiver: None. 

Resource: Cultural Resources and Tribal Consultation

Stipulation: This lease may be found to contain historic properties and/or resources protected under the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act, E.O. 13007, or other statutes and executive orders. The BLM will not 

approve any surface-disturbing activities that may affect any such properties or resources until it 

completes its obligations under applicable requirements of the NHPA and other authorities. The BLM 

may require modification to exploration or development proposals to protect such properties, or 

disapprove any activity that is likely to result in adverse effects that cannot be successfully avoided, 

minimized or mitigated.

Objective: To protect significant historic properties and resources. 

Exception: None. 

Modification: None.

Waiver: None. 

Resource: Paleontological Resources – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within designated paleontological sites/locales. 

Objective: To preserve and protect significant vertebrate fossils and paleontological locales. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the lessee or operator submits a plan which 

demonstrates that the adverse impacts to significant paleontological resources can be mitigated through 

recovery and extensive recordation. Where impacts to paleontological resources cannot be mitigated 

to the satisfaction of the surface management agency (SMA), surface occupancy on that area must be 

prohibited.

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the designated paleontological site/locale can be occupied without adversely affecting the 

resource values. 

Waiver: None.

Resource: Paleontological Resource Inventory

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

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

paleontological inventory. The lessee must engage the services of a qualified paleontologist, 

acceptable to the surface management agency (SMA), to conduct the inventory. An acceptable 

inventory report is to be submitted to the SMA for review and approval at the time a surface-disturbing 

plan of operations is submitted. 

Objective: To preserve and protect scientifically significant vertebrate fossils and paleontological locales. 

Exception: An exception may be granted if the area has already been inventoried for paleontological resources. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria 919

Modification: None.

Waiver: None. 

Resource: Recreation Sites – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of recreation sites. 

Objective: To recognize and protect the public’s opportunity for quality recreation experiences at those sites 

developed for that purpose. Since BLM recreation sites are generally developed to support the use of 

the surrounding lands, the 1/4 provides protection for perpetuating those opportunities for which the 

site was developed, reduces the visual intrusion and noise, and protects capital investments at the site. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if a site is moved or eliminated. 

Modification: The list of recreation sites may be modified if a site is removed, or if a site is developed in the future.

Waiver: A waiver may be granted if a site is moved or eliminated. 

Resource: National Historic Trails – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of designated National Historic Trails. 

Designated National Historic Trails include the Lewis and Clark Trail and the Nez Perce Trail. 

Objective: To preserve and protect designated National Historic Trails and the natural setting in which they occur.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan demonstrating that 

impacts to the area and its users can be adequately mitigated.

Modification: No modifications will be granted unless effects of the action will not be apparent to users along the 

trail.

Waiver: A waiver may be granted if impacts can be mitigated so that area values and user experiences are not 

negatively affected.

Resource: Residential Structures – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of incorporated city limits or residential 

structures. 

Objective: To ensure a proper distance between development and human occupation for health and safety 

purposes. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the public’s health and safety. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold can be 

occupied without adversely affecting the public’s health and safety. 
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

920 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

Resource: Sensitive Soils – No Surface Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited on sensitive soils, badlands, rock outcrop, or slopes 

susceptible to mass failure.

Objective: To maintain the chemical, physical, and biotic properties of sensitive soils and avoid landforms and 

areas that are the most difficult and costly to stabilize and successfully reclaim to standards... This 

includes maintaining soil productivity, soil structure, soil stability, and soil biotic communities. This 

would prevent excessive erosion and avoid areas with the potential for excessive reclamation 

problems.

Exception: The authorizing officer may grant an exception to this stipulation for pipelines if the operator submits a 

reclamation plan that clearly demonstrates effects from the proposed actions can be adequately 

mitigated. An exception may also be granted if an activity would occur on a previously disturbed area 

if the operator submits a reclamation plan that clearly demonstrates effects from the proposed actions 

can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The area affected by this stipulation may be modified by the authorized officer if it is determined that 

portions of the area do not include sensitive soils, badlands, rock outcrop, or slopes susceptible to mass 

failure. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived by the authorized officer if it is determined that none of the leasehold 

contains sensitive soils, badlands, rock outcrop, or slopes susceptible to mass failure. 

Resource: Big Bend of the Milk River ACEC – No Surface Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within the Big Bend of the Milk River ACEC. 

Objective: To provide the protection needed in order to preserve the qualities that prompted the BLM to designate 

this area as an ACEC. 

Exception: None.

Modification: None.

Waiver: None.

Resource: Kevin Rim ACEC – No Surface Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within the Kevin Rim ACEC. 

Objective: To provide the protection needed in order to preserve the qualities that prompted the BLM to designate 

this area as an ACEC. 

Exception: None.

Modification: None.

Waiver: None.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria 921

Resource: Malta Geological ACEC – Controlled Surface Use

Stipulation: Prior to any surface-disturbing activity in the Malta Geological ACEC the lessee shall be required to 

conduct a paleontological inventory. The lessee must engage the services of a qualified paleontologist, 

acceptable to the surface management agency, to conduct the inventory. An acceptable inventory 

report is to be submitted to the BLM for review and approval at the time a surface-disturbing plan of 

operations is submitted. 

Objective: To provide the protection needed in order to preserve the qualities that prompted the BLM to designate 

this area as an ACEC.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the qualities of the ACEC. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold can be 

occupied without adversely affecting the qualities of the ACEC.

Resource: Mountain Plover ACEC – No Surface Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within the Mountain Plover ACEC. 

Objective: To provide the protection needed in order to preserve the qualities that prompted the BLM to designate 

this area as an ACEC. 

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the authorized officer if the operator submits a plan 

that demonstrates the impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the qualities of the ACEC. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold can be 

occupied without adversely affecting the qualities of the ACEC. 

Resource: Sweet Grass Hills ACEC – No Surface Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within the Sweet Grass Hills ACEC. 

Objective: To provide the protection needed in order to preserve the qualities that prompted the BLM to designate 

this area as an ACEC. 

Exception: None.

Modification: None.

Waiver: None.

Resource: Zortman/Landusky Mine Reclamation ACEC – No Surface Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within the Zortman/Landusky Mine Reclamation ACEC. 
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

922 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

Objective: To provide the protection needed in order to preserve the qualities that prompted the BLM to designate 

this area as an ACEC. 

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the authorized officer if the operator submits a plan 

that demonstrates the impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the qualities of the ACEC. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold can be 

occupied without adversely affecting the qualities of the ACEC. 

Resource: Water, Riparian, and Wetlands – No Surface Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within and 1/4 mile from lentic or lotic riparian areas.

Objective: To maintain riparian/wetland functions and water quality. 

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the authorized officer if the operator submits a plan 

that demonstrates the impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the riparian/wetland resource. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold can be 

occupied without adversely affecting the riparian/wetland resource. 

Resource: Colonial Waterbirds – Timing Limitation 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1 mile of a waterbird nesting colony from April 1 

through July 15.

Objective: To protect colonial waterbirds and to maintain colonial waterbird populations. 

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted if the authorized officer determines that portions of the 

area can be occupied without adversely affecting waterbird nesting colonies. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting waterbird nesting colonies. The 

authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual 

habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold is no 

longer capable of supporting nesting waterbirds. 

Resource: Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation

Stipulation: This lease area may now or hereafter contain plants, animals, or their habitats determined to be 

threatened, endangered, or other special status species. The BLM may recommend modifications to 

exploration and development proposals to further its conservation and management objective to avoid 

a BLM-approved activity that will contribute to a need to list such species or their habitat. The BLM 

may require modifications to or disapprove a proposed activity that is likely to result in jeopardy to the 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria 923

continued existence of a proposed or listed threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction 

or adverse modification of a designated or proposed critical habitat. The BLM will not approve any 

surface-disturbing activity that may affect any such species or critical habitat until it completes its 

obligations under applicable requirements of the Endangered Species Act as amended, 16 U.S.C. 

§1531 et seq., including completion of any required procedure for conference or consultation.

Objective: To protect threatened, endangered species, or special status species. 

Exception: None. 

Modification: None.

Waiver: None. 

Resource: Mountain Plover – Timing Limitation 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/2 mile of mountain plover habitat from April 1 

through July 31. 

Objective: To protect mountain plover habitat and to maintain mountain plover populations. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if portions of the area can be occupied without 

adversely affecting mountain plover habitat. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting mountain plover habitat. The 

authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual 

habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold is no 

longer mountain plover habitat. 

Resource: Raptors – Timing Limitation 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1 mile of active raptor nest sites from March 1 through 

September 1. 

Objective: To maintain the reproductive potential of raptor nest sites. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the production potential of raptor nest 

sites. The authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies 

documenting actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains a raptor nest or has a nest that has not been active in 7 years. 
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

924 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

Resource: Sharp-tailed Grouse Nesting Habitat – Timing Limitation 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1 mile of sharp-tailed grouse leks from March 15

through June 30.

Objective: To protect sharp-tailed grouse nesting habitat necessary for long-term maintenance of sharp-tailed 

grouse populations. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the sharp-tailed grouse populations. 

The authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting 

actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains sharp-tailed grouse nesting habitat. 

Resource: Special Status Species – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of essential habitat of special status species 

unless other species-specific stipulations apply.

Objective: To protect special status species habitat and to maintain regional wildlife populations. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated.

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting special status species habitat. The 

authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual 

habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains special status species habitat.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria 925

Alternative C

Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations

Resource: National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Eligible Properties/Districts – No 

Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Occupancy and use is prohibited within the boundaries of cultural properties and archaeological/

historic districts determined to be eligible or potentially eligible to the National Register of Historic 

Places. This includes cultural properties designated for conservation use, scientific use, traditional use, 

public use, and experimental use. 

Objective: To protect significant cultural properties and archaeological districts and their settings, and to avoid 

disturbance or inadvertent impacts to these resources. 

Exception: None. 

Modification: None.

Waiver: None. 

Resource: Cultural Resource Survey

Stipulation: An inventory of those portions of the leased lands subject to proposed disturbance may be required 

prior to any surface disturbance to determine if cultural resources are present and to identify needed 

mitigation measures. Prior to undertaking any surface-disturbing activities on the lands covered by 

this lease, the lessee or operator shall: 

1. Engage the services of a cultural resource consultant acceptable to the Surface Management 

Agency (SMA) to conduct a cultural resource inventory of the area of proposed surface 

disturbance. The operator may elect to inventory an area larger than the standard ten-acre 

minimum to cover possible site relocation which may result from environmental or other 

considerations. An acceptable inventory report is to be submitted to the SMA for review and 

approval no later than that time when an otherwise complete application for approval of 

drilling or subsequent surface-disturbing operation is submitted. 

2. Implement mitigation measures required by the SMA. Mitigation may include the relocation 

of proposed lease-related activities or other protective measures such as data recovery and 

extensive recordation. Where impacts to cultural resources cannot be mitigated to the 

satisfaction of the SMA, surface occupancy on that area must be prohibited. The lessee or 

operator shall immediately bring to the attention of the SMA any cultural resources 

discovered as a result of approved operations under this lease, and shall not disturb such 

discoveries until directed to proceed by the SMA. 

Objective: Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is required for all actions 

which may affect cultural properties eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. Section 6 of 

the Oil and Gas Lease Terms (Form 3100-11) requires that operations be conducted in a manner that 

minimizes adverse impacts to cultural and other resources. 

Exception: None. 

Modification: None. 
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

926 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

Waiver: None. 

Resource: Cultural Resources and Tribal Consultation

Stipulation: This lease may be found to contain historic properties and/or resources protected under the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act, E.O. 13007, or other statutes and executive orders. The BLM will not 

approve any surface-disturbing activities that may affect any such properties or resources until it 

completes its obligations under applicable requirements of the NHPA and other authorities. The BLM 

may require modification to exploration or development proposals to protect such properties, or 

disapprove any activity that is likely to result in adverse effects that cannot be successfully avoided,

minimized or mitigated.

Objective: To protect significant historic properties and resources. 

Exception: None. 

Modification: None.

Waiver: None. 

Resource: Paleontological Resources – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within designated paleontological sites/locales. 

Objective: To preserve and protect significant vertebrate fossils and paleontological locales. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the lessee or operator submits a plan which 

demonstrates that the adverse impacts to significant paleontological resources can be mitigated through 

recovery and extensive recordation. Where impacts to paleontological resources cannot be mitigated 

to the satisfaction of the surface management agency (SMA), surface occupancy on that area must be 

prohibited. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the designated paleontological site/locale can be occupied without adversely affecting the 

resource values. 

Waiver: None.

Resource: Paleontological Resource Inventory

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

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

paleontological inventory. The lessee must engage the services of a qualified paleontologist, 

acceptable to the surface management agency (SMA), to conduct the inventory. An acceptable 

inventory report is to be submitted to the SMA for review and approval at the time a surface-disturbing 

plan of operations is submitted. 

Objective: To preserve and protect scientifically significant vertebrate fossils and paleontological locales. 

Exception: An exception may be granted if the area has already been inventoried for paleontological resources. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria 927

Modification: None.

Waiver: None. 

Resource: Recreation Sites – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within and 500 feet from recreation sites. 

Objective: To recognize and protect the public’s opportunity for quality recreation experiences at those sites 

developed for recreation. Since BLM recreation sites are generally developed to support the use of the 

surrounding lands, the 500 feet provides protection for perpetuating those opportunities for which the 

site was developed, reduces the visual intrusion and noise, and protects capital investments at the site. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if a site is moved or eliminated. 

Modification: The list of recreation sites may be modified if a site is removed, or if a site is developed in the future. 

Waiver: A waiver may be granted if a site is moved or eliminated. 

Resource: National Historic Trails – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of designated National Historic Trails. 

Designated National Historic Trails include the Lewis and Clark Trail and the Nez Perce Trail. 

Objective: To preserve and protect designated National Historic Trails and the natural setting in which they occur.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan demonstrating that 

impacts to the area and its users can be adequately mitigated.

Modification: No modifications will be granted unless effects of the action will not be apparent to users along the 

trail.

Waiver: A waiver may be granted if impacts can be mitigated so that area values and user experiences are not 

negatively affected.

Resource: Residential Structures – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 500 feet of incorporated city limits or residential 

structures. 

Objective: To ensure a proper distance between development and human occupation for health and safety 

purposes. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the public’s health and safety. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold can be 

occupied without adversely affecting the public’s health and safety. 
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

928 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

Resource: Sensitive Soils – Controlled Surface Use 

Stipulation: Prior to any surface disturbance on sensitive soils a reclamation plan must be approved by the 

authorized officer. The plan must demonstrate that no other practicable alternatives exist for relocating 

the activity. The plan must include a detailed description of how the activity would: (1) control wind 

and water erosion; (2) control surface runoff; (3) minimize sediment production; (4) maintain site 

productivity; and (5) complete reclamation. The plan will consider avoidance, size limitations, timing 

restrictions (e.g. limiting wet condition road usage), physical mitigation, and off-site mitigation. 

Sensitive soils are defined as those with severe erosion ratings (wind and water).

Objective: To maintain the chemical, physical, and biotic properties of sensitive soils. This includes maintaining 

soil productivity, soil structure, soil stability, and soil biotic communities. This would prevent 

excessive erosion and avoid areas with the potential for excessive reclamation problems.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception to this stipulation if the operator can demonstrate that 

the activity would not contribute to degradation of the soil resource or down slope resource conditions.

Modification: The area affected by this stipulation may be modified by the authorized officer if it is determined that 

portions of the lease area do not contain sensitive soils.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived by the authorized officer if it is determined that the entire lease area 

does not contain sensitive soils.

Resource: Badlands, Rock Outcrop, or Slopes Susceptible to Mass Failure – No Surface 

Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface use and occupancy is prohibited on badlands, rock outcrop, and slopes susceptible to mass 

failure.

Objective: To avoid landforms and areas that are the most difficult and costly to stabilize and successfully reclaim

to standards.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception to this stipulation if the operator submits a reclamation 

plan that clearly demonstrates effects from the proposed actions can be adequately mitigated. An 

exception may also be granted if an activity would occur on a previously disturbed area if the operator 

submits a reclamation plan that clearly demonstrates effects from the proposed actions can be 

adequately mitigated. The plan must demonstrate that no other practicable alternatives exist for 

relocating the activity. The plan must include a detailed description of how the activity would: (1) 

control wind and water erosion; (2) control surface runoff; (3) minimize sediment production; (4) 

maintain site productivity; and (5) complete reclamation. The plan will consider avoidance, size 

limitations, timing restrictions (e.g. limiting wet condition road usage), physical mitigation, and offsite mitigation.

Modification: The area affected by this stipulation may be modified by the authorized officer if it is determined that 

portions of area do not include badlands, rock outcrop, or slopes susceptible to mass failure.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived by the authorized officer if it is determined that the entire lease area 

does not contain badlands, rock outcrop, or slopes susceptible to mass failure.

Resource: Big Bend of the Milk River ACEC – No Surface Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within the Big Bend of the Milk River ACEC. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria 929

Objective: To provide the protection needed in order to preserve the qualities that prompted the BLM to designate 

this area as an ACEC. 

Exception: None.

Modification: None.

Waiver: None.

Resource: Frenchman ACEC – No Surface Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within the Frenchman ACEC. 

Objective: To provide the protection needed in order to preserve the qualities that prompted the BLM to designate 

this area as an ACEC. 

Exception: None.

Modification: None.

Waiver: None.

Resource: Kevin Rim ACEC – No Surface Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within the Kevin Rim ACEC. 

Objective: To provide the protection needed in order to preserve the qualities that prompted the BLM to designate 

this area as an ACEC. 

Exception: None.

Modification: None.

Waiver: None.

Resource: Malta Geological ACEC – Controlled Surface Use

Stipulation: Prior to any surface-disturbing activity in the Malta Geological ACEC the lessee shall be required to 

conduct a paleontological inventory. The lessee must engage the services of a qualified paleontologist, 

acceptable to the surface management agency, to conduct the inventory. An acceptable inventory 

report is to be submitted to the BLM for review and approval at the time a surface-disturbing plan of 

operations is submitted. 

Objective: To provide the protection needed in order to preserve the qualities that prompted the BLM to designate 

this area as an ACEC.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the qualities of the ACEC. 
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

930 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold can be 

occupied without adversely affecting the qualities of the ACEC.

Resource: Mountain Plover ACEC – No Surface Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within the Mountain Plover ACEC. 

Objective: To provide the protection needed in order to preserve the qualities that prompted the BLM to designate 

this area as an ACEC. 

Exception: None.

Modification: None.

Waiver: None.

Resource: Sweet Grass Hills ACEC – No Surface Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within the Sweet Grass Hills ACEC. 

Objective: To provide the protection needed in order to preserve the qualities that prompted the BLM to designate 

this area as an ACEC. 

Exception: None.

Modification: None.

Waiver: None.

Resource: Woody Island ACEC – No Surface Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within the Woody Island ACEC.

Objective: To provide the protection needed in order to preserve the qualities that prompted the BLM to designate 

this area as an ACEC.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the qualities of the ACEC. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold can be 

occupied without adversely affecting the qualities of the ACEC. 

Resource: Zortman/Landusky Mine Reclamation ACEC – No Surface Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within the Zortman/Landusky Mine Reclamation ACEC. 

Objective: To provide the protection needed in order to preserve the qualities that prompted the BLM to designate 

this area as an ACEC. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria 931

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the authorized officer if the operator submits a plan 

that demonstrates the impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the qualities of the ACEC. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold can be 

occupied without adversely affecting the qualities of the ACEC. 

Resource: Water, Riparian, Wetland, and Floodplains – No Surface Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within and 500 feet from lentic or lotic riparian areas.

Objective: To maintain riparian/wetland functions and water quality. 

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the authorized officer if the operator submits a plan 

that demonstrates the impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the riparian/wetland resource. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold can be 

occupied without adversely affecting the riparian/wetland resource. 

Resource: Prairie Grasslands – No Surface Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within the Prairie Grasslands area with wilderness 

characteristics. 

Objective: To protect wilderness characteristics as a priority over other multiple uses.

Exception: None.

Modification: None.

Waiver: None.

Resource: Bald Eagle – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of bald eagle nest sites that have been active 

within the last 7 years. 

Objective: To protect bald eagle nesting sites and/or breeding habitat in accordance with the Montana Bald Eagle 

Management Plan. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan which demonstrates that 

the proposed action will not affect the bald eagle or its habitat. If the authorized officer determines 

that the action may have an adverse effect, the operator may submit a plan demonstrating that the 

impacts can be adequately mitigated. This plan must be approved by the BLM. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting bald eagle nest sites or nesting areas. 
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

932 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

The authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting 

actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold is no 

longer capable of supporting bald eagle nest sites or nesting habitat. 

Resource: Bighorn Sheep Lambing – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within bighorn sheep lambing areas. 

Objective: To protect bighorn sheep lambing areas from disturbance and to facilitate long-term maintenance of 

bighorn sheep populations.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area no longer contain lambing habitat for bighorn sheep. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains bighorn sheep lambing areas.

Resource: Bighorn Sheep Range – Controlled Surface Use 

Stipulation: 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 need to be approved by the 

authorized officer. 

Objective: To protect bighorn sheep from disturbance and to facilitate long-term maintenance of wildlife 

populations.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if an environmental review determines that the action, 

as proposed or conditioned, would not compromise the functionality of the habitat for bighorn sheep.

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area no longer contain viable habitat for bighorn sheep. The authorized officer may 

also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual habitat suitability 

and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains bighorn sheep habitat.

Resource: Black-footed Ferret – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of black-footed ferret habitat.

Objective: To protect black-footed ferret habitat for long-term maintenance of black-footed ferret populations. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria 933

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer, in consultation with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), determines that portions of the area can be occupied 

without adversely affecting black-footed ferret habitat. The authorized officer may also modify the 

size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual habitat suitability and/or local periods 

of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer, in consultation with USFWS, determines that 

the entire leasehold is no longer considered black-footed ferret habitat. 

Resource: Black-tailed Prairie Dog – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of black-tailed prairie dog habitat.

Objective: To protect prairie dog towns necessary for long-term maintenance of black-tailed prairie dog 

populations. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting prairie dog habitat. The authorized 

officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual habitat 

suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold is no 

longer considered prairie dog habitat. 

Resource: Colonial Waterbirds – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/2 mile of a waterbird nesting colony. 

Objective: To protect colonial waterbird nesting site and to maintain regional colonial waterbird populations. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if portions of the area can be occupied without 

adversely affecting waterbird nesting colonies.

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting waterbird nesting colonies. The 

authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual 

habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold is no 

longer capable of supporting nesting waterbirds. 

Resource: Colonial Waterbirds – Timing Limitation 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1 mile of a waterbird nesting colony from April 1 

through July 15. 

Objective: To protect colonial waterbirds and to maintain colonial waterbird populations. 
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

934 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted if the authorized officer determines that portions of the 

area can be occupied without adversely affecting waterbird nesting colonies. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting waterbird nesting colonies. The 

authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual 

habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold is no 

longer capable of supporting nesting waterbirds. 

Resource: Crucial Winter Range – No Surface Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within crucial winter range.

Objective: To protect crucial winter range from disturbance and facilitate long-term maintenance of wildlife 

populations.

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the authorized officer if the operator submits a plan 

that demonstrates the impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area no longer contain viable crucial winter range. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains viable crucial winter range.

Resource: Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation

Stipulation: This lease area may now or hereafter contain plants, animals, or their habitats determined to be 

threatened, endangered, or other special status species. The BLM may recommend modifications to 

exploration and development proposals to further its conservation and management objective to avoid 

a BLM-approved activity that will contribute to a need to list such species or their habitat. The BLM 

may require modifications to or disapprove a proposed activity that is likely to result in jeopardy to the 

continued existence of a proposed or listed threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction 

or adverse modification of a designated or proposed critical habitat. The BLM will not approve any 

surface-disturbing activity that may affect any such species or critical habitat until it completes its 

obligations under applicable requirements of the Endangered Species Act as amended, 16 U.S.C. 

§1531 et seq., including completion of any required procedure for conference or consultation.

Objective: To protect threatened, endangered species, or special status species. 

Exception: None. 

Modification: None.

Waiver: None. 

Resource: Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Areas – Controlled Surface Use 

Stipulation: Prior to surface-disturbing or disruptive activities a plan to maintain functionality of grassland 

bird/greater sage-grouse priority habitat will be prepared by the proponent and implemented upon 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria 935

approval by the authorized officer. Within the priority areas surface-disturbing or disruptive activities 

will be restricted or prohibited within 6/10 of a mile from any existing surface-disturbing or disruptive 

activity. The plan shall address how short-term and long-term direct and indirect effects to important 

breeding (leks), nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering areas will be mitigated based on current science 

and research (Appendix E.5). 

Objective: To protect and enhance the integrity of the grassland bird/greater sage-grouse habitat to maintain or 

improve populations.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if an environmental review determines that the action as 

proposed or conditioned (such as exceeding the 6/10 of a mile surface-disturbing or disruptive activity 

restriction) would not compromise the functionality of the habitat for grassland bird/greater sagegrouse and meet the objective for grassland bird/greater sage-grouse habitat and populations.

Modification: The authorized officer may modify the area subject to the stipulation if an environmental analysis finds 

that a portion of the area is no longer grassland bird/greater sage-grouse habitat and supports no 

grassland bird/greater sage-grouse populations. The authorized officer may also modify the size and 

shape of the area based on studies documenting actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual 

use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if it is determined that grassland bird/greater sage-grouse populations 

no longer occupy significant portions of the priority areas and there is no reasonable likelihood of 

functional grassland bird/greater sage-grouse habitat being restored.

Resource: Greater Sage-Grouse Leks (General Habitat Areas) – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1 mile of greater sage-grouse leks. 

Objective: To protect greater sage-grouse leks to maintain greater sage-grouse populations. 

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted if the authorized officer, in consultation with Montana 

Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP), determines that portions of the area can be occupied without 

adversely affecting greater sage-grouse leks. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer, in consultation with 

MFWP, determines that portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting greater sagegrouse leks. The authorized officer, in consultation with MFWP, may also modify the size and shape 

of the area based on studies documenting actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer, in consultation with MFWP, determines that 

the entire leasehold is no longer capable of supporting greater sage-grouse leks. 

Resource: Greater Sage-Grouse Nesting Habitat (General Habitat Areas) – Controlled 

Surface Use 

Stipulation: To minimize the impacts of surface-disturbing or disruptive activities and insure maintenance of 

habitat for sustainable populations of sage-grouse, surface-disturbing or disruptive activities are subject 

to the following requirements. This stipulation does not apply within the boundaries of the greater 

sage-grouse protection priority area.

a. Surface-disturbing or disruptive activities will prevent or minimize disturbance to sage-grouse 

or their habitat. Except during emergency situations, activities will not compromise the 

functionality of the habitat.
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

936 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

b. Continuous noise (related to long-term operations and/or activities) would be no greater than 

49 decibels at 1/4 mile from the perimeter of the lek.

c. Temporary noise (related to installation, maintenance, one-time use, emergency operations, 

etc.) exceeding 49 decibels at 1/4 mile from the perimeter of a lek or surface-disturbing/

disruptive activities may be allowed, but only from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. between March 15 and 

May 15. 

d. Manage water developments to reduce the spread of West Nile virus within sage-grouse 

habitat areas.

e. Site and/or minimize linear rights-of-way to reduce disturbance to sagebrush habitats.

f. Maximize placement of new utility developments (power lines, pipelines, etc.) and 

transportation routes in existing utility or transportation corridors.

g. Power lines would be buried, eliminated, designed or sited in a manner which does not impact 

sage-grouse. 

h. Placement of other high profile structures, exceeding 10 feet in height, would be eliminated, 

designed or sited in a manner which does not impact sage-grouse.

i. Remote monitoring of production facilities must be utilized and all permit applications must 

contain a plan to reduce the frequency of vehicle use.

j. Maximize the area of interim reclamation on long-term access roads and well pads including 

reshaping, topsoiling and revegetating cut and fill slopes. 

k. Restore disturbed areas at final reclamation to pre-disturbance conditions or desired plant 

community.

l. Permanent (longer than 2 months) structures which create movement must be designed or 

sited to minimize impacts to sage-grouse. 

m. Consider use of off-site mitigation, (e.g., creation of sagebrush habitat, purchase conservation 

easements, or buying down grazing) with proponent dollars to offset habitat losses.

n. Consider creation of a “Mitigation Trust Account” when impacts cannot be avoided, 

minimized, or effectively mitigated through other means. If approved by the BLM, the 

proponent may contribute funding to maintain habitat function based on the estimated cost of 

habitat treatments or other mitigation needed to maintain the functions of impacted habitats. 

Off-site mitigation should only be considered when no feasible options are available to 

adequately mitigate within and immediately adjacent to the impacted site, or when the off-site 

location would provide more effective mitigation of the impact than can be achieved on-site.

Objective: Maintain the integrity of the habitat to support sustainable sage-grouse populations.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception to specific requirements of this stipulation if the action, 

as proposed or conditioned would not compromise the functionality of the habitat for sage-grouse and 

meet the goals for sage-grouse habitat.

Modification: The authorized officer may modify the area subject to the stipulation if an environmental analysis finds 

a portion of the area is nonessential or no longer sage-grouse habitat.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria 937

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if it is determined that greater sage-grouse populations no longer 

occupy significant portions of the area and there is no reasonable likelihood of functional greater sagegrouse habitat being restored.

Resource: Greater Sage-Grouse Protection Priority Area – Controlled Surface Use 

Stipulation: Prior to surface-disturbing or disruptive activities a plan to maintain functionality of greater sagegrouse protection priority 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 6/10 of a mile from any existing surface-disturbing or disruptive 

activity. The plan shall address how short-term and long-term direct and indirect effects to important 

breeding (leks), nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering areas will be mitigated based on current science 

and research (Appendix E.5). 

Objective: To protect the integrity of the habitat to maintain or improve greater sage-grouse populations.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if an environmental review determines that the action as 

proposed or conditioned (such as exceeding the 6/10 of a mile surface-disturbing or disruptive activity 

restriction) would not compromise the functionality of the habitat for greater sage-grouse and meet the 

objective for greater sage-grouse habitat and populations. 

Modification: The authorized officer may modify the area subject to the stipulation if an environmental analysis finds 

that a portion of the protection priority area is no longer greater sage-grouse habitat and supports no 

greater sage-grouse populations.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived, if it is determined that greater sage-grouse populations no longer 

occupy significant portions of the protection priority area and there is no reasonable likelihood of 

functional greater sage-grouse habitat being restored.

Resource: Greater Sage-Grouse Winter Range – Timing Limitation

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited from December 1 through May 15 in greater sage-grouse 

winter range.

Objective: To protect greater sage-grouse winter range from disturbance during the winter season and to facilitate 

long-term maintenance of wildlife populations.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area no longer contain viable winter range. The dates for the timing restriction may be 

modified if new wildlife use information indicates that the dates are not valid for the leasehold. The 

authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual 

habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains viable winter range.
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

938 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

Resource: Interior Least Tern – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/2 mile of interior least tern occupied habitat. 

Objective: To protect and maintain habitat needed to support regional interior least tern populations. 

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted if the authorized officer, in consultation with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), determines that portions of the area can be occupied without 

adversely affecting interior least tern occupied habitat. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer, in consultation with 

USFWS, determines that portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting interior least 

tern occupied habitat. The authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on 

studies documenting actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer, in consultation with USFWS, determines that 

the entire leasehold can be occupied without adversely affecting interior least tern occupied habitat. 

Resource: Mountain Plover – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within mountain plover habitat. 

Objective: To protect mountain plover habitat and to maintain mountain plover populations. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if portions of the area can be occupied without 

adversely affecting mountain plover habitat. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting mountain plover habitat. The 

authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual 

habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold is no 

longer mountain plover habitat.

Resource: Mountain Plover – Timing Limitation 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of mountain plover habitat from April 1 

through July 31. 

Objective: To protect mountain plover habitat and to maintain mountain plover populations. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if portions of the area can be occupied without 

adversely affecting mountain plover habitat. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting mountain plover habitat. The 

authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual 

habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold is no 

longer mountain plover habitat. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria 939

Resource: Peregrine Falcon – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of peregrine falcon nest sites that were active 

within the past 7 years. 

Objective: To maintain the reproductive potential of peregrine falcon nest sites. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts to peregrine falcons from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the production potential of peregrine 

falcon nest sites. The authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on 

studies documenting actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains habitat for peregrine falcon nest sites. 

Resource: Piping Plover – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of piping plover habitat. 

Objective: To protect piping plover habitat and to maintain regional piping plover populations. 

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted if the authorized officer, in consultation with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), determines that portions of the area can be occupied without 

adversely affecting piping plover habitat. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer, in consultation with 

USFWS, determines that portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting piping 

plover habitat. The authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies 

documenting actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer, in consultation with USFWS, determines that 

the entire leasehold is no longer piping plover habitat. 

Resource: Raptors – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of raptor nest sites that were active within the 

past 7 years. 

Objective: To maintain the reproductive potential of raptor nest sites. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts to raptors from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the production potential of raptor nest 

sites. The authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies 

documenting actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains habitat for raptor nest sites.
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

940 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

Resource: Raptors – Timing Limitation 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/2 mile of active raptor nest sites from March 1 

through July 31. 

Objective: To maintain the reproductive potential of raptor nest sites. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the production potential of raptor nest 

sites. The authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies 

documenting actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains a raptor nest or has a nest that has not been active in 7 years. 

Resource: Sharp-tailed Grouse Leks – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of sharp-tailed grouse leks. 

Objective: To protect sharp-tailed grouse leks to maintain sharp-tailed grouse populations. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting sharp-tailed grouse leks. The 

authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual 

habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains sharp-tailed grouse leks. 

Resource: Sharp-tailed Grouse Nesting Habitat – Timing Limitation 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/2 mile of sharp-tailed grouse leks from March 15 

through June 30.

Objective: To protect sharp-tailed grouse nesting habitat necessary for long-term maintenance of sharp-tailed 

grouse populations. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the sharp-tailed grouse populations. 

The authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting 

actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains sharp-tailed grouse nesting habitat. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria 941

Resource: Special Status Species – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of essential habitat of special status species 

unless other species-specific stipulations apply.

Objective: To protect special status species habitat and to maintain regional wildlife populations. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting special status species habitat. The 

authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual 

habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold is no 

longer special status species habitat. 

Resource: Winter Range – Timing Limitation

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited from December 1 through May 15 in big game and greater 

sage-grouse winter range.

Objective: To protect big game and greater sage-grouse winter range from disturbance during the winter season 

and facilitate long-term maintenance of wildlife populations.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area no longer contain viable winter range. The dates for the timing restriction may be 

modified if new wildlife use information indicates that the dates are not valid for the leasehold. The 

authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual 

habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains viable winter range.
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

942 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

Alternative D

Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations

Resource: National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Eligible Properties/Districts – No 

Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within the boundaries of cultural properties and 

archaeological/historic districts determined to be eligible or potentially eligible to the National Register 

of Historic Places. This includes cultural properties designated for conservation use, scientific use, 

traditional use, public use, and experimental use. 

Objective: To protect significant cultural properties and archaeological districts and their settings, and to avoid 

disturbance or inadvertent impacts to these resources. 

Exception: None. 

Modification: None.

Waiver: None. 

Resource: Cultural Resource Survey

Stipulation: An inventory of those portions of the leased lands subject to proposed disturbance may be required 

prior to any surface disturbance to determine if cultural resources are present and to identify needed 

mitigation measures. Prior to undertaking any surface-disturbing activities on the lands covered by 

this lease, the lessee or operator shall: 

1. The lessee or operator shall engage the services of a cultural resource consultant acceptable to 

the Surface Management Agency (SMA) to conduct a cultural resource inventory of the area 

of proposed surface disturbance. The operator may elect to inventory an area larger than the 

standard ten-acre minimum to cover possible site relocation which may result from 

environmental or other considerations. An acceptable inventory report is to be submitted to 

the SMA for review and approval no later than that time when an otherwise complete 

application for approval of drilling or subsequent surface-disturbing operation is submitted. 

2. Implement mitigation measures required by the SMA. Mitigation may include the relocation 

of proposed lease-related activities or other protective measures such as data recovery and 

extensive recordation. Where impacts to cultural resources cannot be mitigated to the 

satisfaction of the SMA, surface occupancy on that area must be prohibited. The lessee or 

operator shall immediately bring to the attention of the SMA any cultural resources 

discovered as a result of approved operations under this lease, and shall not disturb such 

discoveries until directed to proceed by the SMA. 

Objective: Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is required for all actions 

which may affect cultural properties eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. Section 6 of 

the Oil and Gas Lease Terms (Form 3100-11) requires that operations be conducted in a manner that 

minimizes adverse impacts to cultural and other resources. 

Exception: None. 

Modification: None. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria 943

Waiver: None. 

Resource: Cultural Resources and Tribal Consultation

Stipulation: This lease may be found to contain historic properties and/or resources protected under the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act, E.O. 13007, or other statutes and executive orders. The BLM will not 

approve any surface-disturbing activities that may affect any such properties or resources until it 

completes its obligations under applicable requirements of the NHPA and other authorities. The BLM 

may require modification to exploration or development proposals to protect such properties, or 

disapprove any activity that is likely to result in adverse effects that cannot be successfully avoided, 

minimized or mitigated.

Objective: To protect significant historic properties and resources. 

Exception: None. 

Modification: None.

Waiver: None. 

Resource: National Park Service Bear Paw Battlefield – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited in the parcel adjacent to the Bear Paw Battlefield identified as 

T30N, R19E, Sec. 12, SW1/4NE1/4. 

Objective: To avoid disturbance and to protect archaeological properties of the Bear Paw Battlefield. 

Exception: None. 

Modification: None. 

Waiver: None. 

Resource: Paleontological Resources – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within designated paleontological sites/locales. 

Objective: To preserve and protect significant vertebrate fossils and paleontological locales. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the lessee or operator submits a plan which 

demonstrates that the adverse impacts to significant paleontological resources can be mitigated through 

recovery and extensive recordation. Where impacts to paleontological resources cannot be mitigated 

to the satisfaction of the surface management agency (SMA), surface occupancy on that area must be 

prohibited. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the designated paleontological site/locale can be occupied without adversely affecting the 

resource values. 

Waiver: None.
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

944 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

Resource: Paleontological Resource Inventory 

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

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

paleontological inventory. The lessee must engage the services of a qualified paleontologist, 

acceptable to the surface management agency (SMA), to conduct the inventory. An acceptable 

inventory report is to be submitted to the SMA for review and approval at the time a surface-disturbing 

plan of operations is submitted. 

Objective: To preserve and protect scientifically significant vertebrate fossils and paleontological locales. 

Exception: An exception may be granted if the area has already been inventoried for paleontological resources. 

Modification: None.

Waiver: None. 

Resource: Recreation Sites – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 300 feet of recreation sites. 

Objective: To recognize and protect the public’s opportunity for quality recreation experiences at those sites 

developed for that purpose. Since BLM recreation sites are generally developed to support the use of 

the surrounding lands, the 300 feet provides protection for perpetuating those opportunities for which 

the site was developed, reduces the visual intrusion and noise, and protects capital investments at the 

site. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if a site is moved or eliminated. 

Modification: The list of recreation sites may be modified if a site is removed, or if a site is developed in the future.

Waiver: A waiver may be granted if a site is moved or eliminated.

Resource: National Historic Trails – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 300 feet of designated National Historic Trails. 

Designated National Historic Trails include the Lewis and Clark Trail and the Nez Perce Trail. 

Objective: To preserve and protect designated National Historic Trails and the natural setting in which they occur.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan demonstrating that 

impacts to the area and its users can be adequately mitigated.

Modification: No modifications will be granted unless effects of the action will not be apparent to users along the 

trail.

Waiver: A waiver may be granted if impacts can be mitigated so that area values and user experiences are not 

negatively affected.

Resource: Residential Structures – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 300 feet of residential structures. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria 945

Objective: To ensure a proper distance between development and human occupation for health and safety 

purposes. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the public’s health and safety. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold can be 

occupied without adversely affecting the public’s health and safety. 

Resource: Big Bend of the Milk River ACEC – No Surface Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within the Big Bend of the Milk River ACEC. 

Objective: To provide the protection needed in order to preserve the qualities that prompted the BLM to designate 

this area as an ACEC. 

Exception: None.

Modification: None.

Waiver: None.

Resource: Frenchman ACEC – No Surface Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within the Frenchman ACEC. 

Objective: To provide the protection needed in order to preserve the qualities that prompted the BLM to designate 

this area as an ACEC. 

Exception: None.

Modification: None.

Waiver: None.

Resource: Kevin Rim ACEC – No Surface Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within the Kevin Rim ACEC. 

Objective: To provide the protection needed in order to preserve the qualities that prompted the BLM to designate 

this area as an ACEC. 

Exception: None.

Modification: None.

Waiver: None.
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

946 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

Resource: Little Rocky Mountains ACEC – No Surface Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within the Little Rocky Mountains ACEC. 

Objective: To provide the protection needed in order to preserve the qualities that prompted the BLM to designate 

this area as an ACEC. 

Exception: None.

Modification: None.

Waiver: None.

Resource: Malta Geological ACEC – Controlled Surface Use

Stipulation: Prior to any surface-disturbing activity in the Malta Geological ACEC the lessee shall be required to 

conduct a paleontological inventory. The lessee must engage the services of a qualified paleontologist, 

acceptable to the surface management agency, to conduct the inventory. An acceptable inventory 

report is to be submitted to the BLM for review and approval at the time a surface-disturbing plan of 

operations is submitted. 

Objective: To provide the protection needed in order to preserve the qualities that prompted the BLM to designate 

this area as an ACEC.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the qualities of the ACEC. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold can be 

occupied without adversely affecting the qualities of the ACEC.

Resource: Mountain Plover ACEC – No Surface Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within the Mountain Plover ACEC.

Objective: To provide the protection needed in order to preserve the qualities that prompted the BLM to designate 

this area as an ACEC.

Exception: None.

Modification: None.

Waiver: None.

Resource: Sweet Grass Hills ACEC – No Surface Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within the Sweet Grass Hills ACEC. 

Objective: To provide the protection needed in order to preserve the qualities that prompted the BLM to designate 

this area as an ACEC. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria 947

Exception: None.

Modification: None.

Waiver: None.

Resource: Woody Island ACEC – No Surface Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within the Woody Island ACEC.

Objective: To provide the protection needed in order to preserve the qualities that prompted the BLM to designate 

this area as an ACEC.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the qualities of the ACEC. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold can be 

occupied without adversely affecting the qualities of the ACEC. 

Resource: Water, Riparian, Wetland, and Floodplains – Controlled Surface Use

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use may be controlled or excluded within and 300 feet from lentic or lotic 

riparian areas.

Objective: To maintain riparian/wetland functions and water quality. 

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the authorized officer if the operator submits a plan 

that demonstrates the impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated.

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the riparian/wetland resource.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold can be 

occupied without adversely affecting the riparian/wetland resource.

Resource: Bald Eagle – Timing Limitation 

Stipulation: 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. 

Objective: To protect bald eagle nesting sites and/or breeding habitat in accordance with the Montana Bald Eagle 

Management Plan. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan which demonstrates that 

the proposed action will not affect the bald eagle or its habitat. If the authorized officer determines 

that the action may have an adverse effect, the operator may submit a plan demonstrating that the 

impacts can be adequately mitigated. This plan must be approved by the BLM. 
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

948 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting bald eagle nest sites or nesting areas. 

The authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting 

actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold is no 

longer capable of supporting bald eagle nest sites or nesting habitat. 

Resource: Bighorn Sheep Lambing – Timing Limitation

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within bighorn sheep lambing areas from May 1 through June 

30.

Objective: To protect bighorn sheep lambing areas from disturbance and facilitate long-term maintenance of 

wildlife populations.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area no longer contain lambing habitat for bighorn sheep. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains bighorn sheep lambing areas.

Resource: Black-footed Ferret – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within black-footed ferret habitat.

Objective: To protect black-footed ferret habitat for long-term maintenance of regional black-footed ferret 

populations. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer, in consultation with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), determines that portions of the area can be occupied 

without adversely affecting black-footed ferret habitat. The authorized officer may also modify the 

size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual habitat suitability and/or local periods 

of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer, in consultation with USFWS, determines that 

the entire leasehold is no longer considered black-footed ferret habitat. 

Resource: Black-tailed Prairie Dog – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within black-tailed prairie dog habitat.

Objective: To protect prairie dog towns necessary for long-term maintenance of black-tailed prairie dog 

populations. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria 949

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting prairie dog habitat. The authorized 

officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual habitat 

suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold is no 

longer considered prairie dog habitat. 

Resource: Colonial Waterbirds – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of a waterbird nesting colony. 

Objective: To protect colonial waterbird nesting sites and to maintain regional colonial waterbird populations. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if portions of the area can be occupied without 

adversely affecting waterbird nesting colonies.

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting waterbird nesting colonies. The 

authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual 

habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold is no 

longer capable of supporting nesting waterbirds.

Resource: Colonial Waterbirds – Timing Limitation 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/2 mile of a waterbird nesting colony from April 1 

through July 15.

Objective: To protect colonial waterbirds and to maintain colonial waterbird populations. 

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted if the authorized officer determines that portions of the 

area can be occupied without adversely affecting waterbird nesting colonies. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting waterbird nesting colonies. The 

authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual 

habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold is no 

longer capable of supporting nesting waterbirds. 

Resource: Crucial Winter Range – Controlled Surface Use

Stipulation: Surface-disturbing or disruptive activities within crucial big game and greater sage-grouse 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 
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

950 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

disturbances per 640 acres of crucial winter range. The plan would need to be approved by the 

authorized officer.

Objective: To protect big game and greater sage-grouse crucial winter range from disturbance and facilitate longterm maintenance of those wildlife populations utilizing crucial winter ranges.

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the authorized officer if the operator submits a plan 

that demonstrates the impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area no longer contain viable crucial winter range. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains viable crucial winter range.

Resource: Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation

Stipulation: This lease area may now or hereafter contain plants, animals, or their habitats determined to be 

threatened, endangered, or other special status species. The BLM may recommend modifications to 

exploration and development proposals to further its conservation and management objective to avoid 

a BLM-approved activity that will contribute to a need to list such species or their habitat. The BLM 

may require modifications to or disapprove a proposed activity that is likely to result in jeopardy to the 

continued existence of a proposed or listed threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction 

or adverse modification of a designated or proposed critical habitat. The BLM will not approve any 

surface-disturbing activity that may affect any such species or critical habitat until it completes its 

obligations under applicable requirements of the Endangered Species Act as amended, 16 U.S.C. 

§1531 et seq., including completion of any required procedure for conference or consultation.

Objective: To protect threatened, endangered species, or special status species. 

Exception: None. 

Modification: None.

Waiver: None. 

Resource: Greater Sage-Grouse Leks (General Habitat Areas) – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 6/10 of a mile from greater sage-grouse leks. 

Objective: To protect greater sage-grouse leks to maintain greater sage-grouse populations. 

Exception: The authorized officer, in consultation with MFWP, may grant an exception if portions of the area can 

be occupied without adversely affecting greater sage-grouse leks. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer, in consultation with 

MFWP, determines that portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting greater sagegrouse leks. The authorized officer, in consultation with MFWP, may also modify the size and shape 

of the area based on studies documenting actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer, in consultation with MFWP, determines that 

the entire leasehold is no longer capable of supporting greater sage-grouse leks. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria 951

Resource: Greater Sage-Grouse Nesting Habitat (General Habitat Areas) – Timing 

Limitation 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1 mile of greater sage-grouse nesting habitat from 

March 1 through June 15.

Objective: To protect greater sage grouse nesting habitat necessary for long-term maintenance of regional greater 

sage-grouse populations. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the greater sage-grouse populations.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold is no 

longer capable of supporting greater sage-grouse habitat/populations. 

Resource: Greater Sage-Grouse Winter Range – Timing Limitation

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited from December 1 through March 31 in greater sage-grouse 

winter range.

Objective: To protect greater sage-grouse winter range from disturbance during the winter season and to facilitate 

long-term maintenance of wildlife populations.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area no longer contain viable winter range. The dates for the timing restriction may be 

modified if new wildlife use information indicates that the dates are not valid for the leasehold. The 

authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual 

habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains viable winter range.

Resource: Interior Least Tern – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of interior least tern occupied habitat. 

Objective: To protect and maintain habitat needed to support regional interior least tern populations. 

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted if the authorized officer, in consultation with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), determines that portions of the area can be occupied without 

adversely affecting interior least tern occupied habitat. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer, in consultation with 

USFWS, determines that portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting interior least 

tern occupied habitat. The authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on 

studies documenting actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

952 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer, in consultation with USFWS, determines that 

the entire leasehold can be occupied without adversely affecting interior least tern occupied habitat. 

Resource: Mountain Plover – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within mountain plover habitat. 

Objective: To protect mountain plover habitat and to maintain mountain plover populations. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if portions of the area can be occupied without 

adversely affecting mountain plover habitat. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting mountain plover habitat. The 

authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual 

habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold is no 

longer mountain plover habitat. 

Resource: Peregrine Falcon – Controlled Surface Use 

Stipulation: 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 raptors. The plan would need to be approved by the authorized 

officer. 

Objective: To maintain the reproductive potential of peregrine falcon nest sites. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the production potential of raptor nest 

sites. The authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies 

documenting actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains a peregrine falcon nest or has a nest that has not been active in 7 years.

Resource: Piping Plover – Timing Limitation 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of piping plover habitat from May 15 through 

July 31. 

Objective: To protect piping plover habitat and to maintain regional piping plover populations. 

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted if the authorized officer, in consultation with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), determines that portions of the area can be occupied without 

adversely affecting piping plover habitat. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria 953

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer, in consultation with 

USFWS, determines that portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting piping 

plover habitat. The authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies 

documenting actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer, in consultation with USFWS, determines that 

the entire leasehold is no longer piping plover habitat. 

Resource: Raptors – Controlled Surface Use 

Stipulation: 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, avoid or minimize habitat loss, and 

minimize disturbances to raptors. The plan would need to be approved by the authorized officer. 

Objective: To maintain the reproductive potential of raptor nest sites. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the production potential of raptor nest 

sites. The authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies 

documenting actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains a raptor nest or has a nest that has not been active in 7 years.

Resource: Raptors – Timing Limitation 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of active raptor nest sites from March 1 

through July 31. 

Objective: To maintain the reproductive potential of raptor nest sites. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the production potential of raptor nest 

sites. The authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies 

documenting actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains a raptor nest or has a nest that has not been active in 7 years. 

Resource: Sharp-tailed Grouse Leks – Controlled Surface Use

Stipulation: Surface-disturbing or disruptive activities within 1/4 mile of sharp-tailed 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. The plan would need to be approved by the authorized officer.

Objective: To protect sharp-tailed grouse leks to maintain regional sharp-tailed grouse populations. 
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

954 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting sharp-tailed grouse leks. The 

authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual 

habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains sharp-tailed grouse leks. 

Resource: Sharp-tailed Grouse Nesting Habitat – Timing Limitation 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of sharp-tailed grouse leks from March 15 

through June 30.

Objective: To protect sharp-tailed grouse nesting habitat necessary for long-term maintenance of sharp-tailed 

grouse populations. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the sharp-tailed grouse populations. 

The authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting 

actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains sharp-tailed grouse nesting habitat. 

Resource: Special Status Species – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of essential habitat of special status species 

unless other species-specific stipulations apply.

Objective: To protect special status species habitat and to maintain regional wildlife populations. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated.

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting special status species habitat. The 

authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual 

habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold is no 

longer special status species habitat. 

Resource: Winter Range – Timing Limitation

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited from December 1 through March 31 in big game and greater 

sage-grouse winter range.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria 955

Objective: To protect big game and greater sage-grouse winter range from disturbance during the winter season 

and facilitate long-term maintenance of wildlife populations.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area no longer contain viable winter range. The dates for the timing restriction may be 

modified if new wildlife use information indicates that the dates are not valid for the leasehold. The 

authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual 

habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains viable winter range.
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

956 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations

Resource: National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Eligible Properties/Districts – No 

Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Occupancy and use is prohibited within the boundaries of cultural properties and archaeological/

historic districts determined to be eligible or potentially eligible to the National Register of Historic 

Places. 

Objective: To protect significant cultural properties and archaeological districts and their settings, and to avoid 

disturbance or inadvertent impacts to these resources. 

Exception: None.

Modification: None.

Waiver: None. 

Resource: Cultural Resource Survey 

Stipulation: An inventory of those portions of the leased lands subject to proposed disturbance may be required 

prior to any surface disturbance to determine if cultural resources are present and to identify needed 

mitigation measures. Prior to undertaking any surface-disturbing activities on the lands covered by 

this lease, the lessee or operator shall: 

1. Engage the services of a cultural resource consultant acceptable to the Surface Management 

Agency (SMA) to conduct a cultural resource inventory of the area of proposed surface 

disturbance. The operator may elect to inventory an area larger than the standard ten-acre 

minimum to cover possible site relocation which may result from environmental or other 

considerations. An acceptable inventory report is to be submitted to the SMA for review and 

approval no later than that time when an otherwise complete application for approval of drilling or 

subsequent surface-disturbing operation is submitted. 

2. Implement mitigation measures required by the SMA. Mitigation may include the relocation of 

proposed lease-related activities or other protective measures such as data recovery and extensive 

recordation. Where impacts to cultural resources cannot be mitigated to the satisfaction of the 

SMA, surface occupancy on that area must be prohibited. The lessee or operator shall 

immediately bring to the attention of the SMA any cultural resources discovered as a result of 

approved operations under this lease, and shall not disturb such discoveries until directed to 

proceed by the SMA. 

Objective: Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is required for all actions 

which may affect cultural properties eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. Section 6 of 

the Oil and Gas Lease Terms (Form 3100-11) requires that operations be conducted in a manner that 

minimizes adverse impacts to cultural and other resources. 

Exception: None. 

Modification: None. 

Waiver: None. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria 957

Resource: Cultural Resources and Tribal Consultation

Stipulation: This lease may be found to contain historic properties and/or resources protected under the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act, E.O. 13007, or other statutes and executive orders. The BLM will not 

approve any surface-disturbing activities that may affect any such properties or resources until it 

completes its obligations under applicable requirements of the NHPA and other authorities. The BLM 

may require modification to exploration or development proposals to protect such properties, or 

disapprove any activity that is likely to result in adverse effects that cannot be successfully avoided, 

minimized or mitigated.

Objective: To protect significant historic properties and resources. 

Exception: None. 

Modification: None.

Waiver: None. 

Resource: National Park Service Bear Paw Battlefield – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited in the parcel adjacent to the Bear Paw Battlefield identified as 

T30N, R19E, Sec. 12, SW1/4NE1/4. 

Objective: To avoid disturbance and to protect archaeological properties of the Bear Paw Battlefield. 

Exception: None. 

Modification: None. 

Waiver: None. 

Resource: Paleontological Resources – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within designated paleontological sites/locales. 

Objective: To preserve and protect significant vertebrate fossils and paleontological locales. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the lessee or operator submits a plan which 

demonstrates that the adverse impacts to significant paleontological resources can be mitigated through 

recovery and extensive recordation. Where impacts to paleontological resources cannot be mitigated 

to the satisfaction of the surface management agency (SMA), surface occupancy on that area must be 

prohibited. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the designated paleontological site/locale can be occupied without adversely affecting the 

resource values. 

Waiver: None.
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

958 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

Resource: Paleontological Resource Inventory 

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

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

paleontological inventory. The lessee must engage the services of a qualified paleontologist, 

acceptable to the surface management agency (SMA), to conduct the inventory. An acceptable 

inventory report is to be submitted to the SMA for review and approval at the time a surface-disturbing 

plan of operations is submitted. 

Objective: To preserve and protect scientifically significant vertebrate fossils and paleontological locales. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the area has already been inventoried for 

paleontological resources. 

Modification: None.

Waiver: None. 

Resource: Recreation Sites – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within and 500 feet from recreation sites. 

Objective: To recognize and protect the public’s opportunity for quality recreation experiences at those sites 

developed for recreation. Since BLM recreation sites are generally developed to support the use of the 

surrounding lands, 500 feet provides protection for perpetuating those opportunities for which the site 

was developed, reduces the visual intrusion and noise, and protects capital investments at the site. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if a site is moved or eliminated. 

Modification: The list of recreation sites may be modified if a site is removed, or if a site is developed in the future. 

Waiver: A waiver may be granted if a site is moved or eliminated. 

Resource: National Historic Trails – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of designated National Historic Trails. 

Designated National Historic Trails include the Lewis and Clark Trail and the Nez Perce Trail. 

Objective: To preserve and protect designated National Historic Trails and the natural setting in which they occur.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan demonstrating that 

impacts to the area and its users can be adequately mitigated.

Modification: No modifications will be granted unless effects of the action will not be apparent to users along the 

trail.

Waiver: A waiver may be granted if impacts can be mitigated so that area values and user experiences are not 

negatively affected.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria 959

Resource: Residential Structures – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within and 500 feet of incorporated city limits or residential 

structures. 

Objective: To ensure a proper distance between development and human occupation for health and safety 

purposes; 500 feet provides for reduced visual intrusion, noise, traffic, and dust. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the public’s health and safety. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold can be 

occupied without adversely affecting the public’s health and safety. 

Resource: Sensitive Soils – Controlled Surface Use 

Stipulation: Prior to any surface disturbance on sensitive soils a reclamation plan must be approved by the 

authorized officer. The plan must demonstrate that no other practicable alternatives exist for relocating 

the activity. The plan must include a detailed description of how the activity would: (1) control wind 

and water erosion; (2) control surface runoff; (3) minimize sediment production; (4) maintain site 

productivity; and (5) complete reclamation. The plan will consider avoidance, size limitations, timing 

restrictions (e.g. limiting wet condition road usage), physical mitigation, and off-site mitigation. 

Sensitive soils are defined as those with severe erosion ratings (wind and water).

Objective: To maintain the chemical, physical, and biotic properties of sensitive soils. This includes maintaining 

soil productivity, soil structure, soil stability, and soil biotic communities. This would prevent 

excessive erosion and avoid areas with the potential for excessive reclamation problems.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception to this stipulation if the operator can demonstrate that 

the activity would not contribute to degradation of the soil resource or down slope resource conditions.

Modification: The area affected by this stipulation may be modified by the authorized officer if it is determined that 

portions of the lease area do not contain sensitive soils.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived by the authorized officer if it is determined that the entire lease area 

does not contain sensitive soils.

Resource: Badlands, Rock Outcrop, or Slopes Susceptible to Mass Failure – No Surface 

Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface use and occupancy is prohibited on badlands, rock outcrop, and slopes susceptible to mass 

failure.

Objective: To avoid landforms and areas that are the most difficult and costly to stabilize and successfully reclaim

to standards.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception to this stipulation if the operator submits a reclamation 

plan that clearly demonstrates effects from the proposed actions can be adequately mitigated. An 

exception may also be granted if an activity would occur on a previously disturbed area if the operator 

submits a reclamation plan that clearly demonstrates effects from the proposed actions can be 
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

960 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

adequately mitigated. The plan must demonstrate that no other practicable alternatives exist for 

relocating the activity. The plan must include a detailed description of how the activity would: (1) 

control wind and water erosion; (2) control surface runoff; (3) minimize sediment production; (4) 

maintain site productivity; and (5) complete reclamation. The plan will consider avoidance, size 

limitations, timing restrictions (e.g. limiting wet condition road usage), physical mitigation, and offsite mitigation.

Modification: The area affected by this stipulation may be modified by the authorized officer if it is determined that 

portions of area do not include badlands, rock outcrop, or slopes susceptible to mass failure.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived by the authorized officer if it is determined that the entire lease area 

does not contain badlands, rock outcrop, or slopes susceptible to mass failure.

Resource: Big Bend of the Milk River ACEC – No Surface Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within the Big Bend of the Milk River ACEC.

Objective: To provide the protection needed in order to preserve the qualities that prompted the BLM to designate 

this area as an ACEC. 

Exception: None.

Modification: None.

Waiver: None.

Resource: Frenchman ACEC – No Surface Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within the Frenchman ACEC. 

Objective: To provide the protection needed in order to preserve the qualities that prompted the BLM to designate 

this area as an ACEC. 

Exception: None.

Modification: None.

Waiver: None.

Resource: Kevin Rim ACEC – No Surface Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within the Kevin Rim ACEC. 

Objective: To provide the protection needed in order to preserve the qualities that prompted the BLM to designate 

this area as an ACEC. 

Exception: None.

Modification: None.

Waiver: None.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria 961

Resource: Malta Geological ACEC – Controlled Surface Use

Stipulation: Prior to any surface-disturbing activity in the Malta Geological ACEC the lessee shall be required to 

conduct a paleontological inventory. The lessee must engage the services of a qualified paleontologist, 

acceptable to the surface management agency (SMA), to conduct the inventory. An acceptable 

inventory report is to be submitted to the SMA for review and approval at the time a surface-disturbing 

plan of operations is submitted. 

Objective: To provide the protection needed in order to preserve the qualities that prompted the BLM to designate 

this area as an ACEC.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the qualities of the ACEC. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold can be 

occupied without adversely affecting the qualities of the ACEC.

Resource: Woody Island ACEC – No Surface Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within the Woody Island ACEC.

Objective: To provide the protection needed in order to preserve the qualities that prompted the BLM to designate 

this area as an ACEC.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the qualities of the ACEC. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold can be 

occupied without adversely affecting the qualities of the ACEC. 

Resource: Water, Riparian, Wetland, and Floodplains – No Surface Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within perennial or intermittent streams (as indicated by 

obligate wetland species or hydric soils); lakes, ponds, and reservoirs; floodplains; wetlands; and 

riparian areas. 

Objective: To protect the unique biological and hydrological features associated with perennial or intermittent 

streams; lakes, ponds, and reservoirs; floodplains; wetlands; and riparian areas. 

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the authorized officer if the operator submits a plan 

which demonstrates that there are no practicable alternatives to locating facilities in these areas, that all 

practicable mitigation measures would be applied, and that the wetland, riparian, and/or floodplain

functions of these areas would be maintained or enhanced. 

Modification: The area affected by this stipulation may be modified by the authorized officer if it is determined that 

portions of the area do not include these types of areas. 
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

962 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived by the authorized officer if it is determined that the entire leasehold 

does not include these types of areas. 

Resource: Water, Riparian, and Wetlands – Controlled Surface Use

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use would be controlled within 300 feet of riparian and/or wetland areas. 

Surface-disturbing activities would require a plan with design features that demonstrate how all actions 

would maintain and/or improve the functionality of riparian/wetland areas. The plan will address: (1) 

potential impacts to riparian and wetland resources, (2) mitigation to reduce impacts to acceptable 

levels (including timing restrictions), (3) post project restoration, and (4) a detailed monitoring plan 

that would show the controlled use is compatible with wetland and riparian objectives (including 

habitat and water quality). 

Objective: To protect the unique biological and hydrological features associated with wetland and riparian areas. 

Disturbances adjacent to wetland and/or riparian areas (including road use) can adversely impact these 

sensitive areas. This stipulation would provide a buffer to protect these features from indirect effects 

produced within the adjacent ground. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception to this stipulation if the operator can demonstrate that 

the proposed action would not adversely impact wetland or riparian function or associated water 

quality. 

Modification: The area affected by this stipulation can be modified by the authorized officer if it is determined that 

portions of the lease area do not contain wetlands or riparian areas. 

Waiver: This stipulation can be waived by the authorized officer if it is determined that the entire lease area 

does not contain wetlands or riparian areas. 

Resource: Eastern Breaks and Badlands – No Surface Occupancy

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within the Eastern Breaks and Badlands area with wilderness 

characteristics. 

Objective: To protect wilderness characteristics as a priority over other multiple uses.

Exception: None.

Modification: None.

Waiver: None.

Resource: Bald Eagle – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/2 mile of bald eagle nest sites that were active within 

the preceding 5 breeding seasons. 

Objective: To protect bald eagle nesting sites and/or breeding habitat in accordance with the Montana Bald Eagle 

Management Plan. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan which demonstrates that 

the proposed action will not affect the bald eagle or its habitat. If the authorized officer determines 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria 963

that the action may have an adverse effect, the operator may submit a plan demonstrating that the 

impacts can be adequately mitigated. This plan must be approved by the BLM. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting bald eagle nest sites or nesting areas. 

The authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting 

actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold is no 

longer capable of supporting bald eagle nest sites or nesting habitat. 

Resource: Bighorn Sheep Lambing – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within bighorn sheep lambing areas. 

Objective: To protect bighorn sheep lambing areas from disturbance and to facilitate long-term maintenance of 

bighorn sheep populations.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area no longer contain lambing habitat for bighorn sheep. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains bighorn sheep lambing areas.

Resource: Bighorn Sheep Range – Controlled Surface Use 

Stipulation: Prior to surface-disturbing or disruptive activities a plan to maintain bighorn sheep habitat will be 

prepared by the proponent and implemented upon approval by the authorized officer. This plan shall 

address how short-term and long-term direct and indirect effects to bighorn sheep range will be 

mitigated based on current science and research (Appendix E.5). 

Objective: To protect bighorn sheep habitat and populations from disturbance and to facilitate long-term 

maintenance of bighorn sheep populations.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if an environmental review determines that the action, 

as proposed or conditioned, would not compromise the functionality of the habitat for bighorn sheep.

Modification: The authorized officer may modify the area subject to the stipulation if an environmental analysis finds 

that a portion of the area is no longer bighorn sheep habitat and supports no bighorn sheep populations. 

The authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting 

actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived, if it is determined that bighorn sheep populations no longer occupy 

significant portions of the area and there is no reasonable likelihood of functional bighorn sheep 

habitat being restored.

Resource: Black-footed Ferret – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of black-footed ferret habitat.
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

964 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

Objective: To protect black-footed ferret habitat for long-term maintenance of black-footed ferret populations. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer, in consultation with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), determines that portions of the area can be occupied 

without adversely affecting black-footed ferret habitat. The authorized officer may also modify the 

size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual habitat suitability and/or local periods 

of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer, in consultation with USFWS, determines that 

the entire leasehold is no longer considered black-footed ferret habitat. 

Resource: Black-tailed Prairie Dog – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of black-tailed prairie dog habitat.

Objective: To protect prairie dog towns necessary for long-term maintenance of black-tailed prairie dog 

populations. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting prairie dog habitat. The authorized 

officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual habitat 

suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold is no 

longer considered prairie dog habitat. 

Resource: Colonial Waterbirds – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of a waterbird nesting colony. 

Objective: To protect colonial waterbird nesting sites and to maintain regional colonial waterbird populations. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if portions of the area can be occupied without 

adversely affecting waterbird nesting colonies.

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting waterbird nesting colonies. The 

authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual 

habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold is no 

longer capable of supporting nesting waterbirds. 

Resource: Colonial Waterbirds – Timing Limitation 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/2 mile of a waterbird nesting colony from April 1 

through July 15. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria 965

Objective: To protect colonial waterbirds and to maintain colonial waterbird populations. 

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted if the authorized officer determines that portions of the 

area can be occupied without adversely affecting waterbird nesting colonies. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting waterbird nesting colonies. The 

authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual 

habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold is no 

longer capable of supporting nesting waterbirds. 

Resource: Crucial Winter Range – Controlled Surface Use

Stipulation: Prior to surface-disturbing or disruptive activities a plan to maintain functionality of crucial winter 

range for big game and/or greater sage-grouse will be prepared by the proponent and implemented 

upon approval by the authorized officer. Within crucial winter range surface-disturbing or disruptive 

activities will be restricted or prohibited within 6/10 of a mile from any existing surface-disturbing or

disruptive activity. The plan shall address how short-term and long-term direct and indirect effects to 

crucial winter range will be mitigated based on current science and research (Appendix E.5). 

Objective: To protect big game and greater sage-grouse crucial winter range from loss and degradation, and to 

facilitate long-term sustainability of those wildlife populations utilizing crucial winter ranges by 

minimizing mortality of animals through disturbance and disruption.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if an environmental review determines that the action as 

proposed or conditioned (such as exceeding the 6/10 of a mile surface-disturbing or disruptive activity 

restriction) would not compromise the functionality of the crucial winter range. 

Modification: The authorized officer may modify the area subject to the stipulation if an environmental analysis finds 

that a portion of the area no longer contains crucial winter range and populations of wintering animals 

no longer occupy the area. The authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area 

based on studies documenting actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived, if it is determined that wintering animals no longer occupy significant 

portions of the area and there is no reasonable likelihood of future use as crucial winter range.

Resource: Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation

Stipulation: This lease area may now or hereafter contain plants, animals, or their habitats determined to be 

threatened, endangered, or other special status species. The BLM may recommend modifications to 

exploration and development proposals to further its conservation and management objective to avoid 

a BLM-approved activity that will contribute to a need to list such species or their habitat. The BLM 

may require modifications to or disapprove a proposed activity that is likely to result in jeopardy to the 

continued existence of a proposed or listed threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction 

or adverse modification of a designated or proposed critical habitat. The BLM will not approve any 

surface-disturbing activity that may affect any such species or critical habitat until it completes its 

obligations under applicable requirements of the Endangered Species Act as amended, 16 U.S.C. 

§1531 et seq., including completion of any required procedure for conference or consultation.

Objective: To protect threatened, endangered species, or special status species. 
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

966 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

Exception: None. 

Modification: None.

Waiver: None. 

Resource: Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Areas – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Areas. 

Objective: To protect and maintain regional grassland bird populations. 

Exception: The authorized officer, in consultation with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP), may grant an

exception if portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting grassland bird/greater 

sage-grouse habitat. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer, in consultation with 

MFWP, determines that portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting grassland 

bird/greater sage-grouse habitat. The authorized officer, in consultation with MFWP, may also modify 

the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual habitat suitability and/or actual use.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer, in consultation with MFWP, determines that 

the entire leasehold is no longer grassland bird/greater sage-grouse habitat.

Resource: Greater Sage-Grouse Leks (General Habitat Areas) – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1 mile of greater sage-grouse leks. This stipulation 

does not apply within the boundaries of the greater sage-grouse protection priority area.

Objective: To protect greater sage-grouse leks to maintain greater sage-grouse populations. 

Exception: The authorized officer, in consultation with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP), may grant an 

exception if portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting greater sage-grouse leks. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer, in consultation with 

MFWP, determines that portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting greater sagegrouse leks. The authorized officer, in consultation with MFWP, may also modify the size and shape 

of the area based on studies documenting actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer, in consultation with MFWP, determines that 

the entire leasehold is no longer capable of supporting greater sage-grouse leks. 

Resource: Greater Sage-Grouse Nesting Habitat (General Habitat Areas) – Controlled 

Surface Use 

Stipulation: Within greater sage-grouse nesting habitat surface-disturbing or disruptive activities may be restricted 

or prohibited. Prior to surface-disturbing or disruptive activities a plan to maintain functionality of 

greater sage-grouse habitat will be prepared by the proponent and implemented upon approval by the 

authorized officer. This plan shall address how short-term and long-term direct and indirect effects to 

nesting and brood-rearing areas will be mitigated based on current science and research (Appendix 

E.5). 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria 967

Objective: To protect the integrity of the habitat to maintain or improve greater sage-grouse populations.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if an environmental review determines that the action, 

as proposed or conditioned, would not compromise the functionality of the habitat for greater sagegrouse and would meet the objective for greater sage-grouse habitat and populations.

Modification: The authorized officer may modify the area subject to the stipulation if an environmental analysis finds 

that a portion of the area is no longer greater sage-grouse habitat and supports no greater sage-grouse 

populations.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if it is that greater sage-grouse populations no longer occupy 

significant portions of the area and there is no reasonable likelihood of functional greater sage-grouse 

habitat being restored.

Resource: Greater Sage-Grouse Protection Priority Areas – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within Greater Sage-Grouse Protection Priority Areas. 

Objective: To protect the integrity of the habitat to maintain or improve greater sage-grouse populations.

Exception: The authorized officer, in consultation with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP), may grant an 

exception if portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting greater sage-grouse 

habitat. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer, in consultation with 

MFWP, determines that portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting greater sagegrouse habitat. The authorized officer, in consultation with MFWP, may also modify the size and 

shape of the area based on studies documenting actual habitat suitability and/or actual use.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer, in consultation with MFWP, determines that 

the entire leasehold is no longer greater sage-grouse habitat.

Resource: Greater Sage-Grouse Winter Range – Timing Limitation

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited from December 1 through March 31 in greater sage-grouse 

winter range.

Objective: To protect greater sage-grouse winter range from disturbance during the winter season and to facilitate 

long-term maintenance of wildlife populations.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area no longer contain viable winter range. The dates for the timing restriction may be 

modified if new wildlife use information indicates that the dates are not valid for the leasehold. The 

authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual 

habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains viable winter range.
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

968 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

Resource: Interior Least Tern – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of interior least tern occupied habitat. 

Objective: To protect and maintain habitat needed to support regional interior least tern populations. 

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted if the authorized officer, in consultation with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), determines that portions of the area can be occupied without 

adversely affecting interior least tern occupied habitat. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer, in consultation with 

USFWS, determines that portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting interior least 

tern occupied habitat. The authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on 

studies documenting actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer, in consultation with USFWS, determines that 

the entire leasehold can be occupied without adversely affecting interior least tern occupied habitat. 

Resource: Mountain Plover – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within mountain plover habitat. 

Objective: To protect mountain plover habitat and to maintain mountain plover populations. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if portions of the area can be occupied without 

adversely affecting mountain plover habitat. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting mountain plover habitat. The 

authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual 

habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold is no 

longer mountain plover habitat. 

Resource: Mountain Plover – Timing Limitation 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of mountain plover habitat from April 1 

through July 15. 

Objective: To protect mountain plover habitat and to maintain mountain plover populations. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if portions of the area can be occupied without 

adversely affecting mountain plover habitat. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting mountain plover habitat. The 

authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual 

habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold is no 

longer mountain plover habitat. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria 969

Resource: Pallid Sturgeon – Controlled Surface Use 

Stipulation: Prior to surface-disturbing or disruptive activities occurring in or within 1/2 mile of river or stream 

shorelines identified as pallid sturgeon habitat, a plan to maintain pallid sturgeon habitat would be 

prepared by the proponent and implemented upon approval by the authorized officer.

Objective: To protect and maintain habitat needed to support pallid sturgeon populations. 

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted if the authorized officer, in consultation with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), determines that portions of the area can be occupied without 

adversely affecting pallid sturgeon habitat. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer, in consultation with 

USFWS, determines that portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting pallid 

sturgeon habitat. The authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on 

studies documenting actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer, in consultation with USFWS, determines that 

the entire leasehold can be occupied without adversely affecting pallid sturgeon habitat. 

Resource: Peregrine Falcon – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1 mile of peregrine falcon nest sites active within the 

preceding 7 breeding seasons. 

Objective: To maintain the reproductive potential of raptor nest sites. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts to raptors from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the production potential of raptor nest 

sites. The authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies 

documenting actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains habitat for raptor nest sites. 

Resource: Piping Plover – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of piping plover habitat. 

Objective: To protect piping plover habitat and to maintain regional piping plover populations. 

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted if the authorized officer, in consultation with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), determines that portions of the area can be occupied without 

adversely affecting piping plover habitat. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer, in consultation with 

USFWS, determines that portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting piping 

plover habitat. The authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies 

documenting actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

970 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer, in consultation with USFWS, determines that 

the entire leasehold is no longer piping plover habitat. 

Resource: Raptors – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of raptor nest sites that were active within the 

past 7 years. 

Objective: To maintain the reproductive potential of raptor nest sites. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts to raptors from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the production potential of raptor nest 

sites. The authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies 

documenting actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains habitat for raptor nest sites. 

Resource: Raptors – Timing Limitation 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/2 mile of active raptor nest sites from March 1 

through July 31. 

Objective: To maintain the reproductive potential of raptor nest sites. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the production potential of raptor nest 

sites. The authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies 

documenting actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains a raptor nest or has a nest that has not been active in 7 years. 

Resource: Sharp-tailed Grouse Leks – No Surface Occupancy 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of sharp-tailed grouse leks. 

Objective: To protect sharp-tailed grouse leks and to maintain sharp-tailed grouse populations. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting sharp-tailed grouse leks. The 

authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual 

habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria 971

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains sharp-tailed grouse leks. 

Resource: Sharp-tailed Grouse Nesting Habitat – Timing Limitation 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1/2 mile of sharp-tailed grouse leks from March 15 

through June 30.

Objective: To protect sharp-tailed grouse nesting habitat necessary for long-term maintenance of sharp-tailed 

grouse populations. 

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the sharp-tailed grouse populations. 

The authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting 

actual habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains sharp-tailed grouse nesting habitat. 

Resource: Sprague’s Pipit – Timing Limitation

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited from April 15 through July 15 in Sprague’s pipit habitat.

Objective: To protect Sprague’s pipit habitat necessary for long-term maintenance of Sprague’s pipit populations.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area no longer contain Sprague’s pipit habitat. The dates for the timing restriction may 

be modified if new wildlife use information indicates that the dates are not valid for the leasehold. The 

authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual 

habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains Sprague’s pipit habitat.

Resource: Winter Range – Timing Limitation

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited from December 1 through May 15 in big game winter range.

Objective: To protect big game and greater sage-grouse winter range from disturbance during the winter season 

and to facilitate long-term maintenance of wildlife populations.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates the 

impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the authorized officer determines that 

portions of the area no longer contain viable winter range. The dates for the timing restriction may be 
Appendix E HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

972 Oil and Gas Stipulations and EMW Criteria

modified if new wildlife use information indicates that the dates are not valid for the leasehold. The 

authorized officer may also modify the size and shape of the area based on studies documenting actual 

habitat suitability and/or local periods of actual use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains viable winter range.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix E

Wildlife CSU Stipulations 973

Appendix E.5

Requirements and/or Guidelines for Wildlife

Controlled Surface Use Stipulations

Plans that are required by controlled surface use (CSU) stipulations for bighorn sheep range, crucial winter range, greater 

sage-grouse habitat and protection priority areas, and grassland bird priority areas will be subject to the following 

requirements and/or guidelines. These requirements and guidelines may be modified based on the best available science 

and research, and best management practices.

The plan shall address:

 Mitigation or methods that would be used to abate continuous noise (related to long-term operations and/or 

activities) or temporary noise (related to installation, maintenance, one-time use, emergency operations, etc.) to 

minimize disruption to wildlife.

 The management of water developments to reduce the spread of West Nile virus within greater sage-grouse 

habitat areas.

 The placement of linear rights-of-way to reduce disturbance to wildlife.

 The placement of new utility developments (powerlines, pipelines, etc.) and transportation routes in a manner 

that does not impact wildlife such as through eliminating the need for powerlines or burying powerlines.

 The design and placement of high profile structures exceeding 10 feet in height in a manner that does not 

impact wildlife.

 The reduction of the frequency of human visitation at wells sites such as through remote monitoring of 

production facilities.

 Interim reclamation on long-term access roads and well pads including reshaping, topsoiling and revegetating 

cut and fill slopes to maximize the habitat restoration.

 Restoration of disturbed areas at final reclamation to pre-disturbance conditions or desired plant community.

 Placement of permanent (longer than 2 months) structures which create movement to minimize impacts to 

wildlife.

 A monitoring protocol.

The plan shall consider:

 The use of off-site mitigation, (e.g., creation of sagebrush habitat or conservation easements) with proponent 

dollars to offset habitat losses.

 The creation of a “Mitigation Trust Account” when impacts cannot be avoided, minimized, or effectively 

mitigated through other means. If approved by the BLM, the proponent may contribute funding to maintain 

habitat function based on the estimated cost of habitat treatments or other mitigation needed to maintain the 

functions of impacted habitats. Off-site mitigation should only be considered when no feasible options are 

available to adequately mitigate within and immediately adjacent to the impacted site, or when the off-site 

location would provide more effective mitigation of the impact than can be achieved on-site.

HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix F

Land Ownership Adjustment Criteria 975

Appendix F

Land Ownership Adjustment

F.1 Land Ownership Adjustment Criteria

Land Ownership Adjustments

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.

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-by-case basis for such facilities as schools 

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

Category 2 could be considered for airport purposes under the Airport and Airway Improvement Act, for public 

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

BLM lands in Category 2 may contain significant resource values protected by law or policy, and any disposal 

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

from disposal of those lands, the parcels would be retained. Acquisition of lands or interests in lands located in 

or adjacent to Category 2 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, those parcels would be retained.
Appendix F HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

976 Land Ownership Adjustment Criteria

Retention Criteria

• Congressionally designated and other special management areas (i.e. WSAs, ACECs, Scenic and Historic 

Trails, etc.)

• Lands adjacent to Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument 

• Lands acquired using Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF) or under the Federal Land Transaction 

Facilitation Act (FLTFA)

Disposal Criteria for Alternatives B, C, and E (Preferred Alternative) 

• Parcels of one-quarter section (160 acres, more or less)

• Surrounded by private land

• No public access

• Selected for management issues 

Disposal Criteria for Alternative D

• Parcels of one-quarter section (320 acres, more or less)

• Surrounded by private land

• No public access

• Selected for management issues 

Acquisition Criteria

• Facilitate access to BLM land and resources

• Enhance the manageability of BLM land and resources

• Enhance important public values and uses, especially

- Special Status Species plant, animal, and fish habitats

- Significant historic or cultural resources

- Significant recreational opportunities

- Significant scenic values

- Traditional plant use areas or other properties important to Native Americans

• Enhance local social and economic conditions

• Facilitate implementation of other goals and objectives

Avoid the following when considering acquisition proposals:

• Acquiring lands or interests in lands with management problems that outweigh the expected benefits of 

acquisition, including but not limited to:

- Presence of hazardous materials

- Abundance of invasive, non-native species

- Inadequate access for managing the property for the purpose for which it would be acquired
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix F

BLM Land Available for Disposal by Exchange or Sale 977

F.2 BLM Land Available for Disposal by Exchange or Sale

(Category 3)

Alternatives B, C and E (Preferred Alternative)

The parcels of BLM land available for disposal by exchange or sale under Alternatives B, C and E (Preferred 

Alternative) are shown in Table F.2.1 and Maps F.1 through F.8.

Table F.2.1

BLM Land Available for Disposal under Alternatives B, C and E (Preferred Alternative)

Parcel No. Legal Description (Principal Meridian Montana)

Acreage of

Entire Parcel

Please note: 

- Lot acres are contained within ( ).

- Land identified for disposal in a prior resource management plan is shown with an asterisk (*). This refers to the entire parcel, 

unless another asterisk (*) within the parcel legal description indicates the portion previously identified.

Blaine County

T. 24 N., R. 17 E.

B-002 Section 13: NWNE, N2SE 120.00

T. 25 N., R. 17 E. 40.00

B-004 Section 1: SWNE

T. 26 N., R. 17 E.

B-005* Section 14: SENW 40.00

B-006 Section 25: NENW 40.00

B-007 Section 35: S2NW 80.00

T. 27 N., R. 17 E. 80.00

B-008* Section 26: SWNW, NESW

T. 30 N., R. 17 E. 40.00

B-009* Section 2: SENW

T. 35 N., R. 17 E. 160.00

B-011 Section 12: NW

T. 36 N., R. 17 E. 80.00

B-012 Section 11: S2NW

T. 23 N., R. 18 E.

B-014 Section 4: lot 4 (40.01) 40.01

B-015 Section 5: SWSW 40.00

B-018 Section 20: SENE 80.00

Section 21: SWNW

T. 24 N., R. 18 E.

B-020 Section 26: NESE 40.00

B-021 Section 33: SWNW 40.00
978 BLM Land Available for Disposal by Exchange or Sale

Table F.2.1

BLM Land Available for Disposal under Alternatives B, C and E (Preferred Alternative)

Parcel No. Legal Description (Principal Meridian Montana)

Acreage of

Entire Parcel

Please note: 

- Lot acres are contained within ( ).

- Land identified for disposal in a prior resource management plan is shown with an asterisk (*). This refers to the entire parcel, 

unless another asterisk (*) within the parcel legal description indicates the portion previously identified.

T. 25 N., R. 18 E.

B-022 Section 6: lot 1 (42.19), lot 2 (42.17), S2NE 164.36

B-023 Section 20: SENE, NESE 80.00

B-024 Section 24: NWNE 40.00

B-025 Section 32: E2NE 80.00

T. 26 N., R. 18 E.

B-026 Section 19: SESW 40.00

B-027* Section 22: NWNE 40.00

B-028 Section 30: lot 1 (39.42), lot 2 (39.28) 78.70

T. 27 N., R. 18 E.

B-029* Section 27: SENE 40.00

B-030* Section 31: SESW, SWSE 80.00

B-031* Section 32: SENW 40.00

T. 34 N., R. 18 E.

B-032* Section 4: SWNE 40.00

T. 37 N., R. 18 E.

B-035 Section 27: SE 160.00

T. 23 N., R. 19 E.

B-036 Section 6: lot 1 (40.43), lot 2 (40.31) 80.74

B-037 Section 6: SENW, E2SW 120.00

T. 27 N., R. 19 E.

B-040 Section 30: SWNE 40.00

T. 29 N., R. 19 E.

B-042 Section 17: SENE 40.00

T. 32 N., R. 19 E.

B-043* Section 33: SE 160.00

T. 34 N., R. 19 E. 40.00

B-044 Section 10: SESW

T. 35 N., R. 19 E.

B-045 Section 20: NE 160.00

B-046 Section 27: NESE 40.00

B-047 Section 30: SESE 40.00

T. 37 N., R. 19 E.

B-048 Section 6: lot 12 (29.58) 29.58

B-049 Section 12: NE 160.00
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix F

BLM Land Available for Disposal by Exchange or Sale 979

Table F.2.1

BLM Land Available for Disposal under Alternatives B, C and E (Preferred Alternative)

Parcel No. Legal Description (Principal Meridian Montana)

Acreage of

Entire Parcel

Please note: 

- Lot acres are contained within ( ).

- Land identified for disposal in a prior resource management plan is shown with an asterisk (*). This refers to the entire parcel, 

unless another asterisk (*) within the parcel legal description indicates the portion previously identified.

T. 26 N., R. 20 E.

B-050 Section 1: SENE 40.00

T. 27 N., R. 20 E.

B-051 Section 14: SWNE 40.00

B-052 Section 22: SESE 40.00

B-053 Section 26: NENW 40.00

T. 36 N., R. 20 E.

B-056 Section 10: NENW 40.00

T. 37 N., R. 20 E.

B-058 Section 5: SENE, N2SE, SWSE 160.00

T. 28 N., R. 21 E.

B-060* Section 6: SESE 40.00

B-061* Section 7: lot 1 (37.06), NENW 77.06

B-062* Section 17: S2SE 80.00

B-063* Section 19: NWNE 40.00

T. 29 N., R. 21 E.

B-064* Section 6: SESW 40.00

B-066* Section 19: S2NE 80.00

B-067* Section 20: SESW 40.00

T. 33 N., R. 21 E.

B-068 Section 23: SWSE 40.00

T. 33 N., R. 21 E. 79.30

B-069 Section 25: SENE

T. 33 N., R. 22 E.

Section 30: lot 2 (39.30)

T. 33 N., R. 21 E. 160.00

B-070 Section 28: NWNW

Section 29: N2NE, NENW

T. 35 N., R., 21 E.

B-072 Section 26: SESE 40.00

T. 36 N., R. 21 E. 160.00

B-074 Section 24: SW

T. 27 N., R. 22 E.

B-075* Section 7: NENE 40.00
980 BLM Land Available for Disposal by Exchange or Sale

Table F.2.1

BLM Land Available for Disposal under Alternatives B, C and E (Preferred Alternative)

Parcel No. Legal Description (Principal Meridian Montana)

Acreage of

Entire Parcel

Please note: 

- Lot acres are contained within ( ).

- Land identified for disposal in a prior resource management plan is shown with an asterisk (*). This refers to the entire parcel, 

unless another asterisk (*) within the parcel legal description indicates the portion previously identified.

T. 33 N., R. 22 E.

B-078 Section 7: NWSE 40.00

B-079 Section 8: SWSW 120.00

Section 17: N2NW

B-080 Section 34: SENE 40.00

T. 34 N., R. 22 E.

B-082 Section 13: W2W2 160.00

T. 35 N., R. 22 E.

B-085 Section 35: SWSW 40.00

B-086 Section 35: SWSE 40.00

T. 31 N., R. 23 E. 10.72

B-087 Section 1: lot 3 (10.72)

T. 32 N., R. 23 E.

B-088 Section 4: SENE 40.00

B-089* Section 8: SENE*, NESE 120.00

Section 9: NWSE*

B-090 Section 26: lot 2 (0.55) 0.55

B-091 Section 35: lot 5 (22.46) 22.46

T. 33 N., R. 23 E.

B-093 Section 25: N2SE 80.00

B-094 Section 27: S2SE 80.00

T. 37 N., R. 23 E. 80.00

B-097 Section 35: E2NW

T. 31 N., R. 24 E.

B-098 Section 3: lot 6 (31.71) 31.71

B-099 Section 12: lot 5 (13.30) 13.30

B-100 Section 12: lot 8 (13.36) 41.19

Section 13: lot 1 (27.83)

B-101 Section 13: lot 2 (30.06) 30.06

T. 32 N., R. 24 E.

B-102 Section 6: S2SE 120.00

Section 7: NENE

B-103 Section 32: lot 6 (4.00) 4.00

B-104 Section 35: lot 1 (9.50) 9.50
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix F

BLM Land Available for Disposal by Exchange or Sale 981

Table F.2.1

BLM Land Available for Disposal under Alternatives B, C and E (Preferred Alternative)

Parcel No. Legal Description (Principal Meridian Montana)

Acreage of

Entire Parcel

Please note: 

- Lot acres are contained within ( ).

- Land identified for disposal in a prior resource management plan is shown with an asterisk (*). This refers to the entire parcel, 

unless another asterisk (*) within the parcel legal description indicates the portion previously identified.

T. 37 N., R. 24 E.

B-106 Section 28: NENW 40.00

B-107 Section 28: SWSW 80.00

Section 29: SESE

T. 31 N., R. 25 E.

B-108 Section 5: N2SW 80.00

B-109 Section 9: E2NE 160.00

Section 10: W2NW

B-111 Section 11: SESW 40.00

B-112 Section 17: lot 3 (23.70) 29.07

Section 18: lot 8 (5.37)

B-113 Section 21: lot 2 (36.88) 36.88

B-114 Section 21: lot 5 (36.33) 49.77

Section 28: lot 1 (13.44)

B-115 Section 26: lot 1 (8.49) 8.49

B-116 Section 26: lot 6 (19.70) 19.70

B-117 Section 27: lot 1 (6.06) 6.06

T. 32 N., R. 25 E.

B-118 Section 22: N2NW 80.00

B-120 Section 32: SWNW, NWSW 80.00

T. 33 N., R. 25 E.

B-121 Section 17: SESW 40.00

B-122 Section 32: N2NE 80.00

T. 37 N., R. 25 E. 40.00

B-124 Section 34: NWSW

T. 31 N., R. 26 E.

B-125 Section 4: SE 160.00

T. 34 N., R. 26 E.

B-130 Section 4: NWSW 40.00

B-131 Section 5: E2SW 80.00

T. 35 N., R. 26 E.

B-132 Section 28: SESW, N2SE 120.00

B-133 Section 32: SENW 40.00

T. 36 N., R. 26 E. 40.00

B-134 Section 12: NWNW
982 BLM Land Available for Disposal by Exchange or Sale

Table F.2.1

BLM Land Available for Disposal under Alternatives B, C and E (Preferred Alternative)

Parcel No. Legal Description (Principal Meridian Montana)

Acreage of

Entire Parcel

Please note: 

- Lot acres are contained within ( ).

- Land identified for disposal in a prior resource management plan is shown with an asterisk (*). This refers to the entire parcel, 

unless another asterisk (*) within the parcel legal description indicates the portion previously identified.

T. 37 N., R. 26 E.

B-135 Section 17: SESW 80.00

Section 20: NENW

B-136 Section 20: NESW 40.00

T. 35 N., R. 22 E.

B-137 Section 30: SESW 40.00

Chouteau County

T. 25 N., R. 3 E. 119.80

C-001 Section 18: lot 1 (39.80), NWNE, NENW

T. 27 N., R. 4 E.

C-002 Section 1: SWSE 40.00

C-003 Section 32: SWSE 40.00

T. 23 N., R. 6 E.

C-004 Section 1: SENW 40.00

C-005 Section 14: SESE 40.00

T. 24 N., R. 7 E. 40.00

C-006* Section 11: NWSW

T. 25 N., R. 7 E. 40.00

C-007 Section 33: SWSW

T. 28 N., R. 7 E. 33.45

C-008 Section 2: lot 4 (33.45)

T. 24 N., R. 8 E. 40.00

C-009 Section 32: SWSW

T. 25 N., R. 8 E. 40.00 

C-010 Section 12: NESE

T. 26 N., R. 8 E.

C-011 Section 12: NWNW, NESW 80.00

C-012 Section 35: lot 6 (11.04) 11.04

T. 25 N., R. 9 E. 40.05

C-013 Section 6: lot 2 (40.05)
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix F

BLM Land Available for Disposal by Exchange or Sale 983

Table F.2.1

BLM Land Available for Disposal under Alternatives B, C and E (Preferred Alternative)

Parcel No. Legal Description (Principal Meridian Montana)

Acreage of

Entire Parcel

Please note: 

- Lot acres are contained within ( ).

- Land identified for disposal in a prior resource management plan is shown with an asterisk (*). This refers to the entire parcel, 

unless another asterisk (*) within the parcel legal description indicates the portion previously identified.

T. 26 N., R. 9 E.

C-014 Section 7: lot 2 (35.70) 35.70

C-015 Section 18: lot 1 (35.42) 35.42

C-016 Section 30: SWNE 40.00

T. 28 N., R. 9 E.

C-017 Section 4: lot 2 (14.70), lot 3 (15.50), lot 4 (16.30), 86.50

lot 7 (40.00)

T. 29 N., R. 9 E. 40.00

C-019 Section 30: SWNE

T. 26 N., R. 10 E. 80.00

C-021 Section 12: W2SE

T. 26 N., R. 11 E.

C-022 Section 5: SWNW 40.00

C-023 Section 19: SWSE 40.00

C-024 Section 30: lot 1 (38.15), NENW 78.15

T. 27 N., R. 11 E. 80.00

C-025 Section 32: S2SW

T. 27 N., R. 12 E.

C-026* Section 10: NESE 40.00

C-027 Section 31: lot 3 (38.04) 38.04

T. 24 N., R. 13 E. 40.00

C-028 Section 2: SWSE

T. 25 N., R. 13 E. 40.00

C-029 Section 1: SENW

T. 26 N., R. 13 E.

C-030 Section 8: NESW 40.00

C-031 Section 17: NENW, W2SW 120.00

T. 23 N., R. 15 E. 40.00

C-033 Section 5: NESW

T. 23 N., R. 16 E.

C-034 Section 4: lot 2 (39.83) 39.83

C-035 Section 13: SWNE 40.00

T. 24 N., R. 16 E.

C-037 Section 3: lot 2 (7.58), lot 3 (7.52) 15.10

C-038 Section 13: SWNW, NESW 80.00
984 BLM Land Available for Disposal by Exchange or Sale

Table F.2.1

BLM Land Available for Disposal under Alternatives B, C and E (Preferred Alternative)

Parcel No. Legal Description (Principal Meridian Montana)

Acreage of

Entire Parcel

Please note: 

- Lot acres are contained within ( ).

- Land identified for disposal in a prior resource management plan is shown with an asterisk (*). This refers to the entire parcel, 

unless another asterisk (*) within the parcel legal description indicates the portion previously identified.

C-039 Section 15: NWSW 40.00

C-040 Section 33: SENW 40.00

T. 25 N., R. 16 E.

C-041 Section 5: lot 4 (42.29) 42.29

C-043 Section 22: S2SW 80.00

C-045 Section 27: SWSW 40.00

C-046 Section 34: NENW 40.00

T. 26 N., R. 16 E.

C-047 Section 11: NWSW 40.00

T. 24 N., R. 17 E.

C-050 Section 19: lot 12 (30.15), lot 13 (30.21) 60.36

T. 25 N., R. 17 E.

C-053 Section 6: lot 2 (43.13), SWNE, SENW 123.13

T. 27 N., R. 16 E.

C-055 Section 11: NWSE 40.00

Glacier County

T. 32 N., R. 5 W.

G-001* Section 4: NESW, S2SW 120.00

G-002* Section 8: SENE 40.00

Hill County

T. 29 N., R. 8 E. 120.00

H-001 Section 21: SWSE

Section 28: W2NE

T. 37 N., R. 11 E. 114.04

H-002* Section 2: lot 5 (18.68), lot 6 (18.57), lot 7 (18.45),

lot 8 (18.34), SWNE

T. 37 N., R. 15 E.

H-003* Section 6: lot 9 (26.94), lot 10 (26.79) 53.73

H-004 Section 7: SESE 40.00

H-005* Section 29: SENE*, NESE 80.00

T. 28 N., R. 16 E.

H-006 Section 1: lot 14 (23.84), E2NW 103.84

H-007 Section 24: lot 4 (24.71) 24.71
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix F

BLM Land Available for Disposal by Exchange or Sale 985

Table F.2.1

BLM Land Available for Disposal under Alternatives B, C and E (Preferred Alternative)

Parcel No. Legal Description (Principal Meridian Montana)

Acreage of

Entire Parcel

Please note: 

- Lot acres are contained within ( ).

- Land identified for disposal in a prior resource management plan is shown with an asterisk (*). This refers to the entire parcel, 

unless another asterisk (*) within the parcel legal description indicates the portion previously identified.

T. 30 N., R. 16 E. 17.62

H-010* Section 35: lot 3 (17.62)

T. 31 N., R. 16 E. 40.00

H-011* Section 24: NWSE

T. 28 N., R. 17 E.

H-012 Section 5: N2SW 80.00

H-013 Section 18: SWSE 80.00

Section 19: NWNE

T. 30 N., R. 17 E.

H-014* Section 4: NWSE 40.00

H-015* Section 8: NESE 40.00

H-016* Section 29: lot 7 (8.42) 8.42

T. 37 N., R. 17 E. 40.00

H-017* Section 7: SESE

Liberty County

T. 29 N., R. 5 E.

L-001 Section 4: SWSE 40.00

L-002 Section 9: NENE 40.00

L-003 Section 10: SWNW 40.00

Phillips County

T. 24 N., R. 23 E. 40.00

P-001* Section 13: SENE

T. 24 N., R. 24 E.

P-003* Section 3: SENW 40.00

P-004* Section 5: SENE 40.00

P-005* Section 13: NWNE 40.00

P-006* Section 23: SENW 40.00

T. 24 N., R. 25 E.

P-007* Section 4: lot 4 (40.06) 40.06

P-008* Section 18: NESW 40.00

P-009* Section 19: E2NE 80.00

T. 25 N., R. 25 E. 40.00

P-010* Section 26: NWSW
986 BLM Land Available for Disposal by Exchange or Sale

Table F.2.1

BLM Land Available for Disposal under Alternatives B, C and E (Preferred Alternative)

Parcel No. Legal Description (Principal Meridian Montana)

Acreage of

Entire Parcel

Please note: 

- Lot acres are contained within ( ).

- Land identified for disposal in a prior resource management plan is shown with an asterisk (*). This refers to the entire parcel, 

unless another asterisk (*) within the parcel legal description indicates the portion previously identified.

T. 31 N., R. 27 E.

P-023* Section 20: SWNW 40.00

P-024* Section 20: SESE 40.00

T. 32 N., R. 27 E. 80.00

P-029* Section 13: S2NE

T. 35 N., R. 27 E.

P-032* Section 9: SWNE 40.00

T. 36 N., R. 27 E. 80.00

P-035* Section 33: S2SE

T. 27 N., R. 28 E. 10.00

P-039 Section 15: SWSENW

T. 30 N., R. 28 E.

P-040* Section 12: NWSW 40.00

T. 32 N., R. 28 E.

P-047* Section 29: NWNE, N2NW 120.00

T. 35 N., R. 28 E. 40.00

P-049 Section 1: SW

T. 35 N., R. 29 E. 120.00

P-069 Section 8: NESW, N2SE

T. 31 N., R. 30 E.

P-078* Section 31: NESE 40.00

T. 32 N., R. 30 E.

P-082 Section 34: N2NE 80.00

T. 30 N., R. 31 E.

P-092* Section 29: NWNE 40.00

T. 35 N., R. 32 E. 40.00

P-120 Section 20: NWNW

T. 33 N., R. 33 E.

P-144* Section 3: lot 3 (41.41) 41.41

T. 34 N., R. 33 E.

P-149* Section 34: SWSW 40.00
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix F

BLM Land Available for Disposal by Exchange or Sale 987

Table F.2.1

BLM Land Available for Disposal under Alternatives B, C and E (Preferred Alternative)

Parcel No. Legal Description (Principal Meridian Montana)

Acreage of

Entire Parcel

Please note: 

- Lot acres are contained within ( ).

- Land identified for disposal in a prior resource management plan is shown with an asterisk (*). This refers to the entire parcel, 

unless another asterisk (*) within the parcel legal description indicates the portion previously identified.

T. 30 N., R. 34 E.

P-158 Section 8: NESE 40.00

P-160 Section 29: SWNW 40.00

T. 33 N., R. 34 E.

P-166* Section 1: SESE 40.00

P-168* Section 14: SESE 40.00

T. 34 N., R. 34 E.

P-170* Section 2: SWSE 40.00

P-171* Section 12: SWNE 40.00

P-172* Section 23: NESE 40.00

T. 26 N., R. 28 E.

P-186 Section 19: lot 3 (10.83) and lot 4 (10.83) 105.57

Section 30: lot 1 (11.10), lot 2 (11.02), lot 3 (10.94),

lot 4 (10.85), NENW

Zortman Townsite

T. 25 N., R. 25 E.

P-176* Section 17: block 5 (2.89) 2.89

P-177 Section 17: block 7 (4.36) 4.36

Section 16: block 7

P-178* Section 17: block 8, lot 3 (0.72), lot 4 (1.23) 1.95

P-179* Section 17: block 11 (6.04) 6.04

P-180* Section 16: block 14, lot 2 (0.54), lot 3 (0.54), lot 4 (4.74) 5.82

P-181* Section 16: block 15, lot 1 (0.41), lot 2 (0.41), lot 3 (0.32), 1.76

lot 4 (0.62)

P-182* Section 16: block 16, lot 1 (0.44), lot 2 (0.44), lot 3 (0.44), 1.62

lot 4 (0.30)

P-183* Section 16: block 18, lot 1 (0.75), lot 2 (0.89), lot 3 (0.77), 3.68

lot 4 (0.65), lot 5 (0.62)

P-184* Section 16: block 19, lot 1 (0.58), lot 2 (0.97), lot 3 (0.92), 5.09

lot 4 (0.87), lot 5 (1.08), lot 6 (0.67)

Landusky Townsite

T. 25 N., R. 24 E.,

P-185* Section 22: block 8 (1.7) 3.58

Section 27: block 8 (1.8)
988 BLM Land Available for Disposal by Exchange or Sale

Table F.2.1

BLM Land Available for Disposal under Alternatives B, C and E (Preferred Alternative)

Parcel No. Legal Description (Principal Meridian Montana)

Acreage of

Entire Parcel

Please note: 

- Lot acres are contained within ( ).

- Land identified for disposal in a prior resource management plan is shown with an asterisk (*). This refers to the entire parcel, 

unless another asterisk (*) within the parcel legal description indicates the portion previously identified.

Toole County

T. 30 N., R. 1 W. 40.00

T-002 Section 8: NENW

T. 31 N., R. 1 W.

T-003* Section 19: NENE 40.00

T-004* Section 27: SWSW 40.00

T-005* Section 30: lot 1 (38.57), NWNE, NENW 118.57

T. 35 N., R. 1 W.

T-006* Section 19: NENW 40.00

T-007 Section 28: W2NE, NWSE 120.00

T-008* Section 31: SENW 40.00

T. 31 N., R. 2 W.

T-009* Section 2: lot 1 (39.76), lot 2 (39.82), SENE 119.58

T-011* Section 11: SESW 40.00

T-012* Section 14: NESW, S2SW 120.00

T. 31 N., R. 2 W.

T-016 Section 25: NESW 40.00

T-017 Section 35: lot 6 (16.11) 16.11

T. 32 N., R. 2 W. 40.00

T-018* Section 17: NENE

T. 35 N., R. 2 W.

T-019* Section 2: SE 160.00

T-020 Section 7: SESE 80.00

Section 18: NENE

T. 31 N., R. 3 W.

T-021* Section 5: lot 1 (40.18), lot 2 (40.14) 80.32

T. 33 N., R. 3 W.

T-023* Section 21: SWNE 40.00

T-024* Section 22: NESW, W2SW, NWSE 160.00

T-025* Section 24: SESE 40.00

T-026* Section 27: NENE 40.00

T. 35 N., R. 3 W.

T-030* Section 33: W2SE 80.00

T-031* Section 34: NENE 40.00

T. 34 N., R. 4 W. 40.00

T-032 Section 6: SENE
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix F

BLM Land Available for Disposal by Exchange or Sale 989

Table F.2.1

BLM Land Available for Disposal under Alternatives B, C and E (Preferred Alternative)

Parcel No. Legal Description (Principal Meridian Montana)

Acreage of

Entire Parcel

Please note: 

- Lot acres are contained within ( ).

- Land identified for disposal in a prior resource management plan is shown with an asterisk (*). This refers to the entire parcel, 

unless another asterisk (*) within the parcel legal description indicates the portion previously identified.

T. 34 N., R. 1 E. 40.00

T-033* Section 18: NENE

T. 36 N., R. 2 E.

T-034 Section 15: SENE 40.00

T. 37 N., R. 3 E. 40.00

T-037 Section 33: SENE

Valley County

T. 32 N., R. 35 E.

V-018* Section 3: NWSE 40.00

V-019* Section 30: lot 5 (39.97) 39.97

T. 32 N., R. 35 E.

V-020 Section 33: lot 2 (2.95) 2.95

T. 35 N., R. 35 E.

V-024* Section 22: NWSE 40.00

T. 29 N., R. 38 E.

V-058 Section 25: lot 4 (0.83), lot 5 (5.98) 6.81

T. 30 N., R. 38 E.

V-060 Section 3: SESE 40.00

V-062 Section 10: SESE 40.00

T. 29 N., R. 39 E.

V-067 Section 27: SESE 40.00

V-068 Section 34: NESE 40.00

T. 30 N., R. 39 E.

V-069 Section 21: SW 160.00

T. 27 N., R. 41 E. 80.00

V-082* Section 4: W2NW

T. 27 N., R. 42 E.

V-086 Section 7: lot 6 (5.35) 5.35

V-087* Section 9: NWSW 40.00

T. 28 N., R. 39 E.

V-086 Section 12: Glasgow Original Townsite, block 08, lots 8 and 9 (0.17) 0.17
990 BLM Land Available for Disposal by Exchange or Sale

Alternative D

The parcels of BLM land available for disposal by exchange or sale under Alternative D include all parcels shown in 

Table F.2.1, and the additional parcels shown in Table F.2.2.

Table F.2.2

Additional Parcels of BLM Land Available for Disposal under Alternative D

Parcel No. Legal Description (Principal Meridian Montana)

Acreage of

Entire Parcel

Please note: 

- Lot acres are contained within ( ).

- Land identified for disposal in a prior resource management plan is shown with an asterisk (*). This refers to the entire parcel, 

unless another asterisk (*) within the parcel legal description indicates the portion previously identified.

Blaine County

T. 34 N., R. 17 E.

B-010 Section 34: S2 320.00

T. 37 N., R. 17 E.

B-013 Section 2: SE 200.00

Section 11: NENE

T. 24 N., R. 18 E.

B-019 Section 21: N2SW, NWSE, S2SE 320.00

Section 28: N2NE, SWNE

T. 35 N., R. 18 E. 199.93

B-033 Section 2: lot 3 (39.93)

T. 36 N., R. 18 E.

Section 35: SW

T. 37 N., R. 18 E.

B-034 Section 10: S2 320.00

T. 28 N., R. 19 E. 238.31

B-041 Section 26: SWSW

Section 27: lot 7 (38.31)

Section 35: W2W2

T. 34 N., R. 20 E.

B-054 Section 5: lot 1 (41.21), lot 2 (41.24), S2NE, SE 322.45

B-055 Section 22: N2 320.00

T. 36 N., R. 20 E.

B-057 Section 11: W2 320.00

T. 27 N., R. 21 E. 186.12

B-059* Section 2: lot 1 (24.34), lot 2 (24.35), lot 3 (24.35), lot 4 (24.36)

Section 3: lot 1 (24.36), lot 2 (24.36), lot 8 (40.00)

T. 29 N., R. 21 E.

B-065* Section 18: lot 3 (39.86), lot 4 (40.31), E2SW, W2SE 320.86

Section 19: lot 1 (40.44), lot 2 (40.25)
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix F

BLM Land Available for Disposal by Exchange or Sale 991

Table F.2.2

Additional Parcels of BLM Land Available for Disposal under Alternative D

Parcel No. Legal Description (Principal Meridian Montana)

Acreage of

Entire Parcel

Please note: 

- Lot acres are contained within ( ).

- Land identified for disposal in a prior resource management plan is shown with an asterisk (*). This refers to the entire parcel, 

unless another asterisk (*) within the parcel legal description indicates the portion previously identified.

B-071 T. 34 N., R. 21 E. 237.34

Section 24: NESE, S2SE

Section 25: N2NE

T. 34 N., R. 22 E.

Section 19: lot 3 (37.34)

T. 35 N., R., 21 E.

B-073 Section 27: W2NW, SW 320.00

Section 34: W2NW

T. 32 N., R. 22 E. 281.51

B-077 Section 2: lot 1 (41.51)

T. 33 N., R. 22 E.

Section 33: SESE

Section 34: NWSW, S2S2

T. 34 N., R. 22 E. 314.08

B-081 Section 1: lot 1 (39.92), lot 2 (39.77), S2NE

T. 34 N., R. 23 E.

Section 6: lot 3 (39.55), lot 4 (37.35), lot 5 (37.49), SENW

T. 34 N., R. 22 E.

B-083 Section 23: N2 320.00

B-084 Section 32: NE, N2SE 320.00

Section 33: W2SW

T. 33 N., R. 23 E.

B-092 Section 15: W2SE 200.00

Section 22: W2NE, NENW

T. 34 N., R. 23 E.

B-095 Section 28: S2 320.00

B-096 Section 32: E2 320.00

T. 33 N., R. 24 E. 320.00

B-105 Section 29: S2

T. 31 N., R. 25 E.

B-110 Section 10: NE, NWSE 200.00

T. 32 N., R. 25 E.

B-119 Section 29: W2NE, NW, NESW, NWSE 320.00

T. 36 N., R. 25 E. 320.00

B-123 Section 2: S2NE, N2S2, SWSW

Section 11: NWNW
992 BLM Land Available for Disposal by Exchange or Sale

Table F.2.2

Additional Parcels of BLM Land Available for Disposal under Alternative D

Parcel No. Legal Description (Principal Meridian Montana)

Acreage of

Entire Parcel

Please note: 

- Lot acres are contained within ( ).

- Land identified for disposal in a prior resource management plan is shown with an asterisk (*). This refers to the entire parcel, 

unless another asterisk (*) within the parcel legal description indicates the portion previously identified.

T. 31 N., R. 26 E.

B-126 Section 8: E2 320.00

T. 33 N., R. 26 E.

B-127 Section 8: NENE, S2NE, SE 280.00

B-128 Section 9: S2NE, SENW, N2SE 200.00

B-129 Section 17: W2SW 320.00

Section 18: lot 7 (40.00), lot 12 (40.00), SE

Chouteau County

T. 28 N., R. 9 E.

C-018 Section 8: E2NE, NESE 240.00

Section 9: W2NW, NWSW

T. 23 N., R. 16 E.

C-036 Section 17: NW 331.45

Section 18: lots 1 (30.23), 2 (30.48), 3 (30.74), E2NE

T. 25 N., R. 16 E.

C-044 Section 22: E2SE 240.00

Section 27: NENE, S2NE, NWSE

T. 26 N., R. 16 E.

C-048 Section 32: W2NE, NW 240.00

T. 24 N., R. 17 E.

C-051 Section 31: NWNE, S2NE, N2SE 200.00

T. 25 N., R. 17 E.

C-052 Section 4: lot 1 (40.49), lot 2 (40.52), lot 3 (40.54), 282.12

lot 4 (40.57), S2NE, SENW

Hill County

T. 28 N., R. 16 E.

H-008 Section 32: NW, N2SW 240.00

H-009 Section 33: N2NE 200.00

Section 34: NWNE, N2NW
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix F

BLM Land Available for Disposal by Exchange or Sale 993

Table F.2.2

Additional Parcels of BLM Land Available for Disposal under Alternative D

Parcel No. Legal Description (Principal Meridian Montana)

Acreage of

Entire Parcel

Please note: 

- Lot acres are contained within ( ).

- Land identified for disposal in a prior resource management plan is shown with an asterisk (*). This refers to the entire parcel, 

unless another asterisk (*) within the parcel legal description indicates the portion previously identified.

Toole County

T. 31 N., R. 2 W.

T-010* Section 2: SESW*, W2SE 240.00

Section 11: W2NE, NENW*

T. 31 N., R. 3 W.

T-022 Section 15: SESE 240.00

Section 22: E2NE, NESE

Section 23: W2SW

T. 34 N., R. 3 W.

T-028* Section 28: NWSW, S2SW 240.00

Section 33: NWNE, N2NW

Valley County

T. 23 N., R. 35 E.

V-007 Section 4: S2SW 320.00

Section 5: S2NE, SE

T. 24 N., R. 35 E.

V-010 Section 23: W2SE 280.00

Section 25: W2NW

Section 26: N2NE, SENE

T. 30 N., R. 35 E. 320.00

V-013* Section 35: W2

T. 31 N., R. 35 E. 200.00

V-014* Section 4: lot 3 (40.00), lot 4* (40.00)

T. 32 N., R. 35 E.

Section 33: SENW*, E2SW*

T. 32 N., R. 35 E. 322.38

V-017* Section 3: lot 4 (41.14), SWNW

Section 4: lot 1 (41.24), SENE

T. 33 N., R. 35 E.

Section 32: E2SW, W2SE

T. 29 N., R. 36 E. 320.00

V-028 Section 10: SE

Section 11: SW

T. 30 N., R. 36 E. 320.00

V-029 Section 13: NW

Section 14: NE
994 BLM Land Available for Disposal by Exchange or Sale

Table F.2.2

Additional Parcels of BLM Land Available for Disposal under Alternative D

Parcel No. Legal Description (Principal Meridian Montana)

Acreage of

Entire Parcel

Please note: 

- Lot acres are contained within ( ).

- Land identified for disposal in a prior resource management plan is shown with an asterisk (*). This refers to the entire parcel, 

unless another asterisk (*) within the parcel legal description indicates the portion previously identified.

T. 31 N., R. 36 E.

V-034 Section 18: SESW, S2SE 320.00

Section 19: NE, NENW

T. 29 N., R. 37 E.

V-044* Section 28: N2 320.00

T. 31 N., R. 37 E.

V-048* Section 20: NESE, S2SE 200.00

Section 21: W2SW

T. 37 N., R. 37 E.

V-056 Section 2: lot 3 (46.12), lot 4 (46.13), S2NW, NWSW 212.25

V-057 Section 10: SENE, E2SE 320.00

Section 11: S2NW, N2SW, SWSW

T. 30 N., R. 38 E. 199.99

V-059 Section 2: lot 4 (39.99)

T. 31 N., R. 38 E.

Section 35: SW

T. 30 N., R. 39 E.

V-070 Section 35: SW, SWSE 200.00

T. 34 N., R. 40 E. 320.00

V-080* Section 4: S2SW

Section 9: NW, N2SW

T. 35 N., R. 40 E. 320.00

V-081* Section 27: W2NE, E2SW, W2SE, NESE

Section 34: NENW

T. 37 N., R. 42 E. 320.00

V-088* Section 22: E2SE

Section 23: W2SW

Section 26: NW
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix F

BLM Land Available for Disposal by Exchange or Sale 995
996 BLM Land Available for Disposal by Exchange or Sale
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix F

BLM Land Available for Disposal by Exchange or Sale 997
998 BLM Land Available for Disposal by Exchange or Sale
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix F

BLM Land Available for Disposal by Exchange or Sale 999
1000 BLM Land Available for Disposal by Exchange or Sale
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix F

BLM Land Available for Disposal by Exchange or Sale 1001
1002 BLM Land Available for Disposal by Exchange or Sale
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix G

Livestock Allocations 1003

Appendix G

Livestock Allocations

Livestock will continue to be allocated approximately 386,600 animal unit months (AUMs) of forage each year from 

BLM land in the planning area. The livestock allocations for the planning area are shown in Table G.1.

Table G.1

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name

Allotment 

Category

AMP

Implementation

Date

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Standards 

Assessment

Havre Field Office

00844 T32N R24E SEC 22 LATERAL C 160 36 Y

00862 T26N R9E SEC 30 C 40 6 N

00869 T27N R11E SEC 32 C 80 8 Y

00871 ANCHORS ISLAND 25.10.04 C 40 8 Y

00873 T26N R10E SEC 12 C 80 8 Y

00874 T35N R12E SEC 18 C 40 8 Y

00875 T32N R23E SEC 5 C 40 7 Y

00877 T29N R9E SEC. 19 & 30 C 79 8 Y

00878 HL/BL LDFIL 32.17.1 C 59 12 N

00881 T27N R4E SEC 1 C 40 8 Y

00882 CADUFF C 40 4 Y

00883 T23N 18E SEC 4 C 40 5 Y

00886 T31N R23E SEC 1 C 11 2 Y

00887 T32N R23E SEC 26 C 1 1 Y

00889 T37N R2W SEC 32 C 40 1 N

00899 T31N R4E SEC 35 C 40 5 Y

00900 T31N R3E SEC 22 SENE C 40 6 N

00901 T30N R4E SEC 13 NWNE C 40 8 Y

00902 T37N R17E SEC 7 C 40 8 Y

00904 T31N R12E SEC 3 NWNE C 40 8 Y

00907 T34N R2W SEC 10 NWNE C 40 3 Y

00908 T31N R1W SEC 27 SWSW C 40 8 Y

00909 T31N R1W SEC 19 NENE C 40 8 Y

00911 LONESOME LAKE FARM 

TRACTS C 2120 Y

00916 T27N R12E SEC 140 C 40 8 Y

00917 T25N R09E SEC 4 C 12 3 Y

00918 T32N R22E SEC 21 C 25 5 Y

00930 SULLIVAN BRIDGE #2 C 40 12 Y
Appendix G HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1004 Livestock Allocations

Table G.1

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name

Allotment 

Category

AMP

Implementation

Date

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Standards 

Assessment

00940 ESKAY SCHOOL C 40 8 Y

00959 HAUGO SE/DAGNL NE M 1002 211 Y

03091 AKSEL M 317 58 N

03184 ELWOOD C 40 6 Y

03186 JEWEL COULEE C 335 71 Y

03199 LOST FORTY C 40 7 Y

03230 WEST WAYNE CREEK M 320 40 Y

05049 PHILLIPS COUNTY C 160 27 Y

05097 LIESE-VAN VOAST M 3215 750 Y

05608 LOWER SQUAW CREEK C 177 43 NL

05611* UPPER CYPRIAN CREEK M 3779 646 Y

06001 NORTHWEST M 1813 363 Y

06002 PEBBLE CREEK C 160 30 Y

06003 SIX MILE COULEE C 158 27 Y

06004 DRIFTWOOD M 400 68 Y

06005 DAVIES RANCH M 06/01/87 6211 1146 Y

06006 WEST UNIT I 05/01/85 11043 2187 NL

06007 LYONS CREEK I 1850 322 NL

06008 CANADA LINE M 1921 368 Y

06010 EAST FORK M 04/01/72 2053 633 Y

06011 BENNETT COULEE M 05/01/69 3830 1082 Y

06012 BORDER UNIT 99 M 06/01/69 10897 2410 Y

06013 RESERVOIR-07 M 1686 366 Y

06014 SILVER BOW I 06/01/86 1520 322 Y

06015 UPPER 30 MILE M 06/01/85 1193 197 Y

06016 WOODY COULEE M 200 40 Y

06017 MURRAY/WOODY ISLAND 

COULEE M 760 153 Y

06018 CHERRY RIDGE I 05/01/85 8284 1839 Y

06020 PETRIE RANCH I 06/01/85 12992 2681 Y

06021 CUSTOMS I 06/01/86 829 157 Y

06022 UPPER WOODY ISLAND I 05/01/66 2360 541 Y

06023 RIFLE RANCH M 80 16 Y

06024 NORTH WOODY ISLAND I 01/31/80 9925 2076 Y

06026 BORDERLINE C 77 24 Y

06027 ANDERSON RANCH M 03/01/85 880 142 Y
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix G 

Livestock Allocations 1005 

Table G.1

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name

Allotment 

Category

AMP

Implementation

Date

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Standards 

Assessment

06028 ELLOAM C 1200 221 Y

06031 BAHR X 3 M 04/01/86 1191 229 Y

06032 OLD CREEK M 80 17 Y

06033 CORRAL CREEK I 05/01/85 2380 463 N

06034 STEVEN M 480 89 Y

06035 UPPER HORSE CORRAL 

COULEE I 1760 321 NL

06036 ONLY FORTY I 40 9 NL

06037 LITTLE CHERRY M 672 91 Y

06039 HAUGO-03 M 1090 224 Y

06040 DIAGONAL-03 I 670 174 NL

06041 CHERRY HILLS M 941 181 Y

06044 BUCKLEY COULEE I 80 13 NL

06046 JERGESEN I 1600 282 Y

06047 MUD LAKE I 03/10/97 1000 213 Y

06048 LODGE CREEK I 1161 232 Y

06049 CHINOOK RESERVOIR I 2798 448 NL

06051 TEE TRAIL M 06/01/87 3955 745 Y

06052 NORWEGIAN I 05/01/85 1600 339 Y

06053 MARKER M 480 102 Y

06054 SKOYEN C 320 77 N

06055 LOWER CHOUTEAU COULEE M 05/01/75 1053 267 Y

06056 DRY FORK M 1640 333 Y

06057 HOLMAN M 01/27/94 4268 997 Y

06058 CHOUTEAU COULEE I 03/01/82 7280 1650 Y

06059 BOOT RESERVOIR M 480 103 Y

06060 NELSON PLACE M 1080 211 Y

06061 FIFTEEN MILE COULEE M 640 130 Y

06062 TILLEMAN UNIT I 2171 458 NL

06064 BR-12 NW 30-MILE I 04/01/96 2018 369 Y

06066 HAMMER I 1787 376 Y

06067 FH I 40 7 NL

06069 SECOND BEND M 560 105 Y

06070 BLAINE COUNTY M 859 192 Y

06071 HANSON FLAT I 05/01/67 3360 751 Y

06072 RED ROCK COULEE M 1120 253 Y
Appendix G HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1006 Livestock Allocations

Table G.1

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name

Allotment 

Category

AMP

Implementation

Date

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Standards 

Assessment

06074 WILLIAMS BENCH M 05/01/67 640 236 Y

06075 RESER I 1720 352 Y

06076 PRIDGEON PLACE M 320 64 Y

06077 NORTH M 480 111 Y

06078 GENE CREEK M 160 35 Y

06079 EAST M 197 39 N

06081 SIEMENS C 40 5 Y

06082 RABBIT HILLS M 240 39 Y

06083 BATTLE CK / SALMO I 02/18/87 3383 498 Y

06084 ANDY RESERVOIR C 438 58 Y

06085 COAL COULEE M 643 147 Y

06087 NORTH COAL COULEE M 1611 343 Y

06088 WEST COAL COULEE M 640 151 Y

06089 POND CL/15 MILE I 03/01/96 2120 422 Y

06090 ZURICH PARK M 585 96 Y

06091 TWO STEP M 667 136 Y

06092 ROAD BEND M 05/01/87 1280 297 Y

06094 TRIANGLE M 05/05/87 1450 309 Y

06095 PAULY/30 MILE M 05/01/93 2994 517 Y

06096 WEST FORK/HALSETH M 1360 269 Y

06097 WAYNE CREEK M 2140 453 Y

06098 BUCKSHOT M 1160 247 Y

06099 UPPER RIGGIN - JEWEL I 05/01/65 3590 718 Y

06101 MODIC M 956 220 Y

06103 NORTH REFUGE M 600 127 Y

06104 STOPLIGHT C 40 9 Y

06107 LIESE-VANVOAST BL CO M 2625 597 Y

06109 MILES BUTTE C 601 115 Y

06110 S SLASH B M 640 143 Y

06111 ZURICH BENCH M 05/01/69 3239 674 Y

06114 HARVEY PLACE M 460 53 Y

06115 GREENLAND M 1330 179 Y

06116 RODEO/HARLEM M 1258 179 Y

06117 SIPHON C 145 28 Y

06118 COLONY M 200 46 N

06119 LOWER WAYNE CREEK M 05/05/87 6510 1072 Y
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix G 

Livestock Allocations 1007 

Table G.1

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name

Allotment 

Category

AMP

Implementation

Date

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Standards 

Assessment

06120 WILLIE M 1640 322 Y

06121 EXCLOSURE M 1480 328 Y

06122 BLACK CREEK M 2080 476 Y

06123 FINGER LAKES M 720 165 Y

06125 MATADOR M 1400 279 Y

06127 RAILROAD C 200 56 N

06129 SAVOY CREEK I 03/16/88 6032 1126 Y

06130 LOWER SAVOY CREEK M 440 79 Y

06131 DRAKE CREEK M 1840 378 Y

06132 MILK CREEK M 2080 439 Y

06133 WEST COBURG M 880 199 Y

06134 COBURG I 1652 276 NL

06136 JUNCTION M 08/10/93 2587 658 Y

06137 EUREKA I 1441 317 NL

06140 PIPELINE C 160 26 Y

06142 SOUTH MAGDA C 40 10 Y

06144 COUNTY ROAD M 343 82 Y

06150 ALKALI LAKE I 01/01/71 1612 245 Y

06152 BEN C 80 21 Y

06153 GAP CREEK M 1037 116 Y

06154 BIRDTAIL BUTTE M 561 134 Y

06155 MCCANN BUTTE C 40 7 Y

06157 REEDER FIELD M 381 46 Y

06159 MYRTLE BUTTE C 1308 271 Y

06160 NORTH & MCGUIRE C 905 201 Y

06161 REED PLACE M 240 80 Y

06162 HENDERSON PLACE C 80 13 Y

06163 SAWTOOTH MOUNTAIN C 200 52 Y

06164* 3-MILE RIDGE M 06/03/85 10321 1460 Y

06165 TU BENCH M 06/01/98 1874 330 Y

06166 PIONEER M 600 60 Y

06167 TIN CUP M 559 64 Y

06168* AL'S CREEK I 3385 366 NL

06169* CHIMNEY BUTTE I 03/01/88 7112 720 Y

06171* LITTLE SUCTION M 03/01/88 1405 139 Y

06172* TIMBER RIDGE I 11599 1662 Y
Appendix G HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1008 Livestock Allocations

Table G.1

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name

Allotment 

Category

AMP

Implementation

Date

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Standards 

Assessment

06173 SAND CREEK-SEC.3&15 M 5349 876 Y

06174 BENCH MARK C 240 44 Y

06175 NIELSON HOMESTEAD M 632 97 Y

06178 BOGGESS PLACE M 467 73 Y

06180 BULLSEYE C 40 5 Y

06181* BULLWHACKER I 04/01/69 40243 4491 Y

06183 BIRCH CREEK M 3315 281 Y

06184 GREENS BENCH I 05/01/70 12038 1219 NL

06185 SCATTERED TRACTS M 577 86 Y

06187 FORK OF BLACK COULEE M 1013 135 Y

06189 NORTH RANCH M 420 69 Y

06190 OLIVER C 241 36 Y

06192* NORTH FK LION COULEE I 01/01/99 3930 592 Y

06193* LION COULEE I 05/01/82 3351 432 Y

06195 CORNER I 120 21 NL

06197 LAPORTE PLACE M 06/01/71 2115 584 Y

06198* CHASE HILL COMMON M 04/01/83 923 112 Y

06199 GREENS COULEE M 04/01/83 1486 109 Y

06200 CHIP CREEK M 1160 387 Y

06202 CUMMINGS BENCH M 06/01/88 2115 202 Y

06203* GOLF BENCH M 05/01/69 3319 230 Y

06204 BLACK COULEE COMMON M 03/01/85 4642 372 Y

06205 MORAVEC INDIVIDUAL C 440 14 Y

06206 UPPER BLACK COULEE M 06/01/93 1036 104 Y

06207* RAGLAND RIDGE M 1085 25 Y

06208* LOST RIDGE M 06/01/82 6253 487 Y

06213 RANKIN LAND C 97 16 Y

06215* DARK BUTTE M 4404 362 Y

06216* PABLO RAPIDS M 01/01/93 2644 130 Y

06219 FOURMILE HILL C 40 14 Y

06220* EIGHT MILE BENCH C 818 89 Y

06223* HUSAR HOME PLACE C 83 13 Y

06226 SHARPLES PLACE M 320 60 Y

06227 48 RITTERBUSH I 05/01/85 4160 816 Y

06228 FORT M 280 54 Y

06229 GUIDE I 480 130 NL
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix G

Livestock Allocations 1009

Table G.1

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name

Allotment 

Category

AMP

Implementation

Date

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Standards 

Assessment

06230 HORSE CORRAL COULEE M 06/01/69 1915 369 Y

06233 AIRSTRIP I 2629 495 Y

06235 MB EAST PASTURE M 05/01/71 1709 321 Y

06238 HIGHWAY M 310 65 Y

06239 FORGEY CREEK I 04/01/85 3840 555 NL

06241 BELDEN M 80 9 Y

06242 WAYLEE C 80 9 Y

06246 ZURICH/CHERRY RIDGE RD I 40 8 NL

06247 WEST WILDHORSE C 114 32 Y

06249 MILLER NORTH I 05/01/71 1923 295 Y

06250 MILK RIVER C 167 35 N

06251 EAST UNIT I 05/01/85 5096 1097 Y

06255 GRABER UNIT M 624 113 Y

06257 NORTH ZURICH M 1896 420 Y

06261 NUEVO M 320 64 Y

06263 RESERVOIR COULEE M 04/27/90 1765 399 Y

06264 MITCHELL M 01/28/91 920 302 Y

06266 NORTH CHOUTEAU COULEE M 480 81 Y

06267 LOMA RANCH C 101 20 Y

06268 THIBADEAU M 920 222 Y

06269* NORTH TIMBER RIDGE I 1125 145 Y

06271 HOLMS M 520 98 Y

06274 LOWER RIGGIN M 05/01/65 2354 491 Y

06275 STONE PLACE M 454 79 Y

06276 WEST STONE M 1415 256 Y

06277 VOLCANO C 168 35 Y

06278 FLAT ROCK C 164 34 Y

06279 SOUTH 40 C 40 9 Y

06286 CECRLE PLACE C 40 11 Y

06287 JACOBSEN C 40 14 Y

06293 WHITLASH M 560 75 Y

06305 HAY COULEE/GOLD BUTTE C 105 33 Y

06339 SULLIVAN BRIDGE M 290 83 N

06340 MARIAS WILLOWS I 607 203 NL

06341 LITTLE BOXELDER CR C 8 2 Y

06344 RED HORSE C 49 6 Y
Appendix G HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1010 Livestock Allocations

Table G.1

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name

Allotment 

Category

AMP

Implementation

Date

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Standards 

Assessment

06345 MEDICINE ROCK COULEE M 1885 171 Y

06348 HOME PLACE M 3117 500 Y

06349 FALCON M 4101 454 Y

06351 HALVORSON C 40 14 Y

06352 DAHLEN C 160 36 Y

06354 BYE RIM M 571 153 Y

06356 NINEMILE CR. C 400 116 Y

06357 RAIL EIGHTY C 80 15 Y

06358 WILMA M 2874 358 Y

06359 RIMROCK M 404 125 Y

06360 SHEEP M 720 150 Y

06361 SALTBUSH M 320 53 Y

06362 VIRDEN LAKE M 1409 89 Y

06363 OPEN FLAT M 560 80 Y

06364 SHELBY M 905 36 Y

06365 MONUMENT FIELD C 40 12 Y

06366 ALKALI FLAT C 80 13 Y

06367 BIG DAMP I 833 167 Y

06368 MARIAS GREENS M 156 28 Y

06369 ROUN C 181 37 N

06370 KIMMET PLACE M 548 117 Y

06371 WAMSLEY LEASE M 247 75 Y

06373 OILMONT M 320 105 N

06374 SANDON M 05/01/85 480 120 Y

06375 PSALMIST C 80 8 Y

06376 FERTIG C 120 40 Y

06377 HENRY C 40 5 Y

06379 COUNTY LINE M 320 40 Y

06380 KEIL M 186 62 N

06381 M AND M M 157 35 Y

06383 DRY FORK C 32 7 N

06384 MYRON C 62 10 Y

06385 MARIAS BREAKS C 240 37 Y

06386 MACK M 360 90 Y

06387 NAISMITH M 203 68 N

06388 SWEETGRASS HILLS M 120 37 Y
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix G

Livestock Allocations 1011

Table G.1

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name

Allotment 

Category

AMP

Implementation

Date

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Standards 

Assessment

06389 WEST BUTTE M 1870 312 Y

06390 MCDERMOTT PLACE M 200 37 Y

06391 FEY LEASE M 40 7 Y

06392 GOLD BUTTE M 57 18 Y

06393 ARROWHEAD C 80 15 Y

06394 MINERS COULEE M 327 32 Y

06395 MOUNT ROYAL M 2499 185 Y

06396 MARIAS BRIDGE M 2418 470 Y

06397 BIG SPRING M 712 39 Y

06398 BALD EAGLE M 1130 82 Y

06399 PUGSLEY BRIDGE M 1603 636 Y

06402 LINK C 237 34 Y

06403 HOFFMAN COULEE C 680 66 Y

06404 NW FORTY C 40 10 Y

06405 NORTH STAR M 443 70 Y

06406 WEST VIRDEN C 40 5 Y

06411 PREFERENCE LANDS C 248 38 Y

06412 BUCKSKIN M 840 110 Y

06414 TRIANGLE P. U. M 282 47 Y

06415 DOGTOWN M 04/01/83 1136 91 Y

06416 PIGTAIL COULEE M 04/01/83 1248 132 Y

06417 TALFALGER C 40 5 Y

06418 GREEN ROOF M 383 71 Y

06420* CLINARD COULEE C 628 76 Y

06421 SEVCIK PLACE C 80 23 Y

06422* N HANGING 5 M 474 57 N

06423 ANTELOPE C 120 34 Y

06424* BLAZEK M 336 90 N

06425* PIEDRAS M 1002 54 Y

06427 DILLMAN PLACE M 04/29/99 120 24 Y

06428* OSTERMAN C 200 42 Y

06429* PUMA C 156 53 Y

06430 BRAUN C 96 12 Y

06432 ARROYO M 529 133 Y

06433 VALKYRIE C 80 5 Y

06434* CABIN M 1783 223 Y
Appendix G HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1012 Livestock Allocations

Table G.1

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name

Allotment 

Category

AMP

Implementation

Date

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Standards 

Assessment

06435 NORTH RAPP M 287 7 Y

06437 VALLIE PLACE M 40 8 Y

06438 HACKAMORE M 352 41 N

06439 HOMESTEAD COULEE M 1520 151 Y

06440 LATIGO M 400 66 Y

06441 STEVENS C 267 41 Y

06442 MARIAS RIVER ONE I 471 114 Y

06444 SHEEP COULEE M 1771 241 Y

06445 MARIAS BREAKS C 177 40 Y

06446 NOME M 1221 185 Y

06448 CHRISTOFFERSON M 11/27/89 5325 1200 Y

06450 IHMSEN WELL M 03/28/94 2718 537 Y

06451 LONESOME PRAIRIE M 05/26/93 2128 406 Y

06453 HARDWARE M 438 176 Y

06454 TWO BIT C 40 10 Y

06455 HAYSTACK M 02/07/97 2800 560 Y

06456 RESERVATION C 244 34 Y

06457 EDWARDS LEASE C 300 43 Y

06458 BEAR PAW C 25 4 Y

06459 BULLHOOK C 80 17 Y

06460 KREMLIN C 80 27 Y

06461 FRESNO C 120 16 Y

06462 LONG BEACH C 78 25 Y

06465 SIGNAL C 174 35 Y

06466 HAUGEN C 40 12 Y

06468 LOBO M 680 167 Y

06470 NAGELHUS PLACE M 1600 153 Y

06471 WILD HORSE LAKE M 9754 799 Y

06473 SUNBURST C 440 10 Y

06474 GOOD C 80 27 N

06475 VIMY POINT M 127 17 N

06476 CHAUVET C 120 22 Y

06477 DIETZ C 160 18 Y

06478 TETON M 560 77 Y

06479 SHAMROCK C 40 14 Y

06482 BADGER C 426 46 Y
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix G

Livestock Allocations 1013

Table G.1

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name

Allotment 

Category

AMP

Implementation

Date

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Standards 

Assessment

06483 TUNIS C 40 12 Y

06484 SUNSET M 600 160 Y

06485 MARIAS RIVER TWO M 532 116 Y

06486 LAZY K 6 M 1421 151 Y

06487 MELBY C 120 32 Y

06489 GOLD EAGLE M 210 14 Y

06490 FORK COULEE M 1081 191 Y

06491 PINE TREE C 80 18 Y

06492 GOLD FORTY C 80 18 Y

06494 RED WING C 18 3 Y

06495 FOWLER C 77 12 Y

06496 CUT BANK INDIVIDUAL C 11 1 N

06554 T28 R17 SEC5-NSW C 80 19 Y

06558 THE HILLS C 40 9 Y

06569 OUTLOOK SCHOOL M 200 17 Y

06570 MCPHILLIPS C 40 8 Y

16301 NORTH SNAKE M 266 47 Y

16302 SNAKE BUTTE M 862 145 Y

16304 SNAKE BUTTE EAST M 1106 190 Y

16350* SOUTH VIMY M 904 93 Y

16406 KAUN C 40 14 Y

16407 BOOTLEGGER C 120 35 Y

16408 PINTO C 120 37 Y

19661 DEVILS CHIMNEY M 200 18 Y

19662 GALLUP M 322 29 Y

Glasgow Field Office

01148 WEST BRAZIL CREEK I 05/01/88 13420 1606 Y

01195 EAST BRAZIL CREEK I 05/01/05 13173 2120 Y

03144 HAMMOND COULEE I 04/01/07 6289 683 NL

04000 UPPER CROW CREEK I 06/01/67 6061 1033 Y

04002 UPPER BLUFF CREEK M 05/01/67 3064 586 Y

04003 UPPER EASTFORK CROW I 04/01/79 5588 944 Y

04004 MT04004 M 46 10 Y

04005 FLINT RESERVOIR I 1443 330 Y

04006 BLUFF CREEK M 1885 286 Y

04007 MT04007 C 52 7 Y
Appendix G HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1014 Livestock Allocations

Table G.1

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name

Allotment 

Category

AMP

Implementation

Date

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Standards 

Assessment

04008 WESTFORK BLUFF CREEK I 05/01/67 4090 787 Y

04009 CHAMBERS CREEK I 05/01/89 1511 347 Y

04010 MT04010 M 2687 574 Y

04011 MT04011 M 129 28 Y

04012 LOWER TOMATO CREEK M 07/01/87 5239 984 N

04013 NORTH TOMATO CREEK M 1439 287 N

04014 NORTHFORK ROCK CREEK M 03/01/91 3775 647 Y

04015 SOUTH CREEK I 03/01/89 12427 2268 Y

04016 UPPER MORGAN CREEK M 1194 156 Y

04017 MORGAN CREEK M 03/01/91 415 28 Y

04018 UPPER SOUTH CREEK M 1440 254 Y

04019 SNAKE CREEK I 07/19/88 7225 1005 Y

04021 UPPER LITTLE SNAKE M 05/01/90 2206 375 Y

04022 LOWER BLUFF CREEK M 04/01/79 4459 798 Y

04023 CHAMBERS COULEE M 05/01/89 4429 671 Y

04024 DIVIDE I 05/01/92 6645 1092 Y

04025 SOUTHFORK ROCK CREEK I 05/01/06 9243 1950 Y

04026 MT04026 M 1520 321 Y

04027 MT04027 M 124 15 Y

04028 MT04028 C 200 44 Y

04029 MT04029 M 800 165 Y

04031 MT04031 M 03/01/95 803 150 Y

04032 LOWER SNAKE CREEK I 03/01/95 3991 651 N

04033 MT04033 M 40 7 Y

04034 MT04034 C 466 64 Y

04035 LITTLE SNAKE CREEK M 383 94 Y

04036 MT04036 C 40 7 Y

04037 MT04037 M 03/01/95 562 117 Y

04038 MT04038 M 798 159 Y

04041 ANDERSON-OJUEL I 05/01/69 17132 2572 Y

04042 MT04042 M 490 99 Y

04043 SHAW COULEE M 49 9 Y

04044 MT04044 C 399 94 Y

04047 UPPER WESTFORK CASHE C 404 64 Y

04049 MT04049 M 487 100 Y

04051 MT04051 M 120 22 Y
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix G

Livestock Allocations 1015

Table G.1

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name

Allotment 

Category

AMP

Implementation

Date

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Standards 

Assessment

04052 MT04052 I 03/01/95 1108 231 NL

04053 EASTFORK WILLOW CREE I 04/01/78 15605 2013 NL

04054 CHISHOLM CREEK I 03/01/86 27881 4116 Y

04056 MT04056 M 2375 393 Y

04058 MT04058 M 1025 310 Y

04059 WARDS DAM M 05/01/89 2286 535 Y

04061 LOWER WEST PORCUPINE M 635 202 Y

04062 MT04062 M 1166 208 Y

04063 MT04063 C 120 23 Y

04064 MT04064 M 160 36 Y

04065 MT04065 M 362 87 Y

04066 CACHE CREEK M 998 244 Y

04067 PAPOOSE CREEK M 1823 339 Y

04068 MT04068 M 987 174 Y

04069 LOWER UNGER COULEE I 11/01/84 890 198 N

04070 MT04070 M 481 112 Y

04071 UPPER CANYON CREEK I 03/01/85 10266 1459 Y

04073 MT04073 C 57 14 Y

04075 MT04075 M 440 76 Y

04076 MT04076 M 200 34 Y

04077 MT04077 M 480 94 Y

04078 UPPER LIME CREEK M 06/01/69 3163 504 N

04079 SOUTH LIME CREEK M 2446 456 Y

04080 HALL COULEE M 1548 276 Y

04081 MT04081 M 95 16 Y

04082 BLACK COULEE M 1754 343 Y

04083 MT04083 M 479 99 Y

04084 MT04084 C 162 26 Y

04088 ELLSWORTH COULEE I 1281 234 Y

04089 ALKALI CREEK M 920 179 Y

04090 LOWER ALKALI CREEK M 320 55 Y

04091 LOWER BEAR CREEK C 800 168 Y

04092 UPPER UNGER COULEE I 05/01/89 2090 522 N

04095 LOWER LIME CREEK M 157 24 Y

04096 MT04096 C 318 55 Y

04097 EASTFORK CACHE CREEK M 531 99 Y
Appendix G HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1016 Livestock Allocations

Table G.1

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name

Allotment 

Category

AMP

Implementation

Date

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Standards 

Assessment

04098 MT04098 M 160 37 Y

04200 LOWER PORCUPINE CREE M 672 87 Y

04201 MT04201 M 40 6 Y

04202 LENZ COULEE M 200 15 Y

04205 BUTCH COULEE C 160 39 Y

04206 MT04206 C 80 16 Y

04207 LOWER MILK RIVER C 107 28 Y

04301 UPPER BUGGY CREEK M 04/01/78 9864 1958 Y

04303 BUGGY CREEK I 05/01/89 28422 5658 Y

04304 PORCUPINE CREEK M 2967 597 Y

04307 LOWER SPRING CREEK M 05/01/89 240 63 Y

04308 SPRING CREEK M 04/15/91 4914 1044 Y

04309 WESTFORK M 2424 568 Y

04310 NORTH WESTFORK C 397 116 Y

04500 MT04500 C 40 7 Y

04501 MILES CROSSING COULEE M 360 72 Y

04502 LOWER MILES CROSSING C 120 24 Y

04504 MT04504 M 160 15 Y

04508 LITTLE HORN COULEE M 601 64 Y

04509 TANK COULEE M 1564 231 Y

04510 BIG COULEE M 800 107 Y

04511 KENT COULEE M 508 54 Y

04513 RATTLESNAKE ALLOT. M 976 199 NL

04514 PAYNE PLACE M 2255 463 Y

04515 MT04515 M 07/01/96 320 76 Y

04517 WESTFORK ASH COULEE M 03/01/99 640 116 Y

04518 ASH COULEE I 750 172 Y

04519 LARB CREEK I 06/01/74 7181 1712 NL

04520 MCGREGOR COULEE M 120 20 Y

04521 UPPER BUFFALO COULEE C 720 138 Y

04523 LOWER BUFFALO COULEE M 320 71 Y

04524 UPPER HAY COULEE C 40 9 Y

04526 LOWER SQUARE COULEE M 839 181 Y

04527 MT04527 M 07/01/96 1953 358 Y

04528 MT04528 C 120 35 Y

04529 SQUARE COULEE M 755 116 Y
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix G

Livestock Allocations 1017

Table G.1

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name

Allotment 

Category

AMP

Implementation

Date

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Standards 

Assessment

04530 LOWER COON COULEE C 240 60 Y

04531 UPPER SQUARE COULEE C 80 20 Y

04532 MT04532 M 160 36 Y

04533 UPPER ANTELOPE CREEK M 1800 456 Y

04534 NORTHFORK ANTELOPE I 2420 504 Y

04535 SOUTHFORK ANTELOPE C I 05/01/89 9338 1275 Y

04536 TRUAX COULEE M 2094 405 Y

04537 LOWER NORTHFORK ANTE I 2280 420 Y

04538 LOWER HARDSCRABBLE I 1160 229 Y

04539 HARDSCRABBLE CREEK I 03/01/93 2282 480 Y

04540 HAY COULEE M 03/01/93 3236 568 N

04541 LOWER HAY COULEE C 570 97 Y

04542 ANTELOPE CREEK I 4633 801 Y

04543 LOWER ANTELOPE CREEK C 480 84 Y

04544 MT04544 C 80 14 Y

04546 LOST COULEE I 05/01/90 11186 1865 NL

04547 MT04547 M 06/07/71 560 144 Y

04548 BOX ELDER CREEK I 05/01/71 13312 2034 Y

04549 MT04549 M 160 28 Y

04550 SOUTH SHED COULEE M 03/01/89 14166 2289 Y

04551 UPPER BRAZIL CREEK I 05/01/88 26500 3117 Y

04552 UPPER LITTLE BEAVER I 05/01/89 8068 678 N

04554 LOWER SOUTHFORK ANTE I 05/01/87 3342 483 Y

04555 BULLOCK COULEE C 2016 299 Y

04556 HAY FEVER C 660 101 Y

04557 SECOND BRAZIL CREEK I 05/01/95 3073 665 Y

04558 WIRENET CORRAL PAST. M 568 111 Y

04559 MT04559 M 320 67 Y

04560 LOWER BRAZIL CREEK M 1870 502 Y

04561 HOMESTEAD PASTURE M 120 24 Y

04562 LITTLE BRAZIL CREEK M 160 32 Y

04563 COYOTE CREEK I 04/01/71 6213 957 Y

04564 ALKALI COULEE M 1188 43 Y

04565 THEOFIEL COULEE C 40 10 Y

04566 MT04566 C 40 8 Y

04567 GRAVEL PITS M 240 36 Y
Appendix G HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1018 Livestock Allocations

Table G.1

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name

Allotment 

Category

AMP

Implementation

Date

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Standards 

Assessment

04569 MT04569 C 528 118 Y

04570 MT04570 C 80 5 Y

04571 GRANT COULEE I 04/01/72 13329 2410 Y

04572 CORRAL COULEE I 03/01/83 8494 750 Y

04573 LITTLE BEAVER CREEK I 04/20/99 8277 705 Y

04574 MILLER COULEE I 04/01/73 22415 2300 NL

04575 MT04575 M 135 12 Y

04576 LOWER WILLOW CREEK M 04/01/67 5340 488 Y

04577 MUD CREEK I 3635 360 N

04578 GRANDPA COULEE M 03/01/83 1914 396 Y

04579 UPPER LARB CREEK I 06/01/82 5976 854 Y

04581 LONETREE CREEK I 05/01/74 40415 2772 Y

04582 LONETREE HUB C 80 10 Y

04583 LOWER LITTLE BEAVER I 05/01/73 22541 2322 N

04584 MT04584 C 536 56 Y

04585 LEWIS RESERVOIR M 04/01/67 8974 965 Y

04586 UPPER MUD CREEK M 2268 232 Y

04587 DUCK CREEK M 1440 171 Y

04588 TIMBER CREEK M 03/01/83 17150 1766 Y

04589 SOUTHFORK WILLOW CR. M 03/01/83 9099 1138 Y

04591 SUTHERLAND C 810 186 Y

04592 BOMBER COULEE M 06/01/75 14321 1025 Y

04593 SKUNK COULEE M 2640 265 Y

04595 CARPENTER CREEK I 10/20/87 130399 14180 Y

04596 MATADOR CREEK M 03/01/83 3162 613 Y

04597 MT04597 C 40 7 Y

04598 SEVEN POINT M 05/01/74 14827 2102 Y

04600 CABIN COULEE M 5669 875 Y

04601 NORTH LITTLE BEAVER I 05/01/87 3273 354 Y

04655 NORTH POPLAR RIVER M 320 54 Y

04656 WEST ROANWOOD COULEE M 136 19 Y

04657 ROCK CREEK DIVIDE M 473 107 Y

04660 SOUTH POPLAR RIVER M 560 100 Y

04662 LOWER POPLAR RIVER M 360 60 Y

04663 UPPER MIDDLE PORCUPI M 320 54 Y

04665 MIDDLEFORK PORCUPINE M 400 62 Y
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix G

Livestock Allocations 1019

Table G.1

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name

Allotment 

Category

AMP

Implementation

Date

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Standards 

Assessment

04700 UPPER MCEACHRAN CREE I 11/01/69 5124 958 Y

04701 DAVIDSON COULEE I 06/01/73 5278 1184 Y

04702 MCEACHRAN CREEK M 1040 211 Y

04703 UPPER ROCK COULEE I 05/01/89 2586 560 Y

04704 MT04704 M 1600 445 Y

04707 EASTFORK CROW CREEK I 03/01/87 15397 2378 Y

04708 ITCHPAIR CREEK M 05/01/68 11497 2350 Y

04709 MT04709 M 671 155 Y

04710 MT04710 M 390 88 Y

04711 NORTH WILLOW CREEK I 03/01/87 9600 1851 Y

04713 LOWER CROW CREEK M 04/01/74 3394 641 Y

04714 ROCK CREEK I 1220 234 Y

04715 EAST ROCK CREEK M 04/01/72 2016 264 NL

04716 JONES COULEE M 04/01/76 3664 739 Y

04717 WILLOW CREEK I 03/01/00 3853 927 Y

04718 UPPER WILLOW CREEK I 05/01/69 27251 3944 Y

04719 MT04719 M 305 60 Y

04720 OREGON RESERVOIR M 120 22 Y

04721 CLARA RESERVOIR M 2563 285 Y

04722 BITTER CREEK I 03/01/87 5434 439 Y

04723 LITTLE PAPOOSE CREEK M 04/01/72 9289 1626 Y

04724 LOWER ROCK CREEK C 309 49 N

04725 MT04725 M 337 64 Y

04726 EAGLES NEST COULEE M 05/01/68 18058 2823 N

04727 MT04727 M 1493 245 Y

04728 LIME CREEK M 03/01/87 2096 369 Y

04729 WEST ROCK CREEK I 03/01/89 1912 343 Y

04730 THOENY I 1436 358 Y

14100 MT14100 M 310 72 Y

14101 ANTELOPE SPRING M 875 163 Y

14102 DRY COULEE M 1829 355 Y

14103 MT14103 C 413 110 Y

14104 MT14104 M 420 96 Y

14105 MT14105 M 817 192 Y

14106 UPPER RICHARDSON COU M 3031 573 Y

14107 MT14107 M 80 20 Y
Appendix G HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1020 Livestock Allocations

Table G.1

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name

Allotment 

Category

AMP

Implementation

Date

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Standards 

Assessment

14108 UPPER MARTIN COULEE C 480 103 Y

14109 CHERRY CREEK I 05/01/90 3872 668 Y

14110 UPPER SCHOOL SECTION M 305 48 Y

14111 FOSS COULEE M 2773 553 Y

14112 UPPER SPRING CREEK I 06/03/91 4177 906 Y

14113 SPRING COULEE I 1321 273 Y

14114 LOWER SPRING COULEE M 93 18 Y

14115 MT14115 M 640 119 Y

14116 HAWK COULEE I 03/01/93 5358 739 Y

14117 CHAPMAN COULEE M 786 124 Y

14118 MOONEY COULEE C 346 58 Y

14119 LOWER MOONEY COULEE C 40 6 Y

14121 LOWER CHERRY CREEK M 640 302 Y

14122 LOWER FOSS COULEE M 40 7 Y

14124 EAST CHERRY CREEK M 734 108 Y

14125 LOWER PORCUPINE CK M 290 30 Y

14126 DRY WEST M 880 166 Y

14127 MT14127 M 80 16 Y

14128 MIDDLE FOSS COULEE M 03/01/93 860 588 Y

14129 CHERRY CREEK FORKS C 160 31 Y

14130 MT14130 M 40 6 Y

15348 MT15348 I 160 34 Y

15431 WEST LARB CREEK M 06/01/82 1760 279 Y

Malta Field Office

01551 FOOTHILL C 40 8 Y

01554 WEST ARMSTRONG COULEE C 1280 184 Y

03112 NORTH PLAINSVIEW C 465 100 Y

03113 MID PLAINSVIEW C 1661 381 Y

03239 CROSS ROADS C 40 6 Y

04020 WODTKEY COULEE I 1601 51 Y

04030 TWO MILE COULEE I 2119 276 Y

05001 BORDER I 05/01/65 1848 525 Y

05003 WEST SUNNYSLOPE I 05/01/65 1440 277 Y

05009 UPPER WHITEWATER CK. M 4680 1010 Y

05010 FANNING COULEE I 1712 337 Y

05011 WEST BIG COULEE M 4312 1017 Y
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix G

Livestock Allocations 1021

Table G.1

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name

Allotment 

Category

AMP

Implementation

Date

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Standards 

Assessment

05013 DIVIDE M 7706 1785 Y

05014 NORTH PEA LAKE M 11/28/90 5948 1486 Y

05015 PEA LAKE M 06/30/94 14470 3457 Y

05016 LEIBEL COULEE I 2039 471 Y

05021 ORREY COULEE I 2160 514 Y

05022 EAST PLAINSVIEW M 1966 421 Y

05023 FRENCHMAN CREEK I 22312 1878 Y

05024 UPPER SNAKE CREEK I 7535 1042 Y

05025 MIDDLE FRENCHMAN C 1090 128 Y

05026 WODTKEY COULEE I 12323 1320 Y

05027 COTTONWOOD CREEK I 6016 696 Y

05028 WEST COTTONWOOD C 575 110 Y

05029 WRIGHT COULEE C 365 67 Y

05030 DUNHAN COULEE M 04/01/75 2688 895 Y

05031 WALLIS COULEE M 1280 204 Y

05032 JOHNS COULEE C 1040 239 Y

05033 KASHAW COULEE I 320 66 Y

05034 PLAINSVIEW M 05/01/69 4725 981 Y

05035 NORTH WHITEWATER LK I 6745 1391 Y

05036 WEST WHITEWATER LAKE M 05/01/70 7473 1467 Y

05037 LONE TREE COULEE M 02/15/75 7191 1531 Y

05038 RESERVOIR I 05/01/69 1039 214 Y

05039 WHITEWATER CREEK M 5453 1125 Y

05040 WREN COULEE C 1062 210 Y

05041 LAKE COULEE M 7164 1078 Y

05042 FLAT COULEE M 2597 481 Y

05043 HORSESHOE LAKE M 11467 2422 Y

05044 NORTH HORSESHOE LAKE M 10/19/09 2005 385 Y

05045 ALL PRONTO C 640 97 Y

05046 NORTH COWIE COULEE C 510 112 Y

05047 HORSESHOE COULEE M 05/01/65 6526 1404 Y

05048 COUNTYLINE C 40 9 Y

05050 KEGAL COULEE C 235 37 Y

05051 WOODY ISLAND M 03/01/69 6957 1204 Y

05052 COWIE COULEE C 455 109 Y

05053 TAKE-AWAY M 2905 509 Y
Appendix G HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1022 Livestock Allocations

Table G.1

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name

Allotment 

Category

AMP

Implementation

Date

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Standards 

Assessment

05055 MARTIN LAKE COULEE C 285 50 Y

05056 LOWER LAKE COULEE M 1200 221 Y

05058 NORTH DIBBLE COULEE C 650 131 Y

05059 DIBBLE COULEE M 2125 451 Y

05060 SOUTH DIBBLE COULEE C 40 9 Y

05061 UPPER SINK COULEE C 480 90 Y

05062 AUSTIN LAKE M 01/31/07 9560 1851 Y

05063 SINK COULEE C 1133 204 Y

05064 WHITEWATER M 1486 256 Y

05065 EASTFORK WHITEWATER I 05/01/75 6202 1206 Y

05067 LONE TREE M 09/15/05 760 130 Y

05069 WESTFORK STINKY M 1705 398 Y

05070 STINKY CREEK C 720 99 Y

05071 TURKEY TRACK M 6040 1182 Y

05072 UPPER E FK STINKY C 552 122 Y

05073 EKLUND COULEE M 1915 181 Y

05075 TWO MILE COULEE M 2887 303 Y

05076 PAN HANDLE COULEE C 794 142 Y

05077 ASH COULEE C 153 27 Y

05078 RATTLESNAKE COULEE C 310 60 Y

05080 EASTFORK STINKY CR. C 1960 431 Y

05081 FORTY C 40 10 Y

05082 BENCH C 40 9 Y

05084 UPPER COOP COULEE I 05/01/70 1906 329 Y

05085 COOP COULEE M 05/01/65 896 168 Y

05086 LOWER COOP COULEE M 2786 557 Y

05087 JOE BELL COULEE M 3372 670 Y

05088 LOWER LUSH COULEE M 5250 1037 Y

05089 MARTINS COULEE I 5851 1160 Y

05090 UPPER LUSH COULEE C 240 59 Y

05091 BELLE COULEE C 860 148 Y

05092 MOUNT COULEE C 55 9 Y

05093 LAMBING COULEE I 05/01/75 10629 2053 Y

05094 UPPER COTTONWOOD I 08/20/90 14469 2436 Y

05095 JOINER COULEE I 5151 849 Y

05096 LAMERE COULEE I 05/01/75 15133 2021 Y
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix G

Livestock Allocations 1023

Table G.1

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name

Allotment 

Category

AMP

Implementation

Date

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Standards 

Assessment

05100 MUD CREEK I 1775 340 Y

05101 UPPER MUD CREEK C 880 197 Y

05102 UPPER NORTHFORK C 40 10 Y

05103 SOUTH JOINER COULEE C 880 186 Y

05104 PIERSON COULEE M 730 123 Y

05105 UPPER PIERSON COULEE C 80 18 Y

05106 SHED COULEE C 1662 295 Y

05107 GARLAND CREEK M 4565 799 Y

05108 DAVENPORT COULEE C 970 158 Y

05109 WEST GARLAND M 3346 563 Y

05110 EAST GARLAND M 6824 1111 Y

05111 LITTLE COTTONWOOD CR C 3485 635 Y

05112 BUGHOUSE COULEE C 1440 237 Y

05114 RIVER UNIT C 392 31 Y

05115 BIG BEND C 05/01/70 1474 227 Y

05116 ALKALI COULEE M 3447 772 Y

05117 UPPER EXETER CREEK C 47 8 Y

05118 LOWER STINKY CREEK C 447 80 Y

05119 WEST STINKY CREEK C 145 19 Y

05120 EAST STINKY CREEK C 40 6 Y

05121 LITTLE COULEE C 80 17 Y

05122 ROCK COULEE C 811 98 Y

05123 BRUSH COULEE C 360 53 Y

05124 BURNT SHED COULEE C 200 45 Y

05125 MCCHESNEY RESERVOIR C 80 6 Y

05126 LEMKE COULEE C 114 23 Y

05127 DRY STINKY COULEE C 320 51 Y

05128 EAST LOWER STINKY CR C 45 8 Y

05129 LOWER WHITEWATER C 320 57 Y

05130 HORSE CAMP COULEE M 02/27/87 6105 813 Y

05131 BASIN COULEE M 3182 731 Y

05132 ASSINIBOINE EAST M 940 200 Y

05133 ASSINIBOINE CREEK I 05/01/65 4927 828 Y

05134 ASSINIBOINE WEST C 260 61 Y

05135 SOUTHFORK GARLAND C 371 81 Y

05137 GOERTZ COULEE C 40 9 Y
Appendix G HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1024 Livestock Allocations

Table G.1

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name

Allotment 

Category

AMP

Implementation

Date

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Standards 

Assessment

05138 EAST SHEEP COULEE C 80 20 Y

05139 SHEEP COULEE C 320 74 Y

05140 WILLIAMS COULEE C 200 42 Y

05144 DODSON CREEK M 08/03/05 3240 640 Y

05145 EAST EUREKA CREEK C 310 33 Y

05146 VAUGHN COULEE C 280 42 Y

05147 LOWER VAUGHN COULEE C 80 8 Y

05148 UPPER SPRING CREEK C 240 51 Y

05149 SPRING CREEK C 763 118 Y

05150 UPPER EXETER CREEK C 500 102 Y

05151 DRY COULEE C 120 30 Y

05152 EXETER CREEK M 1283 275 Y

05153 WILSON COULEE M 3795 820 Y

05154 DRY FORK M 2544 430 Y

05155 SPRING CREEK M 2295 416 Y

05156 LOWER ASSINNIBOINE M 565 115 Y

05157 LOWER RATTLESNAKE CO C 80 12 Y

05158 LORING C 284 56 Y

05160 LOWER WILSON COULEE M 925 166 Y

05163 SOUTH WOODY ISLAND M 5151 664 Y

05164 ALBRIGHT COULEE C 1112 221 Y

05165 NORTH DODSON CREEK C 12/12/06 880 212 Y

05166 SOUTH DODSON CREEK C 825 112 Y

05167 LOWER MILK C 80 16 Y

05168 FANNING HILL C 835 128 Y

05169 GARLAND M 1650 376 Y

05170 LUSH COULEE I 3327 666 Y

05171 HDQT C 625 67 Y

05172 UPPER MARTIN I 4689 894 Y

05173 MILK RIVER C 25 5 Y

05174 HIGHWAY M 40 9 Y

05175 COW CAMP M 125 15 Y

05303 CANTY COULEE C 1036 207 Y

05313 WEST SACO DUMP C 110 21 Y

05317 NORTH CACTUS FLAT C 180 14 Y

05319 UPPER SECOND CREEK M 2494 611 Y
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix G

Livestock Allocations 1025

Table G.1

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name

Allotment 

Category

AMP

Implementation

Date

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Standards 

Assessment

05327 NORTH ROCKY POINT C 80 17 Y

05328 ROCKY POINT C 1600 372 Y

05334 LOWER ALKALI CREEK C 560 89 Y

05351 RIEGAL COULEE M 3565 820 Y

05365 JUNCTION C 320 78 Y

05383 UPPER WEST ALKAI C 340 38 Y

05384 NORTH WILD HORSE C 1142 143 Y

05385 SOUTH WILD HORSE C 719 104 Y

05386 TRESSLER COULEE I 3754 571 Y

05387 WEST ALKALI CREEK I 05/01/67 9871 1841 Y

05388 RUDOLPH COULEE I 04/01/67 6917 1827 Y

05389 UPPER ALKALI CREEK I 960 220 Y

05390 UPPER OVERFLOW COULEE I 2682 478 Y

05391 N OVERFLOW COULEE C 640 137 Y

05392 BENNETT LAKE C 440 139 Y

05393 NELSON RESERVOIR C 85 19 Y

05394 BEAUCOUP C 02/01/93 1652 393 Y

05395 POINT OF ROCKS C 02/15/93 160 31 Y

05396 MID WILD HORSE C 103 13 Y

05397 THREE MILE C 400 77 Y

05398 NORTH DHS CREEK C 260 43 Y

05399 SOUTHFORK COTTONWOOD I 1367 240 Y

05400 NORTHFORK COTTONWOOD M 970 155 Y

05401 SEVEN MILE COULEE C 640 128 Y

05402 LOWER SEVEN MILE M 33 6 Y

05406 LOWER ALBERT COULEE I 03/01/88 5518 1121 Y

05410 D. H. S. CREEK C 721 135 Y

05411 BEAVER CREEK I 4781 614 Y

05412 SHED COULEE M 735 68 Y

05413 ARMSTRONG COULEE M 1537 292 Y

05415 OVERFLOW COULEE I 05/01/74 7794 1204 Y

05420 BIG WARMSPRING CREEK C 1154 179 Y

05421 CABBAGE COULEE C 800 132 Y

05423 SOUTH SPRING COULEE C 522 90 Y

05425 UPPER WHITE ROCK C 559 70 Y

05428 RHEUMATISM COULEE M 11/01/72 3918 511 Y
Appendix G HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1026 Livestock Allocations

Table G.1

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name

Allotment 

Category

AMP

Implementation

Date

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Standards 

Assessment

05430 TALLOW CREEK C 810 115 Y

05436 LONE HORSE COULEE I 6250 650 Y

05442 MICKEY RESERVOIR M 3009 602 Y

05445 UPPER FIRST CREEK M 05/01/73 4179 723 Y

05447 GAREY COULEE M 3020 561 Y

05452 LONG COULEE I 05/01/79 8505 1518 Y

05600 PARROT LAKE I 3739 719 Y

05601 BEST COULEE I 2735 532 Y

05602 DRY GULCH C 280 142

05603 MONTANA GULCH M 2840 59

05604 UPPER BULL CREEK C 400 40 Y

05605 UPPER CABIN CREEK C 160 48 Y

05606 SQUAW CREEK C 255 45 Y

05612 SQUARE BUTTE I 07/28/93 9599 1006 Y

05613 CAMP CREEK I 03/01/81 2766 523 Y

05614 UPPER BEAUCHAMP CR. M 03/01/81 3051 593 Y

05615 WEST DRY FORK I 05/01/71 14854 1923 Y

05616 FRENCH COULEE C 80 7 Y

05617 EAST DRY FORK I 05/01/65 18672 2634 Y

05618 UPPER GAREY COULEE M 05/01/82 1551 438 Y

05619 LOWER GAREY COULEE C 345 63 Y

05620 UPPER FOURCHETTE CR. I 3296 662 Y

05621 UPPER C.K. CREEK C 204 31 Y

05622 GROUSE CREEK C 90 24 Y

05623 UPPER SEVEN MILE CR. M 3947 794 Y

05624 EAST ROCK CREEK M 03/01/81 4137 672 Y

05625 LAVELLE CREEK I 05/01/73 9726 1391 Y

05626 ROCK CREEK I 5764 800 Y

05627 CURRENT I 04/01/65 13726 2144 Y

05628 BEAUCHAMP CREEK I 2735 282 Y

05631 CRUIKSCHANK I 01/31/89 7080 989 Y

05632 THORNHILL I 5208 774 Y

05651 NORTH FOURCHETTE I 04/01/82 5080 985 Y

05652 THIRD CREEK I 05/01/82 10128 1862 Y

05653 LOWER THIRD CREEK I 05/01/83 5243 700 Y

05654 TELEGRAPH CREEK I 05/01/70 11546 1481 Y
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix G

Livestock Allocations 1027

Table G.1

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name

Allotment 

Category

AMP

Implementation

Date

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Standards 

Assessment

05656 UPPER LONETREE COULEE C 554 109 Y

05657 SOUTH FORK TELEGRAPH M 3360 701 Y

05658 NORTH FORK TELEGRAPH M 04/01/82 4427 712 Y

05660 LARB HILLS M 6153 903 Y

05661 KILLED WOMAN I 05/01/65 2057 342 Y

05662 FOURCHETTE CREEK I 05/01/83 20518 2815 Y

05663 FIRST COULEE I 04/01/88 4818 708 Y

05665 KARSTEN COULEE I 05/01/83 5215 1108 Y

05667 BURNT LODGE I 5245 974 Y

14506 JERNIGAN COULEE I 80 13 Y

15000 CORNER C 480 142 Y

15004 MID-SUNNYSLOPE M 800 181 Y

15006 NORTH SUNNYSLOPE M 1758 345 Y

15007 EAST SUNNYSLOPE M 05/01/65 800 165 Y

15008 SUNNYSLOPE M 05/01/75 3290 704 Y

15012 BIG COULEE M 12/08/92 17138 3414 Y

15300 SOUTH BIG BEND M 06/01/84 3758 896 Y

15301 DRY LAKE C 1205 257 Y

15304 WEST HEWITT LAKE M 2735 643 Y

15305 LONE TREE SAG C 260 55 Y

15306 LOWER GONZALES C 160 38 Y

15307 BIG BEND C 05/01/65 611 147 Y

15309 SOUTH HEWITT LAKE M 802 203 Y

15310 NORTH NELSON C 195 34 Y

15311 LOWER ALKALI CREEK I 2112 400 Y

15312 SACO DUMP C 1265 262 Y

15314 NORTH FIRST CREEK C 265 37 Y

15315 SACO C 2082 429 Y

15316 SACO HILLS M 5473 876 Y

15318 CACTUS FLATS C 130 8 Y

15320 THOMAS COULEE M 1539 197 Y

15322 SO. NELSON RESERVOIR C 375 92 Y

15323 UPPER DELANEY COULEE C 360 74 Y

15324 NORTH BOWDOIN I 1867 413 Y

15325 HORSE CAMP COULEE M 01/31/80 1292 244 Y

15326 DELANEY COULEE C 40 9 Y
Appendix G HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1028 Livestock Allocations

Table G.1

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name

Allotment 

Category

AMP

Implementation

Date

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Standards 

Assessment

15329 COW CREEK M 04/01/69 644 234 Y

15330 DAVISON COULEE C 401 93 Y

15331 GRAVEL COULEE C 440 85 Y

15332 DODSON CANAL C 200 39 Y

15333 SOUTH DODSON CANAL C 40 8 Y

15335 TURMELL COULEE C 230 46 Y

15336 SOUTH BOWDOIN C 760 136 Y

15337 NORTH CLANTON C 810 180 Y

15339 CROOKS COULEE M 05/01/72 3120 458 Y

15342 UPPER CROOKS COULEE C 575 133 Y

15343 THIRD CREEK M 1910 422 Y

15344 FOURTH CREEK M 05/01/69 4723 904 Y

15345 SECOND CREEK C 05/01/67 1940 416 Y

15346 NORTH THIRD CREEK C 400 66 Y

15347 WEST COULEE C 120 17 Y

15349 UPPER MOSS COULEE M 3590 629 Y

15352 MOSS COULEE M 961 218 Y

15353 LOWER MOSS COULEE M 401 93 Y

15354 GUSTON COULEE I 03/01/88 7548 1201 Y

15355 ALKALI LAKE COULEE I Y

15356 LENOIR COULEE C 320 63 Y

15357 ROCK CORRAL C 1272 221 Y

15358 NORTH SEVEN MILE C 40 7 Y

15359 UPPER TETRAULT COULE C 640 139 Y

15360 SOUTH LENOIR CO C 160 34 Y

15362 UPPER GONZALES COULE C 40 9 Y

15363 BLACK COULEE M 05/01/69 1600 439 Y

15364 MIDDLE BLACK COULEE C 40 7 Y

15366 WATERS HOLDING PAST. C 480 115 Y

15367 EAST ALKALI C 1240 247 Y

15369 SOUTH ALKALI CREEK M 640 126 Y

15372 ALKALI CREEK I 2836 560 Y

15373 LOWER HALF-WAY COULE C 640 114 Y

15374 HALF WAY COULEE I 05/01/84 2200 532 Y

15376 NICE POND C 705 145 Y

15378 UPPER WIND COULEE C 640 105 Y
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix G

Livestock Allocations 1029

Table G.1

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name

Allotment 

Category

AMP

Implementation

Date

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Standards 

Assessment

15379 WIND COULEE C 200 54 Y

15380 UPPER COW CREEK C 160 19 Y

15403 BAETH C 733 115 Y

15404 COTTONWOOD CREEK C 455 76 Y

15405 LOWER COTTONWOOD CK M 4922 1156 Y

15407 ALBERT COULEE I 03/01/72 3000 860 Y

15408 TRUEBLOOD COULEE I 8490 2015 Y

15409 LOWER D.H.S. CREEK C 623 108 Y

15414 SMITH COULEE M 2187 258 Y

15416 SANFORD COULEE I 11005 1503 Y

15417 WHITEROCK COULEE I 05/01/75 16942 2056 Y

15418 WILDHORSE C 956 147 Y

15419 NORTH CABBAGE COULEE C 650 107 Y

15422 SPRING COULEE C 388 68 Y

15424 LITTLE WARM SPR. CR. I 11967 2066 Y

15426 ALKALI COULEE M 4523 872 Y

15427 NORTH FLAT CREEK I 05/01/75 18334 2271 Y

15429 SPRING CREEK I 05/01/73 14134 2651 Y

15432 UPPER BLACK COULEE M 11/01/72 5810 751 Y

15434 SHOTGUN COULEE I 17545 2195 Y

15435 BUCKLEY LAKE C 699 114 Y

15437 SAGE CREEK I 05/01/72 3152 329 Y

15438 NORTH THOMAS COULEE M 1050 137 Y

15439 FLAT CREEK I 05/01/74 13075 1243 Y

15440 WEST FLAT CREEK M 05/01/75 9099 709 Y

15441 LOWER ALKALI COULEE M 05/01/75 1216 245 Y

15443 FIRST CREEK HALL M 05/01/75 4274 884 Y

15444 SCOTT COULEE I 03/31/06 2679 533 Y

15446 PARROT COULEE M 2693 478 Y

15448 GAREY COULEE C 800 133 Y

15450 FIRST CREEK SCHOOL M 05/01/75 1120 217 Y

15451 UPPER LONG COULEE I 05/01/74 1789 505 Y

15453 STRATTON COULEE I 03/01/73 8080 1194 Y

15455 LOWER DOG CREEK I 05/01/75 3115 500 Y

15456 LONETREE COULEE I 1080 103 Y

15457 UPPER DOG CREEK I 05/01/82 3491 554 Y
Appendix G HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1030 Livestock Allocations

Table G.1

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name

Allotment 

Category

AMP

Implementation

Date

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

Standards 

Assessment

15458 COAL MINE COULEE M 05/01/82 3486 585 Y

15459 PLUM CREEK C 482 87 Y

15460 HORSE PASTURE COULEE M 4786 489 Y

15461 SOUTH ARMSTRONG COUL C 690 91 Y

15463 LOWER TALLOW CREEK C 414 71 Y

15464 WEST ALBERT COULEE I 07/06/90 4501 948 Y

15465 UPPER TRESSLER COULE C 320 57 Y

15633 C.K. CREEK I 08/11/93 14352 2466 Y

15634 BOX ELDER I 04/01/82 6488 1041 Y

* Allotments that are jointly managed with the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument

Y - All standards for rangeland health were met.

N - At least one standard for rangeland health was not met and livestock were not the cause.

NL - At least one standard for rangeland health was not met and livestock were the cause. In all cases, corrective actions have been 

taken.

C - Custodial

M - Maintain

I - Improve
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix H

Standards and Guidelines 1031

Appendix H

Standards for Rangeland Health

and

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management

The BLM developed Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Montana, 

North Dakota, and South Dakota which was approved by the Secretary of the Interior in August 1997. The following 

standards and guidelines apply to the HiLine District.

Standards for Rangeland Health

Standards are statements of physical and biological condition or degree of function required for healthy sustainable 

rangelands. Achieving or making significant and measurable progress towards these functions and conditions is required 

of all uses of public rangelands. Historical data, when available, should be used when assessing progress towards these 

standards.

Standard #1: Uplands are in proper functioning condition.

This means that soils are stable and provide for capture, storage and safe release of water appropriate to soil type, climate 

and landform. The amount and distribution of ground cover (i.e., litter, live and standing dead vegetation, microbiotic 

crusts, and rock/gravel) for identified ecological site(s) or soil-plant associations are appropriate for soil stability.

Evidence of accelerated erosion in the form of rills and/or gullies, erosional pedestals, flow patterns, physical soil 

crusts/surface scaling and compaction layers below the soil surface is minimal. Ecological processes including 

hydrologic cycle, nutrient cycle and energy flow are maintained and support healthy biotic populations. Plants are 

vigorous, biomass production is near potential and there is a diversity of species characteristic of and appropriate to the 

site. Assessing proper functioning conditions will consider use of historical data.

As indicated by:

Physical Environment

 erosional flow patterns

 surface litter

 soil movement by water and wind

 soil crusting and surface sealing

 compaction layer

 rills

 gullies

 cover amount

 cover distribution

Biotic Environment

 community richness

 community structure

 exotic plants

 plant status

 seed production

 recruitment

 nutrient cycle
Appendix H HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1032 Standards and Guidelines

Standard #2: Riparian and wetland areas are in proper functioning condition.

This means that the functioning condition of riparian-wetland areas is a result of the interaction among geology, soil, 

water and vegetation. Riparian-wetland areas are functioning properly when adequate vegetation, landform or large 

woody debris is present to dissipate stream energy associated with high water flows, thereby reducing erosion and 

improving water quality; filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development; improve flood water retention 

and groundwater recharge; develop root masses that stabilize streambanks against cutting action; develop diverse 

ponding and channel characteristics to provide the habitat and the water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for 

native fish production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses appropriate for the area that will support greater species 

richness.

The riparian-wetland vegetation is a mosaic of species richness and community structure serving to control erosion, 

shade water, provide thermal protection, filter sediment, aid floodplain development, dissipate energy, delay flood water, 

and increase recharge of groundwater where appropriate to landform. The stream channels and flood plain dissipate 

energy of high water flows and transport sediment appropriate for the geomorphology (e.g., gradient, size, shape, 

roughness, confinement, and sinuosity), climate, and landform. Soils support appropriate riparian-wetland vegetation, 

allowing water movement, filtering sediment, and slowing ground water movement for later release. Stream channels 

are not entrenching beyond natural climatic variations and water levels maintain appropriate riparian-wetland species.

Riparian areas are defined as land directly influenced by permanent water. It has visible vegetation or physical 

characteristics reflective of permanent water influence. Lake shores and streambanks are typical riparian areas. 

Excluded are such sites as ephemeral streams or washes that do not exhibit the presence of vegetation dependent upon 

free water in the soil. Assessing proper functioning conditions will consider use of historical data.

As indicated by:

Hydrologic

 floodplain inundated in relatively frequent events (1-3 years)

 amount of altered streambanks

 sinuosity, width/depth ratio, and gradient are in balance with the landscape setting (i.e., landform, geology, and 

bioclimatic region)

 upland watershed not contributing to riparian degradation

Erosion/Deposition

 floodplain and channel characteristics; i.e., rocks, coarse and/or woody debris adequate to dissipate energy

 point bars are being created and older point bars are being vegetated

 lateral stream movement is associated with natural sinuosity

 system is vertically stable

 stream is in balance with water and sediment being supplied by the watershed (i.e., no excessive erosion or 

deposition)

Vegetation

 reproduction and diverse age class of vegetation

 diverse composition of vegetation

 species present indicate maintenance of riparian soil moisture characteristics

 streambank vegetation is comprised of those plants or plant communities that have deep binding root masses

capable of withstanding high streamflow events

 utilization of trees and shrubs

 riparian plants exhibit high vigor

 adequate vegetative cover present to protect banks and dissipate energy during high flows

 where appropriate, plant communities in the riparian area are an adequate source of woody debris
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix H

Standards and Guidelines 1033

Standard #3: Water quality meets Montana state standards.

This means that surface and ground water on public lands fully support designated beneficial uses described in the 

Montana Water Quality Standards. Assessing proper functioning conditions will consider use of historical data.

As indicated by:

 dissolved oxygen concentration

 pH

 turbidity

 temperature

 fecal coliform

 sediment

 color

 toxins

 others: ammonia, barium, boron, chlorides, chromium, cyanide, endosulfan, lindane, nitrates, phenols, 

phosphorus, sodium, sulfates, etc.

Standard #4: Air quality meets Montana state standards.

This means that air quality on public lands helps meet the goals set out in the State of Montana Air Quality 

Implementation Plan. Efforts will be made to limit unnecessary emissions from existing and new point or non-point 

sources.

The BLM management actions or use authorizations do not contribute to air pollution that violates the quantitative or 

narrative Montana Air Quality Standards or contributes to deterioration of air quality in selected class area.

As indicated by:

Section 176(c) Clean Air Act which states that activities of all federal agencies must conform to the intent of the 

appropriate State Air Quality Implementation Plan and not:

 cause or contribute to any violations of ambient air quality standards

 increase the frequency of any existing violations

 impede the State’s progress in meeting their air quality goals

Standard #5: Habitats are provided to maintain healthy, productive and diverse 

populations of native plant and animal species, including special status species 

(federally threatened, endangered, candidate or Montana species of special 

concern as defined in BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species Management).

This means that native plant and animal communities will be maintained or improved to ensure the proper functioning of 

ecological processes and continued productivity and diversity of native plant lifeforms. Where native communities exist, 

the conversion to exotic communities after disturbance will be minimized. Management for indigenous vegetation and 

animals is a priority. Ecological processes including hydrologic cycle, and energy flow, and plant succession are 

maintained and support healthy biotic populations. Plants are vigorous, biomass production is near potential, and there is 

a diversity of plant and animal species characteristic of and appropriate to the site. The environment contains 

components necessary to support viable populations of a sensitive/threatened and endangered species in a given area 

relative to site potential. Viable populations are wildlife or plant populations that contain an adequate number of 

reproductive individuals distributed on the landscape to ensure the long-term existence of the species. Assessing proper 

functioning conditions will consider use of historical data.
Appendix H HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1034 Standards and Guidelines

As indicated by:

 plants and animals are diverse, vigorous and reproducing satisfactorily; noxious weeds are absent or 

insignificant in the overall plant community

 spatial distribution of species is suitable to ensure reproductive capability and recovery

 a variety of age classes are present

 connectivity of habitat or presence of corridors prevents habitat fragmentation

 species richness (including plants, animals, insects and microbes) are represented

 plant communities in a variety of successional stages are represented across the landscape

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management

Guidelines for management of herbivory (including domestic animals and wildlife) are preferred or advisable approaches 

to ensure that standards can be met or that significant progress can be made toward meeting the standard(s). Responsible 

state and federal wildlife agencies must be involved in this management if standards are to be achieved.

Guidelines are provided to maintain or improve resource conditions in upland and riparian habitats. In both riparian and 

upland habitats, these guidelines focus on establishing and maintaining proper functioning conditions. The application 

of these guidelines is dependent on individual management objectives. Desired future conditions in plant communities 

and streambank characteristics will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Guideline #1: Grazing will be managed in a manner that will maintain the proper balance between soils, water, and 

vegetation over time. This balance varies with location and management objectives, historic use, and natural 

fluctuations, but acceptable levels of use can be developed that are compatible with resource objectives. 

Guideline #2: Manage grazing to maintain watershed vegetation, species richness, and floodplain function. Maintain 

riparian vegetative cover and structure to trap and hold sediments during run-off events to build streambanks, recharge 

aquifers, and dissipate flood energy. Grazing management should promote deep-rooted herbaceous vegetation to 

enhance streambank stability. Where non-native species are contributing to proper functioning conditions, they are 

acceptable. Where potential for palatable woody shrub species (willows, dogwood, etc.) exists, promote their growth 

and expansion within riparian zones. 

Guideline #3: Pastures and allotments will be managed based on their sensitivity and suitability for livestock grazing. 

Where determinations have not been previously documented, suitability for grazing will be determined by: topography, 

slope, distance from water, vegetation habitat types, and soil types must be considered when determining grazing 

suitability. Unsuitable areas should be excluded from grazing. 

Guideline #4: Management strategies for livestock grazing will ensure that long-term resource capabilities can be 

sustained. End of season stubble heights, streambank moisture content, and utilization of herbaceous and woody 

vegetation are critical factors which must be evaluated in any grazing strategy. These considerations are essential to 

achieving long-term vegetation or stream channel objectives and should be identified on a site-specific basis and used as 

terms and conditions. 

Guideline #5: Grazing will be managed to promote desired plants and plant communities of various age classes, based 

on the rate and physiological conditions of plant growth. Management approaches will be identified on a site-specific 

basis and implemented through terms and conditions. Caution should be used to avoid early spring grazing use when 

soils and streambanks are wet and susceptible to compaction and physical damage that occurs with animal trampling. 

Likewise, late summer and fall treatments in woody shrub communities should be monitored closely to avoid excessive 

utilization. 

Guideline #6: The development of springs and seeps or other projects affecting water and associated resources shall be 

designed to protect the ecological functions and processes of those sites. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix H

Standards and Guidelines 1035

Guideline #7: Locate facilities (e.g., corrals, water developments) away from riparian-wetland areas. 

Guideline #8: When provided, supplemental salt and minerals should not be placed adjacent to watering locations or in 

riparian-wetland areas so not to adversely impact streambank stability, riparian vegetation, water quality, or other 

sensitive areas (i.e., key wildlife wintering areas). Salt and minerals should be placed in upland sites to draw livestock 

away from watering areas or other sensitive areas and to contribute to more uniform grazing distribution. 

Guideline #9: Noxious weed control is essential and should include: cooperative agreements, public education, and 

integrated pest management (mechanical, biological, chemical). 

Guideline #10: Livestock management should utilize practices such as those referenced by the NRCS published 

prescribed grazing technical guide to maintain, restore or enhance water quality. 

Guideline #11: Grazing management should maintain or improve habitat for federally listed threatened, endangered, 

and sensitive plants and animals.

Guideline #12: Grazing management should maintain or promote the physical and biological conditions to sustain 

native populations and communities. 

Guideline #13: Grazing management should give priority to native species. Non-native plant species should only be 

used in those situations where native seed is not readily available in sufficient quantities, where native plant species 

cannot maintain or achieve standards, or where non-native plant species provide an alternative for the management and 

protection of native rangelands. 

Guideline #14: Allotment monitoring determines how ongoing management practices are affecting rangeland. To do 

so, the evaluations should be based on: 1. measurable management objectives; 2. permanent and/or repeatable

monitoring locations; and; 3. short-term and long-term data. 

HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix I

Guidelines for Yearling Conversion Factors 1037

Appendix I

Guidelines for the Use of

Yearling Conversion Factors

Introduction

The use of conversion factors may be authorized when resource conditions and range management considerations 

warrant their use or when an operator requests the conversion.

Traditionally, an animal unit month (AUM) is defined as the amount of forage a 1,000 lb. cow and her calf up to 6 

months of age consumes during the course of one month. It is widely accepted that an animal unit equivalent (AU) is 

considered to be one, one-thousandth the body weight of a grazing animal (i.e. BW/1000, or BW*.001). For example, a 

1,200 lb. cow would be 1.2 AU. Similarly, a 750 lb. yearling would be 0.75 AU (see discussions in Taylor and Field, 

1999; Ensminger et al., 1990).

An adaptive management approach may be taken on any allotment by taking into account animal size when calculating 

AUM usage. Accounting for animal size reduces the need to adjust carrying capacity by more aptly accounting for 

differences in forage consumption from herds of differing livestock size. In other words, stocking rates can be more 

accurately aligned to carrying capacity. 

Conversion Guidelines

Conversion factors would function within the following framework:

1. Yearling cattle may be authorized for the same terms and conditions, including season of use and livestock numbers 

as customarily licensed for cow/calf pairs without special approval.

2. Conversion factors of less than 1:1 may be denied if the proposed use would result in a greater than customary 

percentage of the use being licensed during the growing season.

3. Yearling factors would be based on a pre-agreed to factor of .75 or the midweight of the yearlings for the period of 

time they are controlled by the applicant. This midweight would be determined as discussed below. If the 

management situation and conditions warrant, the average daily gain in the second and subsequent years may be 

calculated using the previous year’s weight tickets. The calculation of the conversion factors would be the 

responsibility of the authorized officer and is not subject to negotiation by the lessee. It is the responsibility of the 

grazing operator to supply all weight tickets necessary to calculate the conversion factor or the conversion would be 

denied.

4. All yearling applications must be supported by current proof of control of the livestock to be grazed such as a bill of 

sale, cattle lease, or management agreement. This must be in conformance with 43 CFR 4130.7.

5. A monitoring plan would be in place to determine if adjustments to the conversion factor are required.

6. An environmental assessment (EA) would be done for all allotments where yearling conversion factors are 

requested. The EA would address any land use plan decisions for the allotment, the impact to the vegetation, 

wildlife, watershed, or other resource values as a result of a change in foraging habits and numbers of animals.

7. Other Policy Considerations:
Appendix I HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1038 Guidelines for Yearling Conversion Factors

a. The term of the conversion must be for not less than a 3 year period.

b. If a grazing lease or permit is transferred the conversion may be allowed to remain in place under the same 

conditions.

c. No yearling conversions would be allowed for replacement heifers if run in common with cow-calf pairs.

d. No sheep or bison yearling conversions would be allowed.

e. The full fee shall be charged for each animal unit month of authorized grazing use in accordance with 43 CFR 

4130.8-1(c).

8. Required Terms and Conditions of Permit/Lease:

a. The allotment management plan (AMP), coordinated resource management plan (CRMP), management 

agreement or similar document guiding management of the grazing allotment would be made part of the 

lease/permit.

b. Any future monitoring which indicates that livestock use is resulting in resource damage or over use of the 

vegetation would require that the conversion factor be reviewed by the authorized officer.

c. The conversion factor may be terminated at any time at the discretion of the BLM after consultation with the 

grazing lessee.

Determination of Yearling Conversion Factor

1. The beginning weight for yearling cattle must be determined prior to turning the animals into the allotment. This 

must be supported by certified weight tickets. The date for the weight tickets may be for any date, no more than two 

(2) weeks prior to turning yearlings into the allotment.

2. The midweight would be determined by using the following formula:

InWeight   MidWeight

2

Days*2lbs

* Days refers to the total number of days yearling cattle are in the allotment.

* 2 pounds is the assumed daily weight gain. This figure is administrative and is

nonnegotiable, unless average daily gain can be calculated from actual certified

weight tickets supplied by the lessee showing the turn in and take out weights of

the yearling cattle.

* Midweight would be rounded up to the nearest 50-pound increment.

3. The conversion factors are shown Table I.1.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix I

Guidelines for Yearling Conversion Factors 1039

Table I.1

Conversion Factors

Midweight Factor

500 .60

550 .65

600 .70

650 .72

700 .75

750 .80

800 .85

850 .90

900 1.00

References

Ensminger, M.E., J.E. Oldfield, and W.W. Heinemann. 1990. Feeds and Nutrition Digest. The Ensminger Publishing 

Company. Clovis, CA.

Kearl, W. Gordon. 1978. Mountain Valley Ranching in Wyoming. Department of Agriculture Economics University 

Wyoming AE 78-13 p. 24.

Taylor, R.E., and T.G. Field. 1999. Beef Production and Management Decisions – Third Edition. Prentice Hall. Upper 

Saddle River, NJ.

HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix J

Reclamation 1041

Appendix J

Reclamation

Introduction

Reclamation will be required for surface-disturbing activities. Some activities/areas such as permanent roads/trails and 

open travel management areas would be exempt. Other such activities/areas will be reviewed for exemption during the 

site-specific environmental analysis. Reclamation is not the restoration of a site; instead, the long-term objective of 

reclamation is to set the course for eventual ecosystem restoration. A reclamation plan appropriate in detail and 

complexity and tailored to a specific surface-disturbing activity will be required and made a stipulation and/or condition 

of approval of any action/activity. The level of detail for the reclamation plan shall reflect the complexity of the project, 

the environmental concerns generated during project review, and the reclamation potential for the site. This appendix 

details the elements that need to be considered during predisturbance authorization of any surface-disturbing activity and 

the post-disturbance steps required to assure timely and proper reclamation of a site. 

The reclamation plan will provide a framework to develop project-specific and site-specific reclamation actions and 

guide land management efforts toward a planned future condition for any surface-disturbing activity. Early coordination 

between Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and project proponents is necessary to produce the appropriate plan. The 

reclamation plan will serve as a binding agreement between a project proponent(s) and the BLM for the expected 

reclamation condition of the disturbed lands and must be periodically reviewed and modified as necessary to adjust to 

changing conditions or to correct for an oversight. The reclamation plan will include sufficient monitoring requirements, 

reports, and components to ensure the reclamation plan is current. 

In preparing and reviewing reclamation plans, the BLM and the project proponent must set reasonable, achievable, and 

measurable reclamation goals/objectives that are consistent with the land use plan and are ecologically feasible. 

Achievable goals/objectives will ensure reclamation and encourage a project proponent(s) to conduct research on 

different aspects of reclamation for different environments. These goals/objectives should be based on available 

information and techniques, should offer incentives to both parties, and as a result, should generate useful information 

for future use.

Objectives

The short-term objective is to immediately stabilize disturbed areas and to provide the necessary conditions to achieve 

the long-term objective.

The long-term objective is to facilitate eventual ecosystem reconstruction for the purpose of maintaining a safe and 

stable landscape and meeting the desired outcomes.

Reclamation Requirements

The following reclamation requirements apply to all surface-disturbing activities, including BLM initiated activities, and 

must be addressed in each reclamation plan. These requirements also must be met prior to release of the bond and/or the 

reclamation liability. Where these reclamation requirements differ from other applicable federal, laws, rules, and 

regulations, those requirements supersede this policy. State and/or local statutes or regulations may also apply.

Manage all waste materials.

 Segregate, treat, remove, and/or bio-remediate contaminated soil material in accordance with applicable laws, 

regulations, and policy.
Appendix J HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1042 Reclamation

 Bury only authorized waste materials on site. Buried material must be covered with a minimum of three feet of 

suitable material or meet other program standards.

 Ensure all waste materials moved off-site are transported to an authorized disposal facility.

Ensure subsurface integrity, and eliminate sources of ground and surface water contamination.

 Properly plug all drill holes and other small openings.

 Stabilize, properly back fill, cap, and/or restrict from entry all open shafts, underground workings, and other 

openings. 

 Control sources of contamination and implement best management practices to protect surface and ground 

water quality. 

Ensure surface stability, re-establish slope stability, and desired topographic diversity.

 Evaluate erosion susceptibly prior to disturbance.

 Implement the appropriate erosion control and sediment containment measures/devices when and where needed 

(e.g., erosion control mats/blankets, mulch, waterbars, silt fences, straw wattles, surface roughening, etc.)

 Inspect and maintain all runoff and erosion control structures on a regular schedule and after major runoff event.

 Reconstruct the landscape to the approximate original contour. However, at the discretion of the authorized 

officer, if the disturbed area has stabilized and if returning the original contour will cause additional 

disturbance, then re-contouring may not be required.

 Maximize geomorphic stability and topographic diversity of the reclaimed topography.

 Eliminate highwalls, cut slopes, and/or topographic depressions on site, unless otherwise approved.

 Minimize sheet and small rill erosion on or adjacent to the reclaimed area. There shall be no evidence of mass 

wasting, head cutting, large rills or gullies, head or down cutting in drainages, or general slope instability on or 

adjacent to the reclaimed area.

Reconstruct and stabilize water courses and drainage features.

 Reconstruct drainage basins and reclaim impoundments to maintain the drainage pattern, profile, and dimension 

to approximate the natural features found in nearby naturally functioning basins.

 Reconstruct and stabilize stream channels, drainages, and impoundments to exhibit similar hydrologic 

characteristics found in stable naturally functioning systems.

Maintain the biological, chemical, and physical integrity of topsoil.

 Identify, delineate, and salvage topsoil based on a site-specific soil evaluation, including depth, chemical and 

physical properties. 

 Protect all stored topsoil from erosion, degradation, noxious weed and invasive plant infestations, and 

contamination. Topsoil that is not re-spread within 30 days shall be covered with a tackifier, mulch, or other 

approved cover. Piling subsurface soil on top of topsoil will be prohibited.

 Maintain stored topsoil viability by incorporating into the disturbed landscape. 

 Seed topsoil stored beyond one growing season with desired vegetation. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix J

Reclamation 1043

 Identify topsoil storage with appropriate signage.

Prepare site for revegetation.

 Redistribute topsoil and subsoil in a manner similar to the original vertical profile.

 Reduce compaction to an appropriate depth (generally below the root zone) prior to redistribution of topsoil, to 

accommodate desired plant species.

 Provide suitable surface and subsurface physical, chemical, and biological properties to support the long term 

establishment and viability of the desired plant community.

 Protect seed and seedling establishment (e.g., erosion control matting, mulching, hydro-seeding, surface 

roughening, fencing, etc.)

 Defer grazing until reclamation goals and objectives are met.

Establish a desired self-perpetuating native plant community.

 Determine appropriate species composition and cover based on information from the appropriate Ecological 

Site Descriptions (ESDs) and/or plant community descriptions. 

 Establish species composition, diversity, structure, and total ground cover appropriate for the desired plant 

community as described in the appropriate Ecological Site Description.

 Enhance critical resource values (e.g., wildlife habitat), where appropriate, by augmenting plant community 

composition, diversity, and/or structure.

 Select genetically appropriate and locally adapted native plants based on the site characteristics and ecological 

setting that meet desired plant community objectives.

 Select non-native plants only as an approved short-term and non-persistent alternative to native plants. Ensure 

the non-natives will not hybridize, displace, impede, or offer long-term competition to the desired plant 

community outlined in the ESDs, and are designed to aid in the re-establishment of native plant communities.

 Do not apply nitrogen fertilizer when annual bromes are found on site or have the potential to invade the site 

from nearby infestations.

Reestablish a complementary visual composition 

 Ensure the reclaimed landscape features blend into the adjacent area and conform to the land use plan decisions.

 Ensure the reclaimed landscape does not result in a change to the scenic quality of the area.

Manage Invasive Plants

 Inventory for and treat noxious weeds before initiating surface-disturbing activities. Inventory for and consider 

treating non-native and naturalized plants before initiating surface-disturbing activities.

 Develop an invasive plant management plan.

 Control invasive plants utilizing an integrated pest management approach.

 Monitor invasive plant treatments.
Appendix J HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1044 Reclamation

Develop and implement a reclamation monitoring and reporting strategy.

 Monitor for the success of the vegetation management objectives and reclamation goals.

 Conduct compliance and effectiveness monitoring in accordance with a BLM (or other surface management 

agency) approved monitoring protocol (e.g. Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) Strategy).

 Evaluate monitoring data for compliance with and success of the outlined goals and objectives written in the 

reclamation plan.

 Document and report monitoring data and recommend revised reclamation strategies.

 Implement revised reclamation strategies as needed.

 Repeat the process of monitoring, evaluating, documenting/reporting, and implementing, until reclamation 

goals and vegetation management objectives are achieved.

Seeding

Disturbed areas will be seeded. As much seeding as possible will be conducted during the fall before the ground freezes. 

Occasional seeding may occur in the spring as long as favorable conditions exist. Seeding will not be allowed in frozen 

or saturated soil conditions except for when approved by the authorized officer or winter seeding of sagebrush on snow. 

Reseeding will be required when a satisfactory stand is not obtained.

The seed mixture shall be planted in the amounts specified in pounds of pure live seed (PLS) per acre. There shall be no 

invasive or non-native weed seeds in the mixture. Seed shall be tested for purity and germination and the viability 

testing shall be done in accordance with Montana State law(s). Tetrazolium test (TZ) will be allowed for germination 

testing. Test results will be made available for BLM review, if requested. Commercial seed shall be either State

Certified or tested weed-free seed. The seed mixture container shall be tagged in accordance with State law(s) and 

available for inspection. The amount of seed planted will be enough so that upon germination, the soil is adequately 

covered.

Table J.1 lists approved species that could be included for a particular site, along with recommended seeding rates for a 

pure stand. The species listed are not all-inclusive as some sites may warrant other species. Approved species will be 

used on all BLM surface land and on private surface unless the landowner requests otherwise. Using species that are 

already present in an area increases the probability that the area will be revegetated successfully. Soil sampling may also 

be necessary to ensure that the species in the seed mix will establish on the site. After the vegetation survey and/or soil 

sampling has been completed, a mix should be developed using species listed in Table J.1; no monocultures (pure stand) 

will be allowed. The mixture should be diverse enough to show a variety of native desirable plants upon germination. 

The percentage of each species in the mixture will determine the percentage of that species’ pure-stand seeding rate used. 

Forbs and shrubs may be included in the seed mixtures; however, they should not be included when herbicides are used 

to control invasive weeds. Cover or nurse crops may be used in certain situation, where warranted.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix J

Reclamation 1045

Table J.1

Recommended Species, Cultivars, and Pure Stand Seeding Rates

Plant Species Scientific Name

Recommended

Cultivar1

Drill Seeding Rate2,3

PLS lbs/acre4

Grasses

Bluebunch Wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria spicata Goldar 6

Green Needlegrass Nassella viridula Lodorm 5

Sandberg Bluegrass Poa secunda High Plains 2

Prairie Junegrass Koeleria macrantha NA 1

Blue Grama Bouteloua gracilis Bad River 2

Needle and Thread Hesperostipa comata NA 6

Indian Ricegrass Achnatherum hymenoides Rimrock 6

Prairie Sandreed Calamovilfa longifolia Goshen 4

Inland Saltgrass Distichlis spicata NA 5

Alkali Sacaton Sporobolus airoides NA 1

Western Wheatgrass Pascopyrum smithii Rosana 8

Forbs

Dotted Gayfeather Liatris punctata NA 6.4

Western Yarrow Achillea millefolium Great Northern 0.5

Purple Prairie Clover or 

White Prairie Clover

Dalea purpurea

Dalea candida

Bismark 

Antelope 3

Prairie Coneflower Ratibida columnifera NA 1.5

Shrubs

Fourwing Saltbush Atriplex canescens Wytana 0.5

Silver Buffaloberry Shepherdia argenta Sakakawea 0.5 - 1

Wyoming Big Sagebrush5 Artemisia tridentata NA 3

Silver Sagebrush5 Artemisia cana NA 2

Wood's Rose Rosa woodsii NA 0.5 - 1

Winterfat6 Krascheninnikovia lanata Open Range <.5

1 Other cultivars adapted to the area are acceptable.

2

Seeding rates are given for 12-inch drill rows.

3 When broadcast seeding, double the pounds per acre seeded.

4

Pure Live Seed

5 These shrubs should always be broadcast seeded; seeding rates listed are for broadcast seeding.

6 These shrubs should always be broadcast seeded; seeding rates listed are for broadcast seeding.

Sources: NRCS Montana Technical Note, Plant Materials MT-46(Rev. 1); NRCS Montana Technical Note, Range MT-33; Granite 

Seed Company, Lehi, UT.

HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix K

ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria 1047

Appendix K

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Evaluation of Relevance and Importance Criteria

For Existing and Potential ACECs

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) are BLM lands where special management attention is needed to 

protect important and relevant values. “Special management attention” refers to management prescriptions developed 

during preparation of a resource management plan (RMP) or amendment expressly to protect the important and relevant 

values of an area from the potential effects of actions permitted by the RMP, including proposed actions deemed to be in 

conformance with the terms, conditions, and decisions of the RMP (BLM Manual 1613).

To be 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 must be identified as a 

potential ACEC and considered for designation and management in the resource planning process. Designation is based 

on whether or not a potential ACEC requires special management attention in the selected plan alternative. 

An area meets the “relevance” criteria if it contains one or more of the following relevance values:

 A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value (including but not limited to rare or sensitive archeological 

resources and religious or cultural resources important to Native Americans).

 A fish and wildlife resource (including but not limited to habitat for endangered, sensitive, or threatened species 

or habitat essential for maintaining species diversity).

 A natural process or system (including but not limited to endangered, sensitive, or threatened plant species; rare, 

endemic, or relic plants or plant communities, which are terrestrial, aquatic, or riparian; or rare geological 

features).

 Natural hazards (including but not limited to areas of avalanche, dangerous flooding, landslides, unstable soils, 

seismic activity, or dangerous cliffs). A hazard caused by human action may meet the relevance criteria if it is 

determined through the resource management planning process that it has become part of a natural process.

The value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above must have substantial significance and values in order to 

satisfy the “importance” criteria. This generally means that the value, resource, system, process, or hazard is 

characterized by one or more of the following:

 Has more than locally significant qualities which give it special worth, consequence, meaning, distinctiveness, 

or cause for concern, especially compared to any similar resource. [More than locally significant qualities]

 Has qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, 

endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change. [Special qualities]

 Has been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out the 

mandates of FLPMA. [Warrants national priority/FLPMA protection]

 Has qualities which warrant highlighting in order to satisfy public or management concerns about safety and 

public welfare. [Safety/public welfare concerns]

 Poses a significant threat to human life and safety or to property. [Poses a significant threat]

The planning area currently has seven designated ACECs: 
Appendix K HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1048 ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria

 Azure Cave ACEC

 Big Bend of the Milk River ACEC

 Bitter Creek ACEC

 Mountain Plover ACEC

 Kevin Rim ACEC

 Prairie Dog Towns within the 7km Complex ACEC

 Sweet Grass Hills ACEC

Public comment received during the scoping period suggested that the existing Bitter Creek ACEC be expanded. Four 

areas were nominated as ACECs by cooperating agencies or BLM staff, including:

 Frenchman Area

 Malta Geological Area

 Woody Island Area

 Zortman/Landusky Mine Reclamation

The BLM received five ACEC nominations from the public that will be considered in the planning process: 

 Black-tailed Prairie Dog and Black-footed Ferret

 Five Watersheds

 Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse

 Greater Sage-Grouse

 Mountain Plover

Three other ACEC nominations received prior to the commencement of this planning process were also considered: 

 Little Rocky Mountains

 Old Scraggy

 Saddle Butte

This report presents the completed evaluation forms for all existing and nominated ACECs in the planning area (Tables 

K.1 through K.19). Areas that did not meet the relevance and importance criteria were dropped from further 

consideration for ACEC designation. Areas that met the relevance and importance criteria are included in the 

management alternatives analyzed in the RMP/EIS.

A summary of the relevance and importance evaluations for the existing and nominated ACECs is shown on the 

following page, followed by the individual evaluations. Maps K1 through K19 showing the locations of the existing and 

nominated ACECs are found following the individual evaluations.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix K

ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria 1049

Relevance and Importance

Evaluation Summary

Table No. Page No.

Met 

Relevance 

Criteria

Met 

Importance 

Criteria

Included in 

Management 

Alternatives

Existing ACECs

Azure Cave K.1 1051   

Big Bend of the Milk River K.2 1053   

Bitter Creek K.3 1055   

Kevin Rim K.4 1057   

Mountain Plover K.5 1059   

Prairie Dog Towns within the 7km 

Complex

K.6 1061

Sweet Grass Hills K.7 1063   

Nominations Brought Forward During Scoping

Frenchman K.8 1065   

Malta Geological K.9 1069   

Woody Island K.10 1072   

Zortman/Landusky Mine Reclamation K.11 1076   

Nominations Received During the Planning Process

Black-tailed Prairie Dog and Black-footed 

Ferret K.12 1078 

Five Watersheds K.13 1080 

Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse K.14 1082   

Greater Sage-Grouse K.15 1085   

Mountain Plover K.16 1087 

Nominations Received Prior to the Commencement of the Planning Process

Little Rocky Mountains K.17 1089   

Old Scraggy K.18 1093 

Saddle Butte K.19 1095
Appendix K HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1050 ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria

Maps Showing Locations of

Existing and Nominated ACECs

Map No. Page No.

Existing ACECs

Azure Cave K.1 1052

Big Bend of the Milk River K.2 1054

Bitter Creek K.3 1056

Kevin Rim K.4 1058

Mountain Plover K.5 1060

Prairie Dog Towns within the 7km Complex K.6 1062

Sweet Grass Hills K.7 1064

Nominations Brought Forward During Scoping

Frenchman K.8 1068

Malta Geological K.9 1071

Woody Island K.10 1075

Zortman/Landusky Mine Reclamation K.11 1077

Nominations Received During the Planning Process

Black-tailed Prairie Dog and Black-footed Ferret K.12 1079

Five Watersheds K.13 1081

Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse K.14 1084

Greater Sage-Grouse K.15 1086

Mountain Plover K.16 1088

Nominations Received Prior to the Commencement of the Planning Process

Little Rocky Mountains K.17 1092

Old Scraggy K.18 1094

Saddle Butte K.19 1096
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix K

ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria 1051

Existing ACECs

Table K.1

Azure Cave ACEC (Existing)

Relevance and Importance Evaluation

Area Considered: Azure Cave

General Location: T. 25 N., R. 25 E.

General Description: Southeast Phillips County, Little Rocky Mountains South of Zortman, Montana

Acreage: 143

Values Considered: Critical bat hibernaculum of national significance, and general hazard to public safety

Relevance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

A significant historic, 

cultural, or scenic value

No No significant historic or cultural values are known. Scenic values are high, but 

similar to those of many other areas in the Malta Field Office.

A fish and wildlife 

resource

Yes Azure cave was described in detail by N. P. Campbell in a 1978 report 

(Campbell 1978). The cave was re-surveyed in 1979 (Chester, et. al. 1979).

They identified this as one of two known caves in the Northwest that contains 

hibernating bats. Because of the cave importance as a hibernaculum the report 

also recommended that entry by the public take place only from June 15 to 

August 15 each year. Bat surveys at Azure Cave (Hendricks and Genter 1997) 

confirmed the presence of hibernating bats and also confirmed the presence of 

bat species of concern using the cave area.

The cave is hazardous to the general public and only experienced cave explorers 

should be allowed in it (Chester, et al. 1979) by permit.

A natural process or 

system

No No threatened, endangered, or otherwise rare plants are known.

Natural hazards Yes The cave is hazardous to the general public and only experienced cave explorers 

should be allowed in it (Chester, et al. 1979) by permit.

Importance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

More than locally 

significant qualities

Yes One of the largest known bat hibernaculums in the state with several hundred 

individuals present. The cave also has speleothems of exceptional size and 

extent. 

Special qualities Yes Hibernating bats are exceptionally sensitive to disturbance and cave features are 

also can be destroyed easily. 

Warrants national 

priority/FLPMA 

protection

No No national priority concerns are known.

Safety/public welfare 

concerns

Yes Unrestricted access to the cave may represent a hazard to people inexperienced 

with caves and cave features. 

Poses a significant 

threat

No Not a significant threat to human life and safety.
Appendix K HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1052 ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix K

ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria 1053

Table K.2

Big Bend of the Milk River ACEC (Existing)

Relevance and Importance Evaluation

Area Considered: Big Bend of the Milk River

General Location: Portions of T. 33 N., R. 31 E.; T. 32 N., R. 31 and 32 E.; and a portion lying in T. 31 N., 

R. 30 and 31 E.

General Description: Northeast of Malta, Montana

Acreage: 1,979

Values Considered: Scientific/Interpretive archaeological. Contains rare and intact important archaeological 

sites

Relevance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

A significant historic, 

cultural, or scenic value

Yes The Big Bend of the Milk River contains a broad range of archaeological 

resources representing the variety of manifestations indicative of the prehistoric 

occupations of the glaciated prairie of the Northwestern Plains. Included among 

these resources are the Henry Smith and Beaucoup sites which have been 

investigated professionally and determined eligible for the National Register of 

Historic Places.

A fish and wildlife 

resource

No No habitat for endangered, sensitive, or threatened fish and wildlife species are

known.

A natural process or 

system

No No threatened, endangered, or otherwise rare plants are known.

Natural hazards No No natural hazards are known.

Importance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

More than locally 

significant qualities

Yes The Big Bend has a high density of archaeological resources, many with rare or 

unique characteristics and scientific values at local, national and international 

levels. The cultural resources are between 1000 and 2000 years old and provide 

an exceptional opportunity for the study of relatively pristine sites encompassing 

a broad range of cultural functions and established during a short period of 

prehistory. Sites include prehistoric bison kills in the form of traps, jumps, and 

pounds with associated drive lines; prehistoric ceremonial and religious locales 

such as petroglyph boulders, medicine wheels, intaglios, and burials; and 

complex habitation and resource exploitation manifestations characterized by 

large numbers of stone circles and cairns. These sites are irreplaceable, 

vulnerable, and threatened by human impacts, primarily in the form of mineral 

development, and vandalism. 

Special qualities Yes Cultural materials of value to scientific research, education, and public 

interpretation are fragile and deteriorate readily on exposure to the elements. 

Surface disturbance from other land uses can have a serious adverse impact on 

fossil deposits.

Warrants national 

priority/FLPMA 

protection

Yes Satisfies the FLPMA mandate to protect scientific values.

Safety/public welfare 

concerns

No No safety or public welfare concerns are known.

Poses a significant 

threat

No No significant threats.
Appendix K HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1054 ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix K

ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria 1055

Table K.3

Bitter Creek ACEC (Existing)

Relevance and Importance Evaluation

Area Considered: Bitter Creek ACEC

General Location: Portions of T. 35 N., R. 37, 38 and 39 E.; Portions of T. 34 N., R. 37, 38 and 39 E.; Portions 

of T. 33 N., R. 37 and 38 E.; and Portions of T. 32 N., R. 38 E. (most central township is T.

34 N., R. 38 E.)

General Description: Northcentral Valley County

Acreage: 60,701

Values Considered: Significant scenic, wildlife and cultural values.

Relevance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

A significant historic, 

cultural, or scenic value

Yes The area contains outstanding scenic views which are not compromised by visual 

intrusions or social imprints. The area is also known to contain sensitive 

archaeological resources. 

A fish and wildlife 

resource

Yes The area is valuable for wildlife due to the large, continuous, and contiguous 

amount of prairie under federal administration which provides a reservoir of 

grassland habitat.

A natural process or 

system

Yes The area is valuable for wildlife due to the large, continuous, and contiguous 

amount of prairie under federal administration which provides a reservoir of 

grassland habitat.

Natural hazards No No natural hazards are known.

Importance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

More than locally 

significant qualities

Yes Outstanding scenic diversity and a variety of vegetation types and wildlife 

habitat.

Special qualities No The area is not particularly fragile or sensitive to change as compared to other 

sites in Montana.

Warrants national 

priority/FLPMA 

protection

No No national priority concerns are known.

Safety/public welfare 

concerns

No No safety or public welfare concerns are known.

Poses a significant 

threat

No No significant threats.
Appendix K HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1056 ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix K

ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria 1057

Table K.4

Kevin Rim ACEC (Existing)

Relevance and Importance Evaluation

Area Considered: Kevin Rim

General Location: T. 36 N., R. 03 W.; and T. 35 N., R. 03 W.

General Description: Northeast of Shelby, Montana

Acreage: 4,557

Values Considered: Scientific/Interpretive archaeological. Contains rare and intact important archaeological 

sites. Essential breeding and nesting area for raptors.

Relevance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

A significant historic, 

cultural, or scenic value

Yes Kevin Rim would be designated and managed to protect, maintain and/or 

enhance the cultural resources while encouraging other types of multiple use 

activities to the extent they are compatible with the ACEC designation (BLM

1988). 

A fish and wildlife 

resource

Yes Kevin Rim serves as a primary breeding and nesting area for a number of raptors 

including state sensitive species such as the golden eagle and ferruginous hawk. 

Other raptors using the rim include the prairie falcon and rough-legged hawk. 

The steep, south facing walls of the rim provide optimum habitat for raptor 

breeding and nesting and is an uncommon feature in this area of gently rolling 

plains. Yearlong raptor use of the rim also occurs.

Kevin Rim also has potential high value habitat for peregrine falcons. No known 

use of the rim is presently occurring. However, peregrine falcons have used a 

nest site on Kevin Rim in the past. The rim has been identified as a 

reintroduction peregrine site.

Most raptors, including those using the rim, are quite susceptible to disturbance.

This is especially crucial during the breeding and nesting period and may be a 

significant factor limiting maximum raptor use of the rim.

A natural process or 

system

No No threatened, endangered, or otherwise rare plants are known.

Natural hazards No No natural hazards are known.

Importance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

More than locally 

significant qualities

Yes Kevin Rim serves as a primary breeding and nesting area for a number of raptors 

including state sensitive species such as the golden eagle and ferruginous hawk. 

Other raptors using the rim include the prairie falcon and rough-legged hawk. 

The steep, south facing walls of the rim provide optimum habitat for raptor 

breeding and nesting and is an uncommon feature in this area of gently rolling 

plains. 

Special qualities Yes Cultural materials of value to scientific research, education, and public 

interpretation are fragile and surface disturbance from other land uses can have a 

serious adverse impact on them.

Warrants national 

priority/FLPMA 

protection

Yes Satisfies the FLPMA mandate to protect scientific values.

Safety/public welfare 

concerns

No No safety or public welfare concerns are known.

Poses a significant 

threat

No No significant threats.
Appendix K HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1058 ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix K

ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria 1059

Table K.5

Mountain Plover ACEC (Existing)

Relevance and Importance Evaluation

Area Considered: Mountain Plover 

General Location: Portions lie in T. 27 N., R. 36, 361⁄2, 37, and 38 E.; and T. 26 N., R. 37 and 38 E.

General Description: Southcentral Valley County

Acreage: 24,762

Values Considered: Essential breeding habitat for Mountain Plovers

Relevance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

A significant historic, 

cultural, or scenic value

No No significant historic or cultural values are known. Scenic values are moderate, 

but very similar to those of many other areas in the Malta Field Office.

A fish and wildlife 

resource

Yes This ACEC contains breeding habitat for mountain plovers. The area is unique 

because the hardpan areas along Beaver Creek provide habitat for mountain 

plovers away from traditional habitat association with prairie dogs. The area 

contains approximately 160 mountain plovers, which is greater than 1% of the 

global population of this species. The area is also recognized as a Globally 

Important Bird Area by the National Audubon Society because of the numbers of 

breeding Mountain Plovers in the area.

A natural process or 

system

No No threatened, endangered, or otherwise rare plants are known.

Natural hazards No No natural hazards are known.

Importance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

More than locally 

significant qualities

Yes The area is of global significance for the continued existence of Mountain 

Plovers because of the number of plovers breeding within the ACEC. 

Special qualities No The area is not particularly fragile or sensitive to change as compared to other 

sites in Montana.

Warrants national 

priority/FLPMA 

protection

Yes The area would qualify under Section 102(a)(8) of FLPMA as an area to be 

managed that will protect the quality of scientific values and provide food and 

habitat for fish and wildlife.

Safety/public welfare 

concerns

No No safety or public welfare concerns are known.

Poses a significant 

threat

No No significant threats.
Appendix K HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1060 ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix K

ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria 1061

Table K.6

Prairie Dog Towns within the 7km Complex ACEC (Existing)

Relevance and Importance Evaluation

Area Considered: 7km Prairie Dog Town Area

General Location: Central T. 23 N., R. 29 E.

General Description: Southcentral Phillips County

Acreage: 12,346

Values Considered: Essential Habitat for Black Foot Ferret Recovery and Prairie Dog Town Conservation Areas

Relevance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

A significant historic, 

cultural, or scenic value

No No significant historic or cultural values are known. Scenic values are moderate, 

but very similar to those of many other areas in the Malta Field Office.

A fish and wildlife 

resource

No The boundary of this ACEC originally contained many acres of prairie dog 

towns. Although the area still contains many acres of prairie dogs, the boundary 

of this ACEC is no longer relevant to black-footed ferret recovery or prairie dog 

conservation. 

A natural process or 

system

No No threatened, endangered, or otherwise rare plants are known.

Natural hazards No No natural hazards are known.

Importance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

More than locally 

significant qualities

No Although the area still contains many acres of prairie dogs, it is no longer 

relevant to black-footed ferret recovery or prairie dog conservation.

Special qualities No The area is not particularly fragile or sensitive to change as compared to other 

sites in Montana.

Warrants national 

priority/FLPMA 

protection

No No national priority concerns are known.

Safety/public welfare 

concerns

No No safety or public welfare concerns are known.

Poses a significant 

threat

No No significant threats.
Appendix K HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1062 ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix K

ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria 1063

Table K.7

Sweet Grass Hills ACEC (Existing)

Relevance and Importance Evaluation

Area Considered: Sweet Grass Hills

General Location: T. 37 N., R. 01 and 02 E.; T. 36 N., R. 03, 04 and 05 E.

General Description: Northwest of Havre, Montana in Toole and Liberty Counties

Acreage: 7,429 acres

Values Considered: Scientific/Interpretive archaeological. Contains rare and intact important archaeological sites

Relevance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

A significant historic, 

cultural, or scenic value

Yes The Sweet Grass Hills have been identified by Native American traditionalists as 

an important location for traditional religious practices (BLM 1987). 

In traditional Plains Indian culture, spiritual life is integral to daily life. Fasting 

and vision questing are important elements to this spirituality. Vision questing is 

practiced by all of the groups known to have ranged into the Sweet Grass Hills.

A fish and wildlife 

resource

No No habitat for endangered, sensitive, or threatened fish and wildlife species are 

known.

A natural process or 

system

No No threatened, endangered, or otherwise rare plants are known.

Natural hazards No No natural hazards are known.

Importance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

More than locally 

significant qualities

No Similar sites and values can be found in other areas of Montana.

Special qualities Yes Cultural materials of value to American Indian spirituality are fragile and 

irreplaceable. Surface disturbance from other land uses can have a serious 

adverse impact on Traditional Cultural Properties.

Warrants national 

priority/FLPMA 

protection

Yes Satisfies the FLPMA mandate to protect scientific values.

Safety/public welfare 

concerns

No No safety or public welfare concerns are known.

Poses a significant 

threat

No No significant threats.
Appendix K HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1064 ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix K

ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria 1065

Nominations Brought Forward During Scoping

Table K.8

Frenchman ACEC

Relevance and Importance Evaluation

Area Considered: Frenchman Area

General Location: T. 37 N., R. 33 and 34 E.; T. 36 N., R. 33, 34 and 35 E.; T. 35 N., R. 34 and 35 E.; T. 34 N., 

R. 34 E.

General Description: Northeast Phillips County

Acreage: 42,020

Values Considered: Scenic, fish and wildlife resources (crucial mule deer winter range, diversity of wildlife and 

native fish), and an unfragmented fragile landscape.

Relevance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

A significant historic, 

cultural, or scenic value

Yes The majority of the area contains outstanding scenic views which are not 

compromised by visual intrusions or human imprints.

A fish and wildlife 

resource

Yes The Frenchman Breaks provide important winter habitat for several big game 

species. As many as 1,609 mule deer have been observed there during severe 

winters, the bulk of them probably migrating to the area from Canada. The large 

number of Canadian mule deer migrating to the area was the reason for 

identifying this winter habitat as crucial. The lack of humans during winter 

contributes to a higher dependence of mule deer on native shrubs for browse 

rather than being attracted to hay stacks as in other breaks habitats in Phillips and 

Valley Counties where ranches are more abundant. Several hundred pronghorn 

antelope also winter in sagebrush habitat found in drainage areas and fans 

protected from cold winds by the steep breaks topography. Elk could be found in 

the breaks habitat at any time of the year, but the hunted population is quite 

small. Moose have become more prevalent in the area in recent years, and the 

Creek bottom (mostly on private land) has been identified as one of the ten best 

places in North America for growing trophy white-tailed deer. 

The Frenchman Breaks provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species. It is 

located less than two miles from Frenchman Reservoir, a private irrigation 

reservoir that supports nesting colonies of eared grebe, great blue heron, and 

double-crested cormorant. Fish populations in Frenchman Creek provide food 

for these colonial nesters as well as for non-breeding concentrations of American 

white pelican during summer. There are nearly 20 known sharp-tailed grouse 

dancing grounds on federal land within the nominated ACEC, and one known 

greater sage-grouse strutting ground on a boundary with private land just 

northwest of Frenchman Reservoir. The Frenchman Creek bottom supports a 

significant population of ring-necked pheasants, but few upland game birds ever 

see a hunter in this remote area. Unique aspen stands on the east side of the 

ACEC probably support unknown concentrations of warblers and other 

passerines searching for deciduous tree habitat during their spring migration 

when few or no humans are present to observe and identify them.

The Frenchman Breaks area is home to many BLM Sensitive Species, and 

upland grassland areas between areas of steep topography can also support 

additional sensitive grassland bird species. Sensitive wildlife species include 

greater short-horned lizard, northern leopard frog, ferruginous hawk, golden

eagle, Swainson’s hawk, greater sage-grouse, loggerhead shrike, and swift fox. 

The four grassland birds on grassy bench tops are the Baird’s sparrow, 

McCown’s longspur, chestnut-collared longspur, and Sprague’s pipit. The area 
Appendix K HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1066 ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria

has habitat for bald eagle, peregrine falcon, Brewer’s sparrow, northern 

goshawk, red-headed woodpecker, willet, marbled godwit, long-billed curlew, 

and Wilson’s phalarope. All are sensitive species, but few or no records exist for 

the area. The swift fox occurs primarily on the western side of the nominated

ACEC.

Few records exist for the greater short-horned lizard due to their secretive nature. 

The greater short-horned lizard, or horny toad, does occur in the Frenchman 

Breaks area near sandstone ledges and rocky slopes. The remoteness of the area 

has allowed populations of the lizard to persist with little or no human 

disturbance. The northern leopard frog probably occurs in Frenchman Creek and 

in reservoirs and stock ponds, but little work has been done on this species. 

Frenchman Creek does have the BLM Sensitive Pearl Dace and sauger. Also 

present is the northern redbelly dace. Although not a sensitive species itself, its 

hybrid with the finescale dace is a Sensitive Species and the two are very 

difficult to tell apart.

A natural process or 

system

Yes The Frenchman Breaks, located mostly in extreme northeastern Phillips County 

and partially in northwestern Valley County, is a remote and mostly roadless area 

of badlands and breaks topography stretching for miles. The area is relatively 

un-fragmented from human presences. The Frenchman Breaks are fragile due to 

exposed bedrock and soils with severe erosion hazards, developed from acid 

shales, shallow to very shallow depth, low available water holding capacity, and 

sparse vegetative ground cover.

The aspen stands in the central portion of the ACEC on the east side of 

Frenchman Creek appear to be remnants of the Aspen Parklands found farther 

north in Canada. This area is rarely visited by humans, except during the fall big 

game hunting season, and it probably supports unique plant species in addition to 

the passerine bird community during spring and summer. This little-studied area 

needs detailed plant and animal surveys to determine its full potential as an 

ACEC. 

The unique geology of the Frenchman Breaks was a key factor in the prior 

designation of the area as a VRM Class 2 landscape. The International Boundary 

with Canada not only separates the Frenchman River in Canada from Frenchman 

Creek in the United States, but also separates the extensive Frenchman 

grasslands in Canada from the rugged, incised topography on the United States 

side. The few roads on the edges of the area are not maintained and most of the 

area is inaccessible during all but the driest times of the year. The rugged 

topography has prevented all but the most primitive jeep trails from invading the 

area. Any development of the area would face challenging obstacles on the steep 

slopes, soils with severe erosion hazards, and in weather extremes. 

Natural hazards No No natural hazards are known.

Importance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

More than locally 

significant qualities

Yes The various sensitive wildlife species are found at many other locations in 

Montana, but the large diversity in this one geographic area is quite unique. The 

designation of the mule deer winter range in the Frenchman Breaks as crucial is 

unique because of the large number of mule deer (1609 in 1982) that migrated 

into the area during a period of deep snow. Other breaks habitats along 

Cottonwood and Assiniboine Creeks can support several hundred mule deer, but 

they apparently do not attract large herds from Canada as Frenchman does. The 

eastern short-horned lizard population is significant due to the fact that there is 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix K

ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria 1067

little human disturbance and the population has a large habitat base with no 

development and little human activity. The aspen groves on the east side of the 

unit are very unique and undoubtedly attract many migrant passerines in spring 

and fall, but is little studied or disturbed due to the remoteness and lack of roads. 

These aspen remnants are not found in other locations in the Planning Area to 

any large degree, and are more typically found in aspen parkland regions farther 

north in Canada.

Special qualities Yes Within the nominated ACEC boundary are approximately 34,396 acres (82% of 

the ACEC) of soils with a severe water erosion hazard and 6,800 acres with a 

severe wind erosion hazard . Active geologic erosion is obvious throughout the 

uplands. Increased sediment delivery to Frenchman Creek would be a concern if 

soil erosion is accelerated by surface disturbing activities. Increased sediment in 

Frenchman Creek could lead to scouring of the channel banks and an additional 

silt load in Frenchman Reservoir. 

The Frenchman Breaks are mostly road less and that helps maintain their rugged, 

unique, and unfragmented characteristics. That does not mean, however, that the 

area is without threats to the integrity of its natural systems and processes. Allterrain vehicles (ATV) continue to be a growing problem during the hunting 

season, with more and more people driving off roads each year, especially on the 

east side. Many of these new trails are on steep slopes and/or soils with severe 

erosion hazard. It is rare to find an area where there still remains a chance to get 

off-road vehicle use under control.

The JVP describes the area as having moderate potential for natural gas 

development. Much of the private land in the Frenchman Breaks area has been 

leased since November 2004. Federal Lands were temporarily suspended from 

leasing due to wildlife habitat protests of previous planning documents. Gas 

development in the Frenchman Breaks would damage most of the unique and 

unfragmented characteristics mentioned above. Big game populations would be 

disturbed or displaced during severe winters, and the wildlife diversity could be 

reduced by increased human disturbance and resource development. Geologic 

features and soils would be affected by associated facilities such as access roads, 

pipelines, and power lines. Well houses and pump jacks would severely impact 

the scenic beauty of the area and disturb wildlife as well as detract from the 

area’s wild characteristics. 

Warrants national 

priority/FLPMA 

protection

No No national priority concerns are known.

Safety/public welfare 

concerns

No No safety or public welfare concerns are known.

Poses a significant 

threat

No No significant threats.
Appendix K HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1068 ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix K

ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria 1069

Table K.9

Malta Geological ACEC

Relevance and Importance Evaluation

Area Considered: Malta Geological Area

General Location: T. 33 N., R. 29 and 30 E.; T. 32 N., R. 29 and 30 E.

General Description: Northern Phillips County

Acreage: 6,153

Values Considered: Nationally significant paleontological area.

Relevance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

A significant historic, 

cultural, or scenic value

No No significant historic or cultural values are known. Scenic values are moderate, 

but very similar to those of many other areas in the Malta Field Office.

A fish and wildlife 

resource

No No habitat for endangered, sensitive, or threatened fish and wildlife species are 

known.

A natural process or 

system

Yes The area is known in the local paleontological community, as well as nationally 

and internationally, for producing some of the more unique vertebrate specimens. 

In fact, the first mummified dinosaur remains were recovered from the same 

geologic unit and in the vicinity of the Malta Geological area. This mummified 

specimen is the only one like it in the world. Other dinosaur fossils have been 

recovered from the area, several of which are also considered to be one of a kind. 

If these specimens remain in public ownership, they may become designated as 

“type specimens.” A type specimen is the specimen all other fossils are 

compared and is the basis for a new species designation.

Natural hazards No No natural hazards are known.

Importance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

More than locally 

significant qualities

Yes The Malta Geological Area is characterized by geologic units which have a high 

likelihood for containing rare and scientifically significant vertebrate and nonvertebrate fossil remains. The first mummified dinosaur remains were recovered 

from this geologic unit, which is in the vicinity of the Malta Geological ACEC. 

The mummified dinosaur remains represent only one of the several 

internationally significant fossils recovered from the area.

Special qualities Yes Phillips County has the greatest number of known paleontological localities 

across the HiLine on both public and private lands. According to the 

paleontological distribution statistics prepared by Hanna (2007), 75% of the 

paleontological localities on the HiLine occur within the Cretaceous Judith River 

Formation. The Judith River formation is one of three Class 5 geologic units that 

are located within the planning area. The other two geologic units are Hell Creek 

and Two Medicine; however the Judith River formation is the most prevalent of 

the three in the planning area. All three units are considered to be highly 

fossiliferous and have yielded trace, plant, vertebrate, fish, amphibian, reptile, 

dinosaur, and mammal fossils (Hanna 2007). Management concern for 

impacting paleontological resources is high to very high. Potential threats to 

paleontological resources include illegal collection, ground disturbance, and 

natural erosion. 
Appendix K HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1070 ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria

The most difficult threat to manage in the Malta Geological ACEC area is theft 

and vandalism. Due to the high black market value placed on vertebrate fossil 

remains and the national/international significance of the area, the Malta 

Geological ACEC Area has been and is currently being threatened by illegal 

collection. There have been recent reports of paleontological thefts both on 

public land and adjoining private lands. Much of the illegal collecting occurs 

generally during the hours and days when federal employees are not working 

(after hours, weekends, and holidays). The illicit removal of these specimens 

negatively impacts the scientific record and prohibits the public from 

experiencing and learning from these fossils. For example, geologic studies 

often rely upon invertebrate fossils to determine stratigraphic position and make 

lateral correlations. Fossilized plants allow for inference of forage available for 

coexistent herbivores and reveal climatic conditions. The fossil record also 

elucidates the processes of evolution and extinction. 

However theft and vandalism are not the only threats to the Malta Geological

ACEC area. All-terrain vehicles (ATV) continue to be a growing problem 

during the hunting season, with more and more people driving off roads each 

year. Many new trails are on steep slopes and/or soils with severe erosion 

hazard. Many of the prime fossil locations are on these steep, erosional slopes 

and can be negatively impacted by unauthorized off road use. The likelihood for 

inadvertent discovery and potential for theft/damage increases exponentially with 

the influx of people.

The RFD prepared for the HiLine RMP describes the ACEC area as having both 

very low and moderate potential for natural gas development. Much of the 

public land in the Malta Geological ACEC area has been leased since November 

1987. Geologic/paleontological features and soils would be impacted by 

associated facilities such as access roads, pipelines, and power lines. 

Warrants national 

priority/FLPMA 

protection

No No national priority concerns are known.

Safety/public welfare 

concerns

No No safety or public welfare concerns are known.

Poses a significant 

threat

No No significant threats.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix K

ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria 1071
Appendix K HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1072 ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria

Table K.10

Woody Island ACEC

Relevance and Importance Evaluation

Area Considered: Woody Island Area (Blaine County and Phillips County parcels)

General Location: T. 37 N., R. 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 E.

General Description: Northeast Blaine County and Northwest Phillips County

Acreage: 32,869

Values Considered: Essential habitat for Grassland Birds, and Unique Landscape

Relevance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

A significant historic, 

cultural, or scenic value

Yes No significant historic or cultural values are known. The area has a distinct 

topography which resulted from downwasting of stagnant glacial ice about ten 

thousand years ago. Accumulated glacial debris deposited from this process 

formed an undulating landscape of many small hills with moderately steep to 

steep slopes and enclosed depression, best described as a hummocky moraine. 

This area differs from the glacial landscape found to the south that escaped 

severe glacial scouring, resulting in smoother relief..

A fish and wildlife 

resource

Yes The Northwest Woody Island ablation moraine is a block of intact grassland 

habitat and entirely public land (22,411 acres) which is located in north Blaine 

County and bordered by Canada to the north. 

This area is valuable, intact, habitat for grassland-associated birds. Some of 

these species are Montana/Dakotas BLM Sensitive Species and endemic to the 

Northern Great Plains: Ferruginous Hawk, Long-billed Curlew, Willet, Marbled 

Godwit, Sprague’s Pipit, Baird’s Sparrow, McCown’s Longspur and Chestnutcollared Longspur. There are also a number of other Special Status Species 

throughout the area including the swift fox

Populations of grassland associated birds have exhibited the steepest declines of 

any suite of bird species in North America over the past several decades. Loss of 

habitat throughout North America, resulting from conversion of native prairie to 

agricultural production, has been identified as the primary cause of current

grassland bird declines. Large blocks of intact prairie lands remaining in 

Montana, therefore, provide critically important breeding habitat for many 

grassland bird species. 

Of the 41 bird species documented for the Northwest Woody Island Coulee 

ablation moraine in the Montana Natural Heritage Program Point Observation 

Database, 22 have displayed some evidence of breeding; Fourteen are listed as 

State of Montana Species of Concern. Five of the ten most abundant species 

recorded during 2008 are State of Montana Species of Concern as well as 

Montana/Dakotas BLM Sensitive Species. All are endemic Great Plains prairie 

birds.

The present diversity and abundance of prairie endemic bird species at Northwest 

Woody Island Coulee indicates a variety of habitat elements is available on this 

unique BLM parcel. The relative abundance of McCown’s Longspurs, a species

which requires sparse short grass and bare ground (With 1994), compared with 

other grassland areas in the state, suggests Woody Island Coulee is an area of 

short-stature grasses. The abundance of Chestnut-collared Longspurs, and to a 

lesser extent, Sprague’s Pipits, both of which show a preference for areas with 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix K

ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria 1073

moderate grass cover and litter, (Hill and Gould 1997, Robbins and Dale 1999)

indicates the presence of mid-level grass. Also present, however, are Baird’s 

Sparrows, which require denser grass and litter (Green, et al. 2002), suggesting 

the presence of a taller, more complex structure. 

Woody Island Coulee provides important habitat for prairie endemic species of a 

different composition than those found in Valley County, an area in which the 

Heritage Program has been conducting annual point counts since 2001. The total 

percent of points on which Chestnut-collared Longspurs were detected at Woody 

Island Coulee was 99% (compared to the average yearly percent of points for 

years 2001-2006 for this species in Valley County at 81-87%). McCown’s 

Longspur, present in much greater abundance at Woody Island Coulee, was 

recorded on 69% of the point counts during 2008 (the average Valley County is

only between 14% and 31% for years 2001-2006). Detection rates for Baird’s 

Sparrow and Long-billed Curlew were similar to those in Valley County.

Current management activities at Northwest Woody Island Coulee allows for a 

unique composition of Northern Great Plains native grassland bird species. The 

property contains the highest concentration of McCown’s Longspurs for any area 

surveyed by the Montana Natural Heritage Program, and possibly for any public 

lands site in Montana. The diversity and abundance of the endemic grassland 

bird State of Montana Species of Concern documented at Woody Island Coulee 

warrants continued and enhanced protection for this unique BLM property. 

Northwest Woody Island Coulee is critical to the conservation of Montana’s

grassland bird species.

Similar things can be said for the Northeast Woody Island Coulee end moraine in 

northwest Phillips County and eastern Blaine County. It is comprised of 10,440 

acres of public land and is separated from the Northwest Woody Island Coulee 

unit by several miles of mostly cultivated private land. It is located two miles 

south of Canada.

Modified Emlen (1977) transects completed by the BLM and the FWS on the 

north edge of the unit during 1980, 1995-2002, and 2003-2009 found the most 

abundant grassland birds to be (in decreasing order) the Chestnut-collared 

Longspur, Baird’s Sparrow, McCown’s Longspur, and Sprague’s Pipit. Baird’s 

Sparrow numbers remained high at a time when it was listed as endangered in 

Canada just a few miles away. Other BLM Sensitive Species found on the unit 

included Marbled Godwit, Long-billed Curlew, Willet, Wilson’s Phalarope, 

Ferruginous Hawk, Swainson’s Hawk, Franklin’s Gull and Golden Eagle. A 

variety of waterfowl and shorebird species are present in wet years due to the 

abundance of natural potholes. The density of potholes is so great that the 

observer performing the Emlen transects has to use a compass to stay on course 

and avoid getting lost.

A natural process or 

system

No No threatened, endangered, or otherwise rare plants are known.

Natural hazards No No natural hazards are known.

Importance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

More than locally 

significant qualities

No Similar sites and values can be found in other areas.

Special qualities Yes The North Woody Island ablation moraine is a unique landscape comprised of 

hills and depressions that do not form into surface watershed unlike the rest of 
Appendix K HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1074 ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria

the glaciated plains which have “scraped off” and cut watershed landscapes.

The Blaine County moraine (northwest) is an island of relatively contiguous, 

public land habitat surrounded by private land to the west, south and east, with 

the International Line forming the northern boundary. Farming is common in the 

surrounding private land.

The Phillips County moraine (northeast) is also a contiguous block of public land 

surrounded by a mix of public, state and private land on all sides. The private 

land is either farmed or in the Conservation Reserve Program.

The landscape is virtually untouched with only a few livestock pits, windmills 

and two-track vehicle trails which for the most part are relatively unnoticed and 

do not detract from the visual character of the landscape.

This landscape is vulnerable to change from off-road travel mainly associated 

with hunting, but also the steep, hilly terrain may be subject to recreational 

illegal off-road use in the future. Though the entire area is classified as low 

potential for gas development and is currently not leased in Blaine County, many 

parcels within the nominated ACEC were nominated prior to a voluntary 

moratorium by BLM for new leases within the West HiLine RMP until a Land 

Use Plan has been finalized. There are concerns that the currently un-fragmented 

wildlife habitat could be at risk if gas development occurs in this unique and rare 

landscape. Much of the Phillips County portion has been leased, but no 

development has occurred. It is administered by the Judith-Valley-Phillips RMP.

The grassland bird assemblage, although found in other locations, is at a high 

density and includes a high proportion of McCown’s Longspurs not found at 

other locations. The pothole habitat obtains some, to much runoff each year 

which replenishes subsurface soil moisture necessary for maintaining proper nest 

humidity for ground-nesting birds. Species such as the Baird’s Sparrow and 

Sprague’s Pipit can be nomadic resulting in shifts away from other locations that 

remain completely dry during drought periods. Nest humidity appears to be 

adequate in the Woody Island Coulee area to retain birds in all years. Data from 

Emlen (1977) transects in Phillips County indicate that high numbers of 

grassland birds are present each year regardless of persistent drought periods. 

The cacophony of bird sound at dawn during the breeding season would be 

difficult to duplicate at other locations.

Warrants national 

priority/FLPMA 

protection

No No national priority concerns are known.

Safety/public welfare 

concerns

No No safety or public welfare concerns are known.

Poses a significant 

threat

No No significant threats.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix K

ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria 1075
Appendix K HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1076 ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria

Table K.11

Zortman/Landusky Mine Reclamation ACEC

Relevance and Importance Evaluation

Area Considered: Zortman/Landusky Mine, Little Rocky Mountains

General Location: T. 25 N., R. 24 E.; T. 25 N., R. 25 E.

General Description: Southeast Phillips County

Acreage: 3,575

Values Considered: Natural Hazards

Relevance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

A significant historic, 

cultural, or scenic value

No No significant historic or cultural values are known. Scenic values are moderate, 

but are similar to those of many other areas in the Malta Field Office.

A fish and wildlife 

resource

No No habitat for endangered, sensitive, or threatened fish and wildlife species are 

known.

A natural process or 

system

No No threatened, endangered, or otherwise rare plants are known.

Natural hazards Yes The Zortman/Landusky mine reclamation site consists of several large 

engineered slopes with thin and sensitive soils that are prone to severe erosion. 

The site also contains hazardously steep highwalls exposed along the edge of 

many of the reclaimed open pits.

Importance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

More than locally 

significant qualities

No Natural resources present are similar to other areas within Montana.

Special qualities Yes The ZLM reclamation site consists of several large engineered slopes with thin 

and sensitive soils that are prone to severe erosion. The site also contains 

hazardously steep highwalls exposed along the edge of many of the reclaimed 

open pits.

Warrants national 

priority/FLPMA 

protection

No No national priority concerns are known.

Safety/public welfare 

concerns

Yes As part of the reclamation, several facilities for water quality treatment are 

present within the mine reclamation area. If the public is allowed access to these 

structures and facilities, it would create a concern for human safety, as well as 

potentially interrupting the water treatment process.

Poses a significant 

threat

Yes Engineered slopes within the site are susceptible to severe erosion and instability 

early in the reclamation process. Exposed highwalls around the open pit areas 

also pose similar risks to the public with increased potential rock fall and 

hazardously steep surfaces. This sort of risk threatens human life and safety or 

property if the public is allowed any activity on or around the slopes and 

highwalls within the nominated ACEC.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix K

ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria 1077
Appendix K HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1078 ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria

Nominations Received During the Planning Process

Table K.12

Black-tailed Prairie Dog and Black-footed Ferret Habitat

Relevance and Importance Evaluation

Area Considered: Phillips County

General Location:

General Description: Mostly southern Phillips County and a small area in northern Phillips County

Acreage: 268,563

Values Considered: Black-tailed prairie dogs and black-footed ferret habitat.

Relevance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

A significant historic, 

cultural, or scenic value

No No significant historic or cultural values are known. Scenic values are 

moderate, but are similar to those of many other areas in the planning area

A fish and wildlife 

resource

Yes The southern portion of the nominated area meets the relevance criterion for 

wildlife resources. This area provides habitat for prairie dogs as noted by the 

MFWP Region 6 Prairie Dog Abundance and Distribution Objectives Plan 

(2006). Prairie dogs are a BLM sensitive species.

However, the portion of the nominated area in north Phillips County does not 

meet the relevance criterion because there are no prairie dogs or black-footed 

ferrets currently in this area and this area has little potential for prairie dogs due 

to the steep slopes and rugged nature of the area.

A natural process or 

system

Yes The southern portion of the nominated area also meets the criterion for a natural 

system or process because prairie dog towns in the nomination area also 

provide habitat for a broad suite of wildlife species, including many BLM 

special status species because of the unique habitat features they create by 

burrowing and grazing. 

The northern portion does not meet the criterion.

Natural hazards No No natural hazards are known.

Importance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

More than locally 

significant qualities

No The nomination does not meet the importance criteria. Although important to 

black-tailed prairie dog and black-footed ferret conservation as noted in the 

nomination material, the area is not significantly unique or more important than 

other habitat areas throughout the range of these species. 

Special qualities No Prairie dog complexes of various sizes occur throughout much of the former 

range of the black-tailed prairie dog.

Warrants national 

priority/FLPMA 

protection

No No national priority concerns are known.

Safety/public welfare 

concerns

No No safety or public welfare concerns are known.

Poses a significant threat No No significant threats.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix K

ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria 1079
Appendix K HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1080 ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria

Table K.13

Five Watersheds

Relevance and Importance Evaluation

Area Considered: Blaine, Phillips and Valley Counties

General Location:

General Description: Five watersheds in Blaine, Phillips and Valley Counties

Acreage: 487,871

Values Considered: Streams and Fisheries

Relevance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

A significant historic, 

cultural, or scenic value

No No significant historic or cultural values are known. Scenic values are moderate, 

but are similar to those of many other areas in the planning area

A fish and wildlife 

resource

Yes The nomination meets the relevance value for wildlife resources. Small prairie 

streams within the HiLine District planning area provide habitat for the BLM 

sensitive species pearl dace and northern redbelly x finescale dace hybrid. Little 

is known of these fish species and populations could be rather low. Several of 

the small streams are spring-fed and pool levels are dependent upon protection of 

the source springs, especially during periods of extended drought.

A natural process or 

system

Yes The nomination also meets the relevance value for a natural system or process. 

Prairie streams in these watersheds are part of the hydrologic cycle and exist in 

the Missouri River Watershed. The five watersheds include aquatic habitat that 

supports a variety of sensitive fish species. 

Natural hazards No No natural hazards are known.

Importance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

More than locally 

significant qualities

No The five watershed areas are not significantly unique or more important than 

other watersheds in the HiLine District planning area.

Although the five watersheds most likely have fish, the BLM has limited or no 

data on native minnow populations or species diversity for them. Warm Creek 

does have significant populations of minnows in pools near road culverts, but 

Telegraph Creek is usually dry with limited pool habitat. A survey of Rock 

Creek in Valley County in 1979 found longnose dace, but not the sensitive dace 

species. 

Special qualities No There are small prairie streams within the planning area that have records of the 

sensitive dace species, so the nominated streams are in no way unique, rare or 

exemplary. The BLM has records of the sensitive dace species in Phillips 

County from Whitewater Creek, Cottonwood Creek, and Garland Creek. 

Assiniboine Creek also supports a fish population, but species composition has 

not been studied.

Warrants national 

priority/FLPMA 

protection

No No national priority concerns are known.

Safety/public welfare 

concerns

No No safety or public welfare concerns are known.

Poses a significant 

threat

No No significant threats.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix K

ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria 1081
Appendix K HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1082 ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria

Table K.14

Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse

Relevance and Importance Evaluation

Area Considered: Valley County

General Location:

General Description: Northern Valley County

Acreage: 341,468

Values Considered: Grassland bird and greater sage-grouse habitat

Relevance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

A significant historic, 

cultural, or scenic value

No No significant historic or cultural values are known. Scenic values are moderate, 

but are similar to those of many other areas in the planning area

A fish and wildlife 

resource

Yes The nomination meets the relevance criterion for wildlife resources. The

nominated area provides habitat for greater sage-grouse (310,806 acres) as well 

as a suite of grassland birds including BLM sensitive species long-billed curlew, 

Sprague’s pipit, Baird’s sparrow, McCown’s longspur and chestnut-collared 

longspur.

A natural process or 

system

Yes The nomination also meets the criterion for a natural system or process because 

of the condition of the grassland habitat in the nomination area. Large blocks of 

native grasslands provide quality habitat for grassland birds. 

Natural hazards No No natural hazards are known.

Importance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

More than locally 

significant qualities

No Although the area contains habitat for greater sage-grouse and grassland bird 

conservation as noted in the nomination material, the area is not significantly 

unique or more important than other habitat areas in this region.

Greater sage-grouse are distributed throughout the western United States. The 

portion of the distribution in Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, 

Alberta, and Saskatchewan are designated as Management Zone I (Stiver, et al. 

2006). Management zones are delineations of greater sage-grouse populations 

and sub-populations within floristic zones with similar management issues. 

Within Management Zone I in Montana, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 

(MFWP) has designated core areas (MFWP 2009) and Wyoming Game and Fish 

has also designated core areas in Wyoming (Wyoming Game and Fish 2009). 

In addition, Montana Audubon has also designated five important bird areas for 

sage-steppe associated birds, including greater sage-grouse, in Montana, most of 

which are contained within the MFWP core areas. 

All of these areas are considered important to greater sage-grouse conservation. 

In addition, greater sage-grouse habitat in these core areas is owned by a number 

of different entities and habitat on BLM lands is not distinct from habitat 

managed by other ownership.

Results of modeling for grassland bird distribution suggests that much of the 

planning area provides habitat for a suite of grassland birds of conservation 

concern (Hendricks, et al. 2008). The nominated lands are not significantly 

unique or more important than other lands depicted in the modeling effort. All of 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix K

ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria 1083

these areas are important to grassland bird conservation. In addition, grassland 

bird habitat in the area is owned by a number of different entities and habitat on 

BLM land is not distinct from habitat managed by other ownership.

Special qualities No The area is not particularly fragile or sensitive to change as compared to other 

sites in Montana.

Warrants national 

priority/FLPMA 

protection

Yes The initiative to conserve, enhance, and restore greater sage-grouse habitat is the 

result of the March 2010, US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 12-Month 

Finding for Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered. In that finding, the USFWS 

concluded that greater sage-grouse was “warranted, but precluded” for listing as 

a threatened or endangered species. 

Over 50% of the greater sage-grouse habitat is located on BLM-managed lands. 

In its “warranted, but precluded” listing decision, USFWS concluded that 

existing regulatory mechanisms, defined as “specific direction regarding sagegrouse habitat, conservation, or management” in the BLM’s Land Use Plans, 

were inadequate to protect the species. The USFWS is scheduled to make a new 

listing decision in Fiscal Year 2015.

Safety/public welfare 

concerns

No No safety or public welfare concerns are known.

Poses a significant 

threat

No No significant threats.
Appendix K HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1084 ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix K

ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria 1085

Table K.15

Greater Sage-Grouse

Relevance and Importance Evaluation

Area Considered: Phillips and Valley Counties

General Location:

General Description: Southern Phillips and Valley Counties

Acreage: 885,399

Values Considered: Greater sage-grouse habitat

Relevance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

A significant historic, 

cultural, or scenic value

No No significant historic or cultural values are known. Scenic values are moderate, 

but are similar to those of many other areas in the planning area

A fish and wildlife 

resource

Yes The nomination meets the relevance criterion for wildlife resources. The 

nominated area provides habitat for greater sage-grouse (839,659 acres), a BLM 

sensitive species, and the area has also been identified as a core area by MFWP.

A natural process or 

system

Yes The nomination also meets the criterion for a natural system or process because 

of the condition of the sagebrush habitat in the nomination area.

Natural hazards No No natural hazards are known.

Importance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

More than locally 

significant qualities

No The nomination does not meet the importance criteria. Although the area 

contains habitat for greater sage-grouse and grassland bird conservation as noted 

in the nomination material, the area is not significantly unique or more important 

than other habitat areas in this region. See the discussion for greater sage-grouse 

under the grassland bird/greater sage-grouse nomination.

Special qualities No The area is not particularly fragile or sensitive to change as compared to other 

sites in Montana.

Warrants national 

priority/FLPMA 

protection

Yes The initiative to conserve, enhance, and restore greater sage-grouse habitat is the 

result of the March 2010, US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 12-Month 

Finding for Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered. In that finding, the USFWS 

concluded that greater sage-grouse was “warranted, but precluded” for listing as 

a threatened or endangered species. 

Over 50% of the greater sage-grouse habitat is located on BLM-managed lands. 

In its “warranted, but precluded” listing decision, USFWS concluded that 

existing regulatory mechanisms, defined as “specific direction regarding sagegrouse habitat, conservation, or management” in the BLM’s Land Use Plans, 

were inadequate to protect the species. The USFWS is scheduled to make a new 

listing decision in Fiscal Year 2015.

Safety/public welfare 

concerns

No No safety or public welfare concerns are known.

Poses a significant 

threat

No No significant threats.
Appendix K HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1086 ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix K

ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria 1087

Table K.16

Mountain Plover

Relevance and Importance Evaluation

Area Considered: Phillips County

General Location:

General Description: South Phillips County

Acreage: 148,425

Values Considered: Mountain plover habitat

Relevance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

A significant historic, 

cultural, or scenic value

No No significant historic or cultural values are known. Scenic values are moderate, 

but are similar to those of many other areas in the planning area

A fish and wildlife 

resource

Yes The nomination meets the relevance criterion for wildlife resources. The 

nominated area provides habitat for mountain plovers (134,111 acres), a BLM 

species of concern and currently petitioned for listing under the Endangered 

Species Act and will be a proposed species by July 31, 2010. 

A natural process or 

system

No No threatened, endangered, or otherwise rare plants are known.

Natural hazards No No natural hazards are known.

Importance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

More than locally 

significant qualities

No The nomination does not meet the importance criteria. Although this area is 

important to mountain plover conservation as noted in the nomination material, 

the area is not significantly unique or more important than other habitat areas 

throughout the range of the mountain plover. 

Mountain plovers breeding distribution in North America is confined to the 

northern Great Plains (Knopf and Wunder 2006) and is associated with areas of 

short grass, often created by prairie dogs. 

The Mountain Plover Conservation Plan (Andres and Stone 2009) describes a 

number of important breeding sites throughout the species range and states that 

of the three states where most breeding occurs, Colorado has the greatest number 

of breeding plovers (11,000) followed by Wyoming (3,400) and then Montana 

(1,600). The nomination is located in the Northern Prairie Region of breeding 

mountain plovers (Andres and Stone 2009), and is considered a key area and an 

area of highest abundance of mountain plovers in the state, along with Blaine and 

Valley Counties (Andres and Stone 2009).

Special qualities No The nominated area for mountain plovers is habitat associated with black-tailed 

prairie dog towns as noted in the nomination material. Much of the breeding 

distribution in Valley County is currently designated a Mountain Plover ACEC 

(BLM 2000) because of the unique nature of the breeding habitat which is not 

associated with prairie dogs. In addition, modeling of mountain plover 

distribution in Montana suggests that the area along the south side of the Snowy 

Mountains in Wheatland and Golden Valley Counties is also an area of 

importance of mountain plovers in Montana.

Warrants national 

priority/FLPMA 

protection

No No national priority concerns are known.
Appendix K HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1088 ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria

Safety/public welfare 

concerns

No No safety or public welfare concerns are known.

Poses a significant 

threat

No No significant threats.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix K 

ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria 1089 

Nominations Received Prior to the Commencement of the Planning 

Process

Table K.17

Little Rocky Mountains ACEC

Relevance and Importance Evaluation

Area Considered: Little Rocky Mountains

General Location:

General Description: South Phillips County

Acreage: 25,000

Values Considered: Prehistoric and historic archaeological resources and spiritual and traditional resources

Relevance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

A significant historic, 

cultural, or scenic value

Yes Cultural resources consist of both prehistoric and historic archaeological 

resources and spiritual and traditional resources. The Little Rocky Mountains 

contain prehistoric and historic archaeological resources and also resources of 

cultural and religious importance to tribes. Prehistoric archaeological resources 

in the Little Rocky Mountains mostly comprise of vision questing sites, lithic 

debris, and rock art sites. Historic archaeological resources in the Little Rocky 

Mountains consist of mining complexes, mills, cabins, dumps, a ranger station, 

jail and school (Deaver and Kooistra 1992). The Little Rocky Mountains have 

been used by indigenous tribal groups throughout the prehistoric and historic 

periods and are still used today by tribal groups for ceremonial and religious 

purposes. 

Once called the Fur Cap Mountains by the Gros Ventre and the Island Mountains 

by the Assiniboine, the Little Rocky Mountains have many oral histories 

surrounding them, which have been passed down many generations and are still 

discussed today. There are several places in the mountain range, which were 

used for spiritual ceremonies such as vision questing, burials, offerings, and 

ceremonial dances and are still being used for those purposes today. Particularly 

seven main peaks were used as fasting altars. On one of those peaks Lame Bull 

noted that one of her tribe’s two sacred pipes was received, just like Moses 

getting the Ten Commandments (Strahn 1992). The Little Rocky Mountains are 

considered spiritually sacred by the Assiniboine, Gros Ventre, Blackfeet, 

Chippewa/Cree and also Native Americans in Canada (Deaver and Kooistra

1992). Because the power of life was apparently more concentrated there, the 

Little Rockies were perceived as a place in which the Creator was more 

abundantly manifested (Strahn 1992). 

The Little Rocky Mountains are littered with limestone caves and in a few is 

evidence that tribal groups have visited and lived for long periods of time. Three 

of these caves, Lookout, Two Hands and Grouse Gulch have unique rock art. 

Lookout Cave is located on the south side of the Little Rockies and has at least 

35 individual pictograph images located mostly in an outer chamber but an inner 

chamber contains a couple as well. The images appear to have been placed there 

over an extended period of time. In addition to the rock art at Lookout Cave it 

was studied and excavated in the 1960s and due to the remoteness and dry 

climate of the cave a series of organic artifacts were recovered. Of the organic 

material 65 arrowshafts, sinew, trimmed feathers, bone beads, a turtle shell 

ornament, fossils, a claw, shells, and a wooden flute with insects engraved on it 
Appendix K HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1090 ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria

were recovered. One arrowshaft was radiocarbon dated to AD 1510-1590. In 

addition, 46 projectile points dating from the Late Prehistoric Period were 

collected from the surface of the cave floor and several other points were 

excavated and date from the Middle Archaic Period (3000 to 4000 years ago). 

Lookout Cave is located well into the range suggesting use of not only the cave 

but the Little Rockies over an extended period of time. 

Grouse Gulch and Two Hands Cave have rock art only and no excavations or 

surface collections have been conducted. Heart Cave, which has no rock art is 

approximately 500’ west of Two Hands Cave has had various animal bones 

recovered from the surface of the cave floor.

24PH2886 or the King site is a lithic scatter site with both surface debris and 

buried material located on the reservation. The King Site has been excavated and 

projectile points ranging in age from Pelican Lake to the Late Plains SideNotched were recovered. The dating of this site further proves that the Little 

Rockies have been used by tribal groups over an extended period of time.

In conclusion the Little Rocky Mountains meet the Relevance Criterion 1 as a 

rare or sensitive area of religious and cultural importance to tribes. The Little 

Rocky Mountains are an integral part of tribal religious identity and contribute 

significantly to the traditional life way of the tribes in the region.

A fish and wildlife 

resource

No No habitat for endangered, sensitive, or threatened fish and wildlife species are 

known.

A natural process or 

system

No No threatened, endangered, or otherwise rare plants are known.

Natural hazards No No natural hazards are known.

Importance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

More than locally

significant qualities

No Similar sites and values can be found in other areas of Montana.

Special qualities Yes There are several prehistoric archaeological sites, such as vision quest sites, 

which are direct evidence of past religious use in the Little Rocky Mountains 

such as vision quest sites. Today cloth offerings can be found in many places in 

the Little Rocky Mountains, particularly the mountain peaks, however for local 

traditionalists, all aspects of the Little Rocky Mountains have 

sacred/holy/spiritual qualities. The mountains, plants, rocks, paints, fossils and 

animals all have spiritual characteristics (Deaver and Kooistra 1992). 

Group religious ceremonies and individual religious ceremonies for both 

Assiniboine and Gros Ventre have been performed in the Little Rocky 

Mountains. Group ceremonies for the Gros Ventre are the Feathered and Flat 

Pipe ceremonies and Sacrifice Lodge. As late as 1946, the Gros Ventre held a 

pipe bundle ceremony (Deaver and Kooistra 1992). Individual ceremonies for 

the Gros Ventre are vision quests. The individual vision quest is a way to get 

supernatural power/medicine. The supernatural power is obtained by 

fasting/questing (Deaver and Kooistra 1992). The Assiniboine group ceremonies 

were the Sundance and the Horse Dance. The last known Sundance performed 

by Assiniboine was 1935 (Deaver and Kooistra 1992). Individual Assiniboine 

ceremonies also include the vision quest which is usually done in an isolated spot 

in the mountains (Deaver and Kooistra 1992). 

Assiniboine and Gros Ventre both have oral stories, which relate to the spiritual 

values of the Little Rocky Mountains. Oral stories are stories told from 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix K

ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria 1091

generation to generation as a tool to teach the young people about tribal culture, 

ethics and in particular tribal religion. One example of oral tradition and its use 

in religion practiced in the Little Rocky Mountains is defined by Dan Flemmer 

(1991):

The plant resources can only be used to the fullest advantage when a specific 

level of understanding is attained via cognitive and spiritual education into, first, 

the proper physical use of the resources, and second, the spiritual understanding 

the individual must attain before physical application is most advantageous. A 

common phrase used to describe this combined attainment of pharmacological

and spiritual knowledge is referenced as in a good or respectful way (2/13 and 

14/1991, personal communication with the author). The process of enabling 

individuals to use the natural plant resources of the area in this way can only be 

fully realized by ceremonial use, within the complete education process, of the 

areas specific to the perception of the individual who seeks to use this 

combination of physical and spiritual resources.

Archaeological evidence on the surrounding plains suggests that tribes used it 

differently than the Little Rocky Mountains. Unlike the spiritual sites discussed 

above in the Little Rocky Mountains, the surrounding plains mostly contain 

sites associated with habitation, subsistence and hunting. These types of land 

uses culminate in archaeological sites such as tipi ring sites, drive lines, and kill 

sites. These are the predominant site types on the northern plains. Although 

these site types are found in the Little Rocky Mountains they are rare. Spiritual 

sites such as vision quest sites found in the Little Rocky Mountains are even 

rarer on the plains. There are no caves like those found in the Little Rocky 

Mountains located on the surrounding plains. Although the plains are no longer 

used by tribes as they were traditionally used for such as habitation camps and 

hunting grounds, the Little Rocky Mountains are still used today for the same 

spiritual purposes as they have been for generations.

The Little Rocky Mountains meet Criterion 2 for Importance. The sensitive 

resources within the Little Rocky Mountains are vulnerable to loss by damage 

and/or destruction from other resource uses. These sensitive resources are 

directly linked to the spiritual and cultural lifeway of the tribal peoples who use 

them. If these sensitive resources are damaged or removed the tribal people’s 

link to that spiritual and cultural lifeway is dramatically hindered. Their ability to 

practice their religious beliefs would be jeopardized. The sensitive resources 

utilized by the tribes in the Little Rocky Mountains are resources which are 

inherently non-renewable in nature, particularly archaeological sites like vision 

quest and fasting structures. These resources have been used for generations and 

several physical attributes are still standing and used today. 

In conclusion, the Little Rocky Mountains meet criterion 1 for Relevance and 

criterion 2 for Importance.

Warrants national 

priority/FLPMA 

protection

No No national priority concerns are known.

Safety/public welfare 

concerns

No No safety or public welfare concerns are known.

Poses a significant 

threat

No No significant threats.
Appendix K HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1092 ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix K

ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria 1093

Table K.18

Old Scraggy

Relevance and Importance Evaluation

Area Considered: Little Rocky Mountains

General Location:

General Description: South Phillips County

Acreage: 2,080

Values Considered: Cultural resources

Relevance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

A significant historic, 

cultural, or scenic value

Yes Old Scraggy contains vision questing sites used for religious purposes and 

landmark. Old Scraggy is the highest peak in the Little Rockies range with an 

elevation of 5708 ft. 

A fish and wildlife 

resource

No No habitat for endangered, sensitive, or threatened fish and wildlife species are 

known.

A natural process or 

system

No No threatened, endangered, or otherwise rare plants are known.

Natural hazards No No natural hazards are known.

Importance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

More than locally 

significant qualities

No Many peaks in the Little Rockies were and are used for vision questing, 

offerings, fasting, and plant/herb collecting.

Although Old Scraggy is viewed as an important location spiritually to local 

Native Americans, it is viewed with the same importance as other peaks in the 

Little Rockies and in some cases surrounding island mountain ranges as well. 

Special qualities No The area is not particularly fragile or sensitive to change as compared to other 

sites in Montana.

Warrants national 

priority/FLPMA 

protection

No No national priority concerns are known.

Safety/public welfare 

concerns

No No safety or public welfare concerns are known.

Poses a significant 

threat

No No significant threats.
Appendix K HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1094 ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix K

ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria 1095

Table K.19

Saddle Butte

Relevance and Importance Evaluation

Area Considered: Little Rocky Mountains

General Location:

General Description: South Phillips County

Acreage: 1,000

Values Considered: Unique vegetation type

Relevance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

A significant historic, 

cultural, or scenic value

No The plant community for which the area was nominated does not occur except as 

a seral stage of a common community. A subsequent site visit did not find the 

Douglas fir/little bluestem site. As a seral stage of the common Douglas 

fir/bluebunch wheatgrass or Douglas fir/Idaho fescue community, proposed 

vegetation management in the planning area will adequately protect the 

vegetation resource and manage for the natural range of seral stages. 

A fish and wildlife 

resource

No No habitat for endangered, sensitive, or threatened fish and wildlife species are 

known.

A natural process or 

system

No No threatened, endangered, or otherwise rare plants are known.

Natural hazards No No natural hazards are known.

Importance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

More than locally 

significant qualities

No The area is not locally or regionally significant.

Special qualities No The area is not particularly fragile or sensitive to change as compared to other 

sites in Montana.

Warrants national 

priority/FLPMA 

protection

No No national priority concerns are known.

Safety/public welfare 

concerns

No No safety or public welfare concerns are known.

Poses a significant 

threat

No No significant threats.
Appendix K HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1096 ACEC Evaluations of Relevance and Importance Criteria
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix L

Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility and Suitability 1097

Appendix L

Wild and Scenic Rivers Report

Eligibility and Suitability Determinations

Bureau of Land Management

HiLine Resource Management Plan

HiLine District, Montana

May 2011
Appendix L HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1098 Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility and Suitability

Contents

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................................1099

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................1099

What is a Wild and Scenic River? ..........................................................................................................................1099

Steps in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Study Process ................................................................................................1099

Inventory Phase .............................................................................................................................................................1101

Identification of Eligible River Segments ..............................................................................................................1102

Tentative Classification ..........................................................................................................................................1102

Suitability Study Phase ..................................................................................................................................................1103

Suitability Criteria ..................................................................................................................................................1103

Interim Management of Suitable Segments ...................................................................................................................1104

Inventory Phase for the HiLine RMP ............................................................................................................................1104

Identification of Eligible River Segments ......................................................................................................................1104

Supplemental Identification of an Eligible Marias River Segment .........................................................................1105

Appendices

L.1 Eligibility Criteria ............................................................................................................................................1111

L.2 Marias River Wild and Scenic River Eligibility and Suitability Report ..........................................................1115

Figures

L.1 HiLine RMP Planning Area ............................................................................................................................1100

L.2 Eligibility Process ............................................................................................................................................1101

Tables

L.1 HiLine Planning Area Rivers Considered in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Inventory Process .........................1105

L.2 Classification Determinations for the Marias River ........................................................................................1116
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix L

Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility and Suitability 1099

Wild and Scenic River

Eligibility and Suitability Determinations

Executive Summary

As part of the land use planning process for the HiLine Resource Management Plan (RMP), an interdisciplinary team

analyzed all river and stream segments in the HiLine District planning area that might be eligible for inclusion in the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS). This included screening all planning area rivers to identify those 

with BLM surface ownership. These initial screening and identification efforts resulted in a list of 160 rivers or river 

segments for further consideration in the inventory process.

Additional review focused on whether these 160 segments meet free-flowing criteria and contain any outstandingly 

remarkable values (ORVs), as defined in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. Of the 160 river segments, only one 

segment of the Marias River from State Highway 87 near Loma downstream to the confluence of the Missouri River met 

the eligibility criteria.

Introduction

Section 5(d)(1) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) Act directs Federal agencies to consider potential wild and scenic

rivers in their land and water planning processes. To fulfill this requirement, whenever the BLM undertakes a land use 

planning effort (e.g., an RMP), it analyzes river and stream segments that might be eligible for inclusion in the NWSRS. 

This report is a record of the wild and scenic river study that is being conducted concurrently with the HiLine RMP. This 

report documents BLM’s examination of river segments in the planning area as they relate to eligibility, suitability, and 

classification criteria in the WSR Act.

The BLM HiLine District planning area is in northern Montana (Figure L.1). Within the planning area, the BLM 

administers about 2.4 million acres of public land and 3.5 million acres of Federal mineral estate in Blaine, Chouteau, 

Glacier, Hill, Liberty, Phillips, Toole, and Valley counties.

What is a Wild and Scenic River?

Congress enacted the WSR Act to provide a national policy for preserving and protecting selected rivers and river 

segments in their free-flowing condition for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. The WSR Act 

provides criteria that must be considered during the analysis. The eligibility process is depicted in Figure L.2. No rivers 

in the planning area are currently managed under the WSR Act.

Steps in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Study Process

The wild and scenic river study process is comprised of two main components: the inventory phase and the study phase. 

The inventory phase includes identifying eligible river and stream segments, assigning tentative classification (wild, 

scenic, or recreational), and describing protective management for the eligible segments. The study phase includes 

determining the suitability of eligible segments for inclusion in the NWSRS and describing interim management 

measures. The inventory is conducted during the data-gathering stage of an RMP, and the study phase is done during 

formulation of the Draft RMP and Proposed RMP.
Appendix L HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1100 Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility and Suitability

Figure L.1 HiLine RMP Planning Area
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix L

Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility and Suitability 1101

Figure L.2 Eligibility Process

Inventory Phase

The purpose of the inventory is to identify eligible rivers and river segments in the planning area and to assign them a 

tentative classification. The WSR Act directs agencies to consider a wide variety of internal and external sources to 

identify potentially eligible rivers. The goal is to avoid overlooking river segments that could be included in the 

NWSRS. In cases where a particular river segment is predominantly non-federal in ownership and contains interspersed

BLM land, the BLM shall evaluate only its segment as to eligibility and defer to the state or private landowners’ 

discretion as to their determination of eligibility (BLM 2003e).
Appendix L HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1102 Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility and Suitability

Identification of Eligible River Segments

The BLM applies standard criteria to identified river segments to determine eligibility. To be eligible, a river segment 

must be free-flowing and must possess at least one river-related value considered outstandingly remarkable. The specific 

criteria for free-flowing and outstandingly remarkable values are listed in Appendix L.1.

Several sources are generally used to identify potentially eligible rivers, as follows:

 The Outstanding Rivers List (Huntington and Echeverria 1991). This was compiled by the American Rivers 

Organization as a comprehensive nationwide compilation of rivers that possess some outstanding ecological, 

recreational, natural, cultural, or scenic values. Rivers protected by legislation and rivers currently unprotected 

are included. The list includes more than 15,000 outstanding United States river segments, roughly 300,000 

river miles. Some of this information is redundant with the Nationwide Rivers Inventory, which is included 

within the Outstanding Rivers List, but much of it is additional information.

 The Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NPS 2004). This inventory was initially completed in 1982 and is 

maintained and periodically updated by the National Park Service. Additions have been made as a result of 

BLM and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) inventories, done as part of their land use planning processes. It is a 

listing of more than 3,400 free-flowing river segments in the United States that are believed to possess one or 

more "outstandingly remarkable" natural or cultural values judged to be of more than local or regional 

significance.

 Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks’ Class One Streams List (MFWP 2004). This lists Class I streams, which 

are blue ribbon fisheries, throughout Montana.

 River segments identified in public scoping during the RMP revision process. No river segments were 

identified by the public during the scoping process.

Listing on any of these sources does not represent an official determination of eligibility and, conversely, absence from 

these sources does not indicate a river’s non eligibility.

Tentative Classification

Once a river segment is considered eligible, it is assigned a tentative classification. There are three classes for rivers 

designated under the WSR Act: Wild, Scenic, and Recreational. The criteria for classification are defined in Section 2(b) 

of the WSR Act. Classes are based on the type and degree of human development and access associated with the river 

and adjacent lands at the time of the inventory.

The classification does not reflect the types of values present along a river segment. The classification assigned during 

the inventory phase is tentative. Final classification is a congressional legislative determination, along with designation 

of a river segment as part of the NWSRS.

Interim Protective Management of Eligible Rivers

Rivers or river segments determined eligible must be managed to protect the free flow, outstandingly remarkable values, 

and tentative classification until a suitability study of the segment has been completed. Management guidelines to 

protect eligible candidate rivers are detailed in BLM manual 8351, Interim Protection for Candidate Wild and Scenic 

Rivers.

During the interim phase, any proposed action that could adversely affect or be inconsistent with wild and scenic river 

values would require management decisions based on a National Environmental Policy Act analysis and Section 202 of 

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as follows:

 Any proposed action that may be inconsistent with or adversely affect identified wild and scenic river values 

would require a site-specific environmental assessment (EA), opportunity for public involvement, and at least a 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix L

Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility and Suitability 1103

30-day public comment period. The decision record for the EA (involving these types of actions) would be

conducted and signed at the field office level. However, before the decision record is signed, a copy of 

supporting documentation would be forwarded to the State Director for review and concurrence.

 If the preparers of the EA determine that the proposal could have a major action significantly affecting the 

environment, a separate environmental impact statement (EIS) apart from the BLM RMP/EIS would be 

required.

 Should the preparers of the EA or EIS determine that the action as proposed, or with appropriate mitigation or 

an acceptable alternative, would not have irreversible or irretrievable adverse impacts and would maintain or 

enhance identified wild and scenic river values, such action may be approved.

 If the preparers of the EA or EIS determine that the action as proposed would have irreversible or irretrievable 

adverse impacts to identified wild and scenic river values, the decision on the action would be held temporarily 

in suspension until wild and scenic river evaluations are address and resolved through the BLM planning

process.

Suitability Study Phase

The purpose of the study phase is to determine whether eligible river segments are suitable or unsuitable for inclusion in 

the NWSRS, per WSR Act criteria. The suitability evaluation does not result in actual designation but only a suitability 

determination for designation. Only Congress can designate a wild and scenic river. In some instances, the Secretary of 

the Interior may designate a wild and scenic river when the governor of a state, under certain conditions, petitions for a

river to be designated. Congress would ultimately choose the legislative language if any suitable segments are presented 

to them. Water-protection strategies and measures to meet the purposes of the WSR Act would be the responsibility of 

Congress in any legislation proposed.

Rivers found unsuitable would be dropped from further consideration and would be managed according to the objectives 

outlined in the RMP.

The preliminary suitability evaluation is completed as the Draft RMP is prepared. Impacts that would occur from 

designation and non-designation of the eligible river segments then would be analyzed in the EIS associated with the 

RMP. Public review and comment on preliminary suitability determinations included in the Draft RMP/EIS would be 

considered before the BLM makes final suitability determinations in the proposed RMP.

Suitability Criteria

The following 13 factors, identified in BLM Manual Section 8351 (BLM 1992d), are applied to each eligible river 

segment when completing the suitability study:

1. Characteristics that do or do not make the river a worthy addition to the NWSRS.

2. The status of land ownership, minerals, use in the area, including the amount of private land involved, and 

associated or incompatible uses. Jurisdictional consideration must be taken into account to the extent that 

management would be affected.

3. Reasonably foreseeable potential uses of the land and related waters that would be enhanced, foreclosed, or 

curtailed if the area were included in the NWSRS and values that would be foreclosed or diminished if the area 

were not protected as part of the NWSRS.

4. Federal or state agency that will administer the river should it be added to the NWSRS.

5. Federal, state, tribal, local, public, or others with an interest in designation or non-designation of the river, 

including the extent to which the agency proposes that administration of the river, including the costs thereof, 

be shared by state, local, or other agencies and individuals.
Appendix L HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1104 Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility and Suitability

6. Estimated cost to the United States of acquiring necessary lands, interests in lands, and administering the area 

should it be added to the NWSRS.

7. A determination of the degree to which the state or its political subdivision(s) might participate in the 

preservation and administration of the river should it be proposed for inclusion in the NWSRS.

8. The Federal agency’s ability or other mechanisms to protect and manage the identified river-related values other 

than designation into the NWSRS.

9. An evaluation of the adequacy of local zoning and other land use controls in protecting the river’s outstandingly 

remarkable values by preventing incompatible development.

10. Support or opposition to designation.

11. Historical or existing rights that could be adversely affected with designation.

12. The consistency of designation with other agency plans, programs, or policies in meeting regional objectives.

13. The contribution to a river system, watershed, or basin integrity.

Interim Management of Suitable Segments

The WSR Act requires that interim management measures be developed to protect the free flowing nature, outstandingly 

remarkable values, and recommended classification of suitable segments until Congressional action regarding 

designation is taken. Guidelines for interim management are described within BLM manual 8351.

Inventory Phase for the HiLine RMP

Various resource personnel from the BLM’s HiLine District were consulted to conduct the wild and scenic rivers 

inventory in support of the RMP. The interdisciplinary team was composed of BLM staff specialists in lands and realty,

wildlife/fisheries/riparian biology, range/riparian resources, recreation, visual resources, cultural resources, minerals, and 

geology.

Identification of Eligible River Segments

To avoid overlooking potentially eligible river segments, a combination of sources were used. The primary source was 

the BLM’s geographic information system (GIS) rivers and streams layer (BLM 2004), which is a comprehensive list of 

potentially free-flowing water bodies within the planning area. The GIS was cross-referenced with additional sources, 

including the Outstanding Rivers List (Huntington and Echeverria 1991), Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NPS 2004), and 

Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks’ (MFWP) Class One Streams List (MFWP 2004).

From these sources, the BLM interdisciplinary team compiled an inventory of all rivers on BLM lands in the planning 

area. The BLM limited the inventory to the lands it administers, per recent changes to BLM Manual 8351, Wild and 

Scenic Rivers—Policy and Program Direction for Identification, Evaluation, and Management. The manual revision 

states that “In cases where a particular river segment is predominantly non-Federal in ownership and contains 

interspersed BLM-administered lands, BLM shall evaluate only its segment as to eligibility and defer to the State or to 

the private landowners’ discretion as to their determination of eligibility” (BLM 2003e). As part of the initial screening 

process, all planning area rivers were divided into multiple segments based on BLM surface ownership.

Initial screening resulted in a list of 160 river and stream segments on BLM land for further consideration

(Table L.1). Additional review focused on whether any of these 160 segments met free-flowing criteria and contained 

any outstandingly remarkable values, as defined in the WSR Act. Members of the BLM interdisciplinary team 

conducted this review for each of their areas of expertise, using their knowledge of the area and consulting available 

inventory information. This information was considered against the outstandingly remarkable values criteria provided in 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix L

Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility and Suitability 1105

Appendix L.1. Based on their findings, team members found 158 rivers and streams free flowing, but only one river 

segment (Marias River) with outstandingly remarkable values.

Supplemental Identification of an Eligible Marias River Segment

During development of the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument RMP, a BLM interdisciplinary team 

determined that a 1/2 mile segment of the Marias River just above its confluence with the Missouri River was eligible for 

further study because it was free flowing and contained outstandingly remarkable values.

The suitability of this segment of the Marias River is addressed in Appendix L.2.

Table L.1

HiLine Planning Area Rivers Considered in Wild and Scenic Rivers Inventory Process

Field Office Stream Name Township Range Section

Total 

Miles

BLM 

Miles % BLM

Free 

Flow ORVs

Glasgow Antelope Creek 29N 35E 34 13 1 8 Y N

Glasgow Brazil Creek 28N 36E 20 19 6.7 35 Y N

Glasgow Buggy Creek 31N 38E 2 21.3 4.3 20 Y N

Glasgow Cherry Creek 30N 39E 15 18.8 1.8 10 Y N

Glasgow Eagles Nest Coulee 33N 37E 20 11 7 64 Y N

Glasgow Frenchman Creek 35N 35E 31 2 0.2 10 Y N

Glasgow Larb Creek 28N 34E 25 35 11 31 Y N

Glasgow Milk River 29N 38E 14 110 1 1 N N

Glasgow Poplar River 36N 42E 2 12 0.3 3 Y N

Glasgow Porcupine Creek 30N 41E 21 43 1 2 Y N

Glasgow Rock Creek 35N 36E 27 55 18.7 34 Y N

Glasgow Willow Creek 26N 37E 36 38.5 25.5 66 Y N

Malta Albert Coulee 27N 33E 35 7.9 2.7 34 Y N

Malta Alder Creek 25N 34E 13 15.6 3.7 24 Y N

Malta Alkali Coulee 28N 30E 33 5.4 3.1 58 Y N

Malta Alkali Creek 25N 29E 1 18.4 2.9 16 Y N

Malta Antelope creek 24N 23E 27 7.2 7 97 Y N

Malta

Armstrong-MillarCoulee 27N 31E 9 9 5 56 Y N

Malta Assiniboine Creek 32N 27E 1 19.3 5.8 30 Y N

Malta Austin Coulee 34N 30E 1 13.6 1.1 8 Y N

Malta Badland Coulee 25N 33E 30 3.9 3.9 100 Y N

Malta Bear Gulch 25N 26E 26 6.2 1.7 27 Y N

Malta Beauchamp Creek 25N 26E 32 20.5 3.6 18 Y N

Malta Beaver Creek 25N 25E 5 144 46.6 31 N N

Malta

Big Cottonwood 

Creek 34N 27E 3 43.9 6.5 15 Y N

Malta Big Coulee 37N 30E 8 4.7 3.6 77 Y N
Appendix L HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1106 Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility and Suitability

Table L.1

HiLine Planning Area Rivers Considered in Wild and Scenic Rivers Inventory Process

Field Office Stream Name Township Range Section

Total 

Miles

BLM 

Miles % BLM

Free 

Flow ORVs

Malta

Big Warm Spring 

Creek 26N 26E 2 31.5 0 0 Y N

Malta Black Coulee 29N 31E 8 11.3 11.2 0 Y N

Malta Black Coulee 39N 27E 24 6.5 4 63 Y N

Malta Bowen Coulee 37N 30E 35 4.5 3.7 82 Y N

Malta Box Elder Creek 23N 23E 20 10.5 2.4 23 Y N

Malta

Box Elder Spring 

Coulee 26N 33E 27 8 3.1 39 Y N

Malta Bull Creek 25N 24E 19 13.8 7.2 52 Y N

Malta

Button Butte 

Coulee 27N 29E 3 7.8 3.5 45 Y N

Malta Cabin Creek 25N 23E 23 9.5 2.2 23 Y N

Malta Camp Creek 25N 25E 19 21.4 3.8 18 Y N

Malta Clark Coulee 34N 32E 10 5.4 2.6 48 Y N

Malta Coal Butte Creek 25N 25E 35 8.7 0.44 5 Y N

Malta Corral Coulee 35N 33E 2 12 2.1 18 Y N

Malta Cottonwood Coulee 28N 32E 30 6.6 6.5 98 Y N

Malta Cottonwood Creek 36N 33E 3 13.1 7 53 Y N

Malta Cow (Crow) Creek 30N 27E 32 5.2 0 0 Y N

Malta Cowie Coulee 35N 28E 5 4.5 0 0 Y N

Malta Crooks Coulee 30N 33E 19 4.4 0.6 14 Y N

Malta Crow Creek 37N 34E 1 3.4 0.3 9 Y N

Malta Cyprian Creek 23N 24E 17 5 5 100 Y N

Malta Dead Horse Creek 30N 33E 22 2.7 0.3 11 Y N

Malta Dibble Coulee 36N 29E 23 5.3 1.2 23 Y N

Malta

Dick Thomas 

Coulee 34N 30E 1 10 0.4 4 Y N

Malta Dodson Creek 32N 27E 1 13.7 0.4 3 Y N

Malta Dog Creek 24N 32E 17 7.6 3.1 41 Y N

Malta Dogtown Coulee 23N 33E 19 5.2 0.3 6 Y N

Malta

Dry Fork 

Beauchamp Creek 24N 27E 4 23.1 16.8 73 Y N

Malta Dunhan Coulee 37N 33E 29 9.6 7 73 Y N

Malta Duvall Creek 24N 23E 36 6.7 3.3 49 Y N

Malta

East Fork Stinky 

Creek 36N 33E 33 13.5 1.2 9 Y N

Malta

East Fork 

Whitewater Creek 36N 32E 5 31.5 7.9 37 Y N

Malta Exeter Creek 31N 28E 15 9 1.8 20 Y N
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix L

Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility and Suitability 1107

Table L.1

HiLine Planning Area Rivers Considered in Wild and Scenic Rivers Inventory Process

Field Office Stream Name Township Range Section

Total 

Miles

BLM 

Miles % BLM

Free 

Flow ORVs

Malta Fenhman Creek 37N 33E 1 51.7 2.3 4 Y N

Malta First Coulee 22N 29E 8 4.3 3.3 77 Y N

Malta First Creek 25N 29E 15 137 4.2 31 Y N

Malta First Creek 31N 33E 21 8.4 2.1 25 Y N

Malta Flat Creek 26N 31E 29 10.8 4.9 45 Y N

Malta Four Mile Coulee 28N 28E 7 7.7 2.8 36 Y N

Malta Fourchette Creek 24N 28E 24 18.2 2 11 Y N

Malta Fourth Creek 30N 33E 29 8.2 0.5 2 Y N

Malta Garey Coulee 24N 28E 5 4 2.4 60 Y N

Malta Garland Creek 32N 28E 35 7.5 1.6 21 Y N

Malta Gloyn Coulee 35N 28E 8 4.3 0.9 21 Y N

Malta Grouse Creek 25N 25E 30 6 0.3 5 Y N

Malta Grove Coulee 26N 33E 22 6.4 4.9 77 Y N

Malta Half-way Coulee 29N 28E 23 6.4 2 31 Y N

Malta Hawley Coulee 22N 29E 23 8.4 1 12 Y N

Malta Hay Coulee 31N 28E 20 5 0 0 Y N

Malta Horseshoe Coulee 36N 27E 33 2.7 0 0 Y N

Malta Joe Bell Coulee 34N 32E 26 4.9 1.9 39 Y N

Malta Joiner Coulee 33N 27E 5 6.5 4.6 71 Y N

Malta

Killed Woman 

Creek 23N 32E 36 2.6 2.5 96 Y N

Malta Lake Coulee 36N 29E 27 5.2 3.69 69 Y N

Malta

Lambing Shed 

Coulee 35N 28E 27 11.3 5.6 50 Y N

Malta Larb Creek 30N 34E 34 9.5 0 0 Y N

Malta Lavelle Creek 24N 24E 36 6 3.7 62 Y N

Malta Lenoir Coulee 29N 31E 8 6.9 0 0 Y N

Malta Lind Coulee 24N 22E 12 6 5 83 Y N

Malta

Little Cottonwood 

Creek 23N 24E 9 6.4 5.5 86 Y N

Malta

Little Cottonwood 

Creek 35N 28E 24 22.4 2.5 11 Y N

Malta Little Jewel Coulee 35N 27E 35 8.5 5.2 61 Y N

Malta

Little Warm Spring 

Creek 26N 26E 26 14.5 0 0 Y N

Malta Lone Tree Coulee 25N 33E 16 3.3 3.3 100 Y N

Malta Lone Tree Coulee 35N 32E 4 5.3 2.2 45 Y N

Malta Lonesome Coulee 26N 28E 23 4.4 0.3 7 Y N
Appendix L HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1108 Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility and Suitability

Table L.1

HiLine Planning Area Rivers Considered in Wild and Scenic Rivers Inventory Process

Field Office Stream Name Township Range Section

Total 

Miles

BLM 

Miles % BLM

Free 

Flow ORVs

Malta Long (Tank) Coulee 24N 29E 12 6.5 6.4 98 Y N

Malta Martin Coulee 35N 28E 1 3.8 0.5 13 Y N

Malta Martin's Coulee 34N 30E 24 7.6 3 39 Y N

Malta McCoy Coulee 23N 33E 16 4.9 0 0 Y N

Malta

Middle Fork 

Wildhorse 28N 26E 36 9.9 2.6 23 Y N

Malta Milk River 31N 26E 26 113.9 4.9 4 Y N

Malta Moss Coulee 28N 33E 25 9.2 1.4 15 Y N

Malta Mud Creek 25N 24E 29 6.2 0 0 Y N

Malta Murray Coulee 27N 33E 12 5.7 4.3 75 Y N

Malta North Fork 34N 26E 27 3.2 0 0 Y N

Malta

North Fork DHS 

Creek 28N 31E 17 12.6 1.8 14 Y N

Malta

North Fork 

Whitewater Creek 37N 31E 6 3.2 0 0 Y N

Malta

North Fork 

Wildhorse 28N 27E 18 8.7 2.9 33 Y N

Malta

North Fourchette 

Creek 23N 29E 4 7.1 1.1 16 Y N

Malta Overflow Coulee 27N 30E 6 5.6 3.7 66 Y N

Malta Parrot Coulee 25N 27E 3 5.4 1.1 20 Y N

Malta Peck Coulee 37N 34E 32 5 3.1 62 Y N

Malta Plum Patch Coulee 24N 33E 21 4.8 0 0 Y N

Malta Provost Coulee 35N 32E 15 4.5 0.3 7 Y N

Malta Rattlesnake Coulee 35N 34E 30 6.6 0 0 Y N

Malta Red Mud Creek 37N 34E 9 10.3 8.8 85 Y N

Malta Rock Creek 24N 25E 8 12.3 3.7 30 Y N

Malta Rudolph Coulee 28N 28E 24 9.8 2.8 29 Y N

Malta Sage Creek 25N 32E 36 11.2 5 45 Y N

Malta Second Creek 24N 28E 11 13.63 3.9 29 Y N

Malta Second Creek 31N 33E 28 8.6 1.1 13 Y N

Malta Seven Mile Coulee 26N 27E 33 8 3.5 44 Y N

Malta Seven Mile Creek 23N 25E 10 6 4 67 Y N

Malta Seven Mile Creek 26N 30E 1 9.6 4 42 Y N

Malta Seven Mile Creek 29N 31E 28 9.5 0.9 9 Y N

Malta Shotgun Coulee 24N 33E 7 4.2 0.09 21 Y N

Malta Shotgun Coulee 33N 32E 2 5.7 3.2 56 Y N

Malta Snake Creek 37N 34E 3 6.5 3.2 19 Y N
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix L

Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility and Suitability 1109

Table L.1

HiLine Planning Area Rivers Considered in Wild and Scenic Rivers Inventory Process

Field Office Stream Name Township Range Section

Total 

Miles

BLM 

Miles % BLM

Free 

Flow ORVs

Malta

South Fork 

Telegraph Creek 23N 32E 15 6.5 1 15 Y N

Malta Spline Coulee 27N 26E 13 10.8 1.7 16 Y N

Malta Spring Coulee 31N 29E 15 5.6 2.2 39 Y N

Malta Spring Creek 23N 26E 14 6.2 0.4 6 Y N

Malta Spring Creek 31N 27E 1 8.3 0.4 5 Y N

Malta Sugar Creek 25N 23E 23 9 0.3 3 Y N

Malta Tallow Creek 25N 33E 9 10.1 2.2 22 Y N

Malta Telegraph Creek 24N 32E 24 20.6 2.1 10 Y N

Malta Third Creek 23N 30E 18 6.7 4.9 73 Y N

Malta Third Creek 24N 29E 18 15.4 3.7 24 Y N

Malta Third Creek 30N 33E 16 7.9 0.3 4 Y N

Malta Tin Roof 28N 27E 11 5.9 0.7 12 Y N

Malta

Tom Davidson 

Coulee 29N 28E 17 7.2 1.9 26 Y N

Malta Tressler Coulee 28N 27E 7 6.2 0 0 Y N

Malta Trine Creek 23N 26E 1 5.6 4.4 79 Y N

Malta Trueblood Coulee 27N 33E 35 6.9 4.2 61 Y N

Malta Valentine Creek 22N 30E 19 2.4 2.4 100 Y N

Malta Wagner Coulee 31N 28E 28 3.4 0.3 9 Y N

Malta West Alkali Creek 28N 27E 2 17.9 3.2 21 Y N

Malta

West Fork Stinky 

Creek 35N 33E 30 25.7 7.8 7 Y N

Malta Whiterock Coulee 26N 28E 2 9.5 5.6 59 Y N

Malta Whitewater Creek 37N 28E 11 57.4 28.6 50 Y N

Malta

Woody Island 

Coulee 36N 27E 6 6.7 3.1 46 Y N

Malta Yadley Creek 31N 29E 21 7.4 1.9 26 Y N

Havre Battle Creek 37N 18E 6 70.11 5.01 7 Y N

Havre Birch Creek 27N 16E 13 45.93 4.57 10 Y N

Havre Cow Creek 27N 19E 18 22.88 1.19 5 Y N

Havre Cut Bank Creek 33N 12W 26 79.01 3.06 4 Y N

Havre

Marias River 

(lower) 30N 05E 7 79.97 2.5 3 Y N

Havre

Marias River 

(upper) 32N 5W 34 57.8 1.84 3 Y N

Havre/

Lewistown Marias River 25N 10E 18 .75 .5 67 Y Y
Appendix L HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1110 Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility and Suitability

Table L.1

HiLine Planning Area Rivers Considered in Wild and Scenic Rivers Inventory Process

Field Office Stream Name Township Range Section

Total 

Miles

BLM 

Miles % BLM

Free 

Flow ORVs

Havre Milk River 33N 14E 19 163.11 3 2 Y N

Havre

Milk River 

(Headwaters) 36N 10W 11 34.13 0 0 Y N

Havre Milk River (Hill) 37N 09E 3 59.94 0 0 Y N

Havre Teton River 25N 03E 18 74.48 0.745 1 Y N

Havre Woody Island 36N 23E 5 35 5.122 15 Y N
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix L 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility and Suitability 1111 

Appendix L.1 

Eligibility Criteria 

Introduction 

For the purpose of classification, a river area may be divided into segments. For example, changes in river character, 

such as the presence of dams and reservoirs, significant changes in types or amounts of development, significant changes 

in physiographic character, tributaries, or features, and/or significant changes in land status, should be considered in 

identifying river segments for evaluation. Management strategies necessary to administer the entire river area should 

also be taken into account. As such, excessive segmentation should be avoided. Each segment, considered as a whole, 

needs to conform to either the Wild, Scenic, or Recreational classification. There are no specific requirements for 

segment length. Congress has designated a segment as short as four miles. A river segment is of sufficient length if a 

specific outstandingly remarkable value or values can be protected (a factor in the suitability determination, not 

eligibility determination), should the segment be designated. An entire stream could be one segment. 

Each identified river segment in the RMP planning area must be evaluated to determine whether or not it is eligible for 

inclusion in the NWSRS. To be eligible, a river segment must be “free-flowing” and must possess at least one 

“outstandingly remarkable” value. Free flowing means “existing or flowing in a natural condition without 

impoundment, diversion, straightening, rip-rapping, or other modification of the water.” Please note the following:

 A river below a dam or impoundment can still be eligible;

 A river need not be navigable by water craft in order to be eligible; and

 There are no specific requirements concerning the flow of an eligible river segment. Flows are sufficient if they

sustain or complement the outstandingly remarkable values for which the segment would be designated. As

such, intermittent and ephemeral streams can be eligible.

Outstandingly Remarkable Values 

The determination of whether a river area contains “outstandingly remarkable” values is a professional judgment and 

needs to be documented in the study report. In order to be considered as outstandingly remarkable, a river-related value 

must be a unique, rare, or exemplary feature that is significant at a comparative regional or national scale. While the 

spectrum of resources that may be considered is broad, all values should be directly river related. That is, they should 

have the following characteristics: 

 Be located in the river or on its immediate shore lands (for the purposes of this study, the preliminary boundary

is 0.25 mile on either side of the river);

 Contribute substantially to the functioning of the river ecosystem; or

 Owe their location or existence to the presence of the river.

The following are general guidelines for the outstandingly remarkable values for which river segments can be eligible. 

Only one such value is needed for eligibility. 

Scenic 

The landscape elements of landform, vegetation, water, color, and related factors result in notable or exemplary visual 

features or attractions. When analyzing scenic values, additional factors, such as seasonal variations in vegetation, scale 

of cultural modifications, and the length of time negative intrusions are viewed, may be considered. Scenery and visual 

attractions may be highly diverse over most of the river or river segment. 
Appendix L HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1112 Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility and Suitability

Recreational

Recreational opportunities are or have the potential to be popular enough to attract visitors from throughout or beyond 

the region of comparison or are unique or rare within the region.

Visitors are willing to travel long distances to use the river resources for recreational purposes. River-related 

opportunities could include, but are not limited to, sightseeing, wildlife observation, camping, photography, hiking, 

fishing and boating.

 Interpretive opportunities may be exceptional and may attract or have the potential to attract visitors from 

outside the region of comparison.

 The river may provide or have the potential to provide settings for national or regional usage or competitive 

events.

Geological

The river, or the area within the river corridor, contains one or more examples of a geologic feature, process, or 

phenomenon that are unique or rare within the region of comparison. The features may be in an unusually active stage of 

development, represent a textbook example, or represent a unique or rare combination of geologic features (erosional, 

volcanic, glacial, or other geologic structures).

Fish 

Fish values may be judged on the relative merits of either fish populations or habitat or a combination of the following 

river-related conditions:

 Populations: The river is nationally or regionally one of the top producers of resident, indigenous, or 

anadromous fish species. Of particular significance may be the presence of wild or unique stocks or 

populations of state- or US-listed or candidate threatened and endangered species.

 Habitat: The river provides exceptionally high quality habitat for fish species indigenous to the region. Of 

particular significance is habitat for state- or US-listed or candidate threatened and endangered species.

Wildlife

Wildlife values may be judged on the relative merits of either wildlife populations or habitat, or a combination of the 

following conditions:

 Populations: The river or area within the river corridor contains nationally or regionally important populations

of resident or indigenous wildlife species dependent on the river environment. Of particular significance may 

be species considered to be unique or populations of state- or US-listed or candidate threatened and endangered

species.

 Habitat: The river or area within the river corridor provides exceptionally high quality habitat for wildlife of 

national or regional significance or may provide unique habitat or a critical link in habitat conditions for stateor US-listed or candidate threatened and endangered species. Contiguous habitat conditions are such that the

biological needs of the species are met.

Cultural

The river or area within the river corridor contains a site or sites where there is evidence of occupation or use by Native 

Americans. Sites must be rare or must have unusual characteristics or exceptional human-interest values. Sites may 

have national or regional importance for interpreting prehistory; may be rare; may represent an area where culture or a 

cultural period was first identified and described; may have been used concurrently by two or more cultural groups; or 

may have been used by cultural groups for rare or sacred purposes.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix L

Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility and Suitability 1113

Historic

The river or area within the river corridor contains a site or sites or feature or features associated with a significant event, 

an important person, or a cultural activity of the past that was rare or unusual in the region. A historic site or feature in 

most cases is 50 years old or older. Sites or features listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic 

Places may be of particular significance.

Other Similar Values

While no specific evaluation guidelines have been developed for the other similar values category, additional values 

deemed relevant to the eligibility of the river segment should be considered in a manner consistent with the foregoing 

guidance, including, but not limited to, hydrologic, ecologic/biologic diversity, paleontologic, botanic, and scientific 

study opportunities. 
Appendix L HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1114 Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility and Suitability
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix L

Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility and Suitability 1115

Appendix L.2

Marias River

Wild and Scenic River Eligibility and Suitability Report

Eligible Stream

The Marias River from State Highway 87 near Loma downstream to the confluence of the Missouri River was found to 

be free-flowing and possess one or more outstandingly remarkable values.

Marias River

Stream Segment: 0.75 miles

Miles on BLM Land: 0.5

Fisheries Values: The .75 mile section of the Marias River that forms a portion of the boundary of the Upper Missouri 

River Breaks National Monument provides a very important area for staging fish. The confluence of the Marias River 

with the Missouri River provides an important habitat for the spawning and rearing of fish. This section of river falls 

within the recovery areas for the federally listed, endangered pallid sturgeon fish. There have been approximately 40 

different species of fish recorded in this section, including 5 species of concern (Paddlefish, Pallid Sturgeon, Sauger, 

Blue Sucker, and Sturgeon Chub) (Tews, Anne and Bill Gardner; Fisheries Biologist, Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, 

2004).

Historical Values: The confluence of the Marias River and the Missouri River became known as decision point when 

Lewis and Clark’s expedition was forced to make a crucial decision about which stream was actually the Missouri River. 

Lewis wrote, “to mistake the stream at this period of the season . . . would not only loose us the whole of this season but 

would probably so dishearten the party that it might defeat the expedition altogether.” (Monahan and Biggs 2001). This 

quote emphasizes the importance of the decision the expedition was faced with. Both Lewis and Clark felt the Southerly 

fork was indeed the Missouri, but most of the men disagreed. Lewis spent several days exploring and camping along the 

Marias River, and determined correctly to continue along the Missouri River.

Classification

After eligibility is determined the second step is “potential classification based on the condition of the river and the 

adjacent lands.” Section 2(b) of the Act specifies three classification categories (wild, scenic, and/or recreational) for 

eligible rivers. Classifying a river as either wild, scenic and/or recreational provides a general administrative 

categorization tool for interim management. Once a river segment is determined eligible and the appropriate 

classification determined, it must be afforded adequate protection until a final decision is reached on suitability and 

designation. Final classification is a Congressional legislative determination along with designation of a river segment 

as part of the NWSRS.

Potential Classification

The Act and Interagency Guidelines provide the following direction for establishing preliminary classifications for 

eligible rivers:

Wild Rivers (W): Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except by 

trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive 

America.

Scenic Rivers (S): Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still 

largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads.
Appendix L HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1116 Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility and Suitability

Recreational Rivers (R): Those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have 

some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past. 

Table L.2 lists the classification determinations for the eligible stream.

Table L.2

Classification Determinations for the Marias River

Stream Classification Reason

Marias River Recreation This segment of the Marias River is readily accessible by road and has some 

development along the shoreline including a boat ramp, parking area, and fishing 

access.

Rivers or river segments determined eligible must be managed to protect the free-flowing, outstandingly remarkable 

values, and tentative classification. This protective management is in place until a river or river segment is determined 

suitable or nonsuitable for recommendation. During this interim protection any proposed action which may adversely 

impact or be inconsistent with wild and scenic river values would require management decisions based on National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis and Section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA).

 Any proposed action which may be inconsistent with or adversely impact identified wild and scenic river (WSR) 

values would require a site-specific environmental assessment (EA), opportunity for public involvement, and at

least a 30-day public comment period. The decision notice record for the EA (involving these types of actions) 

would be conducted and signed at the field office level. However, prior to signature a copy of supporting 

documentation would be forwarded to the State Director for review and concurrence.

 If the EA determined that the proposal could have a major action significantly affecting the environment, a 

separate environmental impact statement (EIS) apart from the BLM RMP/EIS would be required.

 Should the EA or EIS determine that the action as proposed, or with appropriate mitigation, or an acceptable 

alternative, would not have irreversible or irretrievable adverse impacts and would maintain or enhance identified 

WSR values, such action may be approved.

 If the EA or EIS determined that the action as proposed would have irreversible or irretrievable adverse impacts to 

identified WSR values, the decision on the action would be held temporarily in suspension until WSR evaluations 

are addressed and resolved through the BLM planning process.

Suitability

Once river segments have been evaluated and determined eligible for further study, agencies conduct an evaluation to 

determine if the segments are “suitable” or “nonsuitable” for WSR designation within their resource management 

planning processes (Section 5(d)(1)). In this process, river values and their potential for designation are analyzed along 

with other resource values, issues and alternatives. 

Suitability represents an assessment or determination as to whether or not eligible river segments should be 

recommended for inclusion in the NWSRS by Congress. Characteristics which do or do not make the area a worthy 

addition to the NWSRS are described.

Marias River

1. Characteristics that do or do not make the river a worthy addition to the NWSRS.

This segment includes BLM land that is located within the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument. 

Management of the area already provides protection for the values along this segment of the Marias River.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix L 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility and Suitability 1117 

2. The current status of land ownership, minerals (surface and subsurface), use in the area, including the

amount of private land involved and associated or incompatible uses. Jurisdictional consideration must

be taken into account to the extent that management would be affected.

The BLM land along this segment is primarily used for recreation including a fishing access site and the

Decision Point Interpretative Trail. Private land in the area is primarily used for livestock grazing and farming.

3. Reasonably foreseeable potential uses of the land and related waters that would be enhanced, foreclosed,

or curtailed if the area were included in the NWSRS and values that would be foreclosed or diminished if

the area were not protected as part of the NWSRS.

The area is currently used for cattle grazing and farming in some areas above the Marias on private land. The

only use reasonably foreseeable that could potentially be enhanced by a SWR designation is enhanced

recreational use. The BLM owns very little land in the 1/4 mile river segment and access to the river is limited,

therefore increasing recreational use on BLM is not practical, especially given the private land owners in the

area are not supportive of increased recreation use. Again, enhanced recreational activities would most likely

be the only value foreclosed by not designating Marias a WSR. There is some recreational use of the Marias at

this time and BLM is not aware of the public’s need for greater access to the river.

4. Federal or state agency that will administer the river should it be added to the NWSRS.

Bureau of Land Management.

5. Federal, state, tribal, local, public, or others with an interest in designation or non-designation of the

river, including the extent to which the agency proposes that administration of the river, including the

costs thereof, be shared by state, local, or other agencies and individuals.

The National Park Service may be interested in participating to the extent of recognition of the Lewis and Clark

National Historic Trail, but beyond that it is unlikely.

6. The Estimated cost to the United States of acquiring necessary lands, interests in lands, and

administering the area should it be added to the NWSRS.

There are approximately 83 acres of BLM land and 165 acres of private land within 1/4 mile of this segment of

the Marias River. The estimated cost is $2,000 per acre based on a recent (2008) appraisal along the Missouri

River. The total cost of acquiring necessary lands would be approximately $330,000.

7. A determination of the degree to which the state or its political subdivision(s) might participate in the

preservation and administration of the river should it be proposed for inclusion in the NWSRS.

It is not anticipated that the state or local governments would participate.

8. The Federal agency’s ability or other mechanisms to protect and manage the identified river-related

values other than designation into the NWSRS.

The public land adjacent to this segment of the Marias River is part of the Upper Missouri River Breaks

National Monument.

9. An evaluation of the adequacy of local zoning and other land use controls in protecting the river’s

outstandingly remarkable values by preventing incompatible development.

Chouteau County does not have any zoning limitations on the Maris River.
Appendix L HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1118 Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility and Suitability

10. Support or opposition to designation. 

There is general opposition by local governmental interests, believing that the designation currently in place is 

more than enough for adequate protection. Local support is unlikely. No known other interest. 

11. Historical or existing rights that could be adversely affected with designation. 

There are water claims on Marias River for various uses along its entire length. It does not appear that there is a 

reserve water right to maintain a minimum flow. There are active grazing permits for the BLM land and 

grazing and farming is the historic use of the private land along the Maris River. 

12. The consistency of designation with other agency plans, programs, or policies in meeting regional 

objectives. 

Designation would effectively be redundant of current designations. 

Other agency plans do not assert management on Maris River. Water rights through the Montana Department 

of Natural Resources and Conservation will adjudicate claims for water in the Marias River at some time in the 

future.

13. The contribution to a river system, watershed, or basin integrity. 

The Marias River does flow into the Missouri River, which is designated a WSR. However, the headwaters of 

the Marias River and its tributaries are mostly private land. From a practical standpoint it is not likely that a 

total system management strategy can be pursued with a focus on the total watershed. 

Recommendation: This segment of the Marias River is not suitable for designation because of the lack of BLM land 

ownership, the BLM land 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.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix M 

Mitigation/Conservation for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 1119 

Appendix M 

Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions 

For 

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Introduction 

These Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat are a compilation of management 

strategies and project design features employed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to mitigate impacts from 

surface disturbance in priority and general sage-grouse habitat in order to meet the goals and objectives set forth in the 

BLM National Sage-grouse Conservation Strategy and in individual land use plans. They apply to activities such as road 

or pipeline construction, range improvements, and permitted land uses or recreation activities. These guidelines are 

presented as an appendix for easy reference as they apply to many resources and were derived from many laws and other 

guidelines such as the Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Sage-grouse in Montana, the BLM National 

Technical Team Report (WO IM No. 2012-044, BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy), 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA), Conservation Strategy for Greater Sage-grouse, and 

others. 

The guidelines are primarily included to provide consistency within the Montana/Dakotas BLM in how management 

practices and requirements are identified and applied to avoid and mitigate environmental impacts and resource and land 

use conflicts in greater sage-grouse habitat. Consistency in this sense does not mean that identical requirements would 

be applied for all similar types of land use activities, nor does it mean that the requirements or guidelines for a single 

land use activity would be identical in all areas. 

There are two ways the mitigation guidelines are used in the RMP and EIS process: (1) as part of the planning criteria in 

developing the RMP alternatives; and (2) in the analytical processes of both developing the alternatives and analyzing 

the impacts of the alternatives. In the first case, an assumption is made that any one or more of the mitigation measures 

or conservation actions will be appropriately included as conditions of relevant actions being proposed or considered in 

each alternative. In the second case, the mitigations are used (1) to develop a baseline for measuring and comparing 

impacts among the alternatives; (2) to identify other actions and alternatives that should be considered; and (3) to help 

determine whether more stringent or less stringent mitigations should be considered. 

The EIS for the RMP does not decide or dictate the exact wording or inclusion of these guidelines. Rather, the 

guidelines are used in the RMP and EIS process as a tool to help develop the RMP alternatives and to provide a baseline 

for comparative impact analysis in arriving at RMP decisions. These guidelines will be used in the same manner in 

analyzing activity plans and other site-specific proposals. These guidelines and their wording are matters of policy. As 

such, specific wording is subject to change primarily through administrative review, not through the RMP and EIS 

process. Any further changes that may be made in the continuing refinement of these guidelines and any development of 

program-specific standard stipulations will be handled in another forum, including appropriate public involvement and 

input. 

Purpose 

The purpose of these mitigation measures and conservation actions is to mitigate impacts from surface disturbance in 

priority and general sage-grouse habitat in order to meet the goals and objectives set forward in the BLM National Sagegrouse Conservation Strategy and in individual land use plans. Application of mitigation measures and conservation 

actions will reserve for the BLM the right to modify the operations of surface-disturbing and/or disruptive activities as 

part of the statutory requirements for environmental protection. Those measures selected for implementation will be 

identified in the Record of Decision (ROD) or Decision Record (DR) for those activities and will inform a potential 
Appendix M HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1120 Mitigation/Conservation for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

lessee, permittee, or operator of the requirements that must be met when using BLM lands and minerals. These measures

have been written in a format that will allow for either their direct use as stipulations or operating standards and/or in 

addition to specific or specialized mitigation following the submission of a detailed development plan or other project

proposal and an environmental analysis. These operating standards are given as acceptable methods for mitigating 

anticipated effects and achieving the desired plan outcomes but are not prescribed as the only method for achieving the 

outcomes. 

Those resource activities or programs currently without a standardized set of permit or operation stipulations can use the 

mitigation measures and conservation actions for greater sage-grouse as stipulations or as conditions of approval, or as a 

baseline for developing specific stipulations for a given activity or program.

These mitigation measures and conservation actions are primarily written for priority sage-grouse habitats. Within 

general habitat the mitigation measures and conservation actions applied are determined at a project-by-project level and 

may be similar in many cases to the priority habitat measures. A selection of mitigation measures and conservation 

actions for general habitat is also included for some programs. At the project level, in order to prioritize certain general 

habitat areas over marginal or substandard sage-grouse habitat areas, consideration should be given to: 

 The capability of the habitat to provide connectivity among priority areas.

 Habitats occupied by sage-grouse where enhancing general sage-grouse habitat can offset losses to habitat 

and/or populations elsewhere within the habitat.

 The potential to replace lost priority habitat or needed changes in total priority habitat due to perturbations 

and/or disturbances, providing connectivity between priority areas, and restoring historical habitat functionality 

to support meeting objectives to maintain or enhance connectivity. 

Threats to Greater Sage-Grouse and Their Habitat

A number of threats and risks to greater sage-grouse and their habitat have been identified during conservation planning 

efforts and assessments. Range wide issues were covered in listing decisions made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

in 2007 and 2010. In addition, the BLM National Technical Team Report (WO IM No. 2012-044) covered BLM 

program areas with the potential to impact greater sage-grouse populations. The 2005 Management Plan and 

Conservation Strategies for Sage-Grouse in Montana - Final identified twelve major issues:

 Fire Management

 Grazing Management

 Harvest Management 

 Noxious Weed Management 

 Mining and Energy Development

 Outreach and Education 

 Power Lines and Generation Facilities 

 Predation 

 Recreational Disturbance 

 Roads and Motorized Vehicles 

 Vegetation 

 Managing Other Wildlife in Sage-Grouse Habitats 

Conservation Actions

These mitigation measures and conservation actions for greater sage-grouse would be implemented on a project-specific 

basis in sage-grouse priority habitat, depending on the specific characteristics of the project area and the types of 

disturbance being proposed. They may not be appropriate to implement in all cases. The mitigation would be 

requirements, procedures, management practices, or design features that the BLM, through issuance of the Record of 

Decision (ROD), would adopt as operational requirements. The BLM may add additional site-specific restrictions as 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix M

Mitigation/Conservation for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 1121

deemed necessary by further environmental analysis and as developed through coordination with other federal, state, and 

local regulatory and resource agencies. Because mitigation measures change or are modified based on new information, 

the guidelines will be updated periodically.

In the very early stages of the development of siting and design plans, project developers shall coordinate with 

appropriate federal, state, and local agencies that regulate activities that affect greater sage-grouse and their habitats to 

determine what expected level of mitigation will be needed to ensure the RMP goals and objectives can be met within 

the proposed action. An environmental review shall demonstrate how the mitigation measures and conservation actions 

being applied to the project lead to impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative) that do not cause the BLM to authorize 

actions that would exceed habitat level thresholds causing goals and objectives for the priority area to not be met. This 

will analyze at the project level at least two considerations to examine functionality of sage-steppe systems and 

thresholds where populations are known to be impacted:

 At the landscape scale, priority areas should be maintained with enough land cover composed of adequate sagebrush 

habitat to provide greater sage-grouse needs to meet priority habitat objectives. This is measured using broad-scale 

habitat classification to determine the amount of potential habitat based on ecological sites against habitat lost to 

permanent to short-term habitat loss from disturbances such as agricultural tillage, fire, etc. 

 At the local population scale discrete anthropogenic disturbances should be avoided, minimized, or mitigated to 

maintain the highest quality habitat. Two thresholds have been proposed to maintain populations within priority 

areas. The National Technical Team proposed a 3% cap for priority sage-grouse habitat while Wyoming issued an 

Executive Order utilizing a 5% cap. The actual impact to sage-grouse will depend on the amount of direct 

disturbance, the level of activity associated with the direct disturbance that leads to indirect disturbance, and the 

cumulative effects of the disturbance level, habitat loss and habitat degradation. 

In analyzing the impact from a project, consideration should be given to the type of activity, the amount of 

anthropogenic disturbance to seasonal greater sage-grouse habitat utilized by the local population, and the landscape 

context. As an area moves from direct disturbance exceeding 3% and then 5%, put in context of the condition of the 

larger landscape, increased mitigation, habitat enhancement, and off-site considerations will be important to maintaining 

goals and objectives for sage-grouse and priority habitats. Specifically, at the site level the BLM will analyze and 

disclose how permitted actions, including included mitigation measures and conservation actions, affect the ability of

priority area goals and objectives to be met and ensure permitted activities are in conformance with the RMP.

Priority Habitat

Travel Management

Travel management should evaluate, during site-specific travel planning, the need for permanent or seasonal road or area 

closures to protect greater sage-grouse priority habitat areas.

Use existing roads or realignments to access valid existing rights that are not yet developed. If valid existing rights 

cannot be accessed via existing roads, then any new roads would be constructed to the absolute minimum standard 

necessary.

Allow no upgrading of existing routes that would change route category (road, primitive road, or trail) or capacity unless 

the upgrading would have minimal or beneficial impacts on greater sage-grouse habitat, is necessary for motorist safety, 

or eliminates the need to construct a new road.

Reclaim roads, primitive roads and trails not designated in travel management plans. This also includes primitive 

route/roads that were not designated in Wilderness Study Areas and within lands with wilderness characteristics that 

have been selected for protection.

When reclaiming roads, primitive roads and trails, use appropriate seed mixes and consider the use of transplanted 

sagebrush.
Appendix M HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1122 Mitigation/Conservation for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Evaluate impacts of existing roads, including two-tracks, in relation to known lek locations and greater sage-grouse 

winter ranges. 

Consider the use of speed bumps where appropriate to reduce vehicle speeds near leks, such as during oil and gas 

development. 

Manage on-road travel and OHV use in sage-grouse habitat to avoid disturbance during critical times such as winter, 

breeding and nesting periods. 

Plan or permit organized events to avoid impacts to greater sage-grouse. 

Manage motorized and mechanized travel to minimize impacts to greater sage-grouse and their habitat by developing 

standards for future roads to give to BLM, FS, BIA, state, county, and private parties. 

Manage motorized and mechanized travel to minimize impacts to greater sage-grouse by enforcement of existing OHV 

and travel management plans. 

Provide educational opportunities for users of OHVs dealing with the possible effects they may have on greater sagegrouse. 

Develop a transportation management plan across ownership boundaries in greater sage-grouse habitats. 

Participate in travel planning efforts and educate the general public about the impacts of roads on greater sage-grouse

and their habitat. 

Consider buffers, removal, realignment, or seasonal closures where appropriate to avoid degradation of habitat. 

Reclaim closed roads with locally adapted native plant species beneficial to sage-grouse. 

Close and reclaim travel ways in sage-grouse habitat where appropriate. 

Recreation

Document leks where recreational viewing is occurring. 

Provide educational materials to the public describing effects of concentrated recreational activities and the importance 

of seasonal ranges to greater sage-grouse. 

Issue special use permits for certain activities with distance and timing restrictions to maintain the integrity of breeding, 

nesting and winter habitat. 

Lands and Realty

Within designated ROW corridors encumbered by existing ROW authorizations, new ROWs should be co-located to the 

extent practical and feasible with the entire footprint of the proposed project within the existing disturbance associated 

with the authorized ROWs. 

Subject to valid, existing rights, where new ROWs associated with valid existing rights are required, co-locate new 

ROWs within existing ROWs or where it best minimizes greater sage-grouse impacts. Use existing roads, or 

realignments as described above, to access valid existing rights that are not yet developed. If valid existing rights cannot 

be accessed via existing roads, then build any new road constructed to the absolute minimum standard necessary.

Upon project completion, roads used for commercial access on public lands would be reclaimed unless, based on sitespecific analysis, the route provides specific benefits for public access and does not contribute to resource conflicts.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix M

Mitigation/Conservation for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 1123

For powerlines:

 Document the segment(s) of line detrimental to greater sage-grouse.

 Determine by cooperative action – agencies, utilities, and landowners – whether or not modification of poles to 

limit perching will prevent electrocution of raptors and decrease predation on greater sage-grouse. 

 Emphasize the following if perch prevention modifications do not work to protect greater sage-grouse and 

sagebrush habitat: 

o reroute the line using distance, topography, or vegetative cover; or 

o bury the line. 

 Explore opportunities for technical assistance and funding. 

 Remove power line when use is completed. 

 Encourage the use of off-grid systems such as solar, natural gas micro-turbines, and wind power where feasible 

in sage-grouse habitats. 

 Use the best available information for siting power lines on important breeding, brood-rearing, and winter 

habitat in an appropriate vicinity of the proposed line. 

 Initiate collision prevention measures using guidelines (Avian Power Line Action Committee 1994) on 

identified segments. Measures are subject to restriction or modification for wind and ice loading or other 

engineering concerns, or updated collision prevention information.

 Remove power lines that traverse sage-grouse habitats when facilities being serviced are no longer in use or 

when projects are completed. 

Livestock Grazing

Conducting Land Health Assessments and Permit 

Renewals in Priority Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Land Health Assessments

When conducting land health assessments:

 Prioritize allotments that have the best opportunities for conserving, enhancing or restoring habitat for sage‐

grouse.

 Include (at a minimum) indicators and measurements of structure/condition/composition of vegetation specific 

to achieving sage‐grouse habitat objectives (Doherty, et al. 2011). If local/state seasonal habitat objectives are 

not available, use sage‐grouse habitat recommendations from Connelly, et al. (2000b) and Hagen, et al. 2007.

Permit Renewals

When conducting permit renewals:

 If an effective grazing system that meets sage‐grouse habitat requirements is not already in place, analyze at 

least one alternative that conserves, restores or enhances sage‐grouse habitat in the NEPA document prepared 

for the permit renewal if the size of the allotment and/or cooperative opportunities warrant it.

 Work cooperatively on integrated ranch planning within sage-grouse habitat so ranch operations with deeded 

BLM allotments can be planned as single units. 

 Analyze springs, seeps and associated pipelines to determine if modifications are necessary to maintain the 

continuity of the predevelopment riparian area within priority sage‐grouse habitats. Make modifications where 

necessary, considering impacts to other water uses when such considerations are neutral or beneficial to sage‐

grouse. Only authorize new spring or seep developments where the impacts to sage-grouse would be beneficial. 

 Evaluate the role of existing seedings that are currently composed of primarily introduced perennial grasses in 

and adjacent to priority sage‐grouse habitats to determine if they should be restored to sagebrush steppe for 

sage‐grouse. If these seedings are part of an AMP/Conservation Plan or if they provide value in conserving or 

enhancing the rest of the priority habitats, then no restoration would be necessary. Assess the compatibility of 

these seedings for sage‐grouse habitat or as a component of a grazing system during the land health assessments 

(Davies, et al. 2011).
Appendix M HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1124 Mitigation/Conservation for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

 Evaluate existing structural range improvements and location of supplements (salt or protein blocks) to make 

sure they conserve, enhance or restore sage‐grouse habitat.

o This includes evaluating methods to reduce outright sage‐grouse strikes and mortality, through removing, 

modifying or marking fences in high risk areas within priority sage‐grouse habitat based on proximity to 

lek, lek size, and topography (Christiansen 2009, Stevens 2011).

 Monitor for, and treat invasive species associated with existing range improvements (Gelbard and Belnap 2003 

and Bergquist, et al. 2007).

Include terms and conditions on grazing permits and leases that assure plant growth requirements are met, and residual 

forage remains available for greater sage-grouse hiding cover. Utilize techniques appropriate for uplands vs. 

riparian/meadow areas and enhancement vs. reclamation/restoration. Across all these types of projects consider singly, 

or in combination, changes as necessary: 

 Season or timing of use;

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

 Distribution of livestock use;

 Intensity of use (utilization or stubble height objectives)

 Kind of livestock (e.g., cattle, sheep, horses, llamas, alpacas and goats)

 Class of livestock (e.g., yearlings versus cow calf pairs) 

Within riparian areas specifically, consider practices such as: 

 Within priority sage‐grouse habitat, reduce hot season grazing on riparian and meadow complexes to promote 

recovery or maintenance of appropriate vegetation and water quality. Utilize fencing/herding techniques or 

seasonal use or livestock distribution changes to reduce pressure on riparian or wet meadow vegetation used by 

sage‐grouse in the hot season (summer).

 Ensure the sustainability of desired soil conditions and ecological processes within upland plant communities 

following implementation of strategies to protect riparian areas. This can be achieved by: 

o protecting natural wet meadows and springs from over-use while developing water for livestock, and 

o planning the location, design, and construction of new fences to minimize impacts on greater sage-grouse.

Range Management Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions

Design any new structural range improvement and location of supplements (salt or protein blocks) to conserve, enhance, 

or sage-grouse habitat through an improved grazing management system relative to sage-grouse objectives. Structural 

range improvements in this context include, but are not limited to: cattleguards, fences, exclosures, corrals, or other 

livestock handling structures; pipelines, troughs, storage tanks (including moveable tanks used in livestock water 

hauling), windmills, ponds/reservoirs, solar panels, and spring developments.

Discourage concentration of livestock on sage-grouse leks and winter habitat.

If portions of existing fences are found to pose a threat to greater sage-grouse, mitigate through moving or modifying 

posts, increasing the visibility of the fences by flagging, or by designing “take-down” fences. 

Pesticides and Herbicides Use

 Evaluate ecological consequences of using pesticides to control grasshoppers or other insects. 

 Evaluate ecological consequences of broadcast herbicide use on forbs and other important sage-grouse foods. 

 Minimize use of pesticides and herbicides in greater sage-grouse nesting, breeding and brood-rearing habitat.

Noxious Weed Management

 Promote measures that prevent the introduction and spread of weed seeds and other reproducing plant parts.

 Develop and implement management techniques that minimize the risk of infestation. 

 Where feasible, isolate livestock from known infestations and avoid vehicle movement through infested areas.

 Use weed-free seed for reestablishment of vegetation. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix M

Mitigation/Conservation for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 1125

 Eliminate unnecessary soil disturbance and vehicle access/movement into occupied greater sage-grouse habitat. 

 Limit vehicle use to established roads only. 

 Regularly monitor access points and roads for weed establishment. 

 Develop partnerships with regional public and private land management units.

 Establish goals and set priorities that encompass the needs of both livestock and wildlife managers so all parties 

are working under a similar plan.

 Conduct monitoring and develop follow-up procedures for treated areas. 

 Educate all field personnel on weed identification, the manner in which weeds spread, and methods of treating 

weed infestations. 

 Employ integrated weed management treatment methods such as a combination of biological and cultural, such 

as grazing, mowing, or seeding treatments in conjunction with herbicides to manage weeds in greater sagegrouse habitat. 

 Use the most selective herbicides where chemical treatment is appropriate, to minimize loss of non-target plant 

species. 

 Restore plant communities with desired species adapted to the site, using proven management techniques where 

biologically feasible. A restoration program may be necessary if conditions prevent natural plant species. 

Fluid Minerals

In cases where federal oil and gas leases have been issued without adequate stipulations for the protection of greater

sage-grouse or their habitats being provided in the applicable RMP decision, as revised or amended, include mitigation 

measures and conservation actions as permit conditions of approval (COAs) when approving exploration and 

development activities through completion of the environmental record of review or an environmental assessment, as 

appropriate (43 CFR 3162.5).

General or typical COAs are mitigation measures that may be required when processing Applications for Permits to Drill 

(APDs), Sundry Notice Drilling Plans, and Surface Use Plans when they are: 1) not specifically addressed in those plans 

or existing lease stipulations; and 2) needed to mitigate impacts to resource values identified at the onsite inspection or 

during review of the plans. The use of COAs is intended to reduce, mitigate, or minimize impacts from development but 

they do not necessarily avoid or preclude resulting significant impacts from the project.

The COAs also allow the BLM to prescribe resource protection measures for lands that were previously leased with 

varying sets of lease stipulations. However, for lands that are already leased, BLM restrictions on development, not 

required to comply with existing laws, must be reasonable and consistent with existing lease rights. The COAs must not 

constrain or restrict development beyond the measures anticipated or authorized by the lease terms or regulations and/or 

interfere with the lessee’s opportunity to economically recover the oil and gas resources, considering the lease as a 

whole.

Evaluation of these COAs will consider during the NEPA process:

 Whether the conservation measure is “reasonable” (43 CFR 3101.1‐2) and consistent with valid existing rights;

 Whether the action is in conformance with the approved RMP; and

 The effectiveness of the mitigation measures proposed.

When incorporated into BLM’s program in the Record of Decision (ROD), mitigation approaches and conservation 

practices detailed in the Surface Use Plan of Operations (see 43CFR 3162-1(f)) shall address, at a minimum, the 

proposed project’s anticipated noise, density and amount of disturbance, mechanical movement (e.g., pumpjacks), 

permanent and temporary facilities, traffic, phases of development over time, offsite mitigation, and expected periods of 

use. Following larger-scale considerations for minimizing impacts to greater sage-grouse this section contains BMPs 

that will be included, as applicable, as COAs to address to categories of concern. Due to site-specific circumstances, 

some categories may not apply to some projects and/or may require slight variations from the approach described. It is 

anticipated the applicability and/or variation in approach will be limited to project siting and configuration. Additional 

mitigation measures may be identified and required during individual planning. Applicants will be required to discuss 

any proposed variations with BLM staff. All variations will require appropriate analysis and disclosure as part of future 
Appendix M HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1126 Mitigation/Conservation for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

project authorizations. Those design features that do not apply to a given project will need to be described as part of the 

project file along with an appropriate rationale.

The following hierarchical approach and guidelines should be followed during project development to address these and 

other areas of concern for greater sage-grouse:

Density and Amount of Disturbance

Do not allow new surface occupancy on Federal leases within priority habitat areas, including winter concentration 

areas during any time of the year (Doherty, et al. 2008, Carpenter, et al. 2010). Where this is not possible due to 

valid existing rights and development requirements for the specific geologic and fluid mineral resources, consider 

the following disturbance and surface occupancy limits to the extent practicable:

If the lease is partially or entirely within priority habitat areas:

 Subject to topographic and other environmental constraints, require any development within priority habitat 

to be placed in the area least harmful to sage-grouse based on vegetation, topography, or other habitat 

features.

 To the extent possible and consistent with valid existing rights, limit disturbances to an average of one site 

per 640 acres on average, with no more than 3% direct surface disturbance in the analysis area. 

 When additional mitigation is necessary, conduct it in the impacted priority sage‐grouse habitat areas when 

possible or, if that is not possible, in general sage‐grouse habitat with the ability to increase sage‐grouse 

populations tied to the impacted priority area(s). 

Breeding and Nesting Habitat

To limit impacts to breeding and nesting habitat, surface-disturbing and disruptive activities shall be prohibited or 

restricted within 4 miles of a lek to the extent possible and consistent with valid existing rights. If the entire lease is 

entirely within the 4‐mile perimeter of a lek, require any development to be placed at the part of the lease farthest 

from the lek, or based depending on topography and other habitat features, in an area demonstrably the least harmful 

to sage‐grouse.

To ensure comprehensive planning relative to sage-grouse conflicts, complete Master Development Plans or PODS 

during planning and review of projects involving multiple proposed disturbances within a logical geographic area, 

with an exception for individual wildcat (exploratory) wells.

Encourage unitization when deemed necessary for proper development and operation of an area or to facilitate more 

orderly (e.g., phased and/or clustered) development as a means of minimizing adverse impacts to sage‐grouse (see 

Federal Lease Form, 3100‐11, Sections 4 and 6).

Brood-Rearing Habitat

Apply a seasonal timing restriction on exploratory drilling that avoids construction, drilling, completion, and 

reclamation surface‐disturbing activities during the nesting and early brood‐rearing seasons in all priority sage‐

grouse habitats for this period.

Best Management Practices for Fluid Mineral Development

Prioritize pad development based on suitability of habitat; construct pads that are in less suitable habitat (i.e., along 

existing roadways or within degraded habitats) during the breeding season, and construct pads located in more suitable 

habitat prior to or after the critical breeding season.

Avoid sagebrush, but if disturbance is necessary, interim reclamation should include sage plantings/seedings and/or the 

use of minimum disturbance practices to protect sage on well pads and pipelines.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix M

Mitigation/Conservation for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 1127

Roads

 Design roads to an appropriate standard no higher than necessary to accommodate their intended purpose.

 Locate roads to avoid important areas and habitats.

 Coordinate road construction and use among ROW holders. 

 Construct road crossing at right angles to ephemeral drainages and stream crossings.

 Establish speed limits on BLM system roads to reduce vehicle/wildlife collisions or design roads to be driven at 

slower speeds.

 Establish trip restrictions or minimization through use of telemetry and remote well control (e.g., Supervisory 

Control and Data Acquisition).

 Do not issue ROWs to counties on newly constructed energy development roads, unless for a temporary use 

consistent with all other terms and conditions included in this document.

 Restrict vehicle traffic to only authorized users on newly constructed routes (use signing, gates, etc.) 

 Use dust abatement practices on roads and pads.

 Close and reclaim duplicate roads.

Operations

 Cluster disturbances, operations (fracture stimulation, liquids gathering, etc.), and facilities.

 Use directional and horizontal drilling to reduce surface disturbance.

 Place infrastructure in already disturbed locations where the habitat has not been restored.

 Consider using oak (or other material) mats for drilling activities to reduce vegetation disturbance and for roads 

between closely spaced wells to reduce soil compaction and maintain soil structure to increase likelihood of 

vegetation reestablishment following drilling.

 Apply a phased development approach with concurrent reclamation.

 Place liquid gathering facilities outside of priority areas. Have no tanks at well locations within priority areas 

(minimizes perching and nesting opportunities for ravens and raptors and truck traffic). Pipelines must be under 

or immediately adjacent to the road (Bui et al. 2010).

 Restrict the construction of tall facilities and fences to the minimum number and amount needed. 

 Site and/or minimize linear ROWs to reduce disturbance to sagebrush habitats.

 Place new utility developments (power lines, pipelines, etc.) and transportation routes in existing utility or 

transportation corridors.

 Bury distribution power lines.

 Corridor power, flow, and small pipelines under or immediately adjacent to roads.

 Design or site permanent structures which create movement (e.g., a pumpjack) to minimize impacts to greater 

sage-grouse. 

 Cover (e.g., fine mesh netting or use other effective techniques) all drilling and production pits and tanks 

regardless of size to reduce greater sage-grouse mortality.

 Equip tanks and other above-ground facilities with structures or devices that discourage nesting of raptors and 

corvids.

 Control the spread and effects of non-native plant species (e.g., by washing vehicles and equipment)

 Mitigate pit and impoundment construction to reduce or eliminate threats from West Nile virus.

 Limit noise to less than 10 decibels above ambient measures (20-24 dBA) at sunrise at the perimeter of a lek 

during active lek season (Patricelli, et al. 2010; Blickley, et al. In preparation). 

 Require noise shields when drilling during the lek, nesting, brood-rearing, or wintering season. 

 Fit transmission towers with anti-perch devices (Lammers and Collopy 2007).

 Locate new compressor stations outside priority habitats and design them to reduce noise that may be directed 

towards priority habitat.

 Clean up refuse.

Reclamation

 Include objectives for ensuring habitat restoration to meet greater sage-grouse habitat needs in reclamation 

practices/sites. Address post-reclamation management in reclamation plan such that goals and objectives are to 

protect and improve greater sage-grouse habitat needs.
Appendix M HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1128 Mitigation/Conservation for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

 Maximize the area of interim reclamation on long-term access roads and well pads including reshaping, 

topsoiling and revegetating cut and fill slopes.

 Restore disturbed areas at final reclamation to the pre-disturbance landforms and desired plant community.

 Irrigate interim reclamation if necessary for establishing seedlings more quickly.

 Utilize mulching techniques to expedite reclamation and to protect soils. 

Solid Minerals

Recommend minimization of surface-disturbing or disrupting activities (including operations and maintenance) where 

needed to reduce the impacts of human activities on greater sage-grouse habitats. Apply these measures during activity 

level planning.

Encourage development in incremental stages to stagger disturbance; design schedules that include long-term strategies 

to localize disturbance and recovery within established zones over a staggered timeframe. 

Use off-site mitigation or purchase conservation easements with industry dollars to offset habitat losses. 

Remove facilities and infrastructure when use is completed. 

Allow no surface use in nesting habitat from March 1 through June 15. 

Restrict maintenance and related activities in greater sage-grouse breeding/nesting complexes – March 1 through June 15 

– between the hours of 4:00 – 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 – 10:00 p.m. 

Allow no surface use activities within greater sage-grouse wintering areas from December 1 through March 31.

Use minimal surface disturbance to install roads and pipelines and reclaim site of abandoned wells to natural 

communities. 

Locate storage facilities, generators, and holding tanks outside the line of sight and sound of breeding habitat. 

See conservation actions related to preventing the spread of weeds and controlling infestations of noxious weeds. 

Engage industry as a partner to develop and establish new sources of seed of native plant species for restoration of sites 

disturbed by development. 

Design impoundments and manage discharge so as not to degrade or inundate leks, nesting sites, and wintering sites. 

Protect natural springs from any source of disturbance or degradation from energy-related activities. 

Provide for long-term monitoring of siting requirements to examine effects of current and future development on sagegrouse. 

Set up a schedule for reviewing and revising siting and use criteria with industry. 

Roads

 Design roads to an appropriate standard no higher than necessary to accommodate their intended purpose.

 Locate roads to avoid important areas and habitats.

 Coordinate road construction and use among ROW holders.

 Construct road crossing at right angles to ephemeral drainages and stream crossings.

 Establish speed limits on BLM system roads to reduce vehicle/wildlife collisions or design roads to be driven at 

slower speeds.

 Do not issue ROWs to counties on mining development roads, unless for a temporary use consistent with all 

other terms and conditions included in this document.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix M

Mitigation/Conservation for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 1129

 Restrict vehicle traffic to only authorized users on newly constructed routes (e. g., use signing, gates, etc.)

 Use dust abatement practices on roads and pads.

 Close and reclaim duplicate roads, by restoring original landform and establishing desired vegetation.

Operations

 Cluster disturbances associated with operations and facilities as close as possible.

 Place infrastructure in already disturbed locations where the habitat has not been restored.

 Restrict the construction of tall facilities and fences to the minimum number and amount needed.

 Site and/or minimize linear ROWs to reduce disturbance to sagebrush habitats.

 Place new utility developments (power lines, pipelines, etc.) and transportation routes in existing utility or 

transportation corridors.

 Bury power lines.

 Cover (e.g., fine mesh netting or use other effective techniques) all pits and tanks regardless of size to reduce 

greater sage-grouse mortality.

 Equip tanks and other above-ground facilities with structures or devices that discourage nesting of raptors and 

corvids.

 Control the spread and effects of non-native plant species (Gelbard and Belnap 2003; Bergquist, et al. 2007).

 Mitigate pit and impoundment construction to reduce or eliminate threats from West Nile virus

 Remove or re-inject produced water to reduce habitat for mosquitoes that vector West Nile virus. If surface 

disposal of produced water continues, limit favorable mosquito habitat through reservoir design.

 Require greater sage-grouse-safe fences around sumps.

 Clean up refuse.

Reclamation

 Include restoration objectives to meet greater sage-grouse habitat needs in reclamation practices/sites. Address 

post-reclamation management in reclamation plan such that goals and objectives are to protect and improve 

greater sage-grouse habitat needs.

 Maximize the area of interim reclamation on long-term access roads and well pads including reshaping, 

topsoiling and revegetating cut and fill slopes.

 Restore disturbed areas at final reclamation to pre-disturbance landform and desired plant community.

 Irrigate interim reclamation as necessary during dry periods.

 Utilize mulching techniques to expedite reclamation.

Wildfire Suppression, Fuels Management and Fire Rehabilitation

Wildfire Suppression

In greater sage-grouse habitat areas, prioritize suppression, immediately after life and property, to conserve the habitat. 

The BLM will protect sage-grouse habitat during wildfire suppression activities as described in the National Fire 

Suppression Guidelines and the current fire management plan. 

Apply Fire Management BMPs (see WO-IM-2011-138) as appropriate. 

Fire Management Best Management Practices for Sage-Grouse Conservation

1. Develop state-specific sage-grouse toolboxes containing maps, a list of resource advisors, contact information, 

local guidance, and other relevant information. 

2. Provide localized maps to dispatch offices and extended attack incident commanders for use in prioritizing 

wildfire suppression resources and designing suppression tactics. 
Appendix M HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1130 Mitigation/Conservation for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

3. Assign a sage-grouse resource advisor to all extended attack fires in or near key sage-grouse habitat areas. Prior 

to the fire season, provide training to sage-grouse resource advisors on wildfire suppression organization, 

objectives, tactics, and procedures to develop a cadre of qualified individuals. 

4. On critical fire weather days, pre-position additional fire suppression resources to optimize a quick and efficient 

response in sage-grouse habitat areas. 

5. During periods of multiple fires, ensure line officers are involved in setting priorities. 

6. To the extent possible, locate wildfire suppression facilities (i.e., base camps, spike camps, drop points, staging 

areas, heli-bases) in areas where physical disturbance to sage-grouse habitat can be minimized. These include 

disturbed areas, grasslands, near roads/trails or in other areas where there is existing disturbance or minimal 

sagebrush cover. 

7. Power-wash all firefighting vehicles, to the extent possible, including engines, water tenders, personnel 

vehicles, and ATVs prior to deploying in or near sage-grouse habitat areas to minimize noxious weed spread. 

8. Minimize unnecessary cross-country vehicle travel during fire operations in sage-grouse habitat. 

9. Minimize burnout operations in key sage-grouse habitat areas by constructing direct fireline whenever safe and

practical to do so. 

10. Utilize retardant and mechanized equipment to minimize burned acreage during initial attack. 

11. As safety allows, conduct mop-up where the black adjoins unburned islands, dog legs, or other habitat features 

to minimize sagebrush loss. 

Fuels Management

Design and implement fuels treatments with an emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems. 

 Do not reduce the existing sagebrush canopy cover unless a fuels management objective requires additional 

reduction in sagebrush cover to meet strategic protection of priority greater sage-grouse habitat and conserve 

habitat quality for the species. Closely evaluate the benefits of the fuel break against the additional loss of 

sagebrush cover in an environmental analysis.

 Apply appropriate seasonal restrictions for implementing fuels management treatments according to the type of 

seasonal habitats present in a priority area.

 Allow no treatments in known winter range unless the treatments are designed to strategically reduce wildfire 

risk or enhance habitat around or in the winter range and will maintain habitat quality. 

 Do not use fire to treat sagebrush in less than 12-inch precipitation zones (e.g., Wyoming big sagebrush or other 

xeric sagebrush species). However, if as a last resort and after all other treatment opportunities have been 

explored and site-specific variables allow, the use of prescribed fire for fuel breaks that would disrupt the fuel 

continuity across the landscape could be considered, in stands where cheatgrass is a very minor component in 

the understory.

 Monitor and control invasive vegetation post-treatment.

 Require use of native seeds for fuels management treatment based on availability, adaptation (site potential), 

and probability of success. Where probability of success or native seed availability is low, non-native seeds 

may be used as long as they meet sage-grouse habitat objectives.

 Design post-fuels management projects to ensure long-term persistence of seeded or pre-treatment native plants. 

This may require temporary or long-term changes in livestock grazing management, wild horse and burro 

management, travel management, or other activities to achieve and maintain the desired condition of the fuels 

management project. 

 Design fuels management projects in priority greater sage-grouse habitat to strategically and effectively reduce 

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

block design. 

 For the project to be approved the authorizing official should consider: 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix M

Mitigation/Conservation for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 1131

o biological and physical limitations of the site and the impact on greater sage-grouse;

o management objectives for the site, including those for wildlife, are clearly defined;

o potential for weed invasion and successional trends are well understood;

o capability exists to manage the post-burn site properly, including a funded monitoring schedule, to achieve 

a healthy sagebrush community. 

Develop local or regional guidelines or consider the following guidelines if fire is used as a tool: 

 Analyze cumulative effects of sagebrush treatment by considering ecological units, evaluate the degree of 

fragmentation, and maintain a good representation of mature sagebrush.

 Predict effects for the length of time necessary for sagebrush to return to desired condition for determine 

treatment types and intervals.

 Identify suitable patch size based on site-specific characteristics of the natural community and treat patches in a 

mosaic pattern that provides sagebrush cover for snow capture, hiding cover, and a seed source.

 Use available literature to research the effects of fire on sagebrush communities.

 Use caution in reducing sagebrush cover in and following drought periods.

During fuels management project design, consider the utility of using livestock to strategically reduce fine fuels, and 

implement grazing management that will accomplish this objective. 

Consult with ecologists to minimize impacts to native perennial grasses.

Develop criteria for managing fuels and other risks to greater sage-grouse habitat. 

Identify all greater sage-grouse habitats and prioritize on the basis of risk of loss to wildfire. 

Develop appropriate actions on a site by site basis, such as using existing roads as fire breaks. 

Develop treatments to improve habitats over the long term if sagebrush stands do not meet objectives for greater sagegrouse, such as confining treatments to small patches. 

Consider mechanical treatment as the primary method and prescribed fire as a secondary method to remove conifers that 

encroach on greater sage-grouse habitat, except where forested habitat is limited. 

Avoid treatments to greater sage-grouse habitat in areas that are susceptible to invasion by cheatgrass or other invasive 

plant species. Treatment will be accompanied by restoration, and reseeding if necessary, to re-establish native 

vegetation. 

Protect sagebrush along riparian zones, meadows, lakebeds, and farmlands that include greater sage-grouse habitat.

Wash vehicles and heavy equipment for fires prior to arrival at a new location to avoid introduction for noxious weeds. 

Apply Fuels Management BMPs (see WO IM 2011-138) as appropriate.

Fuels Management Best Management Practices for Sage-Grouse Conservation

1. Where applicable, design fuels treatment objective to protect existing sagebrush ecosystems, modify fire 

behavior, restore native plants, and create landscape patters which most benefit sage-grouse habitat. 

2. Provide training to fuels treatment personnel on sage-grouse biology, habitat requirements, and identification of 

areas utilized locally. 

3. Use fire prescriptions that minimize undesirable effects on vegetation or soils (e.g., minimize mortality of 

desirable perennial plant species and reduce risk of hydrophobicity). 
Appendix M HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1132 Mitigation/Conservation for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

4. Ensure proposed sagebrush treatments are planned with interdisciplinary input from BLM and /or state wildlife 

agency biologist and that treatment acreage is conservative in the context of surrounding sage-grouse seasonal 

habitats and landscape. 

5. Where appropriate, ensure that treatments are configured in a manner (e.g., strips) that promotes use by sagegrouse (Connelly, et al. 2000).

6. Where applicable, incorporate roads and natural fuel breaks into fuel break design. 

7. Power-wash all vehicles and equipment involved in fuels management activities prior to entering the area to 

minimize the introduction of undesirable and/or invasive plant species. 

8. Design vegetation treatment in areas of high frequency to facilitate firefighting safety, reduce the risk of 

extreme fire behavior; and to reduce the risk and rate of fire spread to key and restoration habitats. 

9. Give priority for implementing specific sage-grouse habitat restoration projects in annual grasslands first to sites 

which are adjacent to or surrounded by sage-grouse key habitats. Annual grasslands are second priority for 

restoration when the sites not adjacent to key habitat, but within 2 miles of key habitat. The third priority for 

annual grasslands habitat restoration projects are sites beyond 2 miles of key habitat. The intent is to focus 

restoration outward from existing, intact habitat. 

10. As funding and logistics permit, restore annual grasslands to a species composition characterized by perennial 

grasses, forbs, and shrubs. 

11. Emphasize the use of native plant species, recognizing that non-native species may be necessary depending on

the availability of native seed and prevailing site conditions. 

12. Remove standing and encroaching trees within at least 100 meters of occupied sage-grouse leks and other 

habitats (e.g., nesting, wintering, and brood rearing) to reduce the availability of perch sites for avian predators, 

as appropriate, and resources permit. 

13. Protect wildland areas from wildfire originating on private lands, infrastructure corridors, and recreational areas. 

14. Reduce the risk of vehicle or human-caused wildfires and the spread of invasive species by planting perennial 

vegetation (e.g., green-strips) paralleling road rights-of-way. 

15. Strategically place and maintain pre-treated strips/areas (e.g., mowing, herbicide application, and strictly 

managed grazed strips) to ail in controlling wildfire should wildfire occur near key habitats or important 

restoration areas (such as where investments in restoration have already been made). 

Fire Rehabilitation

Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation (ES&R)

Prioritize native seed allocation for use in greater sage-grouse habitat in years when preferred native seed is in short 

supply. This may require reallocation of native seed from ES&R projects outside of priority greater sage-grouse habitat 

to those inside it. Use of native plant seeds for ES&R seedings is required based on availability, adaptation (site 

potential), and probability of success (Richards, et al. 1998). Where probability of success or native seed availability is 

low, non-native seeds may be used as long as they meet greater sage-grouse habitat conservation objectives (Pyke 2011). 

Re-establishment of appropriate sagebrush species/subspecies and important understory plants, relative to site potential, 

shall be the highest priority for rehabilitation efforts. 

Design post-ES&R management to ensure long term persistence of seeded or pre-burn native plants. This may require 

temporary or long-term changes in livestock grazing, wild horse and burro, and travel management, etc. to achieve and 

maintain the desired condition of ES&R projects to benefit greater sage-grouse.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix M

Mitigation/Conservation for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 1133

Consider potential changes in climate when proposing post-fire seedings using native plants. Consider seed collections 

from the warmer component within a species’ current range for selection of native seed.

Assure that long-term wildfire rehabilitation objectives are consistent with the desired natural plant community. 

Revegetate burned sites in greater sage-grouse habitat within one year unless natural recovery of the native plant 

community is expected. Areas disturbed by heavy equipment will be given priority consideration.

Emphasize native plant species adapted to the site that are readily available and economically and biologically feasible. 

Monitor the site and treat for noxious weeds. 

Restoration

Prioritize implementation of restoration projects based on environmental variables that improve chances for project 

success in areas most likely to benefit greater sage-grouse.

Prioritize restoration in seasonal habitats that are thought to be limiting sage-grouse distribution and/or abundance.

Include sage-grouse habitat parameters as defined by Connelly, et al. (2000); Hagen, et al. (2007) or, if available, state 

sage-grouse conservation plans and appropriate local information in habitat restoration objectives. 

Require use of native seeds for restoration based on availability, adaptation (ecological site potential), and probability of 

success. Where probability of success or adapted seed availability is low, non-native seeds may be used as long as they 

support greater sage-grouse habitat objectives.

Design post-restoration management to ensure long term persistence. This could include changes in livestock grazing 

management, wild horse and burro management and travel management, etc. to achieve and maintain the desired 

condition of the restoration effort that benefits greater sage-grouse.

Consider potential changes in climate when proposing restoration seedings when using native plants. Consider 

collection from the warmer component of the species current range when selecting native species.

Restore native plants and create landscape patterns which most benefit greater sage-grouse.

Make re-establishment of sagebrush cover and desirable understory plants (relative to ecological site potential) the 

highest priority for restoration efforts.

In fire prone areas where sagebrush seed is required for greater sage-grouse habitat restoration, consider establishing 

seed harvest areas that are managed for seed production and are a priority for protection from outside disturbances.

Map and inventory areas believed to be impacted by conifer expansion. If conifer encroachment is a concern, options for 

treatment include: 

 Prescribed fires when and where feasible, 

 Remove trees mechanically when feasible, and 

 Apply herbicides when and where feasible. 

Evaluate the site potential and desired condition, and develop specific objectives accordingly within specific landscapes. 

If sagebrush is lacking: 

 Develop and implement grazing practices that influence sagebrush growth, 

 Inter-seed historical breeding and winter habitats with the appropriate sagebrush species, 

 Identify and promote seed sources for habitat restoration efforts, 

 Reclaim and/or re-seed areas disturbed by treatments when necessary, and 
Appendix M HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1134 Mitigation/Conservation for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

 Promote sage plantings, where appropriate, on project areas occurring within greater sage-grouse habitats. 

If mature sagebrush dominates with suppressed herbaceous understory: 

 Identify areas of dense mature cover that do not appear to be serving as quality habitat and analyze these areas 

within the context of a larger landscape, 

 Design sagebrush treatments to be compatible with greater sage-grouse needs, 

 Develop specific objectives for greater sage-grouse in breeding or winter habitats, and 

 If treatment is deemed appropriated, interrupt seral stages within the appropriate patch size using the 

appropriate method, such as brush beating, chaining, chemical means, prescribed fire, etc. that is compatible 

with local conditions. 

If residual understory is lacking in sagebrush stands:

 Manage grazing by domestic livestock and wild herbivores to retain and promote adequate residual cover in all 

breeding habitats with an emphasis on nesting areas. 

 Ensure that grazing allotment plans include objectives for greater sage-grouse in sage-grouse habitats. 

 Monitor allotment plans and regulations, and make changes where necessary. 

 Include native grasses in all reclamation and restoration activities. 

Other Wildlife

Initiate studies to better understand greater sage-grouse mortality rates, the factors that influence these rates and the 

effectiveness of management actions to change them. These studies should determine the relationships between 

predation, habitat fragmentation, and habitat condition.

Implement actions to improve the structure and composition of sagebrush communities to meet desired conditions for 

greater sage-grouse seasonal habitats. 

Maintain and restore sagebrush communities where appropriate for greater sage-grouse populations. 

Reduce man-made issues and conifer encroachment in greater sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and wintering habitats. 

 Reduce the availability of predator “subsidies” such as human-made den sites (nonfunctioning culverts, old 

foundations, wood piles) and supplemental food sources (garbage dumps, spilled grains, etc.) that contribute to 

increased predator numbers.

 Placement of power poles should follow prescription detailed in the discussion transmission lines. 

 Placement of fences should follow prescriptions detailed in the discussion of grazing management, and 

 Treatment of conifer encroachment should be implemented in ways to minimize loss of sagebrush habitats. 

General Habitat

Within general habitat mitigation measures and conservation actions will mirror management actions in the selected 

alternative. Mitigation measures would be applied during activity level planning if an evaluation of the project area 

indicates the presence of important wildlife species seasonal wildlife habitat or other resource concern. Exceptions may 

be granted by the authorized officer if an environmental review demonstrates that effects could be mitigated to an 

acceptable level, habitat for the species is not present, or portions of the area can be occupied without affecting a 

particular species. Exceptions may also be granted where the short-term effects are mitigated by the long-term benefits 

(e.g., prescribed fire or forest health treatments).

In addition to actions below and in Chapter 2, best management practices for all resources may be found in Appendix C, 

and will help form the COAs applied to specific projects. These practices would be implemented at the discretion of the 

appropriate Field Office on a project-specific basis in general habitat, depending on the specific characteristics of the 

project area and the types of disturbance being proposed. They may not be appropriate to implement in all cases and in 

many cases may mirror those for priority habitat. Mitigation of surface-disturbing or disruptive activities would be 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix M

Mitigation/Conservation for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 1135

applied where needed to minimize impacts and could be applied consistent with the oil and gas stipulations outlined in 

the Fluid Minerals section of Chapter 2. The mitigation would be requirements, procedures, management practices or 

design features that the BLM, through issuance of the Record of Decision, would adopt as operational requirements. The 

BLM may add additional site-specific restrictions as deemed necessary by further environmental analysis and as 

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

Greater Sage-Grouse Leks

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible within 1 mile of greater sage-grouse leks.

Greater Sage-Grouse Nesting Habitat

Surface-disturbing or disruptive activities may be restricted or prohibited.

Prioritize activities based on suitability of habitat; construct projects that are in less suitable habitat (i.e., along existing 

roadways or within degraded habitats) during the breeding season, and construct projects located in more suitable habitat 

prior to or after the critical breeding season.

Avoid sagebrush, but if disturbance is necessary, interim reclamation should include sage plantings/seedings and/or the 

use of minimum disturbance practices to protect sage on well pads, pipelines, and other disturbances.

Manage produced water to reduce the spread of West Nile virus within greater sage-grouse habitat areas. 

Roads 

 Design roads to an appropriate standard no higher than necessary to accommodate their intended purpose.

 Do not issue ROWs to counties on energy development roads, unless for a temporary use consistent with all 

other terms and conditions included in this document.

 Establish speed limits to reduce vehicle/wildlife collisions or design roads to be driven at slower speeds.

 Coordinate road construction and use among ROW holders.

 Construct road crossing at right angles to ephemeral drainages and stream crossings.

 Use dust abatement practices on roads and pads.

 Close and reclaim duplicate roads, by restoring original landform and establishing desired vegetation.

Operations 

 Cluster disturbances, operations (fracture stimulation, liquids gathering, etc.), and facilities.

 Use directional and horizontal drilling to reduce surface disturbance.

 Clean up refuse.

 Restrict the construction of tall facilities and fences to the minimum number and amount needed. 

 Cover (e.g., fine mesh netting or use other effective techniques) all drilling and production pits and tanks 

regardless of size to reduce greater sage-grouse mortality.

 Equip tanks and other above-ground facilities with structures or devices that discourage nesting of raptors and 

corvids.

 Use remote monitoring techniques for production facilities and develop a plan to reduce the frequency of 

vehicle use.

 Control the spread and effects from non-native plant species. (e.g., by washing vehicles and equipment.)

 Mitigate pit and impoundment construction to reduce or eliminate augmenting threats from West Nile virus.

Include restoration objectives to meet greater sage-grouse habitat needs in reclamation practices/sites. Address postreclamation management in reclamation plans such that goals and objectives are to enhance or restore greater sagegrouse habitat.
Appendix M HiLine Draft RMP/EIS 

1136 Mitigation/Conservation for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Literature Cited 

Bergquist, E., P. Evangelista, T. J. Stohlgren, and N. Alley. 2007. Invasive species and coal bed methane development in 

the Powder River Basin, Wyoming. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 128:381-394.

Blickley, J.L., D. Blackwood, and G.L. Patricelli. In preparation. Experimental evidence for avoidance of chronic 

anthropogenic noise by greater sage-grouse. University of California-Davis, California, USA. 

Bui, T.D., J.M. Marzluff, and B. Bedrosian. 2010. Common raven activity in relation to land use in western Wyoming: 

implications for greater sage-grouse reproductive success. Condor 112:65-78.

Connelly, J.W., M.A Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun 2000. Guidelines to Manage Sage-grouse Populations and 

Their Habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967-985.

De Szalay, F.A. and V.H. Resh. 2000. Factors influencing macroinvertebrate colonization of seasonal wetlands: 

responses to emergent plant cover. Freshwater Biology. 45: 295-308.

Doherty, M.K. 2007. Mosquito populations in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming: a comparison of natural, agricultural 

and effluent coal bed natural gas aquatic habitats. M.S. Thesis. Montana State University, Bozeman, U.S.A. 

Evangelista, P.H., A.W. Crall, and E. Bergquist. 2011. Invasive plants and their response to energy development. Pages 

115-129 in D.E. Naugle, editor. Energy development and wildlife conservation in western North America. Island 

Press, Washington, D.C., USA. 

Gelbard, J.L., and J. Belnap. 2003. Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in a semiarid landscape. Conservation 

Biology 17:420-432.

Knight, R.L., W.E. Walton, G.F. Meara, W.K. Riesen and R. Wass. 2003. Strategies for effective mosquito control in 

constructed treatment wetlands. Ecological Engineering. 21: 211-232.

Lammers, W.M., and M.W. Collopy. 2007. Effectiveness of avian predator perch deterrents on electric transmission 

lines. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2752-2758.

Lyon, A.G. and S.H. Anderson. 2003. Potential gas development impacts on sage grouse nest initiation and movement. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 31: 486-491. 

Patricelli, G.L., J.L. Blickley, and S. Hooper. 2010. Incorporating the impacts of noise pollution into greater sage-grouse 

conservation planning. 27th Meeting of the Western Agencies Sage and Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Technical 

Committee Workshop. Twin Falls, Idaho, USA. 

Pyke, D.A. 2011. Restoring and rehabilitating sagebrush habitats. pp. 531-548 in S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly (editors). 

Greater sage-grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology 38. 

University of California Press. Berkeley, CA. 

Schmidtmann, E.T., R.J. Bobian, R.P. Beldin. 2000. Soil chemistries define aquatic habitats with immature populations 

of the Culicoides variipennis complex (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae). Journal of Medical Entomology. 37: 38-64.

Walton, W.E., and P.D. Workman. 1998. Effect of marsh design on the abundance of mosquitoes in experimental 

constructed wetlands in Southern California. Journal of the American mosquito control Association 14:95-107.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix N

Fish and Fisheries 1137

Appendix N

Fish and Fisheries

Table N.1

Fish Species in the HiLine Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name

BLM

Status

Endangered 

Species 

Status*

State of MT 

Species of 

Concern+

Arctic Grayling Thymallus arcticus

Bigmouth Buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus

Black Bullhead Ameiurus melas

Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus

Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus

Brassy Minnow Hybognathus hankinsoni PSOC

Brook Stickleback Culaea inconstans PSOC

Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis

Brown Trout Salmo trutta

Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus SENSITIVE LT SOC

Burbot Lota lota PSOC

Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus

Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha

Cisco Coregonus artedi

Columbia River Redband Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri SOC

Common Carp Cyprinus carpio

Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkii

Deepwater Sculpin Myoxocephalus thompsonii

Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides

Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas

Finescale Dace Phoxinus neogaeus

Flathead Chub Platygobio gracilis

Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens

Golden Shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas

Goldeye Hiodon alosoides

Goldfish Carassius auratus

Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus

Iowa Darter Etheostoma exile PSOC

Kokanee Salmon Oncorhynchus nerka

Lake Chub Couesius plumbeus

Lake Trout Salvelinus namaycush PSOC

Lake Whitefish Coregonus clupeaformis

Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides

Longnose Dace Rhinichthys cataractae
Appendix N HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1138 Fish and Fisheries

Table N.1

Fish Species in the HiLine Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name

BLM

Status

Endangered 

Species 

Status*

State of MT 

Species of 

Concern+

Longnose Sucker Catostomus catostomus

Mottled Sculpin Cottus bairdi

Mountain Sucker Catostomus platyrhynchus

Mountain Whitefish Prosopium williamsoni

Northern Pike Esox lucius

Northern Redbelly Dace Phoxinus eos PSOC

Northern Redbelly X Finescale 

Dace

Phoxinus eos x phoxinus 

neogaeus

SENSITIVE SOC

Paddlefish Polyodon spathula SENSITIVE SOC

Pallid Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus SENSITIVE LE SOC

Pearl Dace Margariscus margarita SENSITIVE SOC

Plains Minnow Hybognathus placitus PSOC

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus

Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss

River Carpsucker Carpiodes carpio

Sand Shiner Notropis stramineus

Sauger Sander canadensis SENSITIVE SOC

Shorthead Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum

Shorthead Sculpin Cottus confusus PSOC

Shorthead Sculpin X Slimy 

Sculpin Cottus confusus x cognatus

Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus

Shovelnose Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus platorynchus

Sicklefin Chub Macrhybopsis meeki

Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu

Smallmouth Buffalo Ictiobus bubalus

Spoonhead Sculpin Cottus ricei SOC

Spottail Shiner Notropis hudsonius

Stonecat Noturus flavus

Sturgeon Chub Macrhybopsis gelida SENSITIVE SOC

Tiger Muskellunge Esox masquinongy x lucius

Trout-perch Percopsis omiscomaycus SOC

Walleye Sander vitreus

Western Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis

Western Silvery Minnow Hybognathus argyritis

Westslope Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi SENSITIVE SOC

White Crappie Pomoxis annularis

White Sucker Catostomus commersoni

Yellow Perch Perca flavescens
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix N

Fish and Fisheries 1139

Table N.2

Fish-Bearing Streams in the HiLine Planning Area

Stream Name Total Miles Habitat Class Sport Class Final Value

Blaine County

Battle Creek 69.9 3 4 Substantial

Bean 35.7 4 5 Moderate

Bigworm 5.5 4 5 Moderate

Birch 9.8 6 5 Limited

Black Coulee 11.1 4 5 Moderate

Bull 5.5 6 5 Limited

Bullwacher 37.7 4 5 Moderate

Clear 46.8 3 3 Substantial

Cow 54.8 4 4 Moderate

Dry Fk Battle 1 6 5 Limited

Duck 11.4 6 5 Limited

E Branch 30 mile 1 6 5 Limited

East Fk Battle 1.1 6 5 Limited

Little Peoples 23.5 4 4 Moderate

Lodge 51.2 2 4 High Value

Lodgepole 31.2 4 4 Moderate

Lyons Coulee .5 6 5 Limited

Milk River 64.8 2 4 High Value

Murray Coulee 3.8 6 5 Limited

North Fk Cow 6.7 4 4 Moderate

Peoples 93.9 3 4 Substantial

Red Rock Coulee 21.4 3 5 Substantial

Sand 9.6 6 5 Limited

Snake 64.5 3 4 Substantial 

South Fk Cow 9.4 4 4 Moderate

Suction 1.3 6 5 Limited

Thirty-mile 6.3 6 5 Limited

Wind 1.0 N/A N/A N/A

Woodpile Coulee 5.8 3 4 Substantial

Wood Island Coulee 41.3 4 5 Moderate

Total 727.6

Chouteau County

Big Sandy 44.2 3 4 Substantial

Birch 1 6 5 Limited

Black Coulee 1 6 5 Limited

Box Elder 8.5 4 4 Moderate

Little Sandy 20.9 6 5 Limited

Marias 36.8 1 3 Outstanding

Missouri River 22 1 1 Outstanding

Pondera Coulee 6.2 6 5 Limited

Ranger 1.6 N/A N/A N/A

Sand 19.1 6 5 Limited

Teton 75.2 2 4 High Value

Total 236.5
Appendix N HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1140 Fish and Fisheries

Table N.2

Fish-Bearing Streams in the HiLine Planning Area

Stream Name Total Miles Habitat Class Sport Class Final Value

Glacier County

Allen 2.5 N/A N/A N/A

Apucini 1.5 N/A N/A N/A

Atlantic Creek 2.7 N/A N/A N/A

Badger Creek 32.4 4 4 Moderate

Baring Creek 0.6 N/A N/A N/A

Belly River 6 5 Limited

Birch Creek 4 4 Moderate

Boulder Creek 12.1 4 5 Moderate

Boundary Creek 7 6 5 Limited

Box Creek 4.4 4 4 Moderate

Camp Creek 2.5 N/A N/A N/A

Canyon Creek 5.9 6 5 Limited

Cataract Creek 6.6 N/A N/A N/A

Cleveland Creek 3.4 N/A N/A N/A

Coonsa Creek 3.6 6 5 Limited

Cutbank Creek 22.9 3 4 Substantial

Divide Creek 10.4 4 5 Moderate

Dry Fork 6.2 6 5 Moderate

East Fork Lee Creek 5.3 N/A N/A N/A

East Fork Woods Creek 0.6 3 4 Substantial

Fortymile Creek 3.5 N/A N/A N/A

Fortyone Mile Creek 2.5 N/A N/A N/A

Hall Creek 2.5 4 4 Moderate

Hyde Creek 5.2 4 4 Moderate

Jule Creek 2.1 N/A N/A N/A

Kennedy Creek 14.2 4 5 Moderate

Kootenai 3.8 N/A N/A N/A

Lake Creek 7.5 N/A N/A N/A

Lee Creek 7.8 4 5 Moderate

Marias River 2.3 3 4 Substantial

Middle Fork Lee Creek 2.7 6 5 Limited

Midvale Creek 10.5 6 5 Limited

Mokowanis River 9.8 6 5 Limited

North Fork Belly River 5.6 6 5 Limited

North Fork Cut Bank Creek 27 6 5 Limited

North Fork Little Badger Creek 5.7 3 4 Moderate

North Fork Milk River 1.1 6 5 Limited

Olson Creek 6.5 6 5 Limited

Otatso Creek 11.2 4 5 Moderate

Paradise Creek 5.7 6 5 Limited

Pass Creek 2.2 N/A N/A N/A

Railroad Creek 9.3 4 4 Moderate

Red Eagle Creek 14.7 6 5 Limited

Roberts Creek 5 N/A N/A N/A
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix N

Fish and Fisheries 1141

Table N.2

Fish-Bearing Streams in the HiLine Planning Area

Stream Name Total Miles Habitat Class Sport Class Final Value

Rose Creek 1.7 6 5 Limited

St. Mary River 34 4 5 Moderate

So. Fork Two Medicine River 18.8 4 4 Moderate

South Fork Valentine Creek 3 6 5 Limited

Street Creek 1.1 6 5 Limited

Summit Creek 4.8 4 3 Substantial

Swiftcurrent Creek 13.6 6 5 Limited

Two Dog Creek 0.7 N/A N/A N/A

Two Medicine River 0.3 2 4 High-Value

Valentine Creek 6.9 6 5 Limited

Virginia Creek 4.1 N/A N/A N/A

Waterton River 17.4 6 5 Limited

Whitecrow Creek 2.4 6 5 Limited

Whiterock Creek 0.3 3 4 Substantial

Wilbur Creek 2.5 6 5 Limited

Wild Creek 2.4 N/A N/A N/A

Woods Creek 1.4 3 4 Substantial

Total 405.4

Hill County

Beaver Creek 41 3 4 Substantial

Big Sandy Creek 53.1 3 4 Substantial

Black Coulee 1 6 5 Limited

Boxelder Creek 19.7 4 4 Moderate

Eagle Creek 1 4 5 Moderate

East Fork Beaver Creek 2.3 4 3 Substantial

Kennedy Coulee 1.1 6 5 Limited

Little Boxelder Creek 42.9 4 4 Moderate

Lodge Creek 30.1 2 4 High-Value

Marias River 11 2 3 High-Value

Milk River 62.4 2 4 High-Value

Ranger Creek 1.5 N/A N/A N/A

Redrock Coulee 3.1 3 5 Substantial

Sage Creek 102.8 4 5 Moderate

Woodpile Coulee 8.3 3 4 Substantial

Total 381.3

Liberty County

Breed Creek 1 6 5 Limited

Cottonwood Creek 1 6 5 Limited

Eagle Creek 3 6 5 Limited

Marias River 46 2 3 High-Value

Pondera Coulee 1.4 6 5 Limited

Sage Creek 31.2 4 5 Moderate

Total 82.6

Phillips County

Alkali Creek 27 4 5 Moderate
Appendix N HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1142 Fish and Fisheries

Table N.2

Fish-Bearing Streams in the HiLine Planning Area

Stream Name Total Miles Habitat Class Sport Class Final Value

Assiniboine 4.4 6 5 Limited

Beauchamp Creek 1 6 5 Limited

Beaver Creek 219.9 3 4 Substantial

Big Warm Creek 64.5 4 5 Moderate

Black Coulee 6.1 4 5 Moderate

Button Butte Coulee 1 N/A N/A N/A

C K Creek 1 6 5 Limited

Coburg Coulee 1.1 N/A N/A N/A

Cottonwood Coulee 1 6 5 Limited

Cottonwood Creek 54.1 4 5 Moderate

Dodson Creek 0.6 6 5 Limited

Flat Creek 1 6 5 Limited

Fourchette Creek 39.7 3 4 Substantial

Frenchman Creek 74 3 4 Substantial

Garland Creek 4 4 5 Moderate

Joiner Coulee 1 N/A N/A N/A

Kill Woman Creek 1 N/A N/A N/A

Larb Creek 15.2 4 5 Moderate

Lemere Coulee 0.9 N/A N/A N/A

Little Cottonwood Creek 1.2 6 5 Limited

Little Warm Creek 2 6 5 Limited

Lodge Pole Creek 3.9 4 4 Moderate

Milk River 64.8 2 4 High-Value

Peoples Creek 18.5 4 4 Moderate

Rock Creek 1 6 5 Limited

Sage Creek 1 6 5 Limited

Second Creek 1.1 6 5 Limited

Sevenmile Creek 29.2 6 5 Limited

Siparyann Creek 1 6 5 Limited

Stinky Creek 1 6 5 Limited

Telegraph Creek 1 6 5 Limited

Whitewater Creek 62.3 4 5 Moderate

Windmill Coulee 1 N/A N/A N/A

Woody Island Coulee 21.9 4 5 Moderate

Total 729.4

Toole County

Dry Fork Marias River 2.2 4 5 Moderate

Marias River 78 3 4 Substantial

Miners Coulee 1.1 6 5 Limited

Trail Creek 1.1 6 5 Limited

Willow Creek 5.9 3 4 Substantial

Total 88.3

Valley County

Antelope Creek 25.7 4 5 Moderate

Bear Creek 3 6 5 Limited
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix N

Fish and Fisheries 1143

Table N.2

Fish-Bearing Streams in the HiLine Planning Area

Stream Name Total Miles Habitat Class Sport Class Final Value

Beaver Creek 25.8 3 4 Substantial

Bluff Creek 1 6 5 Limited

Brazil Creek 32.6 4 5 Moderate

Buggy Creek 1 N/A N/A N/A

Canyon Creek 1 N/A N/A N/A

Cherry Creek 38.2 3 4 Substantial

Chisholm Creek 1 N/A N/A N/A

Coal Creek 3.8 4 5 Moderate

Cow Coulee 1 N/A N/A N/A

Crow Creek 2.8 6 5 Limited

Deep Creek 1 6 5 Limited

Desert Coulee 2.1 N/A N/A N/A

Dry Fork Creek 1 6 5 Limited

Eagle Creek 15.9 4 5 Moderate

East Fork Crow Creek 1.1 6 5 Limited

East Fork Little Porcupine 

Creek 1.3 6 5 Limited

Frenchman Creek 3.6 3 4 Substantial

Hardscrabble Creek 1 N/A N/A N/A

Larb Creek 36.2 4 5 Moderate

Little Brazil Creek 1 N/A N/A N/A

Little Porcupine Creek 45.2 6 5 Limited

Lone Tree Coulee 1 N/A N/A N/A

Morgan Creek 1 N/A N/A N/A

North Fork Antelope Creek 1 N/A N/A N/A

North Fork Lone Tree Creek 13.8 N/A N/A N/A

North Fork South Creek 1 N/A N/A N/A

Porcupine Creek 45.8 3 4 Substantial

Roanwood Creek 1 N/A N/A N/A

Rock Creek 92.7 3 4 Substantial

Snake Creek 1.1 6 5 Limited

Snow Coulee 1 6 5 Limited

Spring Coulee 1 6 5 Limited

Sutherland Creek 1 6 5 Limited

Timber Creek 16.3 4 5 Moderate

West Fork Poplar River 21.1 2 4 High-Value

West Fork Porcupine Creek 25.8 4 4 Moderate

Willow Creek 49.2 4 5 Moderate

Willow Creek (Rock Creek 

Trib) 59.9 4 5 Moderate

Total 580
Appendix N HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1144 Fish and Fisheries

Table N.3

Fishing Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs in the HiLine Planning Area

Name Fish Type BLM Surface Ownership

Blaine County

ALS Rsvr Trout

BR-12 Warm/cool water species X

Cow Cr Warm/cool water species

Faber Trout and warm/cool water species

Grasshopper Trout

Kuhr Warm/cool water species

Lyons Warm/cool water species

Twin Warm/cool water species

Billmayer Warm/cool water species

Brookie Trout

Bus Winterkilled X

Butch Trout and warm/cool water species

Choteau Trout and warm/cool water species

Don Warm/cool water species X

Dry Fork Trout and warm/cool water species X

Floyd Fynn Trout and warm/cool water species

FR Winterkilled X

Gazob Winterkilled X

Jenson Trout

N. Faber Trout X

Petrie Pond Trout

Reser Trout X

Ridge Winterkilled X

Ross Trout

Salmo Trout and warm/cool water species X

South Cassidy – BR 19 Warm/cool water species Blaine

Sundance Winterkilled

Chouteau County

Dry Fork Trout and warm/cool water species

Glacier County

Bullhead Trout

Cameron Trout

Cosley Trout

Cracker Trout

Duck Trout

Elizabeth Trout

Flattop Trout

Four Horns Trout

Glenns Trout

Grinnell Trout

Gunsight Trout

Hidden Trout

Hope Trout
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix N

Fish and Fisheries 1145

Table N.3

Fishing Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs in the HiLine Planning Area

Name Fish Type BLM Surface Ownership

Katoya Trout

Kipp Trout

Kootenai Trout

Lake Francis Trout

Lake Janet Trout

Lake Josephine Trout

Lost Trout

Lower St. Mary Trout

Margaret Trout

Medicine-Grizzly Trout

Mokowanis Trout

Morning Star Trout

No Name Trout

Old Man Trout

Otatso Trout

Otokoni Trout

Pray Trout

Ptarmagin Trout

Red Eagle Trout

Sherburne Trout and warm/cool water species

Slide Trout

St. Mary Trout and warm/cool water species

Stoney Indian Trout

Stump Trout

Swift current Trout

Twin Lakes Trout

Two Medicine Trout

Upper Mission Trout

Upper Two Medicine Trout

Waterton Trout and warm/cool water species

Wind Maker Trout

Hill County

Bailey Warm/cool water species

Bearpaw Trout

Beaver Trout and warm/cool water species

Fresno Trout and warm/cool water species

Sawmill Coulee Warm/cool water species

Normandy Coulee Pond Trout

East Fork Trout

Liberty County

Duncan Trout

Phillips County

Barrett Rsvr Warm/cool water species

Bell Ridge Winterkilled X

Batosh Trout X
Appendix N HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1146 Fish and Fisheries

Table N.3

Fishing Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs in the HiLine Planning Area

Name Fish Type BLM Surface Ownership

Bison Bone Warm/cool water species X

Bresaylor Warm/cool water species X

Buddy Winterkilled X

Cole Pond Warm/cool water species

Compton Winterkilled X

Current Trout X

Dog Town Winterkilled X

Doucette Winterkilled X

Ester Lake Warm/cool water species

Flake Trout (restocked in 2011) X

Frenchman Warm/cool water species

Gullwing Winterkilled X

Hart Trout

Karsten Coulee Warm/cool water species X

King Trout X

Lark Warm/cool water species X

Little Warm Warm/cool water species

Loader Winterkilled X

McChesney Warm/cool water species

Nelson Warm/cool water species

Paleface Trout and warm/cool water species X

The Plunge Warm/cool water species

Plutz Trout X

PR 16 Winterkilled X

PR 18 Warm/cool water species X

PR 20 Warm/cool water species X

PR 22 Winterkilled X

PR 54 Warm/cool water species X

PR 109A Winterkilled X

Rebate Trout X

Rotator Cup Winterkilled X

Saddle Brook Pond Trout

Sagebrush Trout and warm/cool water species X

Sentinel Trout X

Seven-up Winterkilled X

Shallow Trout X

Shoulder Blade Winterkilled X

Smith Warm/cool water species

Spanky Winterkilled X

Taint Warm/cool water species X

Thundercloud Trout and warm/cool water species X

Ulrich Winterkilled

Wapiti Warm/cool water species X

Wedding Winterkilled X

Whiteface Warm/cool water species X
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix N

Fish and Fisheries 1147

Table N.3

Fishing Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs in the HiLine Planning Area

Name Fish Type BLM Surface Ownership

Wrangler Trout and warm/cool water species X

Toole County

Aloe Warm/cool water species

Cameron Trout

Coxs Trout

Devon Trout and warm/cool water species

Fitzpatrick Trout

Shelby Kids Pond Trout

Tiber Trout and warm/cool water species

Westmarks #1 Trout

Westmarks #2 Trout

Valley County

Atlas Warm/cool water species X

Big Winterkilled X

Boucher Trout

Chapman Warm/cool water species

COE Campsite Trout

Fast Warm/cool water species

Flat Warm/cool water species

Fort Peck Lake Trout and warm/cool water species

Fort Peck Trout Pond Warm/cool water species

Frazer Lake Trout and warm/cool water species

Gay Winterkilled X

Glasgow Base Pond Warm/cool water species

Helen Warm/cool water species X

Home Run Pond Trout

Hose Trout X

Langen Warm/cool water species X

Lunch Winterkilled X

Midway Warm/cool water species

O’juel Lake Trout

Paul Warm/cool water species

Paulo Warm/cool water species X

Shoot Winterkilled X

Snow Winterkilled

Triple Crossing Winterkilled X

Valley Trout and warm/cool water species X

VR9 Trout X

Wards Warm/cool water species X

Whitetail Warm/cool water species
Appendix N HiLine Draft RMP/EIS 

1148 Fish and Fisheries

Table N.4

Game Fish in the HiLine Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name

Record Size in Montana

through April 2012

Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus 3.63 lbs.

Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 3.13 lbs.

Brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis 9.06 lbs.

Brown trout Salmo trutta 29.00 lbs.

Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus 25.63 lbs.

Burbot Lota lota 17.08 lbs.

Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus 30.12 lbs.

Chinook salmon Onchorhychus tshawytscha 31.13 lbs.

Cisco Coregonus artedi 1.75 lbs.

Kokanee salmon Onchorhychus nerka 7.85 lbs.

Lake trout Salvelinus namaycush 42.69 lbs.

Lake whitefish Coregonus clupeaformis 10.46 lbs.

Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 8.80 lbs.

Mountain whitefish Prosopium williamsoni 5.11 lbs.

Northern pike Esox lucius 37.50 lbs.

Paddlefish Polydon spathula 142.50 lbs.

Pallid sturgeon Scaphirhychus albus 60.00 lbs.

Rainbow trout Onchorhychus mykiss 33.10 lbs.

Sauger Stizostedion canadense 8.81 lbs.

Shovelnose sturgeon Scaphirhychus platorynchus 14.125 lbs.

Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu 6.66 lbs.

Walleye Stizostedion vitreum 17.75 lbs.

White crappie Pomoxis annularis 3.68 lbs.

Yellow perch Perca flavescens 2.39 lbs.

Yellowstone cutthroat trout Onchorhynchus clarki bouvieri 16.00 lbs.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix N

Fish and Fisheries 1149

Table N.5

Pearl Dace, Northern Redbelly Dace x Finescale Dace Hybrid,

Northern Redbelly Dace, and Finescale Dace

Stream/Lake Tributary of: County Location

BLM Surface 

Ownership

Pearl Dace

Assiniboine Creek Milk River Phillips X

Cottonwood Creek Milk River Phillips X

Eagle Creek Missouri River Chouteau X

Larb Creek Beaver Creek Valley X

Lodge Creek Milk River Blaine X

Milk River Missouri River Blaine X

Porcupine Creek Milk River Valley X

Snake Creek Milk River Blaine

Whitewater Creek Milk River Phillips X

Northern Redbelly Dace, Northern Redbelly Dace x Finescale Dace Hybrid

Assiniboine Creek Milk River Phillips X

Cherry Creek Milk River Valley X

Crow Creek Rock Creek Valley X

Eagle Creek Missouri River Chouteau X

East Fork Little Porcupine Creek Little Porcupine Creek Valley

Garland Creek Cottonwood Creek Phillips X

Lodge Creek Milk River Blaine, Hill X

Porcupine Creek Milk River Valley X

Siparyann Creek Missouri River Phillips

Snake Creek Milk River Blaine

Northern Redbelly Dace (also found in the hybrid streams above)

Alkali Creek Milk River Phillips X

Antelope Creek Milk River Valley

Battle Creek Milk River Blaine X

Bearpaw Lake Beaver Creek Hill

Beaver Creek Milk River Phillips, Hill, Valley X

Big Sandy Creek Milk River Chouteau, Hill

Big Warm Creek Beaver Creek Blaine, Phillips X

Bullhook Creek Milk River Hill

Cameron Lake Fourmile Coulee Toole

Clear Creek Milk River Blaine

Cottonwood Creek Milk River Phillips

East Fork Beaver Creek Beaver Creek Hill

Frenchman Creek Milk River Phillips, Valley X

Larb Creek Beaver Creek Phillips, Valley X

Little Box Elder Creek Milk River Hill X

Little Porcupine Creek Missouri River Valley
Appendix N HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1150 Fish and Fisheries

Table N.5

Pearl Dace, Northern Redbelly Dace x Finescale Dace Hybrid,

Northern Redbelly Dace, and Finescale Dace

Stream/Lake Tributary of: County Location

BLM Surface 

Ownership

Little Warm Creek Big Warm Creek Phillips

Lodge Pole Creek South Fork Peoples Creek Blaine, Phillips X

Milk River Missouri River Blaine, Hill, Phillips, Valley X

Miners Coulee Willow Creek Toole

Peoples Creek Milk River Blaine

Redrock Coulee Milk River Blaine, Hill X

Snake Creek Milk River Blaine

Stinky Creek Milk River Phillips X

Timber Creek Missouri River Valley X

West Fork Poplar Creek Poplar River Valley

Whitewater Creek Milk River Phillips X

Willow Creek Milk River Valley X

Woodpile Creek Battle Creek Blaine, Hill

Woody Island Coulee Cottonwood Phillips X

Finescale Dace

Whitewater Creek Milk River Phillips
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix O 

Wind Energy RFD 1151 

Appendix O 

Wind Energy 

Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario 

Introduction

This Reasonable Foreseeable Development (RFD) scenario for commercial wind energy development in the planning 

area describes existing, proposed, and potential wind farms. Specific data from a wind farm proposal in the planning 

area that is no longer under consideration were used for hypothetical modeling of potential future wind farms. This RFD 

is the basis for assessing cumulative impacts from the potential for future wind farms on BLM land. 

Potential 

The potential for commercial wind energy development in the planning area is based on the methods used in the Final 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy Development (BLM 2005). Areas are grouped by wind 

power class, which is an indicator of likely resource strength, with a higher wind power class representing higher wind 

resource levels. Wind power classes are divided into seven classes: poor, marginal, fair, good, excellent, outstanding 

and superb. 

The seven wind power classes are further grouped into three distinct levels: high, moderate and low potential for wind 

power resources (Table O.1). Included in the low potential are the poor and marginal wind power classes; the fair wind 

power class is included in the moderate potential; and good, excellent, outstanding and superb are grouped within the 

high potential category. 

Table O.1

Wind Power Classes Converted to Development Potential

Wind Power Class

Resource Potential

(Utility Scale)

50m Wind Power 

Density (W/m2)

Development 

Potential

(20 Years) % of Planning Area

% of Development 

Potential that is 

BLM Surface 

Ownership

1 Poor 0-200

Low 9% 16%

2 Marginal 200-300

3 Fair 300-400 Moderate 52% 22%

4 Good 400-500

High 39% 6%

5 Excellent 500-600

6 Outstanding 600-800

7 Superb >800

The high, moderate and low development potential areas are shown on Map O.1 (located at the end of this Appendix O) 

and surface ownership is delineated in Table O.2. The percentage of high potential acres managed by the BLM is 2% of 

the planning area; 11% of moderate potential is managed by the BLM; and 1% of low potential is managed by the BLM. 

The majority of high potential acres for wind resources are located in the western third of the planning area (Glacier, 

Toole and Liberty Counties), which has the least amount of BLM land. Two large polygons of high potential are located 

in Blaine County, which includes scattered tracts of BLM land. A block of high potential acreage lies in southwest 

Phillips County. This block coincides with the Little Rocky Mountains, both on and off the Fort Belknap Indian 

Reservation and BLM land. Another large block of high potential acreage lies in northeast Valley County, which 
Appendix O HiLine Draft RMP/EIS 

1152 Wind Energy RFD 

includes only a couple of small tracts of BLM land. Very few low potential areas are managed by BLM. The remainder 

of the area has moderate potential for wind resources; the majority of BLM land falls within this category. 

Table O.2

Land Ownership in High, Moderate and Low Development Potential Areas

(Acres)

High Moderate Low Total

BLM 366,000 1,841,000 235,000 2,442,000

Fish and Wildlife Service 27,000 149,000 225,000 401,000

National Park Service 182,000 42,000 149,000 373,000

Other (Private, State) 5,570,000 6,244,000 844,000 12,658,000

Total 6,145,000 8,276,000 1,453,000 15,874,000

Qualified Resource Areas 

The Western Renewable Energy Zones – Phase 1 Report identified two qualified resource areas (QRAs) in the planning 

area (WGA and DOE 2009). Qualified resource areas represent those lands with the greatest energy density within a 

contiguous area. The QRAs are located in the western and central part of the planning area (Figure O.1). One of the 

QRAs (MT_NW) includes the Sweet Grass Hills and Kevin Rim ACECs and areas west and southwest of the ACECs. 

The other QRA (MT_NE) includes BLM land in the Little Rocky Mountains and areas northwest and southwest of the 

mountains. The QRAs include about 3,052,200 acres, of which 1,723,000 acres (56%) are within the planning area and 

about 31,000 acres are BLM land (1%) (Table O.3). 

Table O.3

Qualified Resource Areas for Renewable Energy

Name

Total Area

(acres)

Planning Area

(acres)

BLM Land

(acres)

MT_NW 2,001,870 1,092,856 15,999

MT_NE 1,050,316 630,150 15,125

Total 3,052,186 1,723,006 31,123

Operating and Proposed Wind Farms 

At this time no existing or proposed wind farms are located on BLM land; however, several wind farms in varying stages 

of planning are located on lands not managed by the BLM. These wind farms have the potential to expand, and 

therefore, future wind farms and/or associated facilities (i.e., transmission lines) could occur on BLM land. Currently, 

renewable energy development in the proximity of the Interstate 15 corridor, where a new transmission line is being 

constructed to make the produced wind energy available for the power grid, is limited to wind energy development on 

private lands. 

Operating Wind Farms 

Two wind farms are located within planning area, two are operating in Montana near the planning area, and 18 are 

operating in Canada near the planning area (Table 0.4). The four Montana wind farms are located on private land. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix O 

Wind Energy RFD 1153 

Figure O.1 Qualified Resource Areas (QRA) in the Planning Area 
Appendix O HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1154 Wind Energy RFD

Table O.4

Operating Wind Farms In and Near the HiLine Planning Area

Operating Wind Farm Owner Location

No. of 

Turbines

Energy 

Production 

Per Turbine

Total Energy 

Production Status

Montana – In the HiLine Planning Area

Glacier I NaturEner Near Ethridge in Toole and Glacier Counties 71 1.5 MW 106.5 MW Operating

Glacier II NaturEner Near Ethridge in Toole and Glacier Counties 69 1.5 MW 103.5 MW Operating

Montana – Near the HiLine Planning Area

Horseshoe Bend Exergy West of Great Falls in Cascade County 6 1.5 MW 9 MW Operating

Judith Gap I Invenergy South of Judith Gap in Wheatland County 90 1.5 MW 135 MW Operating

Alberta, Canada – Near the HiLine Planning Area

Blue Trail TransAlta Near Fort MacLeod 22 3 MW 66 MW Operating

Castle River TransAlta Near Pincher Creek 59 660 kW 38.9 MW Operating

Chin Chute Suncor/Acciona/Enbridge Southwest of Taber 20 1.5 MW 30 MW Operating

Cowley Ridge TransAlta Near Pincher Creek 57 375 kW 21.4 MW Operating

Cowley Ridge North TransAlta Near Pincher Creek 15 1,300 kW 19.5 MW Operating

Kettle Hills I Enmax Near Pincher Creek 5 1.8 MW 9 MW Operating

Kettle Hills II Enmax Near Pincher Creek 30 1.8 MW 54 MW Operating

Magrath Suncor/Enbridge/EHN Near Magrath 20 1.5 MW 30 MW Operating

McBride Lake Enmax/TransAlta Near McBride Lake 114 660 kW 75.2 MW Operating

Sinnott TransAlta Near Pincher Station 5 1,300 kW 6.5 MW Operating

Soderglen Nexen/TransAlta Near Fort McLeod 47 1.5 MW 70.5 MW Operating

Summerview TransAlta Near Pincher Creek 38 1.8 MW 68.4 MW Operating

Summerview 2 TransAlta Near Pincher Creek 22 3 MW 66 MW Operating

Taber Enmax Near Taber 37 2.2 MW 81.4 MW Operating

Taylor TransAlta Near Magrath 9 375 kW 3.38 MW Operating

Saskatchewan, Canada – Near the HiLine Planning Area

Centennial SaskPower International Near Swift Current 83 1.8 MW 149.4 MW Operating

Cypress SaskPower International Near Gull Lake 16 660 kW 10.6 MW Operating

Sunbridge Suncor/Enbridge Near Swift Current 17 660 kW 11.2 MW Operating
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix O 

Wind Energy RFD 1155 

Proposed Wind Farms 

Three wind farms are proposed to be built on private land near the planning area (Table O.5). More than a dozen 

potential wind farms located on private or state land are in the initial phases of testing, but no proposal has been 

submitted for permitting.

Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario 

In addition to the methodology described above for determining high, moderate and low development potential areas, the 

BLM previously analyzed the proposed Valley County Wind Farm, which was dropped from consideration, for the 

hypothetical modeling of potential future wind farms on BLM land (BLM 2006). The Valley County Wind Farm was 

initially proposed as a 33 turbine wind farm, 1.5 MW each and capable of producing 50 MW of energy. The 

development proposal grew in scale to include three more phases, each increasing the amount of turbines and energy 

capacity resulting in a four-phase, 334 turbine wind farm capable of producing 500 MW of energy. The Valley County 

Wind Farm was proposed initially on private land immediately south of the Bitter Creek Wilderness Study Area (WSA). 

However, later phases and the approximately 30 mile transmission line would have been located on BLM land. Table 

O.6 shows the projected temporary and permanent ground disturbance acreage for each phase of the Valley County Wind 

Farm development. 

Hypothetical Wind Farms 

To determine the reasonable foreseeable commercial wind energy development scenario for the planning area, two types 

of wind farms were hypothetically described. Table O.7 shows two hypothetical wind farms, one small and one large 

that are somewhat representative of potential future development. These two wind farms are based on the Phase II and 

Phase IV proposals of the Valley County Wind Farm. It is assumed that the two wind farms would be located in high or 

moderate development potential areas for wind resources. 

In addition to turbines, it is expected that collector substations, collector systems, new access roads, internal road 

networks, turbine string turnaround areas, turbine foundations, pad-mounted transformers, material staging areas and 

operations and maintenance buildings would be included in a wind farm proposal as associated facilities. 

A small wind farm is expected to utilize 2,800 acres of land as a general “footprint” for construction staging areas, 

turbines, and associated facilities. These associated facilities are assumed to create 200 acres of short-term surface 

disturbance and 48 acres of long-term surface disturbance (post reclamation) for a small wind farm proposal. 

A large wind farm is expected to utilize 10,706 acres for construction staging areas, turbines, and associated facilities. 

The acres of surface disturbance for a large wind farm would be 727 acres of short-term surface disturbance and 183 

acres of long-term surface disturbance (post reclamation). 

The associated transmission lines may or may not be sited on BLM land. This would depend on the location of the wind 

farm to existing transmission lines. Two transmission lines (Highway 89 and Highway 2) are capable of transporting 

power to the grid within the planning area. Because of the expense associated with transmission lines, it is assumed that 

siting of potential wind farms would be near existing lines rather than far from existing lines, which would require new 

transmission lines. 

The increased need for energy and reducing American reliance on foreign energy resources will most likely increase the 

demand for wind farms. If that trend continues the hypothetical model for either small or large wind farms could occur. 
Appendix O HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1156 Wind Energy RFD

Table O.5

Proposed Wind Farms in Montana Near the HiLine Planning Area

Proposed

Wind Farm Owner Location No. of Turbines

Energy Production 

Per Turbine

Total Energy 

Production Status

Big Otter Invenergy Near Belt in Cascade County 16 1.5 MW 24 MW Proposed1

Judith Gap II Invenergy South of Judith Gap in Wheatland County 35 1.5 MW 52.5 MW Permitting Stage

Martinsdale I Horizon Wind 

Energy

Near Martinsdale in Wheatland and Meagher 

Counties 27 2.1 MW 58 MW Permitting Stage

Rimrock NaturEner North of Glacier Wind Projects 206 1.5 MW 309 MW Proposed2

1

In December 2010 the Cascade County Zoning Board granted Invenergy a special use permit to begin construction of the Big Otter wind farm within 18 

months. 

2

Proposed based on construction and operation of Montana-Alberta Tie Line (MATL) between Great Falls and Lethbridge, Alberta. 

Table O.6

Valley County Wind Farm

Temporary and Permanent Ground Disturbance by Wind Farm Phase

Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Full Build-Out

Number of Turbines 33 63 104 134 334

Acres 1,094 2,800 5,520 10,706 20,120

Power Generated (MW) 50 100 150 200 500

Acres of Disturbance

Temporary Permanent Subtotal Temporary Permanent Subtotal Temporary Permanent Subtotal Temporary Permanent Subtotal Temporary Permanent Subtotal

O&M Buildings 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4

Collector Substation 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3

Collector System 6.8 0 6.8 10.8 0 10.8 22.4 0 22.4 41.6 0 41.6 81.6 0 81.6

New Access Road 8.7 5.8 14.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.7 5.8 14.5

Internal Road Network 8 14.4 22.4 12.7 22.9 35.6 25.2 45.4 70.6 49 88.1 137.1 94.9 170.8 265.7

Turbine String 

Turnaround Area 0.8 0 0.8 5.2 0 5.2 4.4 0 4.4 11.6 0 11.6 22 0 22

Wind Turbine 

Foundations 0 0.1 0.1 0 0.2 0.2 0 0.3 0.3 0 0.4 0.4 0 1 1

Pad-Mounted 

Transformers 0 0.1 0.1 0 0.2 0.2 0 0.3 0.3 0 0.4 0.4 0 1 1

Turbine Work 

Areas/Material Staging 33 0 33 63 0 63 104 0 104 134 0 134 334 0 334

Total Acres 60.3 24.4 84.7 91.7 23.3 115 156 46 202 236.2 88.9 325.1 544.2 192.6 726.8

Source: Valley County Wind Energy Project Public Review EA, June 2006 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix O

Wind Energy RFD 1157

Table O.7

Small and Large Hypothetical Models and Associated Facilities

(Not Including Potential Transmission Lines)

Small Large

Number of Turbines 63 134

Overall Area (acres) 2,800 10,706

Power Generated (MW) 100 200

Surface Disturbance (Acres) Surface Disturbance (Acres)

Short-Term Long-Term Reclaim Short-Term Long-Term Reclaim

Operation and Maintenance Buildings 4 2 2 4 2 2

Collector Substation 3 1 2 3 1 2

Collector System 11 0 11 82 0 82

New Access Road 15 9 6 15 9 6

Internal Road Network 36 23 13 266 171 95

Turbine String Turnaround Area 5 0 5 22 0 22

Wind Turbine Foundations 0.2 0.2 0 1 1 0

Pad-Mounted Transformers 0.2 0.2 0 1 1 0

Turbine Work Areas/Material Staging 63 0 63 334 0 334

Total 133 33 100 724 183 541
Link to Map 0.1 - Wind Energy Development Potentials
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix P

Locatable Mineral Resources RFD 1159

Appendix P

Locatable Mineral Resources

Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario

Introduction

Purpose

The purpose of this Reasonable Foreseeable Development scenario (RFD) is to provide a model that anticipates the level 

and type of future locatable minerals activity in the HiLine planning area and serve as a basis for cumulative impacts 

analysis. The RFD first describes the main legal framework of mineral development, the Mining Law of 1872. Next is a 

discussion of the steps involved in developing a mineral deposit. The current activity levels are briefly addressed. 

Future trends and assumptions affecting mineral activity are then addressed, followed by predictions and identification of 

anticipated mineral exploration and development. The RFD is based on the current management situation. The Future 

Activity section describes variations in the RFD by alternative.

Scope

The RFD is based on the known or inferred mineral resource capabilities of the lands involved, and applies conditions 

and assumptions discussed under Future Trends and Assumptions. Changes in available geologic data and/or economic 

conditions would alter the RFD, and some deviation is to be expected over time.

The mineral development discussed within this RFD includes only locatable minerals as described in Chapter 2, and the 

development scenario is limited in scope to the planning area. The mineral commodities that could see future activity are 

gold, silver and bentonite. Although there is some minor activity regarding rare earths, gems, and diamonds, the RFD 

will pay special attention to hardrock and bentonite mining since the activity coincides with large amounts of BLM land 

ownership.

The types of lands analyzed in this RFD are restricted to only federal surface and federal minerals administered by the 

BLM. Activities on private, state, or Forest Service lands are considered when BLM lands or minerals are nearby and 

may be involved or affected.

Within the HiLine planning area, the BLM manages about 2.4 million acres of BLM land and 3.8 million acres of federal 

mineral estate. The acres of BLM-administered surface and mineral estate by county (within the planning area) are

shown in Table P.1.

Table P.1

BLM-Administered Surface and Mineral Estate by County (Acres)

County

Blaine Chouteau Glacier Hill Liberty Phillips Toole Valley Total

Mineral 

Estate 612,101 158,014 6,181 122,732 54,404 1,465,009 116,180 1,229,261 3,763,882

BLM 

Surface 300,019 45,230 1,060 14,558 7,620 1,030,895 27,368 1,014,518 2,441,268

Resource Area

The areas with the highest levels of mineral development potential for hardrock mineral occurrences are the alkalic 

igneous intrusive centers in the planning area, mainly the Little Rocky Mountains and Sweet Grass Hills. Diverse types 
Appendix P HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1160 Locatable Mineral Resources RFD

of significant epithermal gold mineralization occur at these intrusive centers. The mineralization took place during the 

late stages of igneous activity during the Tertiary period and is hosted stockworks or fracture sets. The latter are mostly 

localized by intraformation solution breccias in the upper Madison, near the porphyry contacts. In these mineral 

systems, gold occurs as auriferous pyrite, sylvanite, or in native form. Mineralization is accompanied by varying 

amounts of silver, base metal and tellurides, with quartz, fluorite, carbonate and barite (Giles 1982).

Bentonite is one of the principal commodities of the HiLine and is composed of clay minerals from the montmorillonite 

group. Deposits of bentonite are generally created from metamorphism of volcanic ash deposited in a marine 

environment. The geologic formation that contains the most noted bentonite deposits in the planning area is the Bearpaw 

Shale of the Montana Group. Although bentonite does occur in other formations, it is this formation that is considered to 

have the necessary thickness and physical properties to contain commercial deposits.

The Mining Law

The 1872 Mining Law (as amended) governs locatable minerals and other mineral activity in the HiLine planning area. 

The BLM must approve any Plan of Operations or review any Notice on all public land. Except for areas withdrawn or 

otherwise segregated from mineral location, all BLM-administered mineral estate remains open for prospecting and 

development of locatable minerals. Development is subject to the regulations contained in 43 CFR 3809.

History

The General Mining Law of 1872 (17 Stat. 91) is the authorizing act for mineral exploration and development in the 

planning area. The origin of the Mining Law can be traced to the 16th century, and reflects close ties to English and 

Spanish traditions.

Early American colonial charters contained outright grants of mineral land to settlers; however, these grants were 

accompanied by certain permanent reservations of precious metals to the sovereign. This formed the basis for the early 

traditions and customs regarding mineral rights for the colonies in the eastern part of United States until early 1800s.

In 1849, there was no formal mining law in the United States. Congress passed several leasing or sales acts of limited 

duration for gold, silver, lead, and iron. These acts were administered by the War Department. In 1849, when the 

California gold rush began, miners were technically in mineral trespass when they located claims on the public domain. 

The gold rush brought into conflict the two mining traditions. In 1860, the silver strike in the Comstock Lode in Nevada 

started a second mining rush to the West, opening up further conflict between the two mining traditions. As eastern 

interests were financing the Comstock Lode and California Mother Lode, the question of security of title and tenure 

became a major political issue in Congress.

From 1865 to 1885, congressional policy for the public lands focused on encouraging westward migration of people to 

settle and develop the West. In furthering this policy a series of statutes was passed including various homestead acts, 

agricultural entry laws, soldier compensation acts, and several acts designed to emphasize mineral exploration and 

development.

On July 26, 1866, the first mining law was passed as the Lode of 1866 (14 Stat. 251). This act provided for the entry and 

location of lode claims, assessment work and patents for lode claims.

The Placer Act was passed on July 9, 1870. It provided for the entry and location of placer claims on non-agricultural 

land, for location by legal description, and patent.

These two acts were consolidated, with amendments, into the General Mining Law of May 10, 1872. This statute is the 

basis for appropriation of mineral resources from the public domain today.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix P

Locatable Mineral Resources RFD 1161

Principles

The Mining Law consists of five basic elements: discovery of a valuable mineral, location of mining claims, recordation 

of claims, maintenance – performance of annual requirements on claims, and patenting of the mineral (possibly surface)

estate to the claimant.

Discovery

There is no federal statutory definition of what constitutes a valuable mineral deposit, but several judicial and 

administrative rulings or declarations on the subject have been made. In 1894 in the case of Castle v. Womble, the 

Department of the Interior established the “prudent person rule.” This rule states:

“... where minerals have been found and the evidence is of such a character that a person of 

ordinary prudence would be justified in the further expenditure of his labor and means, with a 

reasonable prospect of success in developing a valuable mine, the requirements of the statutes 

have been met.”

This definition was approved by the United States Supreme Court in 1905. 

In the 1968 case of U.S. v. Coleman, the Supreme Court approved the marketability test as a complement to the prudent 

person rule. This test requires a showing of marketability to confirm that a mineral could be mined, removed, and 

marketed at a profit. In other words, the marketability test takes into account economics, requiring the claimant to show 

that there is a reasonable prospect of selling material from a claim or a group of claims. It is not necessary that the 

material has been sold or is selling at a profit, but that there is a reasonable likelihood that it could be sold at a profit.

Some minerals, such as bentonite, can be classified as either locatable (uncommon variety) or salable (common variety), 

depending on the characteristics of the deposit. In 1969, McClarty v. Secretary of the Interior (408 F.2d 907, 908) set 

the following standards to distinguish locatable minerals from salable minerals:

1. the mineral deposit in question must have unique property;

2. the unique property must give the deposit a distinct and special value;

3. if the special value is for uses to which ordinary varieties of the mineral are put, the deposit must have some 

distinct and special value for such use; and

4. the distinct and special value must be reflected by the higher price which the material commands in the market 

place (or by reduced cost or overhead so that the profit to the claimant would be substantially more).

Location

Mining claims may be located only by citizens of the United States, persons who have declared an intention to become 

citizens, and corporations organized under any state law. Mining claims may only be located on federal lands open to 

mineral entry under the mining laws, and only for mineral commodities considered to be locatable. A mineral is 

locatable if it is in the public domain, and is a metallic mineral, or of an uncommon variety valuable chiefly for chemical, 

rather than physical properties. Mining claims may be located before or after discovery of valuable mineral, on 

unappropriated public domain land. This claim grants the locator an exclusive possessory right to the mineral deposit. 

This possessory right allows the locator to continue to develop the claim as provided for by law. It is valid against the 

United States and other claimants only if a valuable mineral deposit has been discovered.

There are two main types of mining claims: lode and placer. Lode claims are located on indurated bedrock; while placer 

claims are usually located on loosely consolidated materials such as mineral bearing sands and gravels. Two additional 

types of mining claims may be located under the mining law: mill sites and tunnel sites. A mill site may be located on 

unappropriated public domain land that is nonmineral in character. It is used for the construction of a mill or reduction 

works, or for other uses reasonably incident to a mining operation. A tunnel site may be located on a plot of land where 

a tunnel is run to develop a vein or lode, or for the purpose of intersecting unknown veins or lodes. The actual location 

of a mining claim in Montana involves posting a notice of location at the discovery point and erecting corner posts, or 

monuments, on the ground to insure that the claim boundaries are readily identifiable.
Appendix P HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1162 Locatable Mineral Resources RFD

Recordation

Prior to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), claimants were required to file their location and 

assessment notices only in the office of the county recorder, or county clerk, in the county in which the claim was 

located. Since enactment of FLPMA, notices of location and other notices must be filed with the BLM state office, as 

well as the appropriate county recorder. This requirement has allowed the BLM to know the number, types, and current 

status of claims located on public land. Failure to file these documents with the BLM is considered abandonment of a 

mining claim.

Maintenance

The General Mining Law of 1872 requires performance of an annual minimum of $100 worth of labor or improvements 

to retain a possessory interest in the claim. An affidavit of assessment work must be filed with both the county recorder

and with the BLM State Office. Owners of mill and tunnel sites are not required to file assessment work, but are 

required to file a notice of intent to hold the site.

Exploration and mining activities on BLM-administered lands are subject to regulation under 43 CFR 3715, 43 CFR 

3802, and 43 CFR 3809. These regulations require that an operator prevent unnecessary or undue degradation and 

perform reasonable reclamation.

Patents

Since October 1, 1994, Congress has imposed a budget moratorium on BLM acceptance of any new mineral patent 

applications. Until the moratorium is lifted, no new applications may be accepted by the BLM.

It is not necessary to have a patent to mine to remove minerals from a mining claim. In fact, it is not even necessary to 

have a mining claim at all if the land is open to mineral entry. However, a patent gives the owner exclusive title to the 

locatable minerals and, in most cases, to the surface estate. In order to obtain patent, the claimant must have performed 

at least $500 worth of development work per claim; had a mineral survey and plat prepared at his expense; show he

holds possessory rights by chain of title documents; publish a notice for potential adverse claimants to assert his claims;

and demonstrate discovery of a valuable mineral deposit within the meaning of the Mining Law. Upon satisfactory 

completion of the above requirements, the claimant is given the opportunity to purchase the mining claim(s) at $2.50 per 

acre for placer claims and $5 per acre for lode claims.

Development of a Mine

The development of a mine from exploration to production can be divided into six stages. Each stage requires the 

application of more discriminating (and more expensive) techniques over a successively smaller land area to identify and 

develop an economic mineral deposit.

A full sequence of developing a mineral project involves the following stages: appraisal of a large region, 

reconnaissance of selected parts of the region, detailed surface investigation of a target area, three dimensional physical 

sampling of the target area, development of the mine infrastructure, and actual production. These can be grouped into 

four categories: Reconnaissance, Prospecting, Exploration, and Mine Development. A diagram showing the relationship 

of these various stages in the life of a mine is shown in Figure P.1.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix P

Locatable Mineral Resources RFD 1163

Figure P.1

Mine Life Cycle

Source: BLM 2009

Reconnaissance

Reconnaissance-level activity is the first stage in exploring for a mineral deposit. This activity involves initial literature 

search of an area of interest, using available references such as publications, reports, maps, aerial photos, etc. The area 

of study can vary from hundreds to thousands of square miles.

Activity that will normally take place during reconnaissance includes regional scale mapping, regional geochemical and 

geophysical studies, and remote sensing with aerial photography or satellite imagery. These studies are usually 

undertaken by academic or government entities, or major corporations.

The type of surface-disturbing activity associated with reconnaissance level mineral inventory is usually no more than 

occasional stream sediment, soil, or rock sampling. Minor off-road vehicle use may be required.

Prospecting

Any anomalous results from reconnaissance are used to identify prospecting areas, ranging in sizes from a fraction of a 

square mile to several hundred square miles. Activities that will take place in an effort to locate a mineral prospect 

include more detailed mapping, sampling, geochemical and geophysical study programs. Also, this is the time when 

property acquisition efforts usually begin, and most mining claims are located in order to secure ground while trying to 

make a mineral discovery. Prospecting on an annual basis is considered a minimum requirement, under the mining laws, 

to secure a claim.

Production: Actual Mining of Property, 

Continue Assessment for Added Reserves, 

Concurrent Reclamation

Development: Construction of 

Infrastructure, Permitting Phase

Pre Development: Reserve Assessment, 

Feasibility Studies to Make Development 

Decision

Exploration: Drilling, Trenching, and 

Excavating of Target Anomalies

Prospecting: Mapping and Sampling to 

Locate Target Anomalies

Dormant Property: Temporarily Closed 

Waiting Change in Economics

Dead Property: Reclamation Activity, 

Exhausted Production Capability

Change in Economics 

or Technology
Appendix P HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1164 Locatable Mineral Resources RFD

Types of surface-disturbing activity associated with prospecting would involve more intense soil and rock chip sampling 

using mostly hand tools, frequent off-road vehicle use, and placement and maintenance of mining claim monuments. 

This activity is normally considered casual use (43 CFR 3809.5) and does not require BLM notification or approval.

Exploration 

Upon location of sufficiently anomalous mineral occurrence or favorable occurrence indicator, a mineral prospect is 

established and is subjected to more intense evaluation through exploration techniques.

Activities that take place during exploration include those utilized during prospecting but at a more intense level in a 

more focused area. In addition, activities such as road building, trenching, and drilling are conducted. In later stages of 

exploration, an exploratory adit or shaft may be driven. If the prospect already has underground workings, these may be 

sampled, drilled, or extended. Exploration activities use mechanized earth moving equipment (excavators, backhoes, 

drill rigs, etc.) and may involve the use of explosives.

A typical exploration project in the planning area would require construction of approximately 5,000 feet of access road, 

establishment of about a dozen drill sites, with several holes at each site drilled to less than 500 feet deep, and possibly 

several trenches 200 feet by 8 feet by 6 to 8 feet deep. If initial results are encouraging, the exploration program will be 

expanded to determine the limits of the deposit. Most surface disturbance associated with exploration projects amounts 

to less than 5 acres and is conducted under a Notice (43 CFR 3809.21 and 43 CFR 3809.300-336), requiring the operator 

to notify the BLM 15 days before beginning activity.

Mine Development

If exploration results show that an economically viable mineral deposit may be present, activity will intensify to obtain 

detailed knowledge sufficient to delineate possible reserves, mining methods, and mineral processing requirements. This 

will involve applying all the previously used exploration tools in a more focused effort. Once enough information is 

acquired, a feasibility study will be made to decide whether to proceed with mine development and what mining and ore 

processing methods will be used. 

Once the decision to develop the property is made, the Plan of Operations process begins. Upon approval, work begins 

on development of the mine and its infrastructure. This includes construction of the processing facilities, offices, and a 

laboratory; driving of development workings if the property is to be mined underground, or prestripping if it is to be 

mined through open pit methods. During this time, building of access roads or haulage routes and placement of utilities

are completed while also continuing any additional refinement of ore reserves.

When enough facilities are in place, actual mine production begins. Along with production, there often are satellite

exploration efforts to expand the mine’s reserve base and extend the project life. Upon completion of the operation, 

concurrent with mining, the property is reclaimed. Sub-economic resources are often left unmined and the property is 

dormant, waiting for changes in commodity price or production technology that would make these resources economic 

(Figure P.1).

Activities that occur during mine development include: actual mining, ore processing, tailings disposal, waste rock 

placement, solution, metal refining, and placement of support facilities such as repair shops, labs, and offices. Such 

activities involve the use of heavy earthmoving equipment and explosives for mining and materials handling, exploration 

equipment for refinement of the ore reserve base, potentially hazardous or dangerous reagents for processing 

requirements, and general construction activities.

The size of mines varies greatly, and not all mines would require all the previously mentioned facilities and equipment. 

Acreage involved can range from single acres to several hundred, with most projects requiring surface disturbance 

greater than casual use and an approved Plan of Operations (43 CFR 3809).
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix P

Locatable Mineral Resources RFD 1165

Plan of Operations Approval Process

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is the state permitting authority for hardrock operations and 

open-cut mining in Montana. All Plans of Operations required by the BLM are reviewed and approved in coordination 

with the DEQ.

Often before submitting a proposed Plan of Operation to the BLM (Operating or Open-cut Permit to the DEQ), the 

operator will contact the agencies for guidance on specific information or data that should be included in the application. 

The application is then filed with both agencies that coordinate staffing needs and agency roles for the review. The prePlan coordination is not required by regulations, but can be arranged as a convenience to the operator.

Upon receipt, the Plan is reviewed for completeness. A completeness review involves identifying any additional 

information the operator must provide to allow the BLM to determine whether the Plan of Operations is adequate to 

prevent unnecessary or undue degradation. The deficiencies identified during a completeness review are provided to the 

operator within 30 days of receipt. The applicant then revises the Plan as appropriate and resubmits it to the agencies for 

another completeness review. The cycle of completeness review by the agencies, including subsequent modification of 

the Plan by the applicant, continues until the application is accepted as complete. 

After a complete Plan of Operations is received, the environmental analysis is prepared in accordance with both Montana 

Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. Depending on the 

anticipated impacts of the proposal, this may be either an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact 

statement (EIS). Typically, but not always, three alternatives are analyzed in the document: the operator’s proposal, the 

operator’s proposal with additional agency-imposed modifications (usually the preferred alternative), and the no action 

alternative. During this time the BLM may require the operator to submit additional information or baseline studies that 

assist the BLM with its environmental analysis under NEPA, National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) consultation, 

or any other review process associated with the Plan of Operations.

When the environmental analysis and review process is to the point where the BLM and the operator can anticipate what 

the approved Plan of Operations will be, the operator will be required to provide a Reclamation Cost Estimate (RCE). 

Within 30 days of receipt, the BLM will review the RCE and notify the operator of any deficiencies in the cost estimate 

or any additional information required.

Public review and comment on the Plan of Operations may be solicited at any time during the process, but is mandatory 

after a complete Plan is filed. The time period for public comment is dependent on the issues and interest in the 

operation, but a minimum of 30 calendar days is required. Public meetings for scoping and/or comment are held as 

appropriate.

After the Plan of Operations review, including the environmental analysis, and the consultation requirements are 

complete, and the public comments have been considered, the agencies make an approval decision. Conformance with 

the modified mining and reclamation plans, plus any additional mitigation measures, are conditions of approval. A 

financial guarantee based on the RCE must be posted before surface disturbance can begin.

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 Plans of Operations are valid under the surface management 

regulations at 43 CFR 3809.100.

The Plan of Operations approval process is laid out with associated regulation in Figure P.2, the Plan of Operations 

Approval Diagram below. Amendments to an existing Plan of Operations are processed in a similar manner.
Appendix P HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1166 Locatable Mineral Resources RFD

Figure P.2

Plan of Operations Approval Process

Source: BLM 2009

Mining and Exploration Activities

The number of mining claims in the HiLine planning area is shown in Chapter 3, Table 3.46. It is important to note that 

while there over 740 mining claims in the planning area, only a small portion (about 10%) of these claims will have any 

activity above the prospecting level. Many claims are adjacent to known minable areas and serve to secure the property 

from potential rivals. Many of the claims overlap and might cover the same portion of ground. Often blocks of claims 

are located to serve as a basis for exploration projects. These blocks will naturally cover more area than the initial 

geology indicates is warranted so as to provide room for possible expansion should the mineral prospects be favorable.

Little Rocky Mountains

Mining in the Little Rocky Mountains began in the late 1880s and proceeded intermittently until the 1970s. In 1979, 

large-scale mining began in the area. The ore was found amenable to the cyanide heap leaching process due primarily to 

the finely disseminated gold particles occurring along abundant fractures in the rock, allowing contact between the 

cyanide and gold without requiring crushing. From 1979 to 1998, Pegasus Gold Corporation and its wholly owned 

subsidiary operating company, Zortman Mining, Inc. (ZMI), operated the Zortman and Landusky Mines.

The Zortman mine consisted of eight valley fill leach pads containing an estimated 16 million tons of ore grading 0.028 

ounces per ton (opt) gold and 0.171 opt silver. Solution inventory averaged about 20 million gallons.

The Landusky mine consisted of eight valley fill leach pads containing over 34 million tons of ore. One leach pad, 

constructed in 1987, was estimated to contain some 40 million tons when fully loaded. The average ore grade at 

Landusky was slightly lower than Zortman. Mined ore averaged 0.022 opt gold and 0.125 opt silver. Solution inventory 

averaged over 33 million gallons.

In January 1998, Pegasus Gold Corporation and ZMI filed for bankruptcy protection, and in March 1998, plans to 

proceed with reclamation began, using the Reclamation Plan developed by the BLM, DEQ, EPA, and the Fort Belknap

Indian Reservation between 1999 and 2001. Reclamation (including water treatment and monitoring) continues to this 

day.

Completeness Review

3809.401(a)

3809.401(b)(1-5)

Environmental Review

3809.401(c)(1)

3809.411(a)(3)

3809.420(a)-(b)

40 CFR 1500-1508 

(NEPA)

Compliance Monitoring

3809.415

3809.421

3809.424

3809.431

3809.600-701

Plan Approval and Bond 

Establishment

3809.401(d)

3809.411(d)

3809.412

Administrative or Legal 

Review

3809.800-809

Plan Modification

3809.430

3809.431

3809.432

3809.433

3809.434

Closure and Bond Release

3809.590 et seq.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix P

Locatable Mineral Resources RFD 1167

Currently, there are no exploration projects in the Little Rocky Mountains. This is mostly due to the large area of land 

withdrawn from mineral entry within the footprint of the Zortman and Landusky Mine reclamation. There is currently 

one Plan of Operations for placer mining in Alder Gulch, just outside the town of Zortman.

Sweet Grass Hills

Historical records and physical evidence indicate exploration interest in lode and placer deposits at various times through 

the early 1960s on all three buttes of the Sweet Grass Hills. The only reported amount of gold recovered from placer 

operations was near Gold Butte, yielding less than 2,000 ounces (Ross 1950). Other lode deposits around East Butte 

were reported at about 8,700 pounds of copper, 8,400 pounds of lead, 1,100 pounds of zinc, and 651 troy ounces of 

silver. This activity was reported from underground exploration at the Sweetgrass Mine in 1963 (Hubbard, et al. 1966). 

Contemporary exploration in the Sweet Grass Hills commenced in the early 1970s. Several companies have had 

exploration interest in all three buttes, particularly in the Tootsie Creek area of East Butte, up to the early 1990s.

In 1995, the BLM completed the validity examination of 14 unpatented mining claims located on East Butte as a result 

of the area being segregated for evaluation of Native American traditional interests and hydrological concerns. The 

results indicated eight of the claims meet the test of discovery under the mining law and were found valid. (BLM 

1996b).

There are currently no Notices for exploration or Plans of Operations in the Sweet Grass Hills.

Brazil Creek

Brazil Creek is an area southwest of Glasgow that has a history of bentonite mining. From 1976 to 1979, there was an 

open-pit mine and processing plant that had the capacity to produce approximately 200,000 tons annually. Plant 

production shut down in 1979, but mining of bentonite continued from 1983 through 1985, producing approximately 

180,000 tons during that period.

There is currently one Notice for bentonite exploration and one Plan of Operation for bentonite mining.

Future Trends and Assumptions

This section discusses anticipated future trends and assumptions that will be made when predicting solid minerals 

activity in the planning area.

Commodities Produced

The major commodity of interest will continue to be the precious metals, gold and silver. This is based on the 

combination of price and favorable geology for mineral occurrence. Minor base metal production will occur in 

association with precious metals, but is not expected to be a significant factor in mine economics.

Bentonite will also continue to be a commodity of interest. The deposits within the Bearpaw Shale of Valley and 

Phillips counties will continue to attract exploration and mining interest. 

Technology

As in most any other industry, advances in technology will have a substantial effect on future mineral exploration and 

development. Along with the exploration and data collection, analysis and geologic modeling methods will become 

more sophisticated and available to the average user. This will advance accuracy and speed when assessing a mineral 

deposit’s potential.
Appendix P HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1168 Locatable Mineral Resources RFD

Mining and mineral processing efficiency will continue to improve in the future. As general technology advances, 

availability to the mining industry increases as well. More knowledge from these advancements will continue to be 

gained through experience and research by industry and government agencies. Advancements in environmental science, 

including alternative mining and processing methods, could open up greater potential for development. 

In the same way, reclamation science will advance as well. More detailed design efforts will continue to be placed on 

reclamation of mined land, resulting in an overall increase in reclamation costs. These costs should pay dividends in the 

long term with increased reclamation success. As the rate of reclamation success further improves by decreasing 

environmental impacts of mining, the potential for development will increase.

Commodity Markets

The economics of mining in the planning area will be driven by the relationship between commodity production costs 

and market price. Though more silver is often produced than gold, it is the relatively high unit value of gold that will be 

critical in establishing the economic viability of mining. While production costs can be controlled or anticipated, 

through management and technology, the significant unknown factor will be the price of gold. The overall profitability 

of an operation, and hence the level of activity at the prospecting, exploration, and mining phases, for development of 

gold ore bodies will be closely related to the price of gold (Table P.2).

Table P.2

Gold and Silver Prices

Gold Prices 1988-2008 Silver Prices 1988-2008

Year PPI* (Metals)

Gold 

(Unadjusted)

Gold

(2008 $) 10-yr Avg.

Silver 

(Unadjusted)

Silver

(2008 $) 10-yr Avg.

1988 1.187 $436.98 $784.13 $6.53 $11.72

1989 1.241 $381.44 $654.69 $5.51 $9.46

1990 1.229 $383.51 $664.67 $4.83 $8.37

1991 1.202 $362.11 $641.68 $4.05 $7.18

1992 1.192 $343.82 $614.38 $3.95 $7.05

1993 1.192 $359.77 $642.88 $4.31 $7.70

1994 1.248 $384.00 $655.38 $5.28 $9.02

1995 1.345 $383.79 $607.79 $5.20 $8.24

1996 1.31 $387.81 $630.56 $5.20 $8.46

1997 1.318 $331.02 $534.96 $643.11 $4.91 $7.93 $8.51

1998 1.278 $294.24 $490.40 $613.74 $5.55 $9.25 $8.26

1999 1.246 $278.98 $476.91 $595.96 $5.22 $8.92 $8.21

2000 1.281 $279.11 $464.09 $575.90 $4.95 $8.23 $8.20

2001 1.254 $271.04 $460.38 $557.77 $4.37 $7.42 $8.22

2002 1.259 $309.73 $524.01 $548.74 $4.60 $7.78 $8.29

2003 1.292 $363.38 $599.07 $544.35 $4.88 $8.04 $8.33

2004 1.496 $409.72 $583.36 $537.15 $6.67 $9.50 $8.38

2005 1.608 $444.74 $589.11 $535.28 $7.32 $9.69 $8.52

2006 1.816 $603.46 $707.80 $543.01 $11.55 $13.54 $9.03

2007 1.935 $695.39 $765.47 $566.06 $13.38 $14.73 $9.71

2008 2.13 $871.96 $871.96 $604.22 $14.99 $14.99 $10.28

2009 $957.84 $14.40

*Producer Price Indexes (PPI): U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Gold and silver prices: http://www.kitco.com, 2009
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix P

Locatable Mineral Resources RFD 1169

The supply and demand for gold, and ultimately the price, is determined by several factors. On the supply side, 

production costs must be lower than price for firms to earn a profit. Relatively low-grade deposits, which were once 

uneconomical to mine, have become profitable resources to develop due to the emergence of new production techniques. 

Thus, supply has been increasing while the relative cost of production generally has declined. However, the profitability 

of these mining processes has increased the number of suppliers worldwide and made the market more competitive.

Factors influencing the demand for gold, both nationally and internationally, include the growth of disposable income, 

inflationary expectations, international stock market activity, the value of the US dollar relative to other currencies, and 

political events.

The primary market for bentonite is drilling muds and foundry application, so demand is tied closely with activity in 

these associated industries. But, when containing certain properties, bentonite can find a market in a wide range of 

applications in the food, medical, and construction industries. The distance from the source area to available markets is 

the primary limiting factor when meeting demand.

Legislative Changes

There are several areas of legislative change that may affect how the locatable mineral resources are developed. 

One is the ongoing effort to amend, repeal, or reform the Mining Law of 1872. This could result in anything from 

simply leaving the law as is to completely restructuring it into a leasing and royalty system that is similar to what is now 

used for coal or oil and gas. In regards to exploration, a major change in the mining law would be if the right of selfinitiation was lost, there would be a decrease in the amount of activity undertaken by small operators. Another affect, 

perhaps more extensive, would be if a royalty is placed on mineral production, decreasing the ultimate number and size 

of mines that could be developed. An increase of production cost with an added royalty would raise the cut-off ore 

grade, making some currently economic deposits uneconomical.

Changes in the way mining property and production is taxed could also have a substantial effect on the viability of 

individual operations. No changes in state tax schedules are anticipated, and no federal royalty is assumed in this 

analysis.

Another area of possible legislative change is in environmental laws or regulations which would affect exploration and 

mining activity. 

For purposes of analysis, it is assumed that the mining law could be changed, the right of self-initialization will not be 

changed, and there will be no federal royalty system imposed. Also for this analysis, the Montana law for the ban on 

open-pit gold and silver mining that utilizes heap leaching or vat leaching with cyanide ore-processing reagents, Section 

82-4-390, MCA, is considered a mine planning criteria, so it is not applicable to the development potential for public 

lands managed by the BLM.

Development and Activity Potential

The HiLine planning area is classified into three categories for development potential: high, moderate, and low as shown 

on Map P.1 (located at the end of this Appendix P). A fourth category is also discussed, which is the very low or 

unknown development potential. The term development potential as used in this document refers to the potential of the 

lands to support actual mine development. It is dependent on a variety of factors which include geology, engineering, 

and economics. It should not be anomalous amounts. All of the lands in the moderate and high development potential 

areas have high occurrence potential for locatable mineral (hardrock and bentonite) resources. Table P.3 shows the 

federal minerals by development potential.
Appendix P HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1170 Locatable Mineral Resources RFD

Table P.3

Mineral Development Potential 

(BLM Acres)

Development Potential Federal Minerals

Percent of the Planning 

Area

High 12,567 0.3%

Moderate 29,204 0.8%

Low 95,182 2.5%

Very Low (Unknown) 3,626,929 96.4%

The development potential of these lands can be correlated with the types of activity and the Mine Life Cycle Diagram 

(Figure P.1). A description of development potential and associated level of activity follows.

Very Low or Unknown Development Potential/Reconnaissance Level Activity

The vast majority of lands in the planning area are in this category and have either little or unknown potential for 

locatable mineral development. Geologic conditions are not favorable for mineral occurrence, or geologic data is 

insufficient to support a determination. Activities that would occur on these lands are at the reconnaissance level as

described in the Development of a Mine, Reconnaissance section. Negligible surface disturbance is usually associated 

with this level of activity.

Low Development Potential/Prospecting Level Activity

Lands in this category have geologic conditions moderately favorable for mineral resource occurrence, or have recent 

claim staking or property acquisition activities. These lands may contain mineral resources but cannot be put into a 

moderate or high development potential category due to lack of evidence indicating minable reserves, in either quality or 

quantity, that would warrant further consideration for development. Prospecting activities would occur on these lands as 

described in the Development of a Mine, Prospecting section. If an exploration program is successful further exploration 

would follow, and the lands may eventually be placed in a high development potential category.

Moderate Development Potential/Exploration Level Activity

Lands in this category exceed the requirements for Low Development Potential by having recent or anticipated 

exploration activity and/or a prospect identified requiring more intense exploration methods. These lands have high to 

very high mineral occurrence potential. Activities that would occur on these lands can involve use of mechanized 

earthmoving equipment and are described in the Development of a Mine section.

High Development Potential/Mining Level Activity

Lands in this category exceed the requirements for moderate development potential and contain proven, probable or 

inferred reserves and/or are within, or potential additions to, the permit area of a proposed or operating mine. Activities 

that would occur on these lands are described in the Development of a Mine section.

Future Activity

This section describes the extent of exploration and mine development within the foreseeable future, broken into specific 

geographic areas with high development potential and by alternative. This includes development of known resource 

occurrence and of undiscovered resource bodies resulting from prospecting and exploration activity. 

The acres of disturbance due to foreseeable locatable mineral activity by alternative is shown in Table P.4 below, and the 

description of potential exploration and mining development activity by region and alternative follows. In some cases, 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix P

Locatable Mineral Resources RFD 1171

the acres of disturbance vary between short-term and long-term categories under the same alternative. This difference is 

due to allowing a withdrawal to expire or be reduced over a period of time, eventually opening more lands to mineral 

location.

Also under some of the alternatives, there are instances where development scenarios with differing acres of disturbance 

are discussed. For analysis, the development scenario with the greatest disturbance footprint is selected.

Table P.4

Locatable Minerals Acres of Disturbance

Geographic Region

Acres of Disturbance by Alternative

Alternative A

(Current 

Management) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred 

Alternative)

ShortTermLongTermShort-Term and 

Long-Term

Short-Term and 

Long-Term

ShortTermLongTermShort-Term and 

Long-Term

Little Rocky Mountains 130 2,170 130 130 10 10 130

Sweet Grass Hills 110 175 110 110 110 175 110

Brazil Creek 150 150 115 115 115 115 115

Total 390 2,495 355 355 235 300 355

Little Rocky Mountains

Alternative A (Current Management)

Under this alternative, the withdrawal from mineral entry for the Zortman/Landusky Mine Reclamation in the Little 

Rocky Mountains (3,380 acres) would expire in October 2015, opening BLM land in this area to more exploration and 

mining activity in the long term. Ten possible exploration projects can be anticipated in this area. Average disturbance 

for this activity would be 5 acres per project, amounting to a total of 50 acres of disturbance due to exploration.

Along with other circumstances on the private land of the Zortman and Landusky Mines, lifting the current withdrawal 

could also result in reestablishment of mining operations. This would create disturbance on currently reclaimed areas of 

the mine footprint, about 1,200 acres. Foreseeable development would also include an expansion of the Zortman and 

Landusky Mines, about 710 acres.

If future exploration discovers an economic deposit on Antoine Butte or in the Pony Gulch area as could be anticipated, 

an underground mine operation would extract ore from selected mineralized areas and process it by crushing and vat 

leaching. The tailings from the vats would be disposed of at a facility designed to meet the applicable engineering 

requirements. This type of operation would result in 50 acres of surface disturbance each, totaling 100 acres.

If the exploration was successful in the discovery of sufficient reserves on either the Antoine Butte or in the Pony Gulch 

area, an open-pit mine with associated processing facilities could be constructed. This type of development would result 

in the extraction of gold and silver from the deposit. The total area of disturbance for all roads, mills, plants, pads, and

ponds would be less than 100 acres each, totaling 200 acres.

Continued casual use level prospecting could also result in one anticipated placer mining operation, resulting in 10 acres 

of disturbance.

It is estimated that 90% of activity would occur within the high and moderate development potential areas shown on 

Map P.1. The remaining 10% could occur in the area having low development potential.
Appendix P HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1172 Locatable Mineral Resources RFD

Alternative B

Under this alternative, the BLM would recommend a 20-year withdrawal from mineral entry for the Zortman/Landusky 

mine reclamation area (3,380 acres) when the current withdrawal expires in 2015. In addition to this withdrawal, the 

entirety of the Little Rocky Mountains area would be withdrawn under this alternative for the protection of cultural 

values under the Little Rocky Mountains Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) (37,387 acres). These withdrawals would 

eliminate any foreseeable locatable minerals development.

Alternative C

Under this alternative, the BLM would recommend a 20-year withdrawal from mineral entry for the Zortman/Landusky 

mine reclamation area (3,380 acres) when the current withdrawal expires in 2015. Four possible exploration projects can 

be anticipated in this area. Average disturbance for this activity would be 5 acres per project, amounting to a total of 20 

acres of disturbance due to exploration.

The withdrawal would eliminate any foreseeable development with any possible reestablishment and expansion of the 

Zortman and Landusky Mines. Development of a mining operation could still potentially occur in the Pony Gulch area.

If future exploration discovers an economic deposit, an underground mine operation would extract ore from selected 

mineralized areas and process the ore by crushing and vat leaching. The tailings from the vats would be disposed of at a 

facility designed to meet the applicable engineering requirements. This type of operation would result in 50 acres of 

surface disturbance.

If the exploration was successful in the discovery of sufficient reserves, an open-pit mine with associated processing 

facilities could be constructed. This type of development would result in the extraction of gold and silver from the 

deposit. The total area of disturbance for all roads, mills, plants, pads, and ponds would be less than 100 acres.

Continued casual use level prospecting could also result in one anticipated placer mining operation, resulting in 10 acres 

of disturbance.

Alternative D

As under Alternative A, the withdrawal from mineral entry for the Zortman/Landusky mine reclamation area in the Little 

Rocky Mountains (3,380 acres) would be allowed to expire in October 2015. This would open BLM land in this area to 

more exploration and mining activity in the long term, but under Alternative D, another withdrawal (15,000 acres) 

associated with the Little Rocky Mountains ACEC would be in place. This ACEC and withdrawal would eliminate any 

foreseeable development with any possible reestablishment and expansion of the Zortman and Landusky Mines.

Continued casual use level prospecting could also result in one anticipated placer mining operation in areas not 

withdrawn, resulting in 10 acres of disturbance.

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

Under this alternative, the potential level of development activity in the short term would be the same as in Alternative 

C, but in the long term, the Zortman/Landusky Mine Reclamation ACEC and withdrawal would be reduced from 3,380 

acres to 2,605 acres. Even though this would increase the amount of land open to mineral entry, the continued 

withdrawal of the reclamation site would not facilitate the reestablishment or expansion of the Zortman and Landusky 

Mines, keeping the resulting acres of disturbance to 130 acres.

As reclamation and water treatment is further established for the Zortman and Landusky Mine sites, future assessment 

may deem a reduction of the withdrawn area appropriate. The amount of acres for this reduction is unknown, but any 

amount of acres withdrawn of the mine site would have the same influence on the reestablishment of mineral 

development as the current withdrawal. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix P

Locatable Mineral Resources RFD 1173

Sweet Grass Hills

Alternatives A (Current Management) and D

Under this alternative, the withdrawal from mineral entry in the Sweet Grass Hills TCP (19,671 acres) would be allowed 

to expire in April 2017, opening BLM land in this area to more exploration and mining activity in the long term. Three 

possible exploration projects can be anticipated in this area. Average disturbance for this activity would be 5 acres per 

project, amounting to a total of 15 acres of disturbance due to exploration.

If future exploration discovers an economic deposit, an underground mine operation would extract ore from selected 

mineralized areas and process it by crushing and vat leaching. The tailings from the vats would be disposed of at a 

facility designed to meet the applicable engineering requirements. This type of operation would result in 50 acres of 

surface disturbance.

If the exploration was successful in the discovery of sufficient reserves, an open-pit mine with a processing facility could 

be constructed. This type of development would result in the extraction of gold and silver from the deposit. The total 

area of disturbance for all roads, mills, plants, pads, and ponds would be less than 150 acres.

Continued casual use level prospecting could also result in one anticipated placer mining operation with 10 acres of 

disturbance.

It is estimated that 85% of activity would occur within the high and moderate development potential areas shown on 

Map P.1. The remaining 15% could occur in the area having low development potential.

Alternatives B, C, and E (Preferred Alternative)

Under these alternatives, it is recommended the withdrawal from mineral entry in the Sweet Grass Hills be extended for

an additional 20 years. All foreseeable future activity would be limited to the valid existing mining claims (about 100 

acres) in the Tootsie Creek area of East Butte. Two exploration projects can be anticipated in this area. Average 

disturbance for this activity would be 5 acres per project, amounting to a total of 10 acres of disturbance due to 

exploration.

If future exploration discovers an economic deposit, an underground mine operation would extract ore from selected 

mineralized areas and process the ore by crushing and vat leaching. The tailings from the vats would be disposed of at a 

facility designed to meet the applicable engineering requirements. This type of operation would result in 50 acres of 

surface disturbance.

If the exploration was successful in the discovery of sufficient reserves, an open-pit mine with a processing facility could 

be constructed. This type of development would result in the extraction of gold and silver from the deposit. The total 

area of disturbance for all roads, mills, plants, pads, and ponds would be less than 100 acres.

Brazil Creek

Alternative A (Current Management)

In the foreseeable future, 10 exploration projects are anticipated for the Brazil Creek area. The projects would consist 

mostly of off-road drilling and would not occur simultaneously. At any one time, an estimated two projects would be in 

one of the following stages: initial evaluation, actual drilling, held open for study, or in the reclamation phase. Average 

disturbance would be about 5 acres per project. This would amount to a total disturbance of about 50 acres of 

disturbance due to exploration. The intent of exploration would vary from evaluating new deposits identified by surface 

study, expanding resource delineation on existing projects, or expanding reserve delineation adjacent to existing mines.
Appendix P HiLine Draft RMP/EIS 

1174 Locatable Mineral Resources RFD 

As a result of the exploration and expansion of current operations, it is estimated that four bentonite mining projects will 

be developed in the Brazil Creek area. These mines would be open-cut and would have 25 acres of disturbance per 

operation, totaling 100 acres of disturbance due to mining activity. 

It is estimated that 85% of the exploration and mining activity would occur within the high and moderate development 

potential areas shown on Map P.1. The remaining 15% could occur in the area having low development potential. 

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

Under these alternatives, the area of the Mountain Plover ACEC (24,672 acres) would be withdrawn from mineral entry. 

A total of 3,009 acres of high development potential and 6,744 acres of low development potential would be withdrawn 

as indicated on Map P.1. The withdrawal of this area would reduce the amount of exploration to eight projects. The 

projects would consist mostly of off-road drilling similar to that performed in the past. The activities would not occur 

simultaneously. At any one time, an estimated two projects would be in one of the following stages: initial evaluation, 

actual drilling, held open for study, or in the reclamation phase. Average disturbance would be about 5 acres per project. 

This would amount to a total disturbance of about 40 acres of disturbance due to exploration. 

As a result of exploration and expansion of current operations, it is estimated that three bentonite mining projects would 

be developed in the Brazil Creek area. These mines would be open-cut and would have 25 acres of disturbance per 

operation, totaling 75 acres of disturbance due to mining activity. 

It is estimated that 85% of the exploration and mining activity would occur within the high and moderate development 

potential areas shown on Map P.1. The remaining 15% could occur in the area having low development potential. 

Link yo Map P.1 - Solid Minerals Locatable Hardrock & Bentonite Mineral 

Potentials
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix Q

Wildlife Species 1175

Appendix Q

Wildlife Species

Table Q.1

Wildlife Species in the HiLine Planning Area -- Amphibians

Common Name Scientific Name

BLM

Status

Endangered 

Species 

Status*

State of MT 

Species of 

Concern+

Amphibians

Boreal Chorus Frog Pseudacris maculata

Columbia Spotted Frog Rana luteiventris

Great Plains Toad Bufo cognatus SENSITIVE SOC

Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum

Northern Leopard Frog Rana pipiens SENSITIVE SOC

Plains Spadefoot Spea bombifrons SENSITIVE SOC

Rocky Mountain Tailed Frog Ascaphus montanus

Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum

Western Toad Bufo boreas SENSITIVE SOC

Woodhouse's Toad Bufo woodhousii

* C – Candidate + SOC – Species of Concern

 CH – Critical Habitat PSOC – Potential Species of Concern

 LE – Listed Endangered

 LT – Listed Threatened

 XN – Experimental Non-essential

Table Q.2

Wildlife Species in the HiLine Planning Area – Birds

Common Name Scientific Name

BLM

Status

Endangered 

Species 

Status*

State of MT 

Species of 

Concern+

Birds

Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum SOC

American Avocet Recurvirostra americana

American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus

American Black Duck Anas rubripes

American Coot Fulica americana

American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos

American Dipper Cinclus mexicanus

American Golden-plover Pluvialis dominica

American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis

American Kestrel Falco sparverius
Appendix Q HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1176 Wildlife Species

Table Q.2

Wildlife Species in the HiLine Planning Area – Birds

Common Name Scientific Name

BLM

Status

Endangered 

Species 

Status*

State of MT 

Species of 

Concern+

Birds

American Pipit Anthus rubescens

American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla

American Robin Turdus migratorius

American Three-toed Woodpecker Picoides dorsalis SENSITIVE PSOC

American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea

American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos SOC

American Wigeon Anas americana

Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea

Baird's Sandpiper Calidris bairdii

Baird's Sparrow Ammodramus bairdii SENSITIVE SOC

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus SENSITIVE SOC

Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula PSOC

Band-tailed Pigeon Patagioenas fasciata

Bank Swallow Riparia riparia

Barn Owl Tyto alba SOC

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica

Barred Owl Strix varia

Barrow's Goldeneye Bucephala islandica

Bay-breasted Warbler Dendroica castanea

Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon

Black Scoter Melanitta nigra

Black Swift Cypseloides niger SOC

Black Tern Chlidonias niger SENSITIVE SOC

Black Turnstone Arenaria melanocephala

Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia SOC

Black-backed Woodpecker Picoides arcticus SENSITIVE SOC

Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola

Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus PSOC

Black-billed Magpie Pica hudsonia

Blackburnian Warbler Dendroica fusca

Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus

Black-chinned Hummingbird Archilochus alexandri

Black-crowned Night-heron Nycticorax nycticorax SENSITIVE SOC

Black-headed Grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus

Black-legged Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix Q

Wildlife Species 1177

Table Q.2

Wildlife Species in the HiLine Planning Area – Birds

Common Name Scientific Name

BLM

Status

Endangered 

Species 

Status*

State of MT 

Species of 

Concern+

Birds

Black-necked Stilt Himantopus mexicanus PSOC

Blackpoll Warbler Dendroica striata

Black-throated Blue Warbler Dendroica caerulescens

Black-throated Gray Warbler Dendroica nigrescens

Black-throated Green Warbler Dendroica virens

Black-throated Sparrow Amphispiza bilineata

Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea SENSITIVE SOC

Blue-headed Vireo Vireo solitarius

Blue-winged Teal Anas discors

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus SENSITIVE SOC

Bohemian Waxwing Bombycilla garrulus

Bonaparte's Gull Larus philadelphia

Boreal Chickadee Poecile hudsonica SOC

Boreal Owl Aegolius funereus

Brant Branta bernicla

Brewer's Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus

Brewer's Sparrow Spizella breweri SENSITIVE SOC

Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus

Brown Creeper Certhia americana

Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater

Buff-breasted Sandpiper Tryngites subruficollis

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola

Bullock's Oriole Icterus bullockii

Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia SENSITIVE SOC

Cackling Goose Branta hutchinsii

California Gull Larus californicus

Calliope Hummingbird Stellula calliope

Canada Goose Branta canadensis

Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis

Canvasback Aythya valisineria

Canyon Wren Catherpes mexicanus

Cape May Warbler Dendroica tigrina

Caspian Tern Sterna caspia SOC
Appendix Q HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1178 Wildlife Species

Table Q.2

Wildlife Species in the HiLine Planning Area – Birds

Common Name Scientific Name

BLM

Status

Endangered 

Species 

Status*

State of MT 

Species of 

Concern+

Birds

Cassin's Finch Carpodacus cassinii

Cassin's Vireo Vireo cassinii

Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum

Chestnut-backed Chickadee Poecile rufescens

Chestnut-collared Longspur Calcarius ornatus SENSITIVE SOC

Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvanica

Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica PSOC

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina

Cinnamon Teal Anas cyanoptera

Clark's Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii PSOC

Clark's Nutcracker Nucifraga columbiana

Clay-colored Sparrow Spizella pallida

Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula

Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula

Common Loon Gavia immer SENSITIVE SOC

Common Merganser Mergus merganser

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor

Common Poorwill Phalaenoptilus nuttallii PSOC

Common Raven Corvus corax

Common Redpoll Carduelis flammea

Common Tern Sterna hirundo SOC

Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas

Connecticut Warbler Oporornis agilis

Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii

Cordilleran Flycatcher Empidonax occidentalis

Curlew Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis

Dickcissel Spiza americana SENSITIVE SOC

Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus

Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens

Dunlin Calidris alpina

Dusky Flycatcher Empidonax oberholseri

Dusky Grouse Dendragapus obscurus
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix Q

Wildlife Species 1179

Table Q.2

Wildlife Species in the HiLine Planning Area – Birds

Common Name Scientific Name

BLM

Status

Endangered 

Species 

Status*

State of MT 

Species of 

Concern+

Birds

Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis

Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis SOC

Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus

Eastern Screech-owl Megascops asio PSOC

Eurasian Collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto

Eurasian Wigeon Anas penelope

European Starling Sturnus vulgaris

Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus

Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis SENSITIVE SOC

Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla

Forster's Tern Sterna forsteri SOC

Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca

Franklin's Gull Larus pipixcan SENSITIVE SOC

Gadwall Anas strepera

Garganey Anas querquedula

Glaucous Gull Larus hyperboreus

Glaucous-winged Gull Larus glaucescens

Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos SENSITIVE

Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa

Golden-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla

Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera

Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SOC

Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis

Gray Jay Perisoreus canadensis

Gray Partridge Perdix perdix

Gray-cheeked Thrush Catharus minimus

Gray-crowned Rosy-finch Leucosticte tephrocotis SOC

Great Black-backed Gull Larus marinus

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias PSOC

Great Egret Ardea alba

Great Gray Owl Strix nebulosa SENSITIVE SOC

Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus

Greater Sage-Grouse Centrocercus urophasianus SENSITIVE C SOC

Greater Scaup Aythya marila
Appendix Q HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1180 Wildlife Species

Table Q.2

Wildlife Species in the HiLine Planning Area – Birds

Common Name Scientific Name

BLM

Status

Endangered 

Species 

Status*

State of MT 

Species of 

Concern+

Birds

Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca

Great-tailed Grackle Quiscalus mexicanus

Green Heron Butorides virescens

Green-tailed Towhee Pipilo chlorurus

Green-winged Teal Anas crecca

Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus

Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus

Hammond's Flycatcher Empidonax hammondii

Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus SENSITIVE SOC

Harris's Sparrow Zonotrichia querula

Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus

Herring Gull Larus argentatus

Hoary Redpoll Carduelis hornemanni

Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus

Hooded Warbler Wilsonia citrina

Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus PSOC

Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris

House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus

House Sparrow Passer domesticus

House Wren Troglodytes aedon

Hudsonian Godwit Limosa haemastica

Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea PSOC

Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos SENSITIVE LE SOC

Kentucky Warbler Oporornis formosus

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus

Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus

Lark Bunting Calamospiza melanocorys SOC

Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus

Laughing Gull Larus atricilla

Lazuli Bunting Passerina amoena

Le Conte's Sparrow Ammodramus leconteii SENSITIVE SOC

Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis

Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus

Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix Q

Wildlife Species 1181

Table Q.2

Wildlife Species in the HiLine Planning Area – Birds

Common Name Scientific Name

BLM

Status

Endangered 

Species 

Status*

State of MT 

Species of 

Concern+

Birds

Lesser Goldfinch Carduelis psaltria

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes

Lewis's Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis SOC

Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii

Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus SENSITIVE SOC

Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus SENSITIVE SOC

Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus

Long-eared Owl Asio otus

Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis

Long-tailed Jaeger Stercorarius longicaudus

MacGillivray's Warbler Oporornis tolmiei

Magnolia Warbler Dendroica magnolia

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos

Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa SENSITIVE

Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris

McCown's Longspur Calcarius mccownii SENSITIVE SOC

Merlin Falco columbarius

Mew Gull Larus canus

Mountain Bluebird Sialia currucoides

Mountain Chickadee Poecile gambeli

Mountain Plover Charadrius montanus SENSITIVE SOC

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura

Mourning Warbler Oporornis philadelphia

Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla

Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow Ammodramus nelsoni SENSITIVE SOC

Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis SENSITIVE SOC

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus

Northern Hawk Owl Surnia ulula SOC

Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos

Northern Parula Parula americana

Northern Pintail Anas acuta
Appendix Q HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1182 Wildlife Species

Table Q.2

Wildlife Species in the HiLine Planning Area – Birds

Common Name Scientific Name

BLM

Status

Endangered 

Species 

Status*

State of MT 

Species of 

Concern+

Birds

Northern Pygmy-owl Glaucidium gnoma

Northern Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis

Northern Saw-whet Owl Aegolius acadicus

Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata

Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor

Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis

Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi SOC

Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata

Orchard Oriole Icterus spurius PSOC

Osprey Pandion haliaetus

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla PSOC

Pacific Loon Gavia pacifica

Palm Warbler Dendroica palmarum

Parasitic Jaeger Stercorarius parasiticus

Passenger Pigeon Ectopistes migratorius Extinct

Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus SENSITIVE SOC

Philadelphia Vireo Vireo philadelphicus

Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps

Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus

Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enucleator

Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus

Pine Warbler Dendroica pinus

Pinyon Jay Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus SENSITIVE LT, CH SOC

Plumbeous Vireo Vireo plumbeus PSOC

Pomarine Jaeger Stercorarius pomarinus

Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus

Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor

Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus

Purple Martin Progne subis

Pygmy Nuthatch Sitta pygmaea

Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra

Red Knot Calidris canutus

Red Phalarope Phalaropus fulicarius
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix Q

Wildlife Species 1183

Table Q.2

Wildlife Species in the HiLine Planning Area – Birds

Common Name Scientific Name

BLM

Status

Endangered 

Species 

Status*

State of MT 

Species of 

Concern+

Birds

Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator

Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis

Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus

Redhead Aythya americana

Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus SENSITIVE SOC

Red-naped Sapsucker Sphyrapicus nuchalis

Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena

Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus

Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis

Red-throated Loon Gavia stellata

Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis

Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris

Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus

Rock Pigeon Columba livia

Rock Wren Salpinctes obsoletus

Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus

Ross's Goose Chen rossii

Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula

Ruby-throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris

Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis

Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres

Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus

Rufous Hummingbird Selasphorus rufus

Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus

Sabine's Gull Xema sabini

Sage Thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus SENSITIVE SOC

Sanderling Calidris alba

Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis

Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis

Say's Phoebe Sayornis saya

Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea

Scissor-tailed Flycatcher Tyrannus forficatus
Appendix Q HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1184 Wildlife Species

Table Q.2

Wildlife Species in the HiLine Planning Area – Birds

Common Name Scientific Name

BLM

Status

Endangered 

Species 

Status*

State of MT 

Species of 

Concern+

Birds

Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis SENSITIVE SOC

Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus

Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus

Sharp-tailed Grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus

Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus PSOC

Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis

Snow Goose Chen caerulescens

Snowy Egret Egretta thula

Snowy Owl Bubo scandiacus

Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus

Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia

Sora Porzana carolina

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius

Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus

Sprague's Pipit Anthus spragueii SENSITIVE C SOC

Spruce Grouse Falcipennis canadensis

Steller's Jay Cyanocitta stelleri

Stilt Sandpiper Calidris himantopus

Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata

Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni SENSITIVE SOC

Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus

Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana

Tennessee Warbler Vermivora peregrina PSOC

Thayer's Gull Larus thayeri

Townsend's Solitaire Myadestes townsendi

Townsend's Warbler Dendroica townsendi

Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor

Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator SENSITIVE SOC

Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura

Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda

Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix Q

Wildlife Species 1185

Table Q.2

Wildlife Species in the HiLine Planning Area – Birds

Common Name Scientific Name

BLM

Status

Endangered 

Species 

Status*

State of MT 

Species of 

Concern+

Birds

Vaux's Swift Chaetura vauxi

Veery Catharus fuscescens SENSITIVE

Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus

Violet-green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina

Virginia Rail Rallus limicola

Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus

Western Bluebird Sialia mexicana

Western Grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis

Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis

Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta

Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri

Western Screech-owl Megascops kennicottii PSOC

Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana

Western Wood-pewee Contopus sordidulus

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus

White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis

White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys

White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi SENSITIVE SOC

White-rumped Sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis

White-tailed Ptarmigan Lagopus leucura SOC

White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis

White-throated Swift Aeronautes saxatalis

White-winged Crossbill Loxia leucoptera

White-winged Dove Zenaida asiatica

White-winged Scoter Melanitta fusca

Whooping Crane Grus americana SENSITIVE LE SOC

Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo

Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus SENSITIVE

Williamson's Sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus PSOC

Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii

Wilson's Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor SENSITIVE

Wilson's Snipe Gallinago delicata

Wilson's Warbler Wilsonia pusilla

Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes

Wood Duck Aix sponsa
Appendix Q HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1186 Wildlife Species

Table Q.2

Wildlife Species in the HiLine Planning Area – Birds

Common Name Scientific Name

BLM

Status

Endangered 

Species 

Status*

State of MT 

Species of 

Concern+

Birds

Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina

Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus SOC

Yellow-billed Loon Gavia adamsii

Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens

Yellow-crowned Night-heron Nyctanassa violacea

Yellow-headed Blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus

Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata

Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons

* C – Candidate + SOC – Species of Concern

 CH – Critical Habitat PSOC – Potential Species of Concern

 LE – Listed Endangered

 LT – Listed Threatened

 XN – Experimental Non-essential

Table Q.3

Wildlife Species in the HiLine Planning Area -- Mammals

Common Name Scientific Name

BLM

Status

Endangered 

Species 

Status*

State of MT 

Species of 

Concern+

Mammals

American Badger Taxidea taxus

American Beaver Castor canadensis

American Marten Martes americana

American Pika Ochotona princeps

Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus

Bighorn Sheep Ovis canadensis

Black Bear Ursus americanus

Black-footed Ferret Mustela nigripes SPECIAL 

STATUS LE, XN SOC

Black-tailed Prairie Dog Cynomys ludovicianus SENSITIVE SOC

Bobcat Lynx rufus

Bushy-tailed Woodrat Neotoma cinerea

California Myotis Myotis californicus

Columbian Ground Squirrel Spermophilus columbianus
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix Q

Wildlife Species 1187

Table Q.3

Wildlife Species in the HiLine Planning Area -- Mammals

Common Name Scientific Name

BLM

Status

Endangered 

Species 

Status*

State of MT 

Species of 

Concern+

Mammals

Common Gray Fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus

Common Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum

Common Raccoon Procyon lotor

Coyote Canis latrans

Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus

Desert Cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii

Dwarf Shrew Sorex nanus SOC

Eastern Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger

Eastern Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis

Eastern Red Bat Lasiurus borealis SOC

Elk Cervus elaphus

Franklin's Ground Squirrel Spermophilus franklinii

Fringed Myotis Myotis thysanodes SENSITIVE SOC

Golden-mantled Ground Squirrel Spermophilus lateralis

Gray Wolf Canis lupus

SPECIAL 

STATUS LE SOC

Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos horribilis SPECIAL 

STATUS LT SOC

Hayden's Shrew Sorex haydeni PSOC

Heather Vole Phenacomys intermedius

Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus PSOC

Hoary Marmot Marmota caligata PSOC

House Mouse Mus musculus

Least Chipmunk Tamias minimus

Least Weasel Mustela nivalis

Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus

Long-eared Myotis Myotis evotis SENSITIVE

Long-legged Myotis Myotis volans SENSITIVE

Long-tailed Vole Microtus longicaudus

Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata

Lynx Lynx canadensis SPECIAL 

STATUS LT SOC

Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus

Meadow Vole Microtus pennsylvanicus

Merriam's Shrew Sorex merriami SOC

Mink Mustela vison
Appendix Q HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1188 Wildlife Species

Table Q.3

Wildlife Species in the HiLine Planning Area -- Mammals

Common Name Scientific Name

BLM

Status

Endangered 

Species 

Status*

State of MT 

Species of 

Concern+

Mammals

Montane Shrew Sorex monticolus

Moose Alces alces

Mountain Cottontail Sylvilagus nuttallii

Mountain Goat Oreamnos americanus

Mountain Lion Puma concolor

Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus

North American Wolverine Gulo gulo luscus SENSITIVE SOC

Northern Bog Lemming Synaptomys borealis SOC

Northern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus

Northern Grasshopper Mouse Onychomys leucogaster

Northern Myotis Myotis septentrionalis SENSITIVE SOC

Northern Pocket Gopher Thomomys talpoides

Northern River Otter Lontra canadensis

Northern Short-tailed Shrew Blarina brevicauda

Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus

Olive-backed Pocket Mouse Perognathus fasciatus

Ord's Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys ordii

Plains Pocket Mouse Perognathus flavescens

Prairie Vole Microtus ochrogaster

Preble's Shrew Sorex preblei SOC

Pronghorn Antilocapra americana

Pygmy Shrew Sorex hoyi

Red Fox Vulpes vulpes

Red Squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus

Red-tailed Chipmunk Tamias ruficaudus

Richardson's Ground Squirrel Spermophilus richardsonii

Sagebrush Vole Lemmiscus curtatus

Short-tailed Weasel Mustela erminea

Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivagans PSOC

Snowshoe Hare Lepus americanus

Southern Red-backed Vole Clethrionomys gapperi

Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis

Swift Fox Vulpes velox SENSITIVE SOC

Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrel Spermophilus tridecemlineatus
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix Q

Wildlife Species 1189

Table Q.3

Wildlife Species in the HiLine Planning Area -- Mammals

Common Name Scientific Name

BLM

Status

Endangered 

Species 

Status*

State of MT 

Species of 

Concern+

Mammals

Townsend's Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii SENSITIVE SOC

Townsend's Ground Squirrel Spermophilus mollis

Vagrant Shrew Sorex vagrans

Water Shrew Sorex palustris

Water Vole Microtus richardsoni

Western Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis

Western Jumping Mouse Zapus princeps

Western Small-footed Myotis Myotis ciliolabrum

White-footed Mouse Peromyscus leucopus

White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus

White-tailed Jack Rabbit Lepus townsendii

Woodchuck Marmota monax

Yellow-bellied Marmot Marmota flaviventris

Yellow-pine Chipmunk Tamias amoenus

Yuma Myotis Myotis yumanensis PSOC

* C – Candidate + SOC – Species of Concern

 CH – Critical Habitat PSOC – Potential Species of Concern

 LE – Listed Endangered

 LT – Listed Threatened

 XN – Experimental Non-essential

Table Q.4

Wildlife Species in the HiLine Planning Area -- Reptiles

Common Name Scientific Name

BLM

Status

Endangered 

Species 

Status*

State of MT 

Species of 

Concern+

Reptiles

Common Gartersnake Thamnophis sirtalis

Common Sagebrush Lizard Sceloporus graciosus SOC

Eastern Racer Coluber constrictor

Gophersnake Pituophis catenifer

Greater Short-Horned Lizard Phrynosoma hernandesi SENSITIVE SOC

Milksnake Lampropeltis triangulum SENSITIVE SOC

Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta

Plains Gartersnake Thamnophis radix

Prairie Rattlesnake Crotalus viridis
Appendix Q HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1190 Wildlife Species

Table Q.4

Wildlife Species in the HiLine Planning Area -- Reptiles

Common Name Scientific Name

BLM

Status

Endangered 

Species 

Status*

State of MT 

Species of 

Concern+

Reptiles

Smooth Greensnake Opheodrys vernalis

Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentine SENSITIVE SOC

Spiny Softshell Turtle Apalone spinifera SENSITIVE SOC

Terrestrial Gartersnake Thamnophis elegans

Western Hog-nosed Snake Heterodon nasicus SENSITIVE SOC

* C – Candidate + SOC – Species of Concern

 CH – Critical Habitat PSOC – Potential Species of Concern

 LE – Listed Endangered

 LT – Listed Threatened

 XN – Experimental Non-essential
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix R

Monitoring of Sage-Grouse/Sagebrush Habitats 1191

Appendix R

Monitoring of Sage‐Grouse and Sagebrush Habitats

Background

On March 5, 2010 the 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as 

Threatened or Endangered were posted as a Federal Register notice (75 FR 13910 14014). This notice stated:

“...the information collected by BLM could not be used to make broad generalizations about the 

status of rangelands and management actions. There was a lack of consistency across the range in 

how questions were interpreted and answered for the data call, which limited our ability to use the 

results to understand habitat conditions for sage-grouse on BLM lands. For example, one question 

asked about the number of acres of land within sage-grouse habitat that was meeting rangeland 

health standards. Field offices in more than three States conducted the rangeland health 

assessments, and reported landscape conditions at different scales (Sell 2009, pers. comm.). In 

addition, the BLM data call reported information at a different scale than was used for their 

landscape mapping (District or project level versus national scale) (Buckner 2009b, pers. comm.).” 

Given the degree of uncertainty associated with managing natural resources, adaptive management approaches that 

include rigorous monitoring protocols to support them are essential if conservation goals are to be realized (Walters 

1986; Burgman, et al. 2005; Stankey, et al. 2005; Turner 2005; Lyons, et al. 2008). Recent efforts to develop range‐wide 

policy and conservation measures for sage‐grouse have emphasized the importance of improving monitoring efforts on 

both sage‐grouse distribution and population trends, as well as the habitat they depend on (Wambolt et al. 2002;

Connelly, et al. 2003; Stiver, et al. 2006; Reese and Boyer 2007; Connelly, et al. 2011). Connelly, et al. (2003) and 

Stiver, et al. (2010) identified the need to assess and monitor sage-grouse habitats based on habitat characterization that 

should follow habitat selection processes identified by Johnson (1980). These processes identify four selection orders: 

(1) rangewide, (2) physical and geographic range of populations, (3) physical and geographic range within home ranges, 

and (4) physical and geographic areas within seasonal ranges to meet the life requisites of sage-grouse. These four 

habitat selection orders each have unique habitat indicators that should be assessed and monitored to properly evaluate 

sage-grouse habitats and relate those habitat indicators back to sage-grouse populations.

Monitoring tied to Resource Management Plan (RMP) decisions has two parts: (1) implementation monitoring 

(implementation of decisions, waivers, modifications, etc.), and (2) effectiveness monitoring. Through effectiveness 

monitoring, BLM can answer questions about how our decisions and actions impact habitat. Understanding the 

effectiveness and validating results of RMPs and management decisions is an important part of BLM measuring its 

performance under the Government Performance Results Act. For example, riparian condition is a primary measure for 

RMP effectiveness (see WO IM 2010-101). Monitoring that is applicable for evaluating management effectiveness can 

also be used to address a number of other critical habitat variables (e.g., location, condition, habitat conversion, size of 

patches, number of patches, species composition, connectivity and linkage, etc.). Ideally, monitoring attributes of sage‐

grouse habitat and sage‐grouse populations will allow linking real or potential habitat changes (from both natural events 

and management actions) to vital rates of sage‐grouse populations (Stiver, et al. 2006; Naugle and Walker 2007). These 

conclusions will enable managers to identify indicators associated with population change across large landscapes and to 

ameliorate negative effects with appropriate conservation actions (Burgman, et al. 2005; Turner 2005).

Sage‐Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

In August 2010, the Sage‐Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework (HAF): Multi‐scale Habitat Assessment Tool was 

completed (Stiver, et al. 2010). The HAF provides policy makers, resource managers, and natural resource specialists a 

comprehensive framework for sage grouse specific habitat assessments within sagebrush ecosystems. Assessment and 

monitoring of sage-grouse habitat is scale dependent. The HAF provides consistent indicators, metric descriptions, and 

habitat suitability characteristics for each of these scales specific to sage-grouse. It also provides consistent terminology 
Appendix R HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1192 Monitoring of Sage-Grouse/Sagebrush Habitats

so that biologists, other resource specialists, and managers from a wide range of agencies can address sage-grouse 

habitats. Monitoring inappropriate indicators for various scales can result in monitoring results that cannot correctly 

evaluate sage-grouse habitats and can misinform management of the effectiveness of land use plan decisions and activity 

level management actions. 

BLM Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy

The BLM Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) Strategy (Toevs, et al. 2011) was completed in 2011 (BLM IB 

2012-080) and describes a vision for integrated, cross-program assessment, inventory, and monitoring of resources at 

multiple scales of management. Following the AIM Strategy, the BLM is modernizing its resource monitoring approach 

to more efficiently and effectively meet local, regional, and national resource information needs. The AIM Strategy 

provides a process for the BLM to collect quantitative information on the condition, trend, amount, location, and spatial 

pattern of natural resources on the public lands. Each AIM-Monitoring survey, at any scale of inquiry (from the plot 

level to westwide deployments), uses a set of core indicators, standardized field methods, remote sensing, and a 

statistically valid study design to provide nationally consistent and scientifically defensible information to determine 

condition (e.g., rangeland health) and trend on public lands.

The National-scale deployment of AIM (i.e. Landscape Monitoring Framework [LMF]) commenced in 2011 with the 

collection of 1,000 plots of field-collected monitoring data across the Western U.S. The LMF will add approximately 

1,000 new plots per year on non-forested public rangeland West-wide, plus an additional 1,000 plots per year in greater 

sage-grouse priority habitats. These national core data sets will be integrated with locally collected, project level, core

data and remote sensing data to determine the condition and trend of sage-grouse habitats and the effectiveness of BLM 

management actions. This will be used to address threats and stressors, restore priority habitats, and maintain spatial 

connectivity at multiple scales of inquiry (from plots to landscapes and regions). Further, these multi-scale data will 

provide information to determine long-term achievement of planning goals and objectives, analyze cumulative effects, 

and serve as the basis for adaptive management actions. A critical element of greater sage-grouse monitoring will be the 

production of an annual public report summarizing the broad scale condition and trend of priority habitats. Analysis of 

condition and trend reports will adaptively feed back into the monitoring process and will be refined as necessary. 

Additional site- or population-scale monitoring or habitat assessments, specific to greater sage-grouse needs, may be 

implemented when necessary through the Sage‐Grouse HAF to answer specific local management questions or refine 

adaptive management needs that are not addressed by the AIM-Monitoring core indicators.

Implementation

The standardization of monitoring methods and implementation of a defensible monitoring approach (within and across 

jurisdictions) is vital if BLM and other conservation partners are to use the resulting information to guide 

implementation of conservation activities. Monitoring strategies for sage‐grouse habitat and populations must be 

collaborative, as habitat occurs across jurisdictional boundaries (52% BLM, 31% private, 8% USFS, 5% state, 4% tribal 

and other Federal; 75 FR 13910), and because state fish and wildlife agencies have primary responsibility for population 

level management of wildlife, including population monitoring. Population efforts therefore will continue to be 

conducted in partnership with state fish and wildlife agencies. The BLM will coordinate our multiple internal, habitatbased protocols among jurisdictions, as feasible, to provide large scale data sets to understand trends in sagebrush 

ecosystems.

Implementation policy directing use of the HAF, and the HAF in conjunction with AIM-Monitoring in addition to other 

guidance in the BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy will be necessary to provide a 

framework for consistent approaches to sage-grouse habitat condition and trend monitoring across planning units and 

jurisdictions. This implementation policy will be developed by BLM in cooperation with our conservation partners.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix R

Monitoring of Sage-Grouse/Sagebrush Habitats 1193

Literature Cited

Burgman, M.A., D.B. Lindenmayer, and J. Elith. 2005. Managing landscapes for conservation under uncertainty. 

Ecology 86:2007‐2017.

Connelly, J.W., K.P. Reese, and M.A. Schroeder. 2003. Monitoring sage‐grouse habitats and populations. University of 

Idaho, College of Natural Resources Experiment Station Bulletin 80 Moscow, Idaho, USA.

Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, C.E. Braun, W.L. Baker, E.A. Beever, T. Christiansen, K.E. Doherty, E.O. Garton, S.E. 

Hanser, D.H. Johnson, M. Leu, R.F. Miller, D.E. Naugle, S.J. Oyler‐McCance, D.A. Pyke, K.P. Reese, M.A. 

Schroeder, S.J. Stiver, B.L. Walker, and M.J. Wisdom. 2011. Conservation of Greater Sage‐Grouse: a synthesis of 

current trends and future management. Pp. 549–563 in S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly (editors). Greater Sage‐

Grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and habitats. Studies in Avian Biology (vol. 38), 

University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Johnson, D. H. 1980. The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. 

Ecology 61:65-71.

Lyons, J.E., M.C. Runge, H.P. Laskowski, and W.L. Kendall. 2008. Monitoring in the context of structured decision‐

making and adaptive management.

Naugle, D.E. and B.L. Walker. 2007. A collaborative vision for integrated monitoring of greater sage‐grouse 

populations. Pp. 57‐62 in K.P. Reese and R.T. Bowyer (editors). Monitoring populations of sage‐grouse: 

proceedings of a symposium at Idaho State University. University of Idaho College of Natural Resources Station 

Bulletin 88. University of Idaho, Moscow, ID.

Reese, K.P., and R.T. Bowyer (editors). 2007. Monitoring populations of sage‐grouse. College of Natural Resources 

Experiment Station Bulletin 88. University of Idaho, Moscow, ID.

Stankey, G.H., R.N. Clark, and B.T. Bormann. 2005. Adaptive management of natural resources: theory, concepts, and 

management institutions. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW‐GTR‐654. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Northwest Research Station.

Stiver, S.J., A.D. Apa, J.R. Bohne, S.D. Bunnell, P.A. Deibert, S.C. Gardner, M.A. Hilliard, C.W. McCarthy, and M.A. 

Schroeder. 2006. Greater sage‐grouse comprehensive strategy. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

Unpublished Report. Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA.

Stiver, S.J., E.T. Rinkes, and D.E. Naugle. 2010. Sage‐Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework. , Bureau of Land 

Management Unpublished Report. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office, 

Boise, ID.

Toevs, G.R., J.J. Taylor, C.S. Spurrier, W.C. MacKinnon, and M.R. Bobo. 2011. Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring 

Strategy: For integrated renewable resource management. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, National Operations Center, Denver, CO.

Turner, M.G. 2005. Landscape ecology in North America: Past, present, and future. Ecology 86:1967‐1974.

Walters, C.J. 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. MacMillan, New York, New York. 374 pp.

Wambolt, C.L., A.J. Harp, B.L. Welch, N. Shaw, J.W. Connelly, K.P. Reese, C.E. Braun, D.A. Klebenow, 

E.D.McArthur, J.G. Thompson, L.A.Torell, and J.A. Tanaka. 2002. Conservation of Greater Sage‐Grouse on Public 

Lands in the Western U.S.: Implications of Recovery and Management Policies. PACWPL Policy Paper SG‐02‐02, 

Caldwell, ID: Policy Analysis Center for Western Public Lands. 41p.

HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1195

Appendix S

Special Recreation Management Areas

and

Extensive Recreation Management Areas

The BLM has established a three-tier system of lands managed for recreation where Special Recreation Management 

Areas (SRMAs) will be given management priority to provide quality recreation opportunities and visitor experiences. 

Extensive Recreation Management Areas (ERMAs) will also require specific management consideration, but 

commensurate with the management of other resources and resource uses. All remaining lands will be managed as 

public lands not designated as recreation management areas (LND), and would generally be managed only to address 

basic recreation and visitor services and resource stewardship needs such as visitor safety and use, and user conflicts. 

The three Recreation Management Area categories are described as follows:

 Special Recreation Management Areas

Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) are administrative units where the existing or proposed 

recreation opportunities and recreation setting characteristics are recognized for their unique value, importance 

and/or distinctiveness, especially as compared to other areas used for recreation. 

SRMAs have recreational values with development potential and need more intensive recreation management 

because outdoor recreation is a high priority, thus requiring a greater recreation investment. Major investments 

in facilities within Special Recreation Management Areas can be excluded where the BLM’s strategy is to target 

demonstrated, undeveloped, recreation-tourism market demand. Here, recreation management actions are 

geared toward meeting primary recreation-tourism market demands to sustain distinctive recreation setting 

characteristics. However, major investments in visitor services can be authorized both to sustain those 

distinctive setting characteristics and to maintain visitor freedom to choose where to go and what to do; all in 

response to demonstrated demand for undeveloped recreation.

 Extensive Recreation Management Areas

Extensive Recreation Management Areas (ERMAs) are administrative units that require specific management 

consideration in order to address recreation use, demand or recreation and visitor services program investments.

ERMAs also have recreational values with development potential but require less intensive recreation 

management than Special Recreation Management Areas. Management of these areas focuses on supporting 

and sustaining the principal recreation activities and the associated qualities and conditions of the area, but these 

activities are commensurate with management of other resources and resource uses. Recreational uses that are 

not compatible with other resources may be restricted or constrained to achieve the interdisciplinary objectives 

of the area.

 Public Lands Not Designated as Recreation Management Areas

Public Lands Not Designated as Recreation Management Areas (LND) are 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. This category applies to most of the BLM lands that are managed 

for traditional dispersed recreational use with little or no facility development.

This report presents the completed evaluation forms for all existing and proposed SRMAs and ERMAs in the HiLine 

planning area (Forms S.1 through S.14). A summary listing is shown below. Maps S.1 through S.14 showing the 

locations of the SRMAs and ERMAs are found following the individual evaluations.
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1196 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

The HiLine Draft Resource Management Plan (Draft RMP) includes existing and proposed SRMAs and ERMAs which 

vary by alternative. All of the SRMAs and ERMAs listed in the Draft RMP are described in the following pages. 

Existing and Proposed SRMAs and ERMAs

HiLine Planning Area

No. Name SRMA ERMA Page No.

S.1 BR-12 Watchable Wildlife Area

Alt. D 1197

Alt. C, E 1201

S.2 Cottonwood Riparian Area

Alt. D 1204

Alt. C, E 1208

S.3 Faraasen Park 

Alt. D 1211

Alt. C, E 1215

S.4 Fresno OHV

Alt. D 1218

Alt. C, E 1221

S.5 Glasgow OHV

Alt. D, E 1224

Alt. C 1227

S.6 Little Rocky Mountains SRMA

Alt. A, C, D, E 1230

N/A

S.7 Marias River

Alt. D 1242

Alt. C, E 1251

S.8 Paulo Reservoir

Alt. D 1254

Alt. C, E 1258

S.9 South Phillips Recreation Complex

Alt. D 1261

Alt. C, E 1265

S.10 Sweet Grass Hills

Alt. D 1268

Alt. E 1272

S.11 Thirty Mile OHV

Alt. D 1275

N/A

S.12 Timber Creek Ridge

N/A

Alt. D, E 1279

S.13 Troika Reservoir

Alt. D 1282

Alt. C, E 1286

S.14 Wards Dam 

N/A

Alt. D 1289
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1197

S.1 BR-12 Watchable Wildlife Area SRMA

Alternative D

Supporting Information

Important Values of the SRMA

 Compared to other public wetlands in the area, Wards Dam offers a more diverse wetland ecology providing a 

variety of aquatic wildlife and plant viewing opportunities that are easily accessed via maintained public roads. 

 The SRMA is a Watchable Wildlife site featured in the “Montana Wildlife Viewing Guide” which features the 

best wildlife viewing sites across Montana. 

Recreation Demand

 The primary customers are bird watchers traveling the Montana HiLine and local school groups.

General Types of Visitors to be Targeted

 The visitor segment is identified as school groups on day field trips, birdwatchers and other organized groups 

such as Boy Scouts and Girls Scouts.

Ability to Manage Recreation Resources

 The SRMA is currently fenced off from the surrounding rangeland to exclude cattle except during prescribed 

grazing treatments. BR-12 is a Watchable Wildlife site featured in the “Montana Wildlife Viewing Guide” 

which features the best wildlife viewing sites across Montana. The area also has a history of use by the 

Chinook Schools for day field trips, Montana Audubon Society for bird watching, and Boy Scouts for badge 

projects. This area has support and potential partnership opportunities with these groups and others, such as 

Montana Ducks Unlimited and Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks to maintain and further develop the wildlife 

habitat and visitor opportunities at the site.

SRMA Outcome Objective

Maintain and enhance the facilities at BR-12 Watchable Wildlife Area as needed to meet recreational demands and 

comply with public health and safety requirements. Establish the site as an annual outdoor classroom destination for the 

Chinook Schools and other area schools.

Activities  Outdoor Classroom/School Field Trips

 Bird Watching/Wildlife Viewing

Experiences  Releasing or reducing some built up mental tensions

 Enjoying frequent access to outdoor physical activity 

 Developing outdoor knowledge, skills and abilities

 Outdoor classroom setting

 Enjoying the areas wildlife, scenery, views and aesthetics 

Benefits Personal:

 Improved physical fitness/better health maintenance

 Restored mind from stress/tension/anxiety

 Improved outdoor recreation skills

 Living a more outdoor-oriented lifestyle

 Improved balance of work and play in my life

 Greater awareness of this area as a special place

Community/Social:

 Lifestyle improvement or maintenance

 Easily accessible outdoor classroom setting for local schools and youth groups
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1198 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

Environmental:

 Preserve the special landscape character of this place

Economic:

 Greater value-added local services

 Increased desirability as a place to live or retire

Proposed Recreation Setting Characteristics (RSCs)

Proposed Physical RSCs:

Naturalness:

 The site provides a variety of native upland and wetland plant and animal species.

Visitor Facilities:

 The site is accessible from the County Road by an approach and cattle guard. Parking is provided at the 

entrance to the site. Future facilities proposed include an interpretive panel describing the unique wildlife and 

plant features of the area at the parking area, as well as a walking trail to the northwest end of the wetland 

where a wildlife photography/observation blind will be made available to minimize impacts to the plant, soil 

and wildlife resources.

Proposed Social RSCs:

Contacts (avg.):

 Participants would encounter a season average of up to 2 encounters per day.

Group Size (avg.):

 The average size of the casual or bird watching group size would be 2-4 whereas the average outdoor classroom 

group size would be around 20.

Evidence of Use: 

 Sounds of other people occasionally heard. A few small localized areas of vegetation alteration and 

compacted/bare soils are acceptable. Inappropriate recreation use is rehabilitated

Proposed Operational RSCs:

Access (types of travel):

 Motorized travel is limited to existing trails. The rest of the area would be accessible by foot. The predominant 

uses at this site are non-motorized.

Visitor Services/Info: 

 An interpretive panel and site map at the parking area will assists visitors with area rules, regulations and ethics 

as well as viewing opportunities. A walking trail leading to a wildlife photography/observation blind will 

provide visitors with enhanced wildlife viewing opportunities while minimizing disturbance to the vegetation 

and wildlife resources.

 Picnic tables will be provided near the parking area to enhance visitor use and outdoor classroom activities.

Management Controls:

 A moderate degree of visitor and land use controls exercised. BLM on-site presence is low and infrequent 

except during outdoor classroom group visits.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1199

Supporting Management Action and Allowable Use Decisions

Camping:

 The SRMA is open to camping and overnight use.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 The area is classified as limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails until subsequent site-specific travel 

management planning occurs.

 Hand-held, wheeled carts are allowed for the direct retrieval of big game.

 Over snow travel by snowmobiles is allowed.

Firearm Use Restriction:

 The discharge of firearms for recreational target shooting is prohibited in developed recreation sites.

Lands and Realty: 

 ROW avoidance areas are applied to the SRMA. 

 ROW avoidance areas are applied to developed recreation sites.

 The SRMA is retained for long-term management.

 Developed recreation sites are retained for long-term management. 

Stipulations for Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:

 Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation on surface occupancy and surface-disturbing activities in the SRMA 

for the protection of the recreation activities, recreation outcomes and the RSCs.

Visual Resource Management (VRM):

 The SRMA would be classified as VRM Class IV and managed under VRM Class IV objectives. 

 Apply BMPs to surface-disturbing activities to minimize the impact of these activities to the extent possible.

Implementation-Level Decisions Included in this RMP Revision

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 Travel management for this area will be low priority to be determined during the life of the RMP. In the 

interim, motorized travel is limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails. A site-specific travel network 

of roads and trails available for public use and any limitations placed on that use will be included in the 

subsequent travel management planning for the area. 

 Maintain the existing road, primitive road and trail system and construct new routes only to connect to new 

visitor facilities or to address issues of visitor safety or resource damage. 

 In Alternative D, motorized off-road travel will be allowed for retrieval of a big game animal that is in 

possession, in a minimum timeframe utilizing the most direct route while minimizing resource damage, between 

the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.

Special Recreation Permits:

 SRPs will be required for any commercial or organized group activities that are not authorized under an MOU 

or letter of agreement.

Best Management Practices to Guide Implementation-Level Planning and Management

Management:

 Reroute trails that that create resource damage and trespass on private property.

 Develop a wildlife and habitat monitoring-management plan to maintain the diversity of native wildlife and plant 

species on which the area recreation is dependent.

 With stakeholder involvement, apply adaptive management (e.g. Limits of Acceptable Change) which focuses 

on a cycle of designing-implementing-monitoring-evaluating-adjusting implementation actions to respond to 

future recreation issues and the results of monitoring. 
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1200 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

Administration: 

 Pursue partnerships with local schools and other user groups to develop visitor facilities and to assist with 

maintenance and monitoring activities. Develop a Memorandum of Understanding or Letter of Agreement, as 

appropriate, between BLM and partners that outlines administrative roles and responsibilities.

Information and Education: 

 Provide a basic SRMA brochure/map including information on: targeted outcomes, RSCs, estimated times, 

ethics, wildlife protection, private-public land ownership and stewardship information; to help preserve the 

recreation opportunities and the special landscape character of this place.

 Provide interpretive signage to support the SRMA objectives and RMA opportunities.

 Market the area locally. Local marketing involves tailoring information and maps to the needs and wants of 

local customers and providing information at local outlets and on-site locations only.

Monitoring:

 Monitor outcome attainment and preferences through customer assessments (e.g. focus group interviews or 

visitor studies) on five year intervals or as funding allows. Monitor activity participation and RSCs annually 

during the primary use season of mid-April through October. 

 If future monitoring indicates that social RSCs are not being achieved, resource damage is occurring or user 

conflicts need to be addressed, the HiLine District may create an allocation system or apply group size limits for 

private and commercial recreation use.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1201

S.1 BR-12 Watchable Wildlife Area ERMA

Alternatives C and E (Preferred Alternative)

ERMA Outcome Objective 

Maintain and enhance the facilities at BR-12 Watchable Wildlife Area as needed to meet recreational demands and 

comply with public health and safety requirements. Establish the site as an annual outdoor classroom destination for the 

Chinook Schools and other area schools.

Activities  Outdoor Classroom/School Field Trips

 Bird Watching/Wildlife Viewing

 Waterfowl Hunting

Experiences  Releasing or reducing some built up mental tensions

 Enjoying frequent access to outdoor physical activity 

 Developing outdoor knowledge, skills and abilities

 Outdoor classroom setting

 Enjoying the areas wildlife, scenery, views and aesthetics 

Benefits Personal:

 Improved physical fitness/better health maintenance

 Restored mind from stress/tension/anxiety

 Improved outdoor recreation skills

 Living a more outdoor-oriented lifestyle

 Improved balance of work and play in my life

 Greater awareness of this area as a special place

Community/Social:

 Lifestyle improvement or maintenance

 Easily accessible outdoor classroom setting for local schools and youth groups

Environmental:

 Preserve the special landscape character of this place

Economic:

 Greater value-added local services

 Increased desirability as a place to live or retire

Supporting Management Action and Allowable Use Decisions

Camping:

 The ERMA is open to camping and overnight use.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 The area is classified as limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails until subsequent site-specific travel 

management planning occurs.

 Hand-held, wheeled carts are allowed for the direct retrieval of big game.

 Over snow travel by snowmobiles is allowed.

Lands and Realty: 

 ROW avoidance areas are applied to the ERMA. 

 The SRMA is retained for long-term management.

Stipulations for Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:

 Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation on surface occupancy and surface-disturbing activities in the ERMA 

for the protection of the recreation activities and objectives.
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1202 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

Visual Resource Management (VRM):

 The SRMA would be classified as VRM Class III and managed under VRM Class III objectives. 

 Apply BMPs to surface-disturbing activities to minimize the impact of these activities to the extent possible.

Implementation-Level Decisions Included in this RMP Revision

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 Travel management for this area will be low priority to be completed during the life of the RMP. In the interim, 

motorized travel is limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails. A site-specific travel network of roads 

and trails available for public use and any limitations placed on that use will be included in the subsequent 

travel management planning for the area. 

 Maintain the existing road, primitive road and trail system and construct new routes only to connect to new 

visitor facilities or to address issues of visitor safety or resource damage. 

Facilities:

 Under Alternative E (preferred), the ERMA boundary will be expanded to the County road to the west to 

provide a graveled public parking area and interpretive sign to enhance visitor experience.

Special Recreation Permits:

 SRPs will be required for any commercial or organized group activities that are not authorized under an MOU 

or letter of agreement.

Best Management Practices to Guide Implementation-Level Planning and Management

Management:

 Reroute trails that that create resource damage and trespass on private property.

 Develop a wildlife and habitat monitoring-management plan to maintain the diversity of native wildlife and plant 

species on which the area recreation is dependent.

 With stakeholder involvement, apply adaptive management (e.g. Limits of Acceptable Change) which focuses 

on a cycle of designing-implementing-monitoring-evaluating-adjusting implementation actions to respond to 

future recreation issues and the results of monitoring. 

Administration: 

 Pursue partnerships with local schools and other user groups to develop visitor facilities and to assist with 

maintenance and monitoring activities. Develop a Memorandum of Understanding or Letter of Agreement, as 

appropriate, between BLM and partners that outlines administrative roles and responsibilities.

Information and Education: 

 Provide a basic ERMA brochure/map including information on: targeted outcomes, RSCs, estimated times, 

ethics, wildlife protection, private-public land ownership and stewardship information; to help preserve the 

recreation opportunities and the special landscape character of this place.

 Provide interpretive signage to support the ERMA objectives and opportunities.

 Market the area locally. Local marketing involves tailoring information and maps to the needs and wants of 

local customers and providing information at local outlets and on-site locations only.

Monitoring:

 Monitor outcome attainment and preferences through customer assessments (e.g. focus group interviews or 

visitor studies) on five year intervals or as funding allows. Monitor activity participation annually during the 

primary use season of mid-April through November. 

 If future monitoring indicates that resource damage is occurring or user conflicts need to be addressed, the 

HiLine District may create an allocation system or apply group size limits for private and commercial recreation 

use.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1203
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1204 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

S.2 Cottonwood Riparian Area SRMA

Alternative D

Supporting Information

Important Values of the SRMA

 The area offers diverse wildlife and riparian area ecology viewing opportunities that are easily accessed via 

maintained public roads. 

Recreation Demand

 The primary customers are bird watchers, anglers, campers and local school groups.

General Types of Visitors to be Targeted

 The visitor segment is identified as school groups on day field trips, birdwatchers and Milk River anglers.

Ability to Manage Recreation Resources

 The SRMA is currently fenced off from the surrounding rangeland to exclude cattle except during prescribed 

grazing treatments. The area is occasionally used by the Malta Schools for day field trips, outdoor classroom 

and science fair projects. This area has support and potential partnership opportunities with the local schools 

and other groups and agencies to maintain and further develop the wildlife habitat and visitor opportunities at 

the site.

SRMA Outcome Objective

Maintain and enhance the facilities at Cottonwood Riparian Area as needed to meet recreational demands and comply 

with public health and safety requirements. Establish the site as an annual outdoor classroom destination for the Malta 

Schools and other area schools.

Activities  Outdoor Classroom/School Field Trips

 Bird Watching/Wildlife Viewing

 Fishing

Experiences  Releasing or reducing some built up mental tensions

 Enjoying frequent access to outdoor physical activity 

 Developing outdoor knowledge, skills and abilities

 Outdoor classroom setting

 Enjoying the areas wildlife, scenery, views and aesthetics 

 River fishing

Benefits Personal:

 Improved physical fitness/better health maintenance

 Restored mind from stress/tension/anxiety

 Improved outdoor recreation skills

 Living a more outdoor-oriented lifestyle

 Improved balance of work and play in my life

 Greater awareness of this area as a special place

 Catch fish for a healthy food source

Community/Social:

 Lifestyle improvement or maintenance

 Easily accessible outdoor classroom setting for local schools and youth groups

Environmental:

 Preserve the special landscape character of this place
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1205

Economic:

 Greater value-added local services

 Increased desirability as a place to live or retire

Proposed Recreation Setting Characteristics (RSCs)

Proposed Physical RSCs:

Naturalness:

 The site provides a variety of native riparian plant and animal species.

Visitor Facilities:

 The site is accessible from the County Road by a maintained BLM road with approaches and cattle guards. 

Parking, restroom and camping/picnic facilities are provided as well as access to the Milk River. Future 

facilities proposed include additional camp sites and interpretive panels describing the unique wildlife and plant 

features of the area.

Proposed Social RSCs:

Contacts (avg.):

 Participants would encounter a season average of up to 2 encounters per day.

Group Size (avg.):

 The average size of the casual or bird watching or fishing group size would be 2-4 whereas the average outdoor 

classroom group size would be around 20.

Evidence of Use: 

 Sounds of other people occasionally heard. A few small localized areas of vegetation alteration and 

compacted/bare soils are acceptable. Inappropriate recreation use is rehabilitated

Proposed Operational RSCs:

Access (types of travel):

 Motorized travel is limited to existing roads. The rest of the area would be accessible by foot. The predominant 

uses at this site are non-motorized.

Visitor Services/Info: 

 A sign and brochure box at the parking/restroom area will inform visitors of area rules, regulations and ethics as 

well as recreational opportunities. A walk-through gate on the south boundary provides access to the Milk 

River.

 A picnic table and fire ring are provided at each camp site to enhance visitor use and outdoor classroom 

activities.

Management Controls:

 A moderate degree of visitor and land use controls exercised. BLM cleans and maintains the bathroom and 

campsite facilities on a weekly basis during the spring-fall season and monthly during the winter season. BLM 

staff accompanies outdoor classroom groups.
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1206 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

Supporting Management Action and Allowable Use Decisions

Camping:

 The SRMA is open to camping and overnight use.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 The area is classified as limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails until subsequent site-specific travel 

management planning occurs.

Firearm Use Restriction:

 The discharge of firearms for recreational target shooting is prohibited in developed recreation sites.

Lands and Realty: 

 ROW avoidance areas are applied to the SRMA. 

 ROW avoidance areas are applied to developed recreation sites.

 The SRMA is retained for long-term management.

 Developed recreation sites are retained for long-term management.

Stipulations for Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:

 Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation on surface occupancy and surface-disturbing activities in the SRMA 

for the protection of the recreation activities, recreation outcomes and the RSCs.

Visual Resource Management (VRM):

 The SRMA would be classified as VRM Class IV and managed under VRM Class IV objectives. 

 Apply BMPs to surface-disturbing activities to minimize the impact of these activities to the extent possible.

Implementation-Level Decisions Included in this RMP Revision

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 Travel management for this area will be low priority to be determined during the life of the RMP. In 

the interim, motorized travel is limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails. A site-specific 

travel network of roads and trails available for public use and any limitations placed on that use will 

be included in the subsequent travel management planning for the area. 

 Maintain the existing road, primitive road and trail system and construct new routes only to connect 

to new visitor facilities or to address issues of visitor safety or resource damage. 

 In Alternative D, motorized off-road travel will be allowed for retrieval of a big game animal that is 

in possession, in a minimum timeframe utilizing the most direct route while minimizing resource 

damage, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.

Special Recreation Permits:

 SRPs will be required for any commercial or organized group activities that are not authorized under 

an MOU or letter of agreement.

Best Management Practices to Guide Implementation-Level Planning and Management

Management:

 Reroute trails that that create resource damage and trespass on private property.

 Develop a wildlife and habitat monitoring-management plan to maintain the diversity of native wildlife and plant 

species on which the area recreation is dependent.

 With stakeholder involvement, apply adaptive management (e.g. Limits of Acceptable Change) which focuses on a 

cycle of designing-implementing-monitoring-evaluating-adjusting implementation actions to respond to future 

recreation issues and the results of monitoring. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1207

Administration: 

 Pursue partnerships with local schools and other user groups to develop visitor facilities and to assist with 

maintenance and monitoring activities. Develop a Memorandum of Understanding or Letter of Agreement, as 

appropriate, between BLM and partners that outlines administrative roles and responsibilities.

Information and Education: 

 Provide a basic SRMA brochure/map including information on: targeted outcomes, RSCs, estimated times, 

ethics, wildlife protection, private-public land ownership and stewardship information; to help preserve the 

recreation opportunities and the special landscape character of this place.

 Provide interpretive signage to support the SRMA objectives and RMA opportunities.

 Market the area locally. Local marketing involves tailoring information and maps to the needs and wants of 

local customers and providing information at local outlets and on-site locations only.

Monitoring:

 Monitor outcome attainment and preferences through customer assessments (e.g. focus group interviews or 

visitor studies) on five year intervals or as funding allows. Monitor activity participation and RSCs annually 

during the primary use season of mid-April through October. 

 If future monitoring indicates that social RSCs are not being achieved, resource damage is occurring or user 

conflicts need to be addressed, the HiLine District may create an allocation system or apply group size limits for 

private and commercial recreation use.
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1208 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

S.2 Cottonwood Riparian Area ERMA

Alternatives C and E (Preferred Alternative)

ERMA Outcome Objective 

Maintain and enhance the facilities at Cottonwood Riparian Area as needed to meet recreational demands and comply 

with public health and safety requirements. 

Activities  Bird Watching/Wildlife Viewing

 Camping

 Picnicking

 Fishing

Experiences  Releasing or reducing some built up mental tensions

 Enjoying frequent access to outdoor physical activity 

 Developing outdoor knowledge, skills and abilities

 Enjoying the areas wildlife, scenery, views and aesthetics 

Benefits Personal:

 Improved physical fitness/better health maintenance

 Restored mind from stress/tension/anxiety

 Improved outdoor recreation skills

 Living a more outdoor-oriented lifestyle

 Improved balance of work and play in my life

 Greater awareness of this area as a special place

Community/Social:

 Lifestyle improvement or maintenance

Environmental:

 Preserve the special landscape character of this place

Economic:

 Greater value-added local services

 Increased desirability as a place to live or retire

Supporting Management Action and Allowable Use Decisions

Camping:

 The ERMA is open to camping and overnight use.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 The area is classified as limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails until subsequent site-specific travel 

management planning occurs.

 Over snow travel by snowmobiles is allowed.

Lands and Realty: 

 Under Alternative E (preferred) ROW avoidance areas are applied to the ERMA. 

 The ERMA is retained for long-term management.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1209

Stipulations for Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:

 Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation on surface occupancy and surface-disturbing activities in the ERMA 

for the protection of the recreation activities and objectives.

Visual Resource Management (VRM):

 The SRMA would be classified as VRM Class III and managed under VRM Class III objectives. 

 Apply BMPs to surface-disturbing activities to minimize the impact of these activities to the extent possible.

Implementation-Level Decisions Included in this RMP Revision

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 Travel management for this area will be low priority to be completed during the life of the RMP. In the interim, 

motorized travel is limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails. A site-specific travel network of roads 

and trails available for public use and any limitations placed on that use will be included in the subsequent 

travel management planning for the area. 

 Maintain the existing road, primitive road and trail system and construct new routes only to connect to new 

visitor facilities or to address issues of visitor safety or resource damage. 

Special Recreation Permits:

 SRPs will be required for any commercial or organized group activities that are not authorized under an MOU 

or letter of agreement.

Best Management Practices to Guide Implementation-Level Planning and Management

Management:

 Reroute trails that that create resource damage and trespass on private property.

 Develop a wildlife and habitat monitoring-management plan to maintain the diversity of native wildlife and plant 

species on which the area recreation is dependent.

 With stakeholder involvement, apply adaptive management (e.g. Limits of Acceptable Change) which focuses 

on a cycle of designing-implementing-monitoring-evaluating-adjusting implementation actions to respond to 

future recreation issues and the results of monitoring. 

Administration: 

 Pursue partnerships with local schools and other user groups to develop visitor facilities and to assist with 

maintenance and monitoring activities. Develop a Memorandum of Understanding or Letter of Agreement, as

appropriate, between BLM and partners that outlines administrative roles and responsibilities.

Information and Education: 

 Provide a basic ERMA brochure/map including information on: targeted outcomes, RSCs, estimated times, 

ethics, wildlife protection, private-public land ownership and stewardship information; to help preserve the 

recreation opportunities and the special landscape character of this place.

 Provide interpretive signage to support the ERMA objectives and opportunities.

 Market the area locally. Local marketing involves tailoring information and maps to the needs and wants of 

local customers and providing information at local outlets and on-site locations only.

Monitoring:

 Monitor outcome attainment and preferences through customer assessments (e.g. focus group interviews or 

visitor studies) on five year intervals or as funding allows. Monitor activity participation annually during the 

primary use season of mid-April through November. 

 If future monitoring indicates that resource damage is occurring or user conflicts need to be addressed, the 

HiLine District may create an allocation system or apply group size limits for private and commercial recreation 

use.
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1210 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1211

S.3 Faraasen Park SRMA

Alternative D

Supporting Information

Important Values of the SRMA

 The area offers diverse wildlife and riparian area ecology viewing opportunities that are easily accessed via 

maintained public roads. 

Recreation Demand

 The primary customers are local families (picnics), anglers, and overnight campers.

General Types of Visitors to be Targeted

 The visitor segment is identified as Milk River anglers and local families.

Ability to Manage Recreation Resources

 The SRMA is currently fenced off from the surrounding lands to exclude cattle except during prescribed 

grazing treatments. This area has support and potential partnership opportunities with the local schools and 

other groups and agencies to maintain and further develop the wildlife habitat and visitor opportunities at the 

site.

SRMA Outcome Objective

Maintain and enhance the facilities at Faraasen Park as needed to meet recreational demands and comply with public 

health and safety requirements. Promote the site as an annual outdoor classroom destination for the Glasgow schools and 

other area schools.

Activities  Family/Group Picnics

 Bird Watching/Wildlife Viewing

 Fishing

 Outdoor Classroom

Experiences  Releasing or reducing some built up mental tensions

 Enjoying frequent access to outdoor physical activity 

 Developing outdoor knowledge, skills and abilities

 Outdoor classroom setting

 Enjoying the areas wildlife, scenery, views and aesthetics

 River fishing

Benefits Personal:

 Improved physical fitness/better health maintenance

 Restored mind from stress/tension/anxiety

 Improved outdoor recreation skills

 Living a more outdoor-oriented lifestyle

 Improved balance of work and play in my life

 Greater awareness of this area as a special place

 Catch fish for a healthy food source

Community/Social:

 Lifestyle improvement or maintenance

 Easily accessible outdoor classroom setting for local schools and youth groups

Environmental:
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1212 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

 Preserve the special landscape character of this place

Economic:

 Greater value-added local services

 Increased desirability as a place to live or retire

Proposed Recreation Setting Characteristics (RSCs)

Proposed Physical RSCs:

Naturalness:

 The site provides a variety of native riparian plant and animal species.

Visitor Facilities:

 The site is accessible from the County Road by a maintained BLM road with an approach and cattle guard. 

Parking and picnic facilities are provided as well as access to the Milk River. Future facilities proposed include 

additional camp sites, restroom and signage describing the rules, regulations and recreation opportunities at the 

site.

Proposed Social RSCs:

Contacts (avg.):

 Participants would encounter a season average of up to 2 encounters per day.

Group Size (avg.):

 The average size of the casual or picnic or fishing group size would be 2-4 whereas the average outdoor 

classroom group size would be around 20.

Evidence of Use: 

 Sounds of other people occasionally heard. A few small localized areas of vegetation alteration and 

compacted/bare soils are acceptable. Inappropriate recreation use is rehabilitated

Proposed Operational RSCs:

Access (types of travel):

 Motorized travel is limited to existing roads. The rest of the area would be accessible by foot. The predominant 

uses at this site are non-motorized.

Visitor Services/Info: 

 A sign and brochure box at the parking/restroom area will inform visitors of area rules, regulations and ethics as 

well as recreational opportunities. A walk-through gate on the south boundary provides access to the Milk 

River.

 A picnic table and fire ring are provided at each camp site to enhance visitor use and outdoor classroom 

activities.

Management Controls:

 A moderate degree of visitor and land use controls exercised. BLM mows the parking and picnic areas and 

fishing access trail on a monthly basis during the spring-fall seasons, maintains the fence and other visitor use 

facilities as needed. BLM staff accompanies outdoor classroom groups.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1213

Supporting Management Action and Allowable Use Decisions

Camping:

 The SRMA is open to camping and overnight use.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 The area is classified as limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails until subsequent site-specific travel 

management planning occurs.

Firearm Use Restriction:

 The discharge of firearms for recreational target shooting is prohibited in developed recreation sites.

Lands and Realty: 

 ROW avoidance areas are applied to the SRMA. 

 ROW avoidance areas are applied to developed recreation sites.

 The SRMA is retained for long-term management.

 Developed recreation sites are retained for long-term management. 

Stipulations for Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:

 Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation on surface occupancy and surface-disturbing activities in the SRMA 

for the protection of the recreation activities, recreation outcomes and the RSCs.

Visual Resource Management (VRM):

 The SRMA would be classified as VRM Class IV and managed under VRM Class IV objectives. 

 Apply BMPs to surface-disturbing activities to minimize the impact of these activities to the extent possible.

Implementation-Level Decisions Included in this RMP Revision

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 Travel management for this area will be moderate priority to be determined during the life of the RMP. In the 

interim, motorized travel is limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails. A site-specific travel network 

of roads and trails available for public use and any limitations placed on that use will be included in the 

subsequent travel management planning for the area. 

 Maintain the existing road, primitive road and trail system and construct new routes only to connect to new 

visitor facilities or to address issues of visitor safety or resource damage. 

 In Alternative D, motorized off-road travel will be allowed for retrieval of a big game animal that is in 

possession, in a minimum timeframe utilizing the most direct route while minimizing resource damage, between 

the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.

Special Recreation Permits:

 SRPs will be required for any commercial or organized group activities that are not authorized under an MOU 

or letter of agreement.

Best Management Practices to Guide Implementation-Level Planning and Management

Management:

 Reroute trails that that create resource damage and trespass on private property.

 Develop a wildlife and habitat monitoring-management plan to maintain the diversity of native wildlife and plant 

species on which the area recreation is dependent.

 With stakeholder involvement, apply adaptive management (e.g. Limits of Acceptable Change) which focuses on a 

cycle of designing-implementing-monitoring-evaluating-adjusting implementation actions to respond to future 

recreation issues and the results of monitoring. 

Administration: 
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1214 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

 Pursue partnerships with local schools and other user groups to develop visitor facilities and to assist with 

maintenance and monitoring activities. Develop a Memorandum of Understanding or Letter of Agreement, as 

appropriate, between BLM and partners that outlines administrative roles and responsibilities.

Information and Education: 

 Provide a basic SRMA brochure/map including information on: targeted outcomes, RSCs, estimated times, 

ethics, wildlife protection, private-public land ownership and stewardship information; to help preserve the 

recreation opportunities and the special landscape character of this place.

 Provide interpretive signage to support the SRMA objectives and RMA opportunities.

 Market the area locally. Local marketing involves tailoring information and maps to the needs and wants of 

local customers and providing information at local outlets and on-site locations only.

Monitoring:

 Monitor outcome attainment and preferences through customer assessments (e.g. focus group interviews or 

visitor studies) on five year intervals or as funding allows. Monitor activity participation and RSCs annually 

during the primary use season of mid-April through October. 

 If future monitoring indicates that social RSCs are not being achieved, resource damage is occurring or user 

conflicts need to be addressed, the HiLine District may create an allocation system or apply group size limits for 

private and commercial recreation use.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1215

S.3 Faraasen Park ERMA

Alternatives C and E (Preferred Alternative)

ERMA Outcome Objective

Maintain and enhance the facilities at Faraasen Park as needed to meet recreational demands and comply with public 

health and safety requirements. 

Activities  Camping

 Fishing

 Picnicking

Experiences  Releasing or reducing some built up mental tensions

 Enjoying frequent access to outdoor physical activity 

 Developing outdoor knowledge, skills and abilities

 Enjoying the areas wildlife, scenery, views and aesthetics 

Benefits Personal:

 Improved physical fitness/better health maintenance

 Restored mind from stress/tension/anxiety

 Improved outdoor recreation skills

 Living a more outdoor-oriented lifestyle

 Improved balance of work and play in my life

 Greater awareness of this area as a special place

Community/Social:

 Lifestyle improvement or maintenance

Environmental:

 Preserve the special landscape character of this place

Economic:

 Greater value-added local services

 Increased desirability as a place to live or retire

Supporting Management Action and Allowable Use Decisions

Camping:

 The ERMA is open to camping and overnight use.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 The area is classified as limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails until subsequent site-specific travel 

management planning occurs.

 Hand-held, wheeled carts are allowed for the direct retrieval of big game.

 Over snow travel by snowmobiles is allowed.

Lands and Realty: 

 ROW avoidance areas are applied to the ERMA. 

 The ERMA is retained for long-term management.
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1216 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

Stipulations for Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:

 Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation on surface occupancy and surface-disturbing activities in the ERMA 

for the protection of the recreation activities and objectives.

Visual Resource Management (VRM):

 The ERMA would be classified as VRM Class IV and managed under VRM Class IV objectives. 

 Apply BMPs to surface-disturbing activities to minimize the impact of these activities to the extent possible.

Implementation-Level Decisions Included in this RMP Revision

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 Travel management for this area will be low priority under Alternative E and moderate priority under 

Alternative C to be completed during the life of the RMP. In the interim, motorized travel is limited to existing 

roads, primitive roads and trails. A site-specific travel network of roads and trails available for public use and 

any limitations placed on that use will be included in the subsequent travel management planning for the area. 

 Maintain the existing road, primitive road and trail system and construct new routes only to connect to new 

visitor facilities or to address issues of visitor safety or resource damage. 

Special Recreation Permits:

 SRPs will be required for any commercial or organized group activities that are not authorized under an MOU 

or letter of agreement.

Best Management Practices to Guide Implementation-Level Planning and Management

Management:

 Reroute trails that that create resource damage and trespass on private property.

 With stakeholder involvement, apply adaptive management (e.g. Limits of Acceptable Change) which focuses 

on a cycle of designing-implementing-monitoring-evaluating-adjusting implementation actions to respond to 

future recreation issues and the results of monitoring. 

Administration: 

 Pursue partnerships with other agencies and user groups to develop visitor facilities and to assist with 

maintenance and monitoring activities. Develop a Memorandum of Understanding or Letter of Agreement, as 

appropriate, between BLM and partners that outlines administrative roles and responsibilities.

Information and Education: 

 Provide a basic ERMA brochure/map including information on: targeted outcomes, estimated times, ethics, 

wildlife protection, private-public land ownership and stewardship information; to help preserve the recreation 

opportunities and the special landscape character of this place.

 Market the area locally. Local marketing involves tailoring information and maps to the needs and wants of 

local customers and providing information at local outlets and on-site locations only.

Monitoring:

 Monitor outcome attainment and preferences through customer assessments (e.g. focus group interviews or 

visitor studies) on five year intervals or as funding allows. Monitor activity participation annually during the 

primary use season of mid-April through October. 

 If future monitoring indicates that resource damage is occurring or user conflicts need to be addressed, the 

HiLine District may create an allocation system or apply group size limits for private and commercial recreation 

use.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1217
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1218 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

S.4 Fresno OHV SRMA

Alternative D

Supporting Information

Important Values of the SRMA

 The area offers challenging, close-to-town, easy to access recreational opportunities.

 The RMA offers a variety of off-road riding opportunities for OHV recreationists of all skill levels. 

Recreation Demand

 The primary customers are local OHV enthusiasts.

General Types of Visitors to be Targeted

 The visitor segment is identified as close-to-home, day-use OHV riders.

Ability to Manage Recreation Resources

 The SRMA is currently accessible via public routes that cross private and State lands. Some issues arise during 

wet conditions when SRMA users drive through the landowner’s fields to get around low, wet spots in the road. 

The private landowner and State are willing to work with BLM to improve access to the site. Local and State 

OHV groups are possible partners who can help address these issues as well as develop other improvements and 

public educational programs for the SRMA.

SRMA Outcome Objective

Maintain and enhance the facilities and signage at Fresno OHV area as needed to meet recreational demands and comply 

with public health and safety requirements. Avoid damage to surrounding resources by enhancing and/or replacing 

boundary fences and markers.

Activities  OHV Riding

Experiences  Releasing or reducing some built up mental tensions

 Enjoying frequent access to outdoor physical activity 

 Developing your skills and abilities

 For the challenge or sport 

 Enjoying the area’s scenery, views and aesthetics 

Benefits Personal:

 Improved physical fitness/better health maintenance

 Restored mind from stress/tension/anxiety

 Improved outdoor recreation skills

 Living a more outdoor-oriented lifestyle

 Improved balance of work and play in my life

 Greater awareness of this area as a special place

Community/Social:

 Lifestyle improvement or maintenance

Environmental:

 Preserve natural resources of surrounding area by providing quality motorized 

recreational opportunities at a designated site

Economic:
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1219

 Greater value-added local services

 Increased desirability as a place to live or retire

Proposed Recreation Setting Characteristics (RSCs)

Proposed Physical RSCs:

Remoteness:

 The site provides an unstructured, open, OHV experience in a rugged, natural setting.

Visitor Facilities:

 The site has public access. Improved parking and signage will be developed to enhance the visitor experience 

and protect surrounding public and private lands.

Proposed Social RSCs:

Contacts (avg.):

 Participants would encounter a season average of up to 8 encounters per day.

Group Size (avg.):

 Participants would encounter a season average of up to 6 people per group.

Evidence of Use: 

 Sounds of other people occasionally heard. Localized areas of vegetation alteration and compacted/bare soils 

are acceptable. Inappropriate recreation use is rehabilitated

Proposed Operational RSCs:

Access (types of travel):

 The area is open to all types of vehicle use at all times anywhere in the area subject to the operating regulations 

and vehicle standards set for the in 43 CFR 8341 and 8342.

Visitor Services/Info: 

 A simple brochure/map assists visitors. SRMA Boundaries are clearly marked. Rules, regulations and ethics 

clearly posted at SRMA parking area.

Management Controls:

 A moderate degree of visitor and land use controls exercised. BLM on-site presence is low. Parking, boundary 

and signage will be maintained. A traffic counter will be used to monitor the level of visitor use.

Supporting Management Action and Allowable Use Decisions

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 The area is classified as open to all types of vehicle use at all times anywhere in the area subject to the operating 

regulations and vehicle standards set for the in 43 CFR 8341 and 8342.

Lands and Realty: 

 The SRMA is retained for long-term management.
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1220 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

Visual Resource Management (VRM):

 The SRMA would be classified as VRM Class IV and managed under VRM Class IV objectives. 

 Apply BMPs to surface-disturbing activities to minimize the impact of these activities to the extent possible.

Implementation-Level Decisions Included in this RMP Revision

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 Travel management for this area will be low priority to be developed during the life of the RMP. In the interim, 

motorized travel is open to all types of vehicle use at all times anywhere in the area subject to the operating 

regulations and vehicle standards set for the in 43 CFR 8341 and 8342.

Special Recreation Permits:

 SRPs will be required for any commercial, organized event or organized group activities that are not authorized 

under an MOU or letter of agreement.

Best Management Practices to Guide Implementation-Level Planning and Management

Management:

 Reroute access trails that that create resource damage and trespass on private property. 

 Develop additional access and/or improve current public access to the site to prevent impacts to private and public 

lands surrounding the SRMA. 

 Improve and maintain boundary markings to avoid user conflicts and damage to surrounding resources. 

 With stakeholder involvement, apply adaptive management (e.g. Limits of Acceptable Change) which focuses on a 

cycle of designing-implementing-monitoring-evaluating-adjusting implementation actions to respond to future 

recreation issues and the results of monitoring. 

Information and Education: 

 Continue to provide a basic, simple SRMA brochure/map including information on: targeted outcomes, RSCs, 

estimated times, ethics, wildlife protection, private-public land ownership and stewardship information; to help 

preserve the recreation opportunities and the special landscape character of this place.

 Market the area locally. Local marketing involves tailoring information and maps to the needs and wants of 

local customers and providing information at local outlets and on-site locations only.

 Pursue partnerships with State and local OHV groups to provide safety and Leave No Trace training for OHV 

recreationists using public lands.

Monitoring:

 Monitor outcome attainment and preferences through customer assessments (e.g. focus group interviews or 

visitor studies) on five year intervals or as funding allows. Monitor activity participation and RSCs annually 

during the primary use season of mid-April through October using traffic counters. 

 If future monitoring indicates that social RSCs are not being achieved, resource damage is occurring or user 

conflicts need to be addressed, the HiLine District may create an allocation system or apply group size limits for 

private and commercial recreation use.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1221

S.4 Fresno OHV ERMA

Alternatives C and E (Preferred Alternative)

ERMA Outcome Objective

Maintain and enhance the facilities and signage at Fresno OHV area as needed to meet recreational demands and comply 

with public health and safety requirements. Avoid damage to surrounding resources by enhancing and/or replacing 

boundary fences and markers.

Activities  OHV Riding

Experiences  Releasing or reducing some built up mental tensions

 Enjoying frequent access to outdoor physical activity 

 Developing your skills and abilities

 For the challenge or sport 

 Enjoying the area’s scenery, views and aesthetics 

Benefits Personal:

 Improved physical fitness/better health maintenance

 Restored mind from stress/tension/anxiety

 Improved outdoor recreation skills

 Living a more outdoor-oriented lifestyle

 Improved balance of work and play in my life

 Greater awareness of this area as a special place

Community/Social:

 Lifestyle improvement or maintenance

Environmental:

 Preserve natural resources of surrounding area by providing quality motorized 

recreational opportunities at a designated site

Economic:

 Greater value-added local services

 Increased desirability as a place to live or retire

Supporting Management Action and Allowable Use Decisions

Camping:

 The ERMA is open to camping and overnight use.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 The area is classified as closed to OHV use under Alternative C and open to OHV use under Alternative E until 

subsequent site-specific travel management planning occurs.

 Hand-held, wheeled carts are allowed for the direct retrieval of big game.

 Over snow travel by snowmobiles is allowed.

Lands and Realty: 

 The SRMA is retained for long-term management.

Stipulations for Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:

 Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation on surface occupancy and surface-disturbing activities within the 

ERMA for the protection of the recreation activities and objectives.

 The ERMA would be an exclusion area for wind energy development.
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1222 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

Visual Resource Management (VRM):

 The SRMA would be classified as VRM Class IV and managed under VRM Class IV objectives. 

 Apply BMPs to surface-disturbing activities to minimize the impact of these activities to the extent possible.

Implementation-Level Decisions Included in this RMP Revision

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 Travel management for this area will be low priority under Alternative C and moderate priority under 

Alternative E to be completed during the life of the RMP. In the interim, motorized travel is limited to existing 

roads, primitive roads and trails. A site-specific travel network of roads and trails available for public use and 

any limitations placed on that use will be included in the subsequent travel management planning for the area. 

 Maintain the existing road, primitive road and trail system and construct new routes only to connect to new 

visitor facilities or to address issues of visitor safety or resource damage. 

Special Recreation Permits:

 SRPs will be required for any commercial or organized group activities that are not authorized under an MOU 

or letter of agreement.

Best Management Practices to Guide Implementation-Level Planning and Management

Management:

 Mark or fence the ERMA boundary to minimize resource damage and trespass on surrounding State and private 

property.

 Improve signage and public access to the site to avoid impacts to private lands.

 With stakeholder involvement, apply adaptive management (e.g. Limits of Acceptable Change) which focuses 

on a cycle of designing-implementing-monitoring-evaluating-adjusting implementation actions to respond to 

future recreation issues and the results of monitoring. 

Administration: 

 Pursue partnerships with local user groups to develop visitor facilities and to assist with maintenance and

monitoring activities. Develop a Memorandum of Understanding or Letter of Agreement, as appropriate, 

between BLM and partners that outlines administrative roles and responsibilities.

Information and Education: 

 Provide a basic ERMA brochure/map including information on: targeted outcomes, estimated times, ethics, 

wildlife protection, private-public land ownership and stewardship information; to help preserve the recreation 

opportunities and the special landscape character of this place.

 Provide interpretive signage to support the ERMA objectives and opportunities.

 Market the area locally. Local marketing involves tailoring information and maps to the needs and wants of 

local customers and providing information at local outlets and on-site locations only.

Monitoring:

 Monitor outcome attainment and preferences through customer assessments (e.g. focus group interviews or 

visitor studies) on five year intervals or as funding allows. Monitor activity participation annually during the 

primary use season of mid-April through October. 

 If future monitoring indicates that resource damage is occurring or user conflicts need to be addressed, the 

HiLine District may create an allocation system or apply group size limits for private and commercial recreation 

use.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1223
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1224 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

S.5 Glasgow OHV SRMA

Alternatives D and E (Preferred Alternative)

Supporting Information 

Important Values of the SRMA

 The area offers challenging, close-to-town, easy to access recreational opportunities.

 The RMA offers a variety of off-road riding opportunities for OHV recreationists of all skill levels. 

Recreation Demand

 The primary customers are local OHV enthusiasts.

General Types of Visitors to be Targeted

 The visitor segment is identified as close-to-home, day-use OHV riders.

Ability to Manage Recreation Resources

 The SRMA is currently accessible via public routes that cross City of Glasgow property. BLM works closely 

with city and county law enforcement to monitor use in and around the SRMA. The boundary of the site is 

marked by a fence and “Entering Public Lands” signs are installed at each access point. Local and State OHV 

groups are possible partners who can help address these issues as well as develop other improvements and 

public educational programs for the SRMA.

SRMA Outcome Objective 

Maintain and enhance the facilities and signage at Glasgow OHV area as needed to meet recreational demands and 

comply with public health and safety requirements. 

Activities  OHV Riding

Experiences  Releasing or reducing some built up mental tensions

 Enjoying frequent access to outdoor physical activity 

 Developing your skills and abilities

 For the challenge or sport 

 Enjoying the area’s scenery, views and aesthetics 

Benefits Personal:

 Improved physical fitness/better health maintenance

 Restored mind from stress/tension/anxiety

 Improved outdoor recreation skills

 Living a more outdoor-oriented lifestyle

 Improved balance of work and play in my life

 Greater awareness of this area as a special place

Community/Social:

 Lifestyle improvement or maintenance

Environmental:

 Preserve natural resources of surrounding area by providing quality motorized 

recreational opportunities at a designated site

Economic:

 Greater value-added local services

 Increased desirability as a place to live or retire
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1225

Proposed Recreation Setting Characteristics (RSCs)

Proposed Physical RSCs:

Visitor Facilities:

 The site has public access, boundary fence and signs, restroom, parking and picnic area. 

Proposed Social RSCs:

Contacts (avg.):

 Participants would encounter a season average of up to 8 encounters per day.

Group Size (avg.):

 Participants would encounter a season average of up to 6 people per group.

Evidence of Use: 

 Sounds of other people occasionally heard. Localized areas of vegetation alteration and compacted/bare soils 

are acceptable. Inappropriate recreation use is rehabilitated

Proposed Operational RSCs:

Access (types of travel):

 The area is open to all types of vehicle use at all times anywhere in the area subject to the operating regulations 

and vehicle standards set for the in 43 CFR 8341 and 8342.

Visitor Services/Info: 

 A simple brochure/map assists visitors. SRMA Boundaries are clearly marked. Rules, regulations and ethics 

clearly posted at SRMA parking area.

Management Controls:

 A moderate degree of visitor and land use controls exercised. BLM staff will visit the site on a weekly basis 

through the spring-fall season and monthly during the winter season for restroom and parking area maintenance 

and cleaning and to monitor for unauthorized uses. Parking, boundary and signage will be maintained. A 

traffic counter will be used to monitor the level of visitor use.

Supporting Management Action and Allowable Use Decisions

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 The area is classified as open to all types of vehicle use at all times anywhere in the area subject to the operating 

regulations and vehicle standards set for the in 43 CFR 8341 and 8342.

Lands and Realty: 

 The SRMA is retained for long-term management.

Visual Resource Management (VRM):

 The SRMA would be classified as VRM Class IV and managed under VRM Class IV objectives. 

 Apply BMPs to surface-disturbing activities to minimize the impact of these activities to the extent possible.
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1226 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

Implementation-Level Decisions Included in this RMP Revision

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 Travel management for this area will be low priority to be developed during the life of the RMP. In the 

interim, motorized travel is open to all types of vehicle use at all times anywhere in the area subject to the 

operating regulations and vehicle standards set for the in 43 CFR 8341 and 8342.

Special Recreation Permits:

 SRPs will be required for any commercial, organized event or organized group activities that are not authorized 

under an MOU or letter of agreement.

Best Management Practices to Guide Implementation-Level Planning and Management

Management:

 Continue to coordinate with city and county law enforcement to ensure public safety and adherence to rules and 

regulations that pertain to the SRMA and surrounding lands. 

 Improve and maintain boundary markings to avoid user conflicts and damage to surrounding resources. 

 With stakeholder involvement, apply adaptive management (e.g. Limits of Acceptable Change) which focuses on a 

cycle of designing-implementing-monitoring-evaluating-adjusting implementation actions to respond to future 

recreation issues and the results of monitoring. 

Information and Education: 

 Continue to provide a basic, simple SRMA brochure/map including information on: targeted outcomes, RSCs, 

estimated times, ethics, wildlife protection, private-public land ownership and stewardship information; to help 

preserve the recreation opportunities and the special landscape character of this place.

 Market the area locally. Local marketing involves tailoring information and maps to the needs and wants of 

local customers and providing information at local outlets and on-site locations only.

 Pursue partnerships with State and local OHV groups to provide safety and Leave No Trace training for OHV 

recreationists using public lands.

Monitoring:

 Monitor outcome attainment and preferences through customer assessments (e.g. focus group interviews or 

visitor studies) on five year intervals or as funding allows. Monitor activity participation and RSCs annually 

during the primary use season of mid-April through October using traffic counters. 

 If future monitoring indicates that social RSCs are not being achieved, resource damage is occurring or user 

conflicts need to be addressed, the HiLine District may create an allocation system or apply group size limits for 

private and commercial recreation use.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1227

S.5 Glasgow OHV ERMA

Alternative C

ERMA Outcome Objective 

Maintain and enhance the facilities at Glasgow OHV Area as needed to meet recreational demands and comply with 

public health and safety requirements. 

Activities  Picnicking

Experiences  Releasing or reducing some built up mental tensions

 Enjoying frequent access to outdoor physical activity 

 Enjoying the area’s scenery, views and aesthetics 

Benefits Personal:

 Improved physical fitness/better health maintenance

 Restored mind from stress/tension/anxiety

 Living a more outdoor-oriented lifestyle

 Improved balance of work and play in my life

 Greater awareness of this area as a special place

Community/Social:

 Lifestyle improvement or maintenance

Economic:

 Greater value-added local services

 Increased desirability as a place to live or retire

Supporting Management Action and Allowable Use Decisions

Camping:

 The public (City of Glasgow) access road to the site is posted as Day Use Only.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 Under Alternative C, the area is classified as closed to OHV use until subsequent site-specific travel 

management planning occurs.

 Over snow travel by snowmobiles is allowed.

Visual Resource Management (VRM):

 The SRMA would be classified as VRM Class IV and managed under VRM Class IV objectives. 

 Apply BMPs to surface-disturbing activities to minimize the impact of these activities to the extent possible.

Implementation-Level Decisions Included in this RMP Revision

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 Travel management for this area will be low priority to be completed during the life of the RMP. In the interim, 

under Alternative C, motorized travel is closed. A site-specific travel network of roads and trails available for 

public use and any limitations placed on that use will be included in the subsequent travel management planning 

for the area. 
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1228 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

Special Recreation Permits:

 SRPs will be required for any commercial or organized group activities that are not authorized under an MOU 

or letter of agreement.

Best Management Practices to Guide Implementation-Level Planning and Management

Management:

 Reroute trails that that create resource damage and trespass on private property.

 Continue to work with other local law enforcement agencies to ensure public safety and conformance with the rules 

and regulations of the ERMA and surrounding areas.

 With stakeholder involvement, apply adaptive management (e.g. Limits of Acceptable Change) which focuses 

on a cycle of designing-implementing-monitoring-evaluating-adjusting implementation actions to respond to 

future recreation issues and the results of monitoring. 

Administration: 

 Pursue partnerships with local user groups to develop visitor facilities and to assist with maintenance and 

monitoring activities. Develop a Memorandum of Understanding or Letter of Agreement, as appropriate, 

between BLM and partners that outlines administrative roles and responsibilities.

Information and Education: 

 Provide a basic ERMA brochure/map including information on: targeted outcomes, estimated times, ethics, 

wildlife protection, private-public land ownership and stewardship information; to help preserve the recreation 

opportunities and the special landscape character of this place.

 Provide interpretive signage to support the ERMA objectives and opportunities.

 Market the area locally. Local marketing involves tailoring information and maps to the needs and wants of 

local customers and providing information at local outlets and on-site locations only.

Monitoring:

 Monitor outcome attainment and preferences through customer assessments (e.g. focus group interviews or 

visitor studies) on five year intervals or as funding allows. Monitor activity participation annually during the 

primary use season of mid-April through October. 

 If future monitoring indicates that resource damage is occurring or user conflicts need to be addressed, the 

HiLine District may create an allocation system or apply group size limits for private and commercial recreation 

use.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1229
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1230 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

S.6 Little Rocky Mountains SRMA

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

Supporting Information

Important Values of the SRMA

 Includes the Zortman, Landusky and Little Rockies Recreation Management Zones (RMZs)

 Includes the only two developed BLM fee campgrounds within the HiLine District.

 SRMA surrounds two small communities (Zortman and Landusky) and other private lands

 SRMA is surrounded on three sides by Fort Belknap Indian Reservation

 The Little Rocky Mountains area is also designated as a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP)

 Azure Cave ACEC and the former Pegasus Gold Mine are located within the SRMA

 Destination for OHV riders, horseback riders, birders, hunters, anglers, gold panners, hikers, etc.

 Camp Creek is part of Montana’s Northeastern Plains Birding Trail

Recreation Demand

 Camping, hunting, birdwatching/wildlife viewing, cross-country skiing and snowshoeing

 OHV and horseback riding

 Access to nearby fishing and hunting opportunities

 Gold panning

 Motorized and nonmotorized trail use

 Most concentrated recreation use within the HiLine District

General Types of Visitors to be Targeted

 HiLine residents, OHV riders, horseback riders, birders, hunters and anglers, gold panners, travelers passing 

through the area on Highways 191 and 66.

Ability to Manage Recreation Resources

 The community of Zortman depends on the recreational opportunities to support their local store, gas station, 

restaurant and hotel. Other amenities are more than 50 miles away in Malta or Harlem. The community would 

like to increase promotion of ecotourism in the area and, since it is surrounded by BLM lands with area 

restrictions and/or sensitive resources, it’s vital that BLM work with the community to assure that these 

promotions are done in a responsible manner to protect these resources and ensure visitor safety.

 BLM coordinates with Fort Belknap Agency on law enforcement, travel management, and other recreational 

uses/issues within the SRMA.

 Under Alternatives C, D and E, the SRMA is divided into three Recreation Management Zones (RMZ) 

(Zortman, Landusky, and Little Rockies) to better manage for the diverse facilities and outcomes based 

recreation in the area.

Zortman Recreation Management Zone (RMZ)

RMZ Outcome Objective 

Maintain and enhance the facilities at the Camp Creek Campground, 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.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1231

Activities  Off-Highway Vehicle Riding and Driving 

 Overnight Developed Camping

 Picnicking

 Hiking

 Horseback Riding

 Bird watching/Wildlife Viewing

 Recreational Gold Panning

Experiences  Enjoying frequent access to outdoor physical activity

 Enjoying closeness of family/friends

 To test my equipment

 Developing your skills and abilities

 Enjoying the areas wildlife, scenery, views and aesthetics 

Benefits Personal:

 Improved outdoor recreation skills

 Improved outdoor knowledge and self – confidence

 Improved balance of work and play in my life

 Living a more outdoor- oriented lifestyle

 Developing stronger ties with my family or friends

 Heightened sense of satisfaction with our community

 Restore mind from stress/tension/anxiety 

Community/Social:

 Lifestyle improvement or maintenance

 Strengthening relationships with family and friends

Environmental:

 Greater community ownership & stewardship of recreation & natural resources

Economic:

 Increased desirability as a place to live or retire

 Promote tourism and increase commerce to local businesses

Proposed Recreation Setting Characteristics (RSCs)

Proposed Physical RSCs:

Remoteness: 

 Motorized and nonmotorized trails provide access throughout the RMZ.

Naturalness: 

 More man-made landscape alterations in the form of trails and facilities are seen. New, non-recreational 

modifications (e.g. ROWs, fences, ponds) are not visually obvious near recreation facilities and trails.

Visitor Facilities: 

 Improved recreation facilities in the form of a diverse range of motorized and nonmotorized trail suited to 

different fitness and skill levels, restrooms, developed campsites with tables, fire rings and trash cans, 

information kiosks and signage providing rules, regulations and fee instructions. Drinking fountains and faucets 

with potable water, horseshoe pits and a volleyball pit are also provided. 

 Camp Creek contains 15 designated campsites, Horse Corral has 5 designated sites, and all have access to city 

drinking water, trash collection and bathroom facilities. A system of motorized and nonmotorized trails is 

accessible from the campgrounds. Buff’s has picnic and outdoor sports facilities as well as city water and a 
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1232 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

bathroom. The proposal is to maintain these facilities and add campsites and interpretive features as public 

demand and resources allow. 

Proposed Social RSCs:

Contacts (avg.): 

 Participants encounter a season average of up to 20 encounters per day.

Group Size (avg.): 

 Participants encounter a season average of up to 4 people per group.

Evidence of Use: 

 Sounds of other people and OHVs frequently heard. A few small localized areas of vegetation alteration and 

compacted/bare soils are acceptable. Inappropriate recreation use impacts are being rehabilitated.

Proposed Operational RSCs:

Access (types of travel): 

 Upon completion of travel management planning, motorized and nonmotorized access will be maintained 

throughout the RMZ on designated routes.

Visitor Services/Info: 

 Upon completion of travel management planning, a brochure/map will be developed to assists visitors with trail 

information. A moderate level of directional signage will be installed on routes with names/numbers of trails 

identified. Rules, regulations and ethics are clearly posted at information kiosks.

 A maintenance contract provides regular trash removal, restroom cleaning and campground maintenance during 

the high-use season.

Management Controls:

 A moderate degree of visitor and land use controls exercised. BLM on-site presence, including law 

enforcement is moderate during the high-use season. County and State law enforcement officers also assist with 

patrolling and dealing with law enforcement issues in the campgrounds. Fee envelopes track visitor use and 

provide an opportunity for campers to provide information and feedback to BLM. 

Supporting Management Action and Allowable Use Decisions

Camping Restrictions:

 Camping and overnight use is prohibited on BLM lands outside of designated campsites and developed 

campgrounds within the Camp Creek Recreation Area.

 Visitors are limited 14-day camping stays within the developed campground.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 The area is classified as limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails.

 Over-snow snowmobile travel is allowed. 

 Cross-country motorized/mechanized travel for big game retrieval is allowed under Alternative D between the 

hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.

Firearm Use Restriction:

 The discharge of firearms is prohibited in developed recreation sites.

Forestry:

 The campground area is closed to timber harvest, firewood cutting and special forest product harvest.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1233

Lands and Realty: 

 ROW avoidance areas are applied to the RMZ.

 ROW avoidance areas are applied to developed recreation sites.

 The RMZ is retained for long-term management. 

 Developed recreation sites are retained for long-term management. 

Mineral Withdrawal:

 The campground is withdrawn from exploration or development of locatable and salable minerals.

Stipulations for Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:

 Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation on surface occupancy and surface-disturbing activities in the RMZ for 

the protection of the recreation activities, recreation outcomes and the RSCs.

Visual Resource Management (VRM):

 Under Alternatives A, the RMZ would be classified as VRM Class II and managed under VRM Class II 

objectives.

 Under Alternatives C, D, and E, the RMZ would be classified as VRM Class III and managed under VRM Class 

III objectives. 

 Apply BMPs to surface-disturbing activities to minimize the impact of these activities to the extent possible.

Implementation-Level Decisions Included in this RMP Revision

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 Travel management for this area will be high priority (all alternatives) to be completed within 5 years of the 

signed RMP. In the interim, motorized travel is limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails.

 Off road big game retrieval is allowed under Alternative D.

Special Recreation Permits:

 SRPs will be required for any commercial, organized event or organized group activities that are not authorized 

under an MOU or letter of agreement.

Best Management Practices to Guide Implementation-Level Planning and Management

Management:

 Reroute trails that that create resource damage and trespass on private property. 

 Through travel management planning, designate trails for motorized and/or nonmotorized travel and provide 

information on skill level required and other safety and recreational opportunity concerns.

 With stakeholder involvement, apply adaptive management (e.g. Limits of Acceptable Change) which focuses on a 

cycle of designing-implementing-monitoring-evaluating-adjusting implementation actions to respond to future 

recreation issues and the results of monitoring. 

 Develop an agreement with the Phillips County Sheriff’s Office to increase law enforcement patrols for the 

RMZ.

Administration: 

 Continue to charge overnight camping fees to help fund campground maintenance and improvements.

 Assess use fees every 5 years by utilizing the recreation area Business Plan assessment.

Information and Education: 

 Create a basic, simple SRMA/RMZ brochure/map including information on: targeted outcomes, RSCs, 

estimated times, ethics, wildlife protection, private-public land ownership and stewardship information; to help 

preserve the recreation opportunities and the special landscape character of this place.

 Market the area locally. Local marketing involves tailoring information and maps to the needs and wants of 

local customers and providing information at local outlets and on-site locations only.

 Partner with local communities and OHV groups to educate visitors on Leave No Trace, Tread Lightly and 

other safety and ethical recreational issues.
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1234 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

Monitoring:

 Monitor outcome attainment and preferences through customer assessments (e.g. focus group interviews or 

visitor studies) on five year intervals or as funding allows. Monitor activity participation and RSCs annually 

during the primary use season of mid-April through November using traffic counters and overnight camping 

permits. 

 If future monitoring indicates that social RSCs are not being achieved, resource damage is occurring or user 

conflicts need to be addressed, the HiLine District may create an allocation system or apply group size limits for 

private and commercial recreation use.

Landusky Recreation Management Zone (RMZ)

RMZ Outcome Objective 

Maintain and enhance the facilities at the Montana Gulch Campground as needed to meet recreational demands and 

comply with public health and safety requirements. 

Activities  Overnight Developed Camping

 Picnicking

 Hiking

 Horseback Riding

 Bird watching/Wildlife Viewing

Experiences  Enjoying frequent access to outdoor physical activity

 Enjoying closeness of family/friends

 To test my equipment

 Developing your skills and abilities

 Enjoying the areas wildlife, scenery, views and aesthetics 

Benefits Personal:

 Improved outdoor recreation skills

 Improved outdoor knowledge and self – confidence

 Improved balance of work and play in my life

 Living a more outdoor- oriented lifestyle

 Developing stronger ties with my family or friends

 Heightened sense of satisfaction with our community

 Restore mind from stress/tension/anxiety 

Community/Social:

 Lifestyle improvement or maintenance

 Strengthening relationships with family and friends

Environmental:

 Greater community ownership & stewardship of recreation & natural resources

Economic:

 Increased desirability as a place to live or retire

 Promote tourism and increase commerce to local businesses
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1235

Proposed Recreation Setting Characteristics (RSCs)

Proposed Physical RSCs:

Remoteness: 

 Ponderosa pine rural setting near the very small community of Landusky .

Naturalness: 

 Some man-made landscape alterations in the form of trails and facilities are seen. New, non-recreational 

modifications (e.g. ROWs, fences, ponds) are not visually obvious near recreation facilities and trails.

 Upstream water treatment plant at the Zortman Mine, at times, produces a discoloration and unpleasant smell in 

the creek that runs through the campground.

Visitor Facilities: 

 Montana Gulch contains 10 designated campsites and a family picnic area and provides trash collection and 

bathroom facilities. There is no potable water provided. The proposal is to maintain these facilities and add 

campsites and interpretive features as public demand and resources allow. 

Proposed Social RSCs:

Contacts (avg.): 

 Participants encounter a season average of up to 10 encounters per day.

Group Size (avg.): 

 Participants encounter a season average of up to 4 people per group.

Evidence of Use: 

 Sounds of other people frequently heard. A few small localized areas of vegetation alteration and 

compacted/bare soils are acceptable. Inappropriate recreation use impacts are being rehabilitated.

Proposed Operational RSCs:

Access (types of travel): 

 Upon completion of travel management planning, motorized and nonmotorized access will be maintained 

throughout the RMZ on designated routes.

Visitor Services/Info: 

 Upon completion of travel management planning, a brochure/map will be developed to assists visitors with trail 

information. A moderate level of directional signage will be installed on routes with names/numbers of trails 

identified. Rules, regulations and ethics are clearly posted at information kiosks.

 A maintenance contract provides regular trash removal, restroom cleaning and campground maintenance during 

the high-use season.

Management Controls:

 A moderate degree of visitor and land use controls exercised. BLM on-site presence, including law 

enforcement is moderate during the high-use season. Fee envelopes track visitor use and provide an 

opportunity for campers to provide information and feedback to BLM. 

Supporting Management Action and Allowable Use Decisions

Camping Restrictions:

 Camping and overnight use is prohibited on BLM lands outside of designated campsites and developed 

campgrounds within the Montana Gulch Recreation Area.

 Visitors are limited 14-day camping stays within the developed campground.
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1236 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 The area is classified as limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails.

 Over-snow snowmobile travel is allowed. 

 Cross-country motorized/mechanized travel for big game retrieval is allowed under Alternative D between the 

hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.

Firearm Use Restriction:

 The discharge of firearms is prohibited in developed recreation sites.

Forestry:

 The campground area is closed to timber harvest, firewood cutting and special forest product harvest.

Lands and Realty: 

 ROW avoidance areas are applied to the RMZ.

 ROW avoidance areas are applied to developed recreation sites.

 The RMZ is retained for long-term management. 

 Developed recreation sites are retained for long-term management. 

Mineral Withdrawal:

 The campground is withdrawn from exploration or development of locatable and salable minerals.

Stipulations for Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:

 Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation on surface occupancy and surface-disturbing activities in the RMZ for 

the protection of the recreation activities, recreation outcomes and the RSCs.

Visual Resource Management (VRM):

 Under Alternatives A, the RMZ would be classified as VRM Class II and managed under VRM Class II 

objectives.

 Under Alternatives C, D, and E, the RMZ would be classified as VRM Class III and managed under VRM Class 

III objectives. 

 Apply BMPs to surface-disturbing activities to minimize the impact of these activities to the extent possible.

Implementation-Level Decisions Included in this RMP Revision

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 Travel management for this area will be high priority (all alternatives) to be completed within 5 years of the 

signed RMP. In the interim, motorized travel is limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails.

 Off road big game retrieval is allowed under Alternative D.

Special Recreation Permits:

 SRPs will be required for any commercial, organized event or organized group activities that are not authorized 

under an MOU or letter of agreement.

Best Management Practices to Guide Implementation-Level Planning and Management

Management:

 Reroute trails that that create resource damage and trespass on private property. 

 Through travel management planning, designate trails for motorized and/or nonmotorized travel and provide 

information on skill level required and other safety and recreational opportunity concerns.

 With stakeholder involvement, apply adaptive management (e.g. Limits of Acceptable Change) which focuses on a 

cycle of designing-implementing-monitoring-evaluating-adjusting implementation actions to respond to future 

recreation issues and the results of monitoring. 

 Develop an agreement with the Phillips County Sheriff’s Office to increase law enforcement patrols for the 

RMZ.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1237

Administration: 

 Continue to charge overnight camping fees to help fund campground maintenance and improvements.

 Assess use fees every 5 years by utilizing the recreation area Business Plan assessment.

Information and Education: 

 Create a basic, simple SRMA/RMZ brochure/map including information on: targeted outcomes, RSCs, 

estimated times, ethics, wildlife protection, private-public land ownership and stewardship information; to help 

preserve the recreation opportunities and the special landscape character of this place.

 Market the area locally. Local marketing involves tailoring information and maps to the needs and wants of 

local customers and providing information at local outlets and on-site locations only.

 Partner with local communities and OHV groups to educate visitors on Leave No Trace, Tread Lightly and 

other safety and ethical recreational issues.

Monitoring:

 Monitor outcome attainment and preferences through customer assessments (e.g. focus group interviews or 

visitor studies) on five year intervals or as funding allows. Monitor activity participation and RSCs annually 

during the primary use season of mid-April through November using traffic counters and overnight camping 

permits. 

 If future monitoring indicates that social RSCs are not being achieved, resource damage is occurring or user 

conflicts need to be addressed, the HiLine District may create an allocation system or apply group size limits for 

private and commercial recreation use.

Little Rockies Recreation Management Zone (RMZ)

RMZ Outcome Objective 

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.

Activities  Off-Highway Vehicle Riding and Driving 

 Hiking/Backpacking

 Horseback Riding

 Bird watching/Wildlife Viewing

Experiences  Enjoying frequent access to outdoor physical activity

 Enjoying closeness of family/friends

 To test my equipment

 Developing your skills and abilities

 Enjoying the areas wildlife, scenery, views and aesthetics 

Benefits Personal:

 Improved outdoor recreation skills

 Improved outdoor knowledge and self – confidence

 Improved balance of work and play in my life

 Living a more outdoor- oriented lifestyle

 Developing stronger ties with my family or friends

 Heightened sense of satisfaction with our community

 Restore mind from stress/tension/anxiety 

Community/Social:

 Lifestyle improvement or maintenance

 Strengthening relationships with family and friends
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1238 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

Environmental:

 Greater community ownership & stewardship of recreation & natural resources

Economic:

 Increased desirability as a place to live or retire

 Promote tourism and increase commerce to local businesses

Proposed Recreation Setting Characteristics (RSCs)

Proposed Physical RSCs:

Remoteness: 

 Motorized and nonmotorized trails provide access throughout the RMZ. Nonmotorized users can travel crosscountry to avoid sights and sounds of motorized recreationists in a forested mountain setting.

Naturalness: 

 Topography and vegetation of this mountainous area allow visitors to avoid the sights and sounds of other 

recreationists.

Visitor Facilities: 

 Improved recreation facilities in the form of a diverse range of motorized and nonmotorized trails suited to 

different fitness and skill levels. 

Proposed Social RSCs:

Contacts (avg.): 

 Participants encounter a season average of up to 10 encounters per day.

Group Size (avg.): 

 Participants encounter a season average of up to 4 people per group.

Evidence of Use: 

 Sounds of other people and OHVs frequently heard near roads and ATV trails. A few small localized areas of 

vegetation alteration and compacted/bare soils are acceptable. Inappropriate recreation use impacts are being 

rehabilitated.

Proposed Operational RSCs:

Access (types of travel): 

 Upon completion of travel management planning, motorized and nonmotorized access will be maintained 

throughout the RMZ on designated routes.

Visitor Services/Info: 

 Upon completion of travel management planning, a brochure/map will be developed to assists visitors with trail 

information. A moderate level of directional signage will be installed on routes with names/numbers of trails 

identified. Rules, regulations and ethics are clearly posted at information kiosks.

Management Controls:

 A moderate degree of visitor and land use controls exercised. BLM on-site presence, including law 

enforcement is low to moderate during the high-use season.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1239

Supporting Management Action and Allowable Use Decisions

Camping Restrictions:

 Overnight camping, limited to 16-day stays, is allowed.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 The area is classified as limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails.

 Over-snow snowmobile travel is allowed. 

 Cross-country motorized/mechanized travel for big game retrieval is allowed under Alternative D between the 

hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.

Forestry:

 Timber harvest, firewood cutting and special forest product harvest is allowed by permit only.

Lands and Realty: 

 ROW avoidance areas are applied to the RMZ.

 The RMZ is retained for long-term management. 

Stipulations for Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:

 Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation on surface occupancy and surface-disturbing activities in the RMZ for 

the protection of the recreation activities, recreation outcomes and the RSCs.

Visual Resource Management (VRM):

 Under Alternatives A and D, the RMZ would be classified as VRM Class II and managed under VRM Class II 

objectives.

 Under Alternatives C and E, the RMZ would be classified as VRM Class III and managed under VRM Class III 

objectives. 

 Apply BMPs to surface-disturbing activities to minimize the impact of these activities to the extent possible.

Implementation-Level Decisions Included in this RMP Revision

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 Travel management for this area will be high priority (all alternatives) to be completed within 5 years of the 

signed RMP. In the interim, motorized travel is limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails.

 Off road big game retrieval is allowed under Alternative D.

Special Recreation Permits:

 SRPs will be required for any commercial, organized event or organized group activities that are not authorized 

under an MOU or letter of agreement.

Best Management Practices to Guide Implementation-level Planning and Management

Management:

 Reroute trails that that create resource damage and trespass on private property. 

 Through travel management planning, designate trails for motorized and/or nonmotorized travel and provide 

information on skill level required and other safety and recreational opportunity concerns.

 With stakeholder involvement, apply adaptive management (e.g. Limits of Acceptable Change) which focuses on a 

cycle of designing-implementing-monitoring-evaluating-adjusting implementation actions to respond to future 

recreation issues and the results of monitoring. 
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1240 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

Administration: 

 Pursue partnerships with local communities, the county, Fort Belknap Agency, and recreational user groups to 

assist with maintenance and monitoring activities.

Information and Education: 

 Create a basic, simple SRMA/RMZ brochure/map including information on: targeted outcomes, RSCs, 

estimated times, ethics, wildlife protection, private-public land ownership and stewardship information; to help 

preserve the recreation opportunities and the special landscape character of this place.

 Market the area locally. Local marketing involves tailoring information and maps to the needs and wants of 

local customers and providing information at local outlets and on-site locations only.

 Partner with local communities and OHV groups to educate visitors on Leave No Trace, Tread Lightly and 

other safety and ethical recreational issues.

Monitoring:

 Monitor outcome attainment and preferences through customer assessments (e.g. focus group interviews or 

visitor studies) on five year intervals or as funding allows. Monitor activity participation and RSCs annually 

during the primary use season of mid-April through November using traffic counters and overnight camping 

permits. 

 If future monitoring indicates that social RSCs are not being achieved, resource damage is occurring or user 

conflicts need to be addressed, the HiLine District may create an allocation system or apply group size limits for 

private and commercial recreation use.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1241
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1242 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

S.7 Marias River SRMA

(Alternative D)

Supporting Information

Important Values of the SRMA

 Public lands along the Marias River corridor offer visitors outstanding opportunities for float boating, fishing, 

and scenic driving. This corridor attracts visitors mainly from the local communities and school groups from 

the Fort Benton and Highwood Schools annually. 

 Public boat input/takeout sites along the river provide legal access to other public lands along the river that 

don’t otherwise have public access. 

Recreation Demand

 Recreational and commercially guided fishing, mainly between Tiber Dam and the confluence with the 

Missouri River.

 Raft, canoe and kayak floating, dispersed overnight camping, wildlife viewing and picnicking.

General Types of Visitors to be Served

 The visitor segment is identified as rafters and anglers and school groups from the local area. 

Ability to Manage Recreation Resources

 The recreation infrastructure (e.g. river access, parking areas, small campgrounds and restrooms) are created 

and meeting current demand. Requests for Special Recreation Permits for guided fishing have increased over 

the past couple years and may be an indication that overall recreational use along the Marias River is on the 

rise.

 There is potential for partnerships with the Marias River Watershed Alliance, Montana Department of Natural 

Resources Conservation (DNRC), FWP and local schools to monitor and maintain facilities and undeveloped 

campsites on public and private lands along the river corridor.

Upper Marias Recreation Management Zone (RMZ)

RMZ Outcome Objective

Ensure that the area continues to provide undeveloped water-based recreation opportunities.

Activities  Floating

 Fishing

 Undeveloped Camping

Experiences  Enjoying closeness to family/friends

 Enjoying the area’s wildlife, scenery, views and aesthetics

 Experiencing the natural surroundings

 Developing your skills and abilities

 Escaping everyday responsibilities for a while
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1243

Benefits Personal:

 Developing stronger ties with my family or friends

 Greater awareness of this area as a special place

 Improved balance of work and play in my life

 Improved outdoor recreation skills

 Renewed human spirit

Community/Social:

 Strengthening relationships with family and friends

 Increase stewardship and protection of river corridor 

 Lifestyle improvement or maintenance 

Environmental:

 Preservation of the special landscape character of this place 

Economic:

 Generates employment 

 Maintain tourism revenue

Proposed Recreation Setting Characteristics (RSCs)

Proposed Physical RSCs:

Remoteness: 

 The river corridor retains the current level of remoteness.

Naturalness:

 The level of change to the characteristic natural landscape is low. 

Visitor Facilities:

 The boat put in/takeout at Sullivan Bridge is the only semi-developed BLM site along the Upper Marias. Some 

expansion of this site may occur as public use demands. Some stone fire rings have been established by 

recreational users.

Proposed Social RSCs:

Contacts (avg.): 

 Participants encounter a season average of up to 6 encounters/day.

Group Size (avg.):

 Participants encounter a season average of up to 4 people per group.

Evidence of Use:

 Sounds of other people occasionally heard. Small localized areas of vegetation alteration and compacted/bare 

soils are found at camping and high-use areas. Inappropriate recreation use is rehabilitated.

Proposed Operational RSCs:

Access (types of travel): 

 New recreational access is non-motorized away from developed facilities.

 Isolated parcels of BLM lands that otherwise do not have overland public access can be accessed by boat via the 

river. 
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1244 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

Visitor Services/Info: 

 Brochures, maps, signs/kiosks provide visitor information and ethics throughout RMZ.

Management Controls: 

 A moderate to high degree of visitor and land use controls exercised. BLM on-site presence is low at developed 

recreation sites. 

Supporting Management Action and Allowable Use Decisions

Camping Restriction:

 Overnight camping stays of up to 16 days are allowed on BLM lands along the river.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 Motorized use in the RMZ is classified as limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails.

 Over-snow snowmobile travel is allowed in the RMZ. 

 Cross-country motorized/mechanized travel for big game retrieval is allowed in Alternative D.

Lands and Realty: 

 ROW avoidance areas are applied to the RMZ.

Stipulations for Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:

 Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation on surface occupancy and surface-disturbing activities in the RMZ for 

the protection of the recreation activities, recreation outcomes and the RSCs.

 Apply a controlled surface use stipulation.

 Apply a timing lease stipulation to protect mule deer winter range from December 1 to March 31.

Visual Resource Management (VRM):

 The SRMA would be classified as VRM Class III and managed under VRM Class III objectives.

 Apply BMPs to surface-disturbing activities to minimize the impact of these activities to the extent possible. 

Implementation-Level Decisions Included in this RMP Revision

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 Travel management for this area will be high priority to be completed within 5 years of the signed RMP. In the 

interim, motorized travel is limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails.

 Off road big game retrieval is allowed under Alternative D.

Special Recreation Permits:

 SRPs will be required for any commercial, organized event or organized group activities that are not authorized 

under an MOU or letter of agreement.

Best Management Practices to Guide Implementation-Level Planning and Management

Management:

 Expansion of existing visitor facilities at Sullivan Bridge may be necessary to accommodate increases in use.

 Reroute trails that create resource damage and trespass on private property.

 With stakeholder involvement, apply adaptive management (e.g. Limits of Acceptable Change) which focuses on a 

cycle of designing-implementing-monitoring-evaluating-adjusting implementation actions to respond to future 

recreation issues and the results of monitoring. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1245

Administration: 

 Pursue partnerships with Marias Watershed Alliance and other federal, State and private landowners along the 

river corridor to address resource issues such as off-road violations, spread of invasive species, and need for 

expanded or improved recreational facilities.

Information and Education: 

 Continue to provide a basic, simple SRMA brochure/map including information on: targeted outcomes, RSCs, 

estimated times, ethics, wildlife protection, private-public land ownership and stewardship information; to help 

preserve the recreation opportunities and the special landscape character of this place.

 Market the area locally. Local marketing involves tailoring information and maps to the needs and wants of 

local customers and providing information at local outlets and on-site locations only.

Monitoring:

 Monitor outcome attainment and preferences through customer assessments (e.g. focus group interviews or 

visitor studies) on five year intervals or as funding allows. Monitor activity participation and RSCs annually 

during the primary use season of June through September. 

 If future monitoring indicates that social RSCs are not being achieved, resource damage is occurring or user 

conflicts need to be addressed, the HiLine District may create an allocation system or apply group size limits for 

private and commercial recreation use.

Middle Marias Recreation Management Zone (RMZ)

RMZ Outcome 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.

Activities  Floating

 Fishing

 Commercial Guided Fishing

 Undeveloped Camping

 Outdoor Classroom

Experiences  Enjoying closeness to family/friends

 Enjoying the area’s wildlife, scenery, views and aesthetics

 Experiencing the natural surroundings

 Developing your skills and abilities

 Escaping everyday responsibilities for a while

Benefits Personal:

 Developing stronger ties with my family or friends

 Greater awareness of this area as a special place

 Improved balance of work and play in my life

 Improved outdoor recreation skills

 Renewed human spirit

Community/Social:

 Strengthening relationships with family and friends

 Increase stewardship and protection of river corridor 

 Lifestyle improvement or maintenance 

 Provide outdoor classroom setting for local school groups

Environmental:

 Preservation of the special landscape character of this place 
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1246 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

Economic:

 Generates employment 

 Maintain tourism revenue

Proposed Recreation Setting Characteristics (RSCs)

Proposed Physical RSCs:

Remoteness: 

 The river corridor retains the current level of remoteness.

Naturalness:

 The level of change to the characteristic natural landscape is low. 

Visitor Facilities:

 Primitive boat launch/takeout facilities are located at Pugsley and Moffat Bridge access points.

 Restrooms are available at Pugsley and Moffat access points. Some additional improvements may be made at 

these sites as public use demands. 

Proposed Social RSCs:

Contacts (avg.): 

 Participants encounter a season average of up to 6 encounters/day.

Group Size (avg.):

 Participants encounter a season average of up to 6 people per group.

 Participants encounter a season average of up to 25 people per school group.

Evidence of Use:

 Sounds of other people occasionally heard. Small localized areas of vegetation alteration and compacted/bare 

soils are found at camping and high-use areas. Inappropriate recreation use is rehabilitated.

Proposed Operational RSCs:

Access (types of travel): 

 New recreational access is non-motorized away from developed facilities.

 Isolated parcels of BLM lands that otherwise do not have overland public access can be accessed by boat via the 

river. 

Visitor Services/Info: 

 Brochures, maps, signs/kiosks provide visitor information and ethics throughout RMZ.

Management Controls: 

 A moderate to high degree of visitor and land use controls exercised. BLM on-site presence is low at developed 

recreation sites. 

 Signs are available at Pugsley and Moffat sites to explain supplemental rules at those sites.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1247

Supporting Management Action and Allowable Use Decisions

Camping Restriction:

 Overnight camping stays of up to 16 days are allowed on undeveloped BLM lands along the river.

 Overnight camping is prohibited at Pugsley year round.

 At the BLM riparian area near Moffat Bridge access site, overnight camping is limited to 3 days and 3 nights 

from April 1 through September 1. The area is closed to camping September 2 through March 31. 

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 Motorized use in the RMZ is classified as limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails.

 Over-snow snowmobile travel is allowed in the RMZ. 

 Cross-country motorized/mechanized travel for big game retrieval is allowed in Alternative D.

Lands and Realty: 

 ROW avoidance areas are applied to the RMZ.

 BLM has a perpetual ROW easement for public access to the BLM riparian area at Moffat Bridge.

Stipulations for Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:

 Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation on surface occupancy and surface-disturbing activities in the RMZ for 

the protection of the recreation activities, recreation outcomes and the RSCs.

 Apply a controlled surface use stipulation.

 Apply a timing lease stipulation to protect mule deer winter range from December 1 to March 31.

Visual Resource Management (VRM):

 The SRMA would be classified as VRM Class III and managed under VRM Class III objectives.

 Apply BMPs to surface-disturbing activities to minimize the impact of these activities to the extent possible. 

Implementation-Level Decisions Included in this RMP Revision

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 Travel management for this area will be high priority to be completed within 5 years of the signed RMP. In the 

interim, motorized travel is limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails.

 Off road big game retrieval is allowed under Alternative D.

Special Recreation Permits:

 SRPs will be required for any commercial, organized event or organized group activities that are not authorized 

under an MOU or letter of agreement.

Best Management Practices to Guide Implementation-Level Planning and Management

Management:

 Expansion of existing visitor facilities at Pugsley and Moffat to accommodate increases in use.

 Reroute trails that create resource damage and trespass on private property.

 With stakeholder involvement, apply adaptive management (e.g. Limits of Acceptable Change) which focuses on a 

cycle of designing-implementing-monitoring-evaluating-adjusting implementation actions to respond to future 

recreation issues and the results of monitoring. 

Administration: 

 Pursue partnerships with Marias Watershed Alliance and other federal, State and private landowners along the 

river corridor to address resource issues such as off-road violations, spread of invasive species, and need for 

expanded or improved recreational facilities.

 Develop a Memorandum of Understanding with DNRC to determine management and facilities maintenance 

responsibilities at Moffat Bridge access site. The restroom, picnic tables, fire rings and boat ramp are located 
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1248 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

on DNRC surface but BLM has been helping maintain the site facilities because of their proximity to the BLM 

riparian area immediately downstream.

Information and Education: 

 Continue to provide a basic, simple SRMA brochure/map including information on: targeted outcomes, RSCs, 

estimated times, ethics, wildlife protection, private-public land ownership and stewardship information; to help 

preserve the recreation opportunities and the special landscape character of this place.

 Market the area locally. Local marketing involves tailoring information and maps to the needs and wants of 

local customers and providing information at local outlets and on-site locations only.

Monitoring:

 Monitor outcome attainment and preferences through customer assessments (e.g. focus group interviews or 

visitor studies) on five year intervals or as funding allows. Monitor activity participation and RSCs annually 

during the primary use season of June through September. 

 If future monitoring indicates that social RSCs are not being achieved, resource damage is occurring or user 

conflicts need to be addressed, the HiLine District may create an allocation system or apply group size limits for 

private and commercial recreation use.

Lower Marias Recreation Management Zone (RMZ)

RMZ Outcome Objective 

Ensure that the area continues to provide undeveloped water-based recreation opportunities.

Activities  Floating

 Fishing

 Commercial Guided Fishing

 Undeveloped Camping

Experiences  Enjoying closeness to family/friends

 Enjoying the area’s wildlife, scenery, views and aesthetics

 Experiencing the natural surroundings

 Developing your skills and abilities

 Escaping everyday responsibilities for a while

Benefits Personal:

 Developing stronger ties with my family or friends

 Greater awareness of this area as a special place

 Improved balance of work and play in my life

 Improved outdoor recreation skills

 Renewed human spirit

Community/Social:

 Strengthening relationships with family and friends

 Increase stewardship and protection of river corridor

 Lifestyle improvement or maintenance 

Environmental:

 Preservation of the special landscape character of this place 

Economic:

 Generates employment 

 Maintain tourism revenue
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1249

Proposed Recreation Setting Characteristics (RSCs)

Proposed Physical RSCs:

Remoteness: 

 The river corridor retains the current level of remoteness.

Naturalness:

 The level of change to the characteristic natural landscape is low. 

Proposed Social RSCs:

Contacts (avg.): 

 Participants encounter a season average of up to 6 encounters/day.

Group Size (avg.):

 Participants encounter a season average of up to 4 people per group.

 Participants encounter a season average of up to 25 people per school group.

Evidence of Use:

 Sounds of other people occasionally heard. Small localized areas of vegetation alteration and compacted/bare 

soils are found at camping and high-use areas. Inappropriate recreation use is rehabilitated.

Proposed Operational RSCs:

Access (types of travel): 

 New recreational access is non-motorized away from developed facilities.

 Isolated parcels of BLM lands that otherwise do not have overland public access can be accessed by boat via the 

river. 

Visitor Services/Info: 

 Brochures, maps, signs/kiosks provide visitor information and ethics throughout RMZ.

Management Controls: 

 A moderate to high degree of visitor and land use controls exercised. BLM on-site presence is low. 

Supporting Management Action and Allowable Use Decisions

Camping Restriction:

 Overnight camping stays of up to 16 days are allowed on BLM lands along the river.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 Motorized use in the RMZ is classified as limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails.

 Over-snow snowmobile travel is allowed in the RMZ. 

 Cross-country motorized/mechanized travel for big game retrieval is allowed in Alternative D.

Lands and Realty: 

 ROW avoidance areas are applied to the RMZ.

Stipulations for Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:

 Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation on surface occupancy and surface-disturbing activities in the RMZ for 

the protection of the recreation activities, recreation outcomes and the RSCs.

 Apply a controlled surface use stipulation.

 Apply a timing lease stipulation to protect mule deer winter range from December 1 to March 31.
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1250 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

Visual Resource Management (VRM):

 The SRMA would be classified as VRM Class III and managed under VRM Class III objectives.

 Apply BMPs to surface-disturbing activities to minimize the impact of these activities to the extent possible. 

Implementation-Level Decisions Included in this RMP Revision

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 Travel management for this area will be high priority to be completed within 5 years of the signed RMP. In the 

interim, motorized travel is limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails.

 Off road big game retrieval is allowed under Alternative D.

Special Recreation Permits:

 SRPs will be required for any commercial, organized event or organized group activities that are not authorized 

under an MOU or letter of agreement.

Best Management Practices to Guide Implementation-Level Planning and Management

Management:

 Expansion of existing visitor facilities at Sullivan Bridge may be necessary to accommodate increases in use.

 Reroute trails that create resource damage and trespass on private property.

 With stakeholder involvement, apply adaptive management (e.g. Limits of Acceptable Change) which focuses on a 

cycle of designing-implementing-monitoring-evaluating-adjusting implementation actions to respond to future 

recreation issues and the results of monitoring. 

Administration: 

 Pursue partnerships with Marias Watershed Alliance and other federal, State and private landowners along the 

river corridor to address resource issues such as off-road violations, spread of invasive species, and need for 

expanded or improved recreational facilities.

Information and Education: 

 Continue to provide a basic, simple SRMA brochure/map including information on: targeted outcomes, RSCs, 

estimated times, ethics, wildlife protection, private-public land ownership and stewardship information; to help 

preserve the recreation opportunities and the special landscape character of this place.

 Market the area locally. Local marketing involves tailoring information and maps to the needs and wants of 

local customers and providing information at local outlets and on-site locations only.

Monitoring:

 Monitor outcome attainment and preferences through customer assessments (e.g. focus group interviews or 

visitor studies) on five year intervals or as funding allows. Monitor activity participation and RSCs annually 

during the primary use season of June through September. 

 If future monitoring indicates that social RSCs are not being achieved, resource damage is occurring or user 

conflicts need to be addressed, the HiLine District may create an allocation system or apply group size limits for 

private and commercial recreation use.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1251

S.7 Marias River ERMA

Alternatives C and E (Preferred Alternative)

ERMA Outcome Objective 

Maintain and enhance the facilities along the Marias River corridor as needed to meet recreational demands and comply 

with public health and safety requirements. Continue to support use by local school groups.

Activities  Outdoor Classroom/School Field Trips

 Bird Watching/Wildlife Viewing

Experiences  Releasing or reducing some built up mental tensions

 Enjoying frequent access to outdoor physical activity 

 Developing outdoor knowledge, skills and abilities

 Outdoor classroom setting

 Enjoying the areas wildlife, scenery, views and aesthetics 

Benefits Personal:

 Improved physical fitness/better health maintenance

 Restored mind from stress/tension/anxiety

 Improved outdoor recreation skills

 Living a more outdoor-oriented lifestyle

 Improved balance of work and play in my life

 Greater awareness of this area as a special place

Community/Social:

 Lifestyle improvement or maintenance

 Easily accessible outdoor classroom setting for local schools and youth groups

Environmental:

 Preserve the special landscape character of this place

Economic:

 Greater value-added local services

 Increased desirability as a place to live or retire

Supporting Management Action and Allowable Use Decisions

Camping:

 The ERMA is open to camping and overnight use except for the following restrictions: Pugsley Bridge site is 

closed to overnight camping year round; camping at Moffatt BLM riparian area is limited to 3 days and 3 nights 

from April 1 through September 1 and closed to camping from September 2 through March 31.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 The area is classified as limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails until subsequent site-specific travel 

management planning occurs.

 Hand-held, wheeled carts are allowed for the direct retrieval of big game.

 Over snow travel by snowmobiles is allowed.

Lands and Realty: 

 ROW avoidance areas are applied to the upper and middle portions of the ERMA. 

 The ERMA is retained for long-term management.
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1252 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

Stipulations for Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:

 Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation on surface occupancy and surface-disturbing activities in the ERMA 

for the protection of the recreation activities and objectives.

Visual Resource Management (VRM):

 The SRMA would be classified as VRM Class II and managed under VRM Class II objectives. 

 Apply BMPs to surface-disturbing activities to minimize the impact of these activities to the extent possible.

Implementation-Level Decisions Included in this RMP Revision

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 Travel management for this area will be moderate priority to be completed during the life of the RMP for 

Alternative E and high priority to be completed within 5 years of the RMP decision under Alternative E. In the 

interim, motorized travel is limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails. A site-specific travel network 

of roads and trails available for public use and any limitations placed on that use will be included in the 

subsequent travel management planning for the area. 

 Maintain the existing road, primitive road and trail system and construct new routes only to connect to new 

visitor facilities or to address issues of visitor safety or resource damage. 

Special Recreation Permits:

 SRPs will be required for any commercial or organized group activities that are not authorized under an MOU 

or letter of agreement.

Best Management Practices to Guide Implementation-Level Planning and Management

Management:

 Reroute trails that that create resource damage and trespass on private property.

 With stakeholder involvement, apply adaptive management (e.g. Limits of Acceptable Change) which focuses 

on a cycle of designing-implementing-monitoring-evaluating-adjusting implementation actions to respond to 

future recreation issues and the results of monitoring. 

Administration: 

 Pursue partnerships with local schools and other user groups to develop visitor facilities and to assist with 

maintenance and monitoring activities. Develop a Memorandum of Understanding or Letter of Agreement, as 

appropriate, between BLM and partners that outlines administrative roles and responsibilities.

Information and Education: 

 Provide a basic ERMA brochure/map including information on: targeted outcomes, estimated times, ethics, 

wildlife protection, private-public land ownership and stewardship information; to help preserve the recreation 

opportunities and the special landscape character of this place.

 Provide interpretive signage to support the ERMA objectives and opportunities.

 Market the area locally. Local marketing involves tailoring information and maps to the needs and wants of 

local customers and providing information at local outlets and on-site locations only.

Monitoring:

 Monitor outcome attainment and preferences through customer assessments (e.g. focus group interviews or 

visitor studies) on five year intervals or as funding allows. Monitor activity participation annually during the 

primary use season of mid-April through October. 

 If future monitoring indicates that resource damage is occurring or user conflicts need to be addressed, the 

HiLine District may create an allocation system or apply group size limits for private and commercial recreation 

use.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1253
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1254 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

S.8 Paulo Reservoir SRMA

Alternative D

Supporting Information

Important Values of the SRMA

 The area offers fishing and diverse wildlife and wetland ecology viewing opportunities that are easily accessed 

via maintained public roads. 

 Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) helps maintain this popular sport fishery by periodically monitoring 

and re-stocking the fish in the reservoir. 

Recreation Demand

 The primary customers are anglers, hunters, local families, bird watchers and local school groups.

General Types of Visitors to be Targeted

 The visitor segment is identified as school groups on day field trips, birdwatchers, and anglers.

Ability to Manage Recreation Resources

 The SRMA is currently fenced off from the surrounding rangeland to exclude cattle except during prescribed 

grazing treatments. This area has support and potential partnership opportunities with Montana Fish, Wildlife, 

and Parks to maintain and improve the health of the fishery and further develop and maintain visitor 

opportunities at the site.

SRMA Outcome Objective

Maintain and enhance the facilities at Paulo Reservoir RMA as needed to meet recreational demands and comply with 

public health and safety requirements. Establish the site as an annual outdoor classroom destination for the Glasgow 

Schools and other area schools.

Activities  Outdoor Classroom/School Field Trips

 Bird Watching/Wildlife Viewing

 Fishing

Experiences  Releasing or reducing some built up mental tensions

 Enjoying frequent access to outdoor physical activity 

 Developing outdoor knowledge, skills and abilities

 Outdoor classroom setting

 Enjoying the areas wildlife, scenery, views and aesthetics 

Benefits Personal:

 Improved physical fitness/better health maintenance

 Restored mind from stress/tension/anxiety

 Improved outdoor recreation skills

 Living a more outdoor-oriented lifestyle

 Improved balance of work and play in my life

 Greater awareness of this area as a special place

 Fresh fish provides a healthy food source

Community/Social:

 Lifestyle improvement or maintenance

 Easily accessible outdoor classroom setting for local schools and youth groups

Environmental:
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1255

 Preserve the special landscape character of this place

Economic:

 Greater value-added local services

 Increased desirability as a place to live or retire

Proposed Recreation Setting Characteristics (RSCs)

Proposed Physical RSCs:

Naturalness:

 The site provides a variety of native upland and wetland plant and animal species.

Visitor Facilities:

 The site has public access via County and BLM roads. Parking, restroom and picnic facilities are provided. 

Future facilities proposed include an interpretive panel describing the unique wildlife and plant features of the 

area and an accessible parking pad, trail and fishing pier.

Proposed Social RSCs:

Contacts (avg.):

 Participants would encounter a season average of up to 2 encounters per day.

Group Size (avg.):

 The average size of the casual or bird watching group size would be 2-4 whereas the average outdoor classroom 

group size would be around 20.

Evidence of Use: 

 Sounds of other people occasionally heard. A few small localized areas of vegetation alteration and 

compacted/bare soils are acceptable. Inappropriate recreation use is rehabilitated

Proposed Operational RSCs:

Access (types of travel):

 Motorized travel is limited to existing trails. The rest of the area would be accessible by foot. The predominant 

uses at this site are non-motorized.

Visitor Services/Info: 

 A message board and brochure box at the restroom assists visitors with area rules, regulations and ethics as well 

as viewing opportunities. 

 Addition of accessible parking, fishing and interpretive facilities will provide outdoor recreation and 

environmental education opportunities to a wider range of visitors.

Management Controls:

 A moderate degree of visitor and land use controls exercised. BLM on-site presence is low and infrequent 

except during outdoor classroom group visits.
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1256 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

Supporting Management Action and Allowable Use Decisions

Camping:

 The SRMA is open to camping and overnight use.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 The area is classified as limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails until subsequent site-specific travel 

management planning occurs.

 Over snow travel by snowmobiles is allowed.

Firearm Use Restriction:

 The discharge of firearms for recreational target shooting is prohibited in developed recreation sites.

Lands and Realty: 

 ROW avoidance areas are applied to the SRMA. 

 ROW avoidance areas are applied to developed recreation sites.

 The SRMA is retained for long-term management.

 Developed recreation sites are retained for long-term management. 

Stipulations for Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:

 Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation on surface occupancy and surface-disturbing activities in the SRMA 

for the protection of the recreation activities, recreation outcomes and the RSCs.

Visual Resource Management (VRM):

 The SRMA would be classified as VRM Class IV and managed under VRM Class IV objectives. 

 Apply BMPs to surface-disturbing activities to minimize the impact of these activities to the extent possible.

Implementation-Level Decisions Included in this RMP Revision

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 Travel management for this area will be moderate priority to be completed during the life of the RMP. In the 

interim, motorized travel is limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails. A site-specific travel network 

of roads and trails available for public use and any limitations placed on that use will be included in the 

subsequent travel management planning for the area. 

 Maintain the existing road, primitive road and trail system and construct new routes only to connect to new 

visitor facilities or to address issues of visitor safety or resource damage. 

Special Recreation Permits:

 SRPs will be required for any commercial or organized group activities that are not authorized under an MOU 

or letter of agreement.

Best Management Practices to Guide Implementation-Level Planning and Management

Management:

 Reroute trails that that create resource damage and trespass on private property.

 Continue to work with FWP to maintain and improve the health of the recreational fishery.

 With stakeholder involvement, apply adaptive management (e.g. Limits of Acceptable Change) which focuses 

on a cycle of designing-implementing-monitoring-evaluating-adjusting implementation actions to respond to 

future recreation issues and the results of monitoring. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1257

Administration: 

 Pursue partnerships with local schools and other user groups to develop visitor facilities and to assist with

maintenance and monitoring activities. Develop a Memorandum of Understanding or Letter of Agreement, as 

appropriate, between BLM and partners that outlines administrative roles and responsibilities.

Information and Education: 

 Provide a basic SRMA brochure/map including information on: targeted outcomes, RSCs, estimated times, 

ethics, wildlife protection, private-public land ownership and stewardship information; to help preserve the 

recreation opportunities and the special landscape character of this place.

 Provide interpretive signage to support the SRMA objectives and RMA opportunities.

 Market the area locally. Local marketing involves tailoring information and maps to the needs and wants of 

local customers and providing information at local outlets and on-site locations only.

Monitoring:

 Monitor outcome attainment and preferences through customer assessments (e.g. focus group interviews or 

visitor studies) on five year intervals or as funding allows. Monitor activity participation and RSCs annually 

during the primary use season of mid-April through October. 

 If future monitoring indicates that social RSCs are not being achieved, resource damage is occurring or user 

conflicts need to be addressed, the HiLine District may create an allocation system or apply group size limits for 

private and commercial recreation use.
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1258 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

S.8 Paulo Fishing Reservoir ERMA

Alternatives C and E (Preferred Alternative)

ERMA Outcome Objective 

Maintain and enhance the facilities at Paulo Fishing Reservoir as needed to meet recreational demands and comply with 

public health and safety requirements. 

Activities  Camping

 Fishing

Experiences  Releasing or reducing some built up mental tensions

 Enjoying frequent access to outdoor physical activity 

 Developing outdoor knowledge, skills and abilities

 Outdoor classroom setting

 Enjoying the areas wildlife, scenery, views and aesthetics 

Benefits Personal:

 Improved physical fitness/better health maintenance

 Restored mind from stress/tension/anxiety

 Improved outdoor recreation skills

 Living a more outdoor-oriented lifestyle

 Improved balance of work and play in my life

 Greater awareness of this area as a special place

Community/Social:

 Lifestyle improvement or maintenance

 Provide bathroom and camping facilities close to prime big game hunting areas

Environmental:

 Preserve the special landscape character of this place

Economic:

 Greater value-added local services

 Increased desirability as a place to live or retire

Supporting Management Action and Allowable Use Decisions

Camping:

 The ERMA is open to camping and overnight use.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 The area is classified as limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails until subsequent site-specific travel 

management planning occurs.

 Over snow travel by snowmobiles is allowed.

Lands and Realty: 

 ROW avoidance areas are applied to the ERMA. 

 The ERMA is retained for long-term management.

Stipulations for Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:

 Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation on surface occupancy and surface-disturbing activities in the ERMA 

for the protection of area resources.

 Apply stipulations for wind development for protection of area resources.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1259

 Closed to fluid mineral leasing.

Visual Resource Management (VRM):

 The SRMA would be classified as VRM Class IV and managed under VRM Class IV objectives. 

 Apply BMPs to surface-disturbing activities to minimize the impact of these activities to the extent possible.

Implementation-Level Decisions Included in this RMP Revision

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 Travel management for this area will be moderate priority to be completed during the life of the RMP under 

Alternative C and high priority to be completed within 5 years of the RMP. In the interim, motorized travel is 

limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails. A site-specific travel network of roads and trails available 

for public use and any limitations placed on that use will be included in the subsequent travel management 

planning for the area. 

 Maintain the existing road, primitive road and trail system and construct new routes only to connect to new 

visitor facilities or to address issues of visitor safety or resource damage. 

 In Alternative C, motorized off-road travel will be allowed for retrieval of a big game animal that is in 

possession, in a minimum timeframe utilizing the most direct route while minimizing resource damage, between 

the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.

Special Recreation Permits:

 SRPs will be required for any commercial or organized group activities that are not authorized under an MOU 

or letter of agreement.

Best Management Practices to Guide Implementation-Level Planning and Management

Management:

 Reroute trails that that create resource damage and trespass on private property.

 With stakeholder involvement, apply adaptive management (e.g. Limits of Acceptable Change) which focuses 

on a cycle of designing-implementing-monitoring-evaluating-adjusting implementation actions to respond to 

future recreation issues and the results of monitoring. 

Administration: 

 Pursue partnerships with other agencies and user groups to develop visitor facilities and to assist with 

maintenance and monitoring activities. Develop a Memorandum of Understanding or Letter of Agreement, as

appropriate, between BLM and partners that outlines administrative roles and responsibilities.

Information and Education: 

 Provide a basic ERMA brochure/map including information on: targeted outcomes, estimated times, ethics, 

wildlife protection, private-public land ownership and stewardship information; to help preserve the recreation 

opportunities and the special landscape character of this place.

 Provide interpretive signage to support the ERMA objectives and opportunities.

 Market the area locally. Local marketing involves tailoring information and maps to the needs and wants of 

local customers and providing information at local outlets and on-site locations only.

Monitoring:

 Monitor outcome attainment and preferences through customer assessments (e.g. focus group interviews or 

visitor studies) on five year intervals or as funding allows. Monitor activity participation and RSCs annually 

during the primary use season of mid-April through November. 

 If future monitoring indicates that resource damage is occurring or user conflicts need to be addressed, the 

HiLine District may create an allocation system or apply group size limits for private and commercial recreation 

use.
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1260 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1261

S.9 South Phillips Recreation Complex SRMA

Alternative D

Supporting Information 

Important Values of the SRMA

 The area offers diverse wildlife and wetland ecology viewing opportunities that are easily accessed via 

maintained public roads. 

 The Auto Tour Route along the west edge of the SRMA is a high-use road that provides access to the wildlife 

viewing area on Charles M Russell (CMR) National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and several popular BLM 

recreational fisheries.

 The Manning Corral Road is a high-use road that provides access to CMR NWR and several of the most 

popular BLM recreational fisheries in the HiLine District.

 The Dryfork Road is a high-use road that provides access to CMR NWR and several of the most popular BLM 

recreational fisheries in the HiLine District. Directional signage to many of the fisheries and an information 

kiosk are located at the intersection of Dryfork Road with Highway 191.

Recreation Demand

 The primary customers are hunters, anglers and bird watchers.

General Types of Visitors to be Targeted

 The visitor segment is identified as statewide upland game bird and big game hunters and bird watchers and 

local anglers.

Ability to Manage Recreation Resources

 The SRMA is overlapped by a series of large grazing allotments. The recreational fisheries within the SRMA 

are not fenced off from these grazing allotments and are, therefore regularly frequented by cattle.

 The area is easily accessible by a system of maintained public roads including U.S. Highways 191 and 66.

 This area has support and potential partnership opportunities with CMR NWR, FWP and local communities.

SRMA Outcome Objective 

Maintain and enhance the recreational fisheries, access roads/trails, and facilities as needed to meet recreational demands 

and comply with public health and safety requirements. 

Activities  Hunting

 Fishing

 Bird Watching/Wildlife Viewing

 Picnicking

 Pleasure Driving

Experiences  Releasing or reducing some built up mental tensions

 Enjoying frequent access to outdoor physical activity 

 Developing outdoor knowledge, skills and abilities

 Outdoor classroom setting

 Enjoying the areas wildlife, scenery, views and aesthetics 

Benefits Personal:

 Improved physical fitness/better health maintenance

 Restored mind from stress/tension/anxiety

 Improved outdoor recreation skills

 Living a more outdoor-oriented lifestyle

 Improved balance of work and play in my life
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1262 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

 Greater awareness of this area as a special place

Community/Social:

 Lifestyle improvement or maintenance

 Easily accessible outdoor classroom setting for local schools and youth groups

Environmental:

 Preserve the special landscape character of this place

Economic:

 Greater value-added local services

 Increased desirability as a place to live or retire

Proposed Recreation Setting Characteristics (RSCs)

Proposed Physical RSCs:

Naturalness:

 The site provides a large diversity of native upland and wetland plant and animal species in a natural prairie and 

breaks setting

Remoteness:

 Large size of the SRMA along with the natural setting provide ample opportunities to recreate away from the 

sights and sounds of other visitors.

Visitor Facilities:

 Parking, informational kiosk/signs and trash cans are available at the intersection of Dryfork Road and Highway 

191.

 Some of the more popular recreational fisheries have picnic tables.

 Well-traveled, maintained roads provide access to the area from Highway 191.

Proposed Social RSCs:

Contacts (avg.):

 Participants would encounter a season average of up to 10 encounters per day.

Group Size (avg.):

 The average group size would be 2-4.

Evidence of Use: 

 Sounds of other people occasionally heard. A few small localized areas of vegetation alteration and 

compacted/bare soils are acceptable. Inappropriate recreation use is rehabilitated

Proposed Operational RSCs:

Access (types of travel):

 Motorized travel is limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails. The rest of the area would be accessible 

by foot. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1263

Visitor Services/Info: 

 Additional interpretive and informational signs/maps will be provided at main access points to assist visitors 

with recreation opportunities within the SRMA.

 Picnic tables will be provided at the more popular recreational fisheries to enhance visitor use.

Management Controls:

 A moderate degree of visitor and land use controls exercised. BLM on-site presence is low and infrequent.

 Cattle exclusion fences and off-site watering facilities may be added to the more popular recreational fisheries 

to protect recreational facilities.

Supporting Management Action and Allowable Use Decisions

Camping:

 The SRMA is open to undeveloped overnight camping stays of up to 16 days.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 The area is classified as limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails until subsequent site-specific travel 

management planning occurs.

 Hand-held, wheeled carts are allowed for the direct retrieval of big game.

 Over snow travel by snowmobiles is allowed.

 Cross-country motorized/mechanized travel for big game retrieval is allowed in Alternative D.

Lands and Realty: 

 ROW avoidance areas are applied to the recreational fisheries within the SRMA.

 The SRMA is retained for long-term management.

Stipulations for Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:

 Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation on surface occupancy and surface-disturbing activities around the 

recreational fisheries within the SRMA for the protection of the recreation activities, recreation outcomes and 

the RSCs.

Visual Resource Management (VRM):

 The SRMA would be classified as VRM Class III and managed under VRM Class III objectives. 

 Apply BMPs to surface-disturbing activities to minimize the impact of these activities to the extent possible.

Implementation-Level Decisions Included in this RMP Revision

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 Travel management for this area will be moderate priority to be completed during the life of the RMP. In the 

interim, motorized travel is limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails. A site-specific travel network 

of roads and trails available for public use and any limitations placed on that use will be included in the 

subsequent travel management planning for the area. 

 Maintain the existing road, primitive road and trail system and construct new routes only to connect to new 

visitor facilities or to address issues of visitor safety or resource damage. 

 In Alternative D, motorized off-road travel will be allowed for retrieval of a big game animal that is in 

possession, in a minimum timeframe utilizing the most direct route while minimizing resource damage, between 

the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.

Special Recreation Permits:

 SRPs will be required for any commercial or organized group activities that are not authorized under an MOU 

or letter of agreement.

Best Management Practices to Guide Implementation-Level Planning and Management
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1264 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

Management:

 Reroute trails that that create resource damage and trespass on private property.

 With stakeholder involvement, apply adaptive management (e.g. Limits of Acceptable Change) which focuses 

on a cycle of designing-implementing-monitoring-evaluating-adjusting implementation actions to respond to 

future recreation issues and the results of monitoring. 

Administration: 

 Pursue partnerships with local communities, agencies user groups to develop visitor facilities and to assist with 

maintenance and monitoring activities. Develop a Memorandum of Understanding or Letter of Agreement, as 

appropriate, between BLM and partners that outlines administrative roles and responsibilities.

Information and Education: 

 Provide a basic SRMA brochure/map including information on: targeted outcomes, RSCs, estimated times, 

ethics, wildlife protection, private-public land ownership and stewardship information; to help preserve the 

recreation opportunities and the special landscape character of this place.

 Provide interpretive signage to support the SRMA objectives and opportunities.

 Market the area locally. Local marketing involves tailoring information and maps to the needs and wants of 

local customers and providing information at local outlets and on-site locations only.

Monitoring:

 Monitor outcome attainment and preferences through customer assessments (e.g. focus group interviews or 

visitor studies) on five year intervals or as funding allows. Monitor activity participation and RSCs annually 

during the primary use season of mid-April through October. 

 If future monitoring indicates that social RSCs are not being achieved, resource damage is occurring or user 

conflicts need to be addressed, the HiLine District may create an allocation system or apply group size limits for 

private and commercial recreation use.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1265

S.9 South Phillips Recreation Complex ERMA

Alternatives C and E (Preferred Alternative)

ERMA Outcome Objective 

Maintain and enhance the current facilities within the ERMA as needed to meet recreational demands and comply with 

public health and safety requirements. 

Activities  Fishing

 Undeveloped Camping 

 Bird Watching/Wildlife Viewing

 Hunting

Experiences  Releasing or reducing some built up mental tensions

 Enjoying frequent access to outdoor physical activity 

 Developing outdoor knowledge, skills and abilities

 Enjoying the areas wildlife, scenery, views and aesthetics 

Benefits Personal:

 Improved physical fitness/better health maintenance

 Restored mind from stress/tension/anxiety

 Improved outdoor recreation skills

 Living a more outdoor-oriented lifestyle

 Improved balance of work and play in my life

 Greater awareness of this area as a special place

Community/Social:

 Lifestyle improvement or maintenance

Environmental:

 Preserve the special landscape character of this place

Economic:

 Greater value-added local services

 Increased desirability as a place to live or retire

Supporting Management Action and Allowable Use Decisions

Camping:

 The ERMA is open to camping and overnight use.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 The area is classified as limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails until subsequent site-specific travel 

management planning occurs.

 Hand-held, wheeled carts are allowed for the direct retrieval of big game.

 Over snow travel by snowmobiles is allowed.

Lands and Realty: 

 ROW avoidance areas are applied to the ERMA. 

 The ERMA is retained for long-term management.
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1266 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

Stipulations for Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:

 Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation on surface occupancy and surface-disturbing activities in the entire 

ERMA under Alternative E and for the recreational fisheries only for Alternative C, for the protection of the 

recreation activities and objectives.

 The ERMA will be managed as an exclusion area for wind energy.

Visual Resource Management (VRM):

 The SRMA would be classified as VRM Class II and III and managed under VRM Class II and III objectives 

respectively. 

 Apply BMPs to surface-disturbing activities to minimize the impact of these activities to the extent possible.

Implementation-Level Decisions Included in this RMP Revision

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 Travel management for this area will be moderate priority to be completed during the life of the RMP under 

Alternative C and high priority to be completed within 5 years of the RMP decision in Alternative E. In the 

interim, motorized travel is limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails. A site-specific travel network 

of roads and trails available for public use and any limitations placed on that use will be included in the 

subsequent travel management planning for the area. 

 Maintain the existing road, primitive road and trail system and construct new routes only to connect to new 

visitor facilities or to address issues of visitor safety or resource damage. 

 In Alternative C, motorized off-road travel will be allowed for retrieval of a big game animal that is in 

possession, in a minimum timeframe utilizing the most direct route while minimizing resource damage, between 

the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.

Special Recreation Permits:

 SRPs will be required for any commercial or organized group activities that are not authorized under an MOU 

or letter of agreement.

Best Management Practices to Guide Implementation-Level Planning and Management

Management:

 Reroute trails that that create resource damage and trespass on private property.

 Develop a recreational fisheries management plan and coordinate with FWP to monitor and stock game fish as 

needed.

 With stakeholder involvement, apply adaptive management (e.g. Limits of Acceptable Change) which focuses 

on a cycle of designing-implementing-monitoring-evaluating-adjusting implementation actions to respond to 

future recreation issues and the results of monitoring. 

Administration: 

 Pursue partnerships with FWP and user groups to develop visitor facilities and to assist with maintenance and 

monitoring activities. Develop a Memorandum of Understanding or Letter of Agreement, as appropriate, 

between BLM and partners that outlines administrative roles and responsibilities.

Information and Education: 

 Provide a basic ERMA brochure/map including information on: targeted outcomes, estimated times, ethics, 

wildlife protection, private-public land ownership and stewardship information; to help preserve the recreation 

opportunities and the special landscape character of this place.

 Provide interpretive signage to support the ERMA objectives and opportunities.

 Market the area locally. Local marketing involves tailoring information and maps to the needs and wants of 

local customers and providing information at local outlets and on-site locations only.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1267

Monitoring:

 Monitor outcome attainment and preferences through customer assessments (e.g. focus group interviews or 

visitor studies) on five year intervals or as funding allows. Monitor activity participation annually during the 

primary use season of mid-April through October. 

 If future monitoring indicates that resource damage is occurring or user conflicts need to be addressed, the 

HiLine District may create an allocation system or apply group size limits for private and commercial recreation 

use.
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1268 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

S.10 Sweet Grass Hills SRMA

Alternative D

Supporting Information 

Important Values of the SRMA

 This island mountain range provides topography and vegetation that is unique to the surrounding rolling hills 

and grasslands. 

 This is a Traditional Cultural Property that is a destination for members of several Native American tribes.

 The SRMA is also an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) established for its traditional cultural 

importance and seasonally important wildlife habitat.

 During the 2011 wilderness characteristic inventory update, the western block of the Sweet Grass Hills was 

determined to meet the minimum criteria of possessing wilderness characteristics.

Recreation Demand

 The primary customers are hunters, participants in traditional religious ceremonies, and hikers.

General Types of Visitors to be Targeted

 The visitor segment is identified as big game hunters, backcountry hikers/campers, and Native American tribes.

Ability to Manage Recreation Resources

 The SRMA is currently fenced off from the surrounding rangeland to exclude cattle except during prescribed 

grazing treatments. 

 Legal public access is very limited throughout the SRMA.

SRMA Outcome Objective 

Maintain the important values and overall natural setting of the SRMA while providing opportunities for a quality 

outdoor recreation experience.

Activities  Hunting

 Backcountry Hiking/Camping

 Wildlife Viewing

 Traditional Cultural/Religious Ceremonies

Experiences  Releasing or reducing some built up mental tensions

 Enjoying frequent access to outdoor physical activity 

 Developing outdoor knowledge, skills and abilities

 Experience traditional religious ceremonies

 Enjoying the areas wildlife, scenery, views and aesthetics 

Benefits Personal:

 Improved physical fitness/better health maintenance

 Restored mind from stress/tension/anxiety

 Improved outdoor recreation skills

 Living a more outdoor-oriented lifestyle

 Improved balance of work and play in my life

 Greater awareness of this area as a special place

 Experience traditional religious ceremonies

Community/Social:

 Lifestyle improvement or maintenance
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1269

Environmental:

 Preserve the special landscape character of this place

Economic:

 Greater value-added local services

 Increased desirability as a place to live or retire

Proposed Recreation Setting Characteristics (RSCs)

Proposed Physical RSCs:

Naturalness:

 The SRMA is a series of small, island mountain ranges surrounded by native rolling hills and prairie. The area 

provides opportunities for primitive types of outdoor recreation in a natural, forested setting.

Remoteness:

 The topography and vegetation within the SRMA provide visitors with an opportunity to avoid the sights and 

sounds of other people.

Visitor Facilities:

 Public access to the SRMA is very limited and there are currently no developed facilities. Future facilities 

proposed include an interpretive panel describing the unique wildlife and cultural features of the area, a parking 

and camping area near the main public access point which will help minimize impacts to the low meadow area 

where visitors currently park and camp.

Proposed Social RSCs:

Contacts (avg.):

 Participants would encounter a season average of up to 2 encounters per day.

Group Size (avg.):

 The average group size would be 2-4.

Evidence of Use: 

 Sounds of other people occasionally heard. A few small localized areas of vegetation alteration and 

compacted/bare soils are acceptable. Inappropriate recreation use is rehabilitated.

Proposed Operational RSCs:

Access (types of travel):

 Under Alternative D, motorized travel is limited to OHVs on existing road, primitive roads and trails. The rest 

of the area would be accessible by foot. The predominant uses at this site are non-motorized.

Visitor Services/Info: 

 An interpretive panel and site map at the parking area will assists visitors with area rules, regulations and ethics 

as well as viewing opportunities and cultural history. 

 A parking and camping area on the north side of the Black Jack Butte Road access point would improve visitor 

safety and enhance the visitor experience while reducing impacts to natural resources at other SRMA access 

points.

Management Controls:

 A moderate degree of visitor and land use controls exercised. BLM on-site presence is low and infrequent.
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1270 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

Supporting Management Action and Allowable Use Decisions

Camping:

 The SRMA is open to overnight camping subject to the 16-day limit.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 Under Alternative D, the area is classified as limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails until 

subsequent site-specific travel management planning occurs.

 Under Alternative D, cross country travel for the purpose of big game retrieval would be allowed between 10:00 

a.m. and 2:00 p.m.

 Hand-held, wheeled carts are allowed for the direct retrieval of big game.

 Over snow travel by snowmobiles is allowed.

Firearm Use Restriction:

 The discharge of firearms for recreational target shooting is prohibited in developed recreation sites.

Lands and Realty: 

 ROW avoidance areas are applied to the SRMA. 

 ROW avoidance areas are applied to developed recreation sites.

 The SRMA is retained for long-term management.

 Developed recreation sites are retained for long-term management. 

Forest Products:

 Under Alternative D, the BLM would allow for a full range of forest health treatments in the Sweet Grass Hills 

SRMA that may include the sale of wood products. The area would not be open for incidental personal use 

wood products.

Minerals:

 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.

Stipulations for Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:

 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 SRMA would be an exclusion area for wind energy development.

Visual Resource Management (VRM):

 The SRMA would be classified as VRM Class III and managed under VRM Class III objectives. 

 Apply BMPs to surface-disturbing activities to minimize the impact of these activities to the extent possible.

Implementation-Level Decisions Included in this RMP Revision

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 Travel management for this area will be low priority to be completed during the life of the RMP. In the interim, 

under Alternative D, motorized travel is limited to OHV use on existing roads, primitive roads and trails. A 

site-specific travel network of roads and trails available for public use and any limitations placed on that use 

will be included in the subsequent travel management planning for the area. 

 Maintain the existing road, primitive road and trail system and construct new routes only to connect to new 

visitor facilities or to address issues of visitor safety or resource damage. 

 In Alternative D, motorized off-road travel will be allowed for retrieval of a big game animal that is in 

possession, in a minimum timeframe utilizing the most direct route while minimizing resource damage, between 

the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1271

Special Recreation Permits:

 SRPs will be required for any commercial or organized group activities that are not authorized under an MOU 

or letter of agreement.

Best Management Practices to Guide Implementation-Level Planning and Management

Management:

 Reroute trails that that create resource damage and trespass on private property.

 Develop a wildlife and habitat monitoring-management plan to maintain the diversity of native wildlife and plant 

species on which the area recreation is dependent.

 With stakeholder involvement, apply adaptive management (e.g. Limits of Acceptable Change) which focuses 

on a cycle of designing-implementing-monitoring-evaluating-adjusting implementation actions to respond to 

future recreation issues and the results of monitoring. 

Administration: 

 Pursue partnerships with tribes and other user groups to develop visitor facilities and to assist with maintenance 

and monitoring activities. Develop a Memorandum of Understanding or Letter of Agreement, as appropriate, 

between BLM and partners that outlines administrative roles and responsibilities.

Information and Education: 

 Provide a basic SRMA brochure/map including information on: targeted outcomes, RSCs, estimated times, 

ethics, wildlife protection, private-public land ownership and stewardship information; to help preserve the 

recreation opportunities and the special landscape character of this place.

 Provide interpretive signage to support the SRMA objectives and opportunities.

 Market the area locally. Local marketing involves tailoring information and maps to the needs and wants of 

local customers and providing information at local outlets and on-site locations only.

Monitoring:

 Monitor outcome attainment and preferences through customer assessments (e.g. focus group interviews or 

visitor studies) on five year intervals or as funding allows. Monitor activity participation and RSCs annually 

during the primary use season of mid-April through November. 

 If future monitoring indicates that social RSCs are not being achieved, resource damage is occurring or user 

conflicts need to be addressed, the HiLine District may create an allocation system or apply group size limits for 

private and commercial recreation use.
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1272 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

S.10 Sweet Grass Hills ERMA

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

ERMA Outcome Objective 

Protect and enhance the important values for which the ACEC/TCP was established as well as the overall natural setting 

of the ERMA while providing opportunities for a quality outdoor recreation experience.

Activities  Hunting

 Backcountry Hiking/Camping

 Wildlife Viewing

 Traditional Cultural/Religious Ceremonies

Experiences  Releasing or reducing some built up mental tensions

 Enjoying frequent access to outdoor physical activity 

 Developing outdoor knowledge, skills and abilities

 Experience traditional religious ceremonies

 Enjoying the areas wildlife, scenery, views and aesthetics 

Benefits Personal:

 Improved physical fitness/better health maintenance

 Restored mind from stress/tension/anxiety

 Improved outdoor recreation skills

 Living a more outdoor-oriented lifestyle

 Improved balance of work and play in my life

 Greater awareness of this area as a special place

 Experience traditional religious ceremonies

Community/Social:

 Lifestyle improvement or maintenance

Environmental:

 Preserve the special landscape character of this place

Economic:

 Greater value-added local services

 Increased desirability as a place to live or retire

Supporting Management Action and Allowable Use Decisions

Camping:

 The ERMA is open to camping and overnight use.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 The area is closed to OHV use until subsequent site-specific travel management planning occurs.

 Hand-held, wheeled carts are allowed for the direct retrieval of big game.

Lands and Realty: 

 ROW avoidance areas are applied to the ERMA. 

 The ERMA is retained for long-term management.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1273

Stipulations for Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:

 The ERMA is closed to oil and gas development under Alternative E.

 The ERMA is an exclusion area for wind energy development under Alternative E.

Minerals:

 The ERMA is closed to leasable and salable minerals and withdrawn from locatable minerals.

Visual Resource Management (VRM):

 The SRMA would be classified as VRM Class II and managed under VRM Class II objectives. 

 Apply BMPs to surface-disturbing activities to minimize the impact of these activities to the extent possible.

Implementation-Level Decisions Included in this RMP Revision

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 Travel management for this area will be low priority to be completed during the life of the RMP. In the interim, 

motorized travel is classified as closed within the ERMA. A site-specific travel network of roads and trails 

available for public use and any limitations placed on that use will be included in the subsequent travel 

management planning for the area. 

Special Recreation Permits:

 SRPs will be required for any commercial or organized group activities that are not authorized under an MOU 

or letter of agreement.

Best Management Practices to Guide Implementation-Level Planning and Management

Management:

 Reroute trails that that create resource damage and trespass on private property.

 With stakeholder involvement, apply adaptive management (e.g. Limits of Acceptable Change) which focuses 

on a cycle of designing-implementing-monitoring-evaluating-adjusting implementation actions to respond to 

future recreation issues and the results of monitoring. 

Administration: 

 Pursue partnerships with user groups to develop visitor facilities and to assist with maintenance and monitoring 

activities. Develop a Memorandum of Understanding or Letter of Agreement, as appropriate, between BLM 

and partners that outlines administrative roles and responsibilities.

Information and Education: 

 Provide a basic ERMA brochure/map including information on: targeted outcomes, estimated times, ethics, 

wildlife protection, private-public land ownership and stewardship information; to help preserve the recreation 

opportunities and the special landscape character of this place.

 Provide interpretive signage to support the ERMA objectives and opportunities.

 Market the area locally. Local marketing involves tailoring information and maps to the needs and wants of 

local customers and providing information at local outlets and on-site locations only.

Monitoring:

 Monitor outcome attainment and preferences through customer assessments (e.g. focus group interviews or 

visitor studies) on five year intervals or as funding allows. Monitor activity participation annually during the 

primary use season of mid-April through November. 

 If future monitoring indicates that resource damage is occurring or user conflicts need to be addressed, the 

HiLine District may create an allocation system or apply group size limits for private and commercial recreation 

use.
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1274 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1275

S.11 Thirty Mile OHV SRMA

Alternative D

Supporting Information 

Important Values of the SRMA

 The area offers challenging, close-to-town, easy to access recreational opportunities.

 The RMA offers a variety of off-road riding opportunities for OHV recreationists of all skill levels. 

Recreation Demand

 The primary customers are local OHV enthusiasts.

General Types of Visitors to be Targeted

 The visitor segment is identified as close-to-home, day-use OHV riders.

Ability to Manage Recreation Resources

 The SRMA is currently accessible via public routes that cross private and State lands. Some issues arise during 

wet conditions when SRMA users drive through the landowner’s fields to get around low, wet spots in the road. 

The private landowner and State are willing to work with BLM to improve access to the site. Local and State 

OHV groups are possible partners who can help address these issues as well as develop other improvements and 

public educational programs for the SRMA.

SRMA Outcome Objective 

Maintain and enhance the facilities and signage at Fresno OHV area as needed to meet recreational demands and comply 

with public health and safety requirements. Avoid damage to surrounding resources by enhancing and/or replacing 

boundary fences and markers.

Activities  OHV Riding

Experiences  Releasing or reducing some built up mental tensions

 Enjoying frequent access to outdoor physical activity 

 Developing your skills and abilities

 For the challenge or sport 

 Enjoying the area’s scenery, views and aesthetics 

Benefits Personal:

 Improved physical fitness/better health maintenance

 Restored mind from stress/tension/anxiety

 Improved outdoor recreation skills

 Living a more outdoor-oriented lifestyle

 Improved balance of work and play in my life

 Greater awareness of this area as a special place

Community/Social:

 Lifestyle improvement or maintenance

Environmental:

 Preserve natural resources of surrounding area by providing quality motorized 

recreational opportunities at a designated site

Economic:
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1276 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

 Greater value-added local services

 Increased desirability as a place to live or retire

Proposed Recreation Setting Characteristics (RSCs)

Proposed Physical RSCs:

Remoteness:

 The site provides an unstructured, open, OHV experience in a rugged, natural setting.

Visitor Facilities:

 The site has public access. Improved parking and signage will be developed to enhance the visitor experience 

and protect surrounding public and private lands.

Proposed Social RSCs:

Contacts (avg.):

 Participants would encounter a season average of up to 8 encounters per day.

Group Size (avg.):

 Participants would encounter a season average of up to 6 people per group.

Evidence of Use: 

 Sounds of other people occasionally heard. Localized areas of vegetation alteration and compacted/bare soils 

are acceptable. Inappropriate recreation use is rehabilitated

Proposed Operational RSCs:

Access (types of travel):

 The area is open to all types of vehicle use at all times anywhere in the area subject to the operating regulations 

and vehicle standards set for the in 43 CFR 8341 and 8342.

Visitor Services/Info: 

 A simple brochure/map assists visitors. SRMA Boundaries are clearly marked. Rules, regulations and ethics 

clearly posted at SRMA parking area.

Management Controls:

 A moderate degree of visitor and land use controls exercised. BLM on-site presence is low. Parking, boundary 

and signage will be maintained. A traffic counter will be used to monitor the level of visitor use.

Supporting Management Action and Allowable Use Decisions

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 The area is classified as open to all types of vehicle use at all times anywhere in the area subject to the operating 

regulations and vehicle standards set for the in 43 CFR 8341 and 8342.

Lands and Realty: 

 The SRMA is retained for long-term management.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1277

Visual Resource Management (VRM):

 The SRMA would be classified as VRM Class IV and managed under VRM Class IV objectives. 

 Apply BMPs to surface-disturbing activities to minimize the impact of these activities to the extent possible.

Implementation-Level Decisions Included in this RMP Revision

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 Travel management for this area will be low priority to be developed during the life of the RMP. In the interim, 

motorized travel is limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails. A site-specific travel network of roads 

and trails available for public use and any limitations placed on that use will be included in the subsequent 

travel management planning for the area. 

Special Recreation Permits:

 SRPs will be required for any commercial, organized event or organized group activities that are not authorized 

under an MOU or letter of agreement.

Best Management Practices to Guide Implementation-Level Planning and Management

Management:

 Reroute trails that that create resource damage and trespass on private property. 

 Develop additional access and/or improve current public access to the site to prevent impacts to private and 

public lands surrounding the SRMA. 

 Improve and maintain boundary markings to avoid user conflicts and damage to surrounding resources. 

 With stakeholder involvement, apply adaptive management (e.g. Limits of Acceptable Change) which focuses 

on a cycle of designing-implementing-monitoring-evaluating-adjusting implementation actions to respond to 

future recreation issues and the results of monitoring. 

Information and Education: 

 Continue to provide a basic, simple SRMA brochure/map including information on: targeted outcomes, RSCs, 

estimated times, ethics, wildlife protection, private-public land ownership and stewardship information; to help 

preserve the recreation opportunities and the special landscape character of this place.

 Market the area locally. Local marketing involves tailoring information and maps to the needs and wants of 

local customers and providing information at local outlets and on-site locations only.

 Pursue partnerships with State and local OHV groups to provide safety and Leave No Trace training for OHV 

recreationists using public lands.

Monitoring:

 Monitor outcome attainment and preferences through customer assessments (e.g. focus group interviews or 

visitor studies) on five year intervals or as funding allows. Monitor activity participation and RSCs annually 

during the primary use season of mid-April through October using traffic counters. 

 If future monitoring indicates that social RSCs are not being achieved, resource damage is occurring or user 

conflicts need to be addressed, the HiLine District may create an allocation system or apply group size limits for 

private and commercial recreation use.
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1278 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1279

S.12 Timber Creek Ridge ERMA

Alternatives D and E (Preferred Alternative)

ERMA Outcome Objective 

Maintain and enhance the natural setting in and around the ERMA by providing a minimal amount of recreational 

facilities needed to meet recreational demands and comply with public health and safety requirements while reducing 

impacts to other resources in the area.

Activities  Wildlife Viewing

 Hunting

 Camping

Experiences  Releasing or reducing some built up mental tensions

 Enjoying frequent access to outdoor physical activity 

 Developing outdoor knowledge, skills and abilities

 Outdoor classroom setting

 Enjoying the areas wildlife, scenery, views and aesthetics 

Benefits Personal:

 Improved physical fitness/better health maintenance

 Restored mind from stress/tension/anxiety

 Improved outdoor recreation skills

 Living a more outdoor-oriented lifestyle

 Improved balance of work and play in my life

 Greater awareness of this area as a special place

Community/Social:

 Lifestyle improvement or maintenance

Environmental:

 Preserve the special landscape character of this place

Economic:

 Greater value-added local services

 Increased desirability as a place to live or retire

Supporting Management Action and Allowable Use Decisions

Camping:

 The ERMA is open to camping and overnight use.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 The area is classified as limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails until subsequent site-specific travel 

management planning occurs.

 Hand-held, wheeled carts are allowed for the direct retrieval of big game.

 Over snow travel by snowmobiles is allowed.

Stipulations for Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:

 Apply a timing lease stipulation in the ERMA for the protection of wildlife resources, recreation activities and 

objectives.

 Under Alternative E, also apply a controlled surface use stipulation and the ERMA would be an avoidance area 

for wind development.

Minerals:

 The ERMA would be closed to mineral development under Alternative E.
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1280 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

Visual Resource Management (VRM):

 Under Alternative D, the ERMA would be classified as VRM Class III and managed under VRM Class III 

objectives. 

 Under Alternative E, the ERMA would be classified as VRM Class II and managed under VRM Class II 

objectives.

 Apply BMPs to surface-disturbing activities to minimize the impact of these activities to the extent possible.

Implementation-Level Decisions Included in this RMP Revision

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 Travel management for this area will be moderate priority to be completed during the life of the RMP under 

Alternative D and high priority to be completed within 5 years of the RMP under Alternative E. In the interim, 

motorized travel is limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails. A site-specific travel network of roads 

and trails available for public use and any limitations placed on that use will be included in the subsequent 

travel management planning for the area. 

 Maintain the existing road, primitive road and trail system and construct new routes only to connect to new 

visitor facilities or to address issues of visitor safety or resource damage. 

 In Alternative D, motorized off-road travel will be allowed for retrieval of a big game animal that is in 

possession, in a minimum timeframe utilizing the most direct route while minimizing resource damage, between 

the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.

Special Recreation Permits:

 SRPs will be required for any commercial or organized group activities that are not authorized under an MOU 

or letter of agreement.

Best Management Practices to Guide Implementation-Level Planning and Management

Management:

 Reroute trails that that create resource damage and trespass on private property.

 Provide bathroom facilities during the high-use hunting season to protect public health and safety.

 With stakeholder involvement, apply adaptive management (e.g. Limits of Acceptable Change) which focuses 

on a cycle of designing-implementing-monitoring-evaluating-adjusting implementation actions to respond to 

future recreation issues and the results of monitoring. 

Administration: 

 Pursue partnerships with other agencies and user groups to develop visitor facilities and to assist with 

maintenance and monitoring activities. Develop a Memorandum of Understanding or Letter of Agreement, as 

appropriate, between BLM and partners that outlines administrative roles and responsibilities.

Information and Education: 

 Provide a basic ERMA brochure/map including information on: targeted outcomes, estimated times, ethics, 

wildlife protection, private-public land ownership and stewardship information; to help preserve the recreation 

opportunities and the special landscape character of this place.

 Market the area locally. Local marketing involves tailoring information and maps to the needs and wants of 

local customers and providing information at local outlets and on-site locations only.

Monitoring:

 Monitor outcome attainment and preferences through customer assessments (e.g. focus group interviews or 

visitor studies) on five year intervals or as funding allows. Monitor activity participation and RSCs annually 

during the primary use season of mid-April through November. 

 If future monitoring indicates that resource damage is occurring or user conflicts need to be addressed, the 

HiLine District may create an allocation system or apply group size limits for private and commercial recreation 

use.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1281
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1282 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

S.13 Troika Reservoir SRMA

Alternative D

Supporting Information 

Important Values of the SRMA

 The area offers fishing and diverse wildlife and wetland ecology viewing opportunities that are easily accessed 

via maintained public roads. 

 Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) helps maintain this popular sport fishery by periodically monitoring 

and re-stocking the fish in the reservoir. 

Recreation Demand

 The primary customers are anglers, hunters, local families, bird watchers and local school groups.

General Types of Visitors to be Targeted

 The visitor segment is identified as school groups on day field trips, birdwatchers, and anglers.

Ability to Manage Recreation Resources

 The SRMA is currently fenced off from the surrounding rangeland to exclude cattle except during prescribed 

grazing treatments. This area has support and potential partnership opportunities with Montana Fish, Wildlife, 

and Parks to maintain and improve the health of the fishery and further develop and maintain visitor 

opportunities at the site.

SRMA Outcome Objective 

Maintain and enhance the facilities at Paulo Reservoir RMA as needed to meet recreational demands and comply with 

public health and safety requirements. Establish the site as an annual outdoor classroom destination for the Glasgow 

Schools and other area schools.

Activities  Outdoor Classroom/School Field Trips

 Bird Watching/Wildlife Viewing

 Fishing

Experiences  Releasing or reducing some built up mental tensions

 Enjoying frequent access to outdoor physical activity 

 Developing outdoor knowledge, skills and abilities

 Outdoor classroom setting

 Enjoying the areas wildlife, scenery, views and aesthetics 

Benefits Personal:

 Improved physical fitness/better health maintenance

 Restored mind from stress/tension/anxiety

 Improved outdoor recreation skills

 Living a more outdoor-oriented lifestyle

 Improved balance of work and play in my life

 Greater awareness of this area as a special place

 Fresh fish provides a healthy food source

Community/Social:

 Lifestyle improvement or maintenance

 Easily accessible outdoor classroom setting for local schools and youth groups

Environmental:
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1283

 Preserve the special landscape character of this place

Economic:

 Greater value-added local services

 Increased desirability as a place to live or retire

Proposed Recreation Setting Characteristics (RSCs)

Proposed Physical RSCs:

Naturalness:

 The site provides a variety of native upland and wetland plant and animal species.

Visitor Facilities:

 The site has public access via County and BLM roads. Parking, restroom and picnic facilities are provided. 

Future facilities proposed include an interpretive panel describing the unique wildlife and plant features of the 

area and an accessible parking pad, trail and fishing pier.

Proposed Social RSCs:

Contacts (avg.):

 Participants would encounter a season average of up to 2 encounters per day.

Group Size (avg.):

 The average size of the casual or bird watching group size would be 2-4 whereas the average outdoor classroom 

group size would be around 20.

Evidence of Use: 

 Sounds of other people occasionally heard. A few small localized areas of vegetation alteration and 

compacted/bare soils are acceptable. Inappropriate recreation use is rehabilitated

Proposed Operational RSCs:

Access (types of travel):

 Motorized travel is limited to existing trails. The rest of the area would be accessible by foot. The predominant 

uses at this site are non-motorized.

Visitor Services/Info: 

 A message board and brochure box at the restroom assists visitors with area rules, regulations and ethics as well 

as viewing opportunities. 

 Addition of accessible parking, fishing and interpretive facilities will provide outdoor recreation and 

environmental education opportunities to a wider range of visitors.

Management Controls:

 A moderate degree of visitor and land use controls exercised. BLM on-site presence is low and infrequent 

except during outdoor classroom group visits.
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1284 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

Supporting Management Action and Allowable Use Decisions

Camping:

 The SRMA is open to camping and overnight use.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 The area is classified as limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails until subsequent site-specific travel 

management planning occurs.

 Over snow travel by snowmobiles is allowed.

Firearm Use Restriction:

 The discharge of firearms for recreational target shooting is prohibited in developed recreation sites.

Lands and Realty: 

 ROW avoidance areas are applied to the SRMA. 

 ROW avoidance areas are applied to developed recreation sites.

 The SRMA is retained for long-term management.

 Developed recreation sites are retained for long-term management. 

Stipulations for Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:

 Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation on surface occupancy and surface-disturbing activities in the SRMA 

for the protection of the recreation activities, recreation outcomes and the RSCs.

Visual Resource Management (VRM):

 The SRMA would be classified as VRM Class III and managed under VRM Class III objectives. 

 Apply BMPs to surface-disturbing activities to minimize the impact of these activities to the extent possible.

Implementation-Level Decisions Included in this RMP Revision

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 Travel management for this area will be moderate priority to be completed during the life of the RMP. In the 

interim, motorized travel is limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails. A site-specific travel network 

of roads and trails available for public use and any limitations placed on that use will be included in the 

subsequent travel management planning for the area. 

 Maintain the existing road, primitive road and trail system and construct new routes only to connect to new 

visitor facilities or to address issues of visitor safety or resource damage. 

Special Recreation Permits:

 SRPs will be required for any commercial or organized group activities that are not authorized under an MOU 

or letter of agreement.

Best Management Practices to Guide Implementation-Level Planning and Management

Management:

 Reroute trails that that create resource damage and trespass on private property.

 Continue to work with FWP to maintain and improve the health of the recreational fishery.

 With stakeholder involvement, apply adaptive management (e.g. Limits of Acceptable Change) which focuses 

on a cycle of designing-implementing-monitoring-evaluating-adjusting implementation actions to respond to 

future recreation issues and the results of monitoring. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1285

Administration: 

 Pursue partnerships with local schools and other user groups to develop visitor facilities and to assist with 

maintenance and monitoring activities. Develop a Memorandum of Understanding or Letter of Agreement, as 

appropriate, between BLM and partners that outlines administrative roles and responsibilities.

Information and Education: 

 Provide a basic SRMA brochure/map including information on: targeted outcomes, RSCs, estimated times, 

ethics, wildlife protection, private-public land ownership and stewardship information; to help preserve the 

recreation opportunities and the special landscape character of this place.

 Provide interpretive signage to support the SRMA objectives and RMA opportunities.

 Market the area locally. Local marketing involves tailoring information and maps to the needs and wants of 

local customers and providing information at local outlets and on-site locations only.

Monitoring:

 Monitor outcome attainment and preferences through customer assessments (e.g. focus group interviews or 

visitor studies) on five year intervals or as funding allows. Monitor activity participation and RSCs annually 

during the primary use season of mid-April through October. 

 If future monitoring indicates that social RSCs are not being achieved, resource damage is occurring or user 

conflicts need to be addressed, the HiLine District may create an allocation system or apply group size limits for 

private and commercial recreation use.
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1286 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

S.13 Troika Reservoir ERMA

Alternatives C and E (Preferred Alternative)

ERMA Outcome Objective 

Maintain and enhance the facilities at Troika Fishing Reservoir as needed to meet recreational demands and comply with

public health and safety requirements. 

Activities  Camping

 Fishing

Experiences  Releasing or reducing some built up mental tensions

 Enjoying frequent access to outdoor physical activity 

 Developing outdoor knowledge, skills and abilities

 Outdoor classroom setting

 Enjoying the areas wildlife, scenery, views and aesthetics 

Benefits Personal:

 Improved physical fitness/better health maintenance

 Restored mind from stress/tension/anxiety

 Improved outdoor recreation skills

 Living a more outdoor-oriented lifestyle

 Improved balance of work and play in my life

 Greater awareness of this area as a special place

Community/Social:

 Lifestyle improvement or maintenance

 Provide bathroom and camping facilities close to prime big game hunting areas

Environmental:

 Preserve the special landscape character of this place

Economic:

 Greater value-added local services

 Increased desirability as a place to live or retire

Supporting Management Action and Allowable Use Decisions

Camping:

 The ERMA is open to camping and overnight use.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 The area is classified as limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails until subsequent site-specific travel 

management planning occurs.

 Over snow travel by snowmobiles is allowed.

Lands and Realty: 

 ROW avoidance areas are applied to the ERMA. 

 The ERMA is retained for long-term management.

Stipulations for Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:

 Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation on surface occupancy and surface-disturbing activities in the ERMA 

for the protection of area resources.

 Apply stipulations for wind development for protection of area resources.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1287

 Closed to fluid mineral leasing.

Visual Resource Management (VRM):

 The SRMA would be classified as VRM Class II and managed under VRM Class II objectives. 

 Apply BMPs to surface-disturbing activities to minimize the impact of these activities to the extent possible.

Implementation-Level Decisions Included in this RMP Revision

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 Travel management for this area will be moderate priority to be completed during the life of the RMP under 

Alternative C and high priority to be completed within 5 years of the RMP. In the interim, motorized travel is 

limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails. A site-specific travel network of roads and trails available 

for public use and any limitations placed on that use will be included in the subsequent travel management 

planning for the area. 

 Maintain the existing road, primitive road and trail system and construct new routes only to connect to new 

visitor facilities or to address issues of visitor safety or resource damage. 

 In Alternative C, motorized off-road travel will be allowed for retrieval of a big game animal that is in 

possession, in a minimum timeframe utilizing the most direct route while minimizing resource damage, between 

the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.

Special Recreation Permits:

 SRPs will be required for any commercial or organized group activities that are not authorized under an MOU 

or letter of agreement.

Best Management Practices to Guide Implementation-Level Planning and Management

Management:

 Reroute trails that that create resource damage and trespass on private property.

 With stakeholder involvement, apply adaptive management (e.g. Limits of Acceptable Change) which focuses 

on a cycle of designing-implementing-monitoring-evaluating-adjusting implementation actions to respond to 

future recreation issues and the results of monitoring. 

Administration: 

 Pursue partnerships with other agencies and user groups to develop visitor facilities and to assist with 

maintenance and monitoring activities. Develop a Memorandum of Understanding or Letter of Agreement, as 

appropriate, between BLM and partners that outlines administrative roles and responsibilities.

Information and Education: 

 Provide a basic ERMA brochure/map including information on: targeted outcomes, estimated times, ethics, 

wildlife protection, private-public land ownership and stewardship information; to help preserve the recreation 

opportunities and the special landscape character of this place.

 Provide interpretive signage to support the ERMA objectives and opportunities.

 Market the area locally. Local marketing involves tailoring information and maps to the needs and wants of 

local customers and providing information at local outlets and on-site locations only.

Monitoring:

 Monitor outcome attainment and preferences through customer assessments (e.g. focus group interviews or 

visitor studies) on five year intervals or as funding allows. Monitor activity participation and RSCs annually 

during the primary use season of mid-April through November. 

 If future monitoring indicates that resource damage is occurring or user conflicts need to be addressed, the 

HiLine District may create an allocation system or apply group size limits for private and commercial recreation 

use.
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1288 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1289

S.14 Wards Dam ERMA

Alternative D

ERMA Outcome Objective 

Maintain and enhance the facilities at the Wards Dam Watchable Wildlife Area as needed to meet recreational demands 

and comply with public health and safety requirements. Establish the site as an annual outdoor classroom destination for 

the Opheim Schools and other area schools.

Activities  Outdoor Classroom/School Field Trips

 Bird Watching/Wildlife Viewing

 Waterfowl Hunting

Experiences  Releasing or reducing some built up mental tensions

 Enjoying frequent access to outdoor physical activity 

 Developing outdoor knowledge, skills and abilities

 Outdoor classroom setting

 Enjoying the areas wildlife, scenery, views and aesthetics 

Benefits Personal:

 Improved physical fitness/better health maintenance

 Restored mind from stress/tension/anxiety

 Improved outdoor recreation skills

 Living a more outdoor-oriented lifestyle

 Improved balance of work and play in my life

 Greater awareness of this area as a special place

Community/Social:

 Lifestyle improvement or maintenance

 Easily accessible outdoor classroom setting for local schools and youth groups

Environmental:

 Preserve the special landscape character of this place

Economic:

 Greater value-added local services

 Increased desirability as a place to live or retire

Supporting Management Action and Allowable Use Decisions

Camping:

 The ERMA is open to camping and overnight use.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 The area is classified as limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails until subsequent site-specific travel 

management planning occurs.

 Hand-held, wheeled carts are allowed for the direct retrieval of big game.

 Over snow travel by snowmobiles is allowed.

Lands and Realty: 

 ROW avoidance areas are applied to the ERMA. 

 The SRMA is retained for long-term management.

Stipulations for Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:
Appendix S HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

1290 Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas

 Apply a no surface occupancy stipulation on surface occupancy and surface-disturbing activities in the ERMA 

for the protection of the recreation activities and objectives.

Visual Resource Management (VRM):

 The SRMA would be classified as VRM Class IV and managed under VRM Class IV objectives. 

 Apply BMPs to surface-disturbing activities to minimize the impact of these activities to the extent possible.

Implementation-Level Decisions Included in this RMP Revision

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

 Travel management for this area will be low priority to be completed during the life of the RMP. In the interim, 

motorized travel is limited to existing roads, primitive roads and trails. A site-specific travel network of roads 

and trails available for public use and any limitations placed on that use will be included in the subsequent 

travel management planning for the area. 

 Maintain the existing road, primitive road and trail system and construct new routes only to connect to new 

visitor facilities or to address issues of visitor safety or resource damage. 

 In Alternative D, motorized off-road travel will be allowed for retrieval of a big game animal that is in 

possession, in a minimum timeframe utilizing the most direct route while minimizing resource damage, between 

the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.

Special Recreation Permits:

 SRPs will be required for any commercial or organized group activities that are not authorized under an MOU 

or letter of agreement.

Best Management Practices to Guide Implementation-Level Planning and Management

Management:

 Reroute trails that that create resource damage and trespass on private property.

 Develop a wildlife and habitat monitoring-management plan to maintain the diversity of native wildlife and plant 

species on which the area recreation is dependent.

 With stakeholder involvement, apply adaptive management (e.g. Limits of Acceptable Change) which focuses 

on a cycle of designing-implementing-monitoring-evaluating-adjusting implementation actions to respond to 

future recreation issues and the results of monitoring. 

Administration: 

 Pursue partnerships with local schools and other user groups to develop visitor facilities and to assist with 

maintenance and monitoring activities. Develop a Memorandum of Understanding or Letter of Agreement, as 

appropriate, between BLM and partners that outlines administrative roles and responsibilities.

Information and Education: 

 Provide a basic ERMA brochure/map including information on: targeted outcomes, RSCs, estimated times, 

ethics, wildlife protection, private-public land ownership and stewardship information; to help preserve the 

recreation opportunities and the special landscape character of this place.

 Provide interpretive signage to support the ERMA objectives and opportunities.

 Market the area locally. Local marketing involves tailoring information and maps to the needs and wants of 

local customers and providing information at local outlets and on-site locations only.

Monitoring:

 Monitor outcome attainment and preferences through customer assessments (e.g. focus group interviews or 

visitor studies) on five year intervals or as funding allows. Monitor activity participation and RSCs annually 

during the primary use season of mid-April through October. 

 If future monitoring indicates that resource damage is occurring or user conflicts need to be addressed, the 

HiLine District may create an allocation system or apply group size limits for private and commercial recreation 

use.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Appendix S

Special and Extensive Recreation Management Areas 1291